I'd like to take up where Ms. Jennings left off. I must admit that my understanding of the issue is somewhat muddled and I hope you can clarify things for me, Mr. Hoover.
Perhaps we did not agree with the proposed increase in minimum sentences in Bill C-10, but at least the proposal was clear. It was a matter of judicial philosophy and one could be either for or against the recommendation.
I don't quite understand and I would like you to explain where the problem lies for the prosecutor, who as we understand is often the crown. Why are the current provisions of the Criminal Code inadequate? Why does the government feel the need to put forward a list? You talk about primary designated offences, but as I understand it, there is also a list of secondary designated offences.
What is the problem, if I am a crown prosecutor and I want to invoke these provisions in the case of a dangerous offender? You told Ms. Jennings that the criteria were overly stringent, but could you be more specific? Don't be afraid of referring to administrative realities, because that will be a determining factor in whether or not we choose to back the provisions taken from the former Bill C-27. Administratively speaking, where does the problem lie at this time for the prosecutor trying a case in a court of law?