The government is not going to be supporting the amendment for a number of the reasons I expressed earlier. We feel that when you look at both the triggers to these provisions and the fact that for what Ms. Jennings had earlier characterized as a non-serious happening...a person wouldn't receive at least two years for something that was non-serious. We have to look at both the primary designated offences and then, finally, that it is definitely a serious offence that triggers the crown declaration. I think when we look at those offences that are set out, no one would argue that they are not serious.
In fact, someone has to have been arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years or more, once, then again, and then convicted of a very serious offence the third time convicted before these provisions are triggered.
I should add that I'm told that in 95% of the instances involving some of those offences to which Mr. Comartin has made mention, in 95% of those cases, a sentence of less than two years would be rendered. We're talking already about someone who has committed on the more serious scale of those offences.
We feel what's included is the appropriate threshold. If we're going to go with five years, are we really protecting the public if we're going to limit it that greatly to someone who's committed offences where they've already been convicted twice and sentenced to five years? The two-year provision does not capture, in my opinion, what Mr. Comartin has termed petty criminals. This is definitely geared towards more serious cases.