Good day, Minister. I also extend greetings to your officials.
I will begin with three questions, with your permission. You will understand that my questions are on Bill C-27 since for us, this is the most problematic aspect of the bill.
Firstly, to what extent can one see parallels or make comparisons with legislation in effect in the United States? More particularly, 25 states and the federal government have provisions for what is known as “three strikes and you're out”. I would like you to establish parallels, if there are any. You know that the committee has had access to literature which was not conclusive as to the benefits of this legislation in the United States.
Secondly, I would like you to explain what is wrong with the current regime. For instance, is the burden of proof too onerous for the prosecutor, so much so that the Crown does not use these provisions as it should? The Bloc Québécois does not call into question the fact that there should be provisions on dangerous offenders in the Criminal Code. We are simply trying to understand why we need a system like the one you are proposing.
Thirdly, I would like to go back to a question Ms. Jennings raised without going into it in depth. The obligation relating to the designation of a person as a “dangerous offender” is to make an announcement, but if I understood correctly, there will be no obligation on the part of the prosecutor to use that provision. Could you clarify that for me?
Those are my first three questions. If the chair is willing, I will have three more.