Justice committee  But in all seriousness, in terms of answering this question, I think it would give you a different perspective on what those blood alcohol limits actually mean.

Justice committee  My concern with the proposition that we determine the limit based on the resources of the police or prosecutors is that it's a slippery slope. We can always start increasing the limit, because we can always claim that we don't have the resources to enforce it properly.

Justice committee  Thank you. I haven't done a Breathalyzer test for 20 years, so my experience is somewhat dated. I was a Breathalyzer technician for four years; I did about 440 tests and received my training at the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto. They, at that point in time, and I believ

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  In terms of the first point that was made by the witness yesterday—and I haven't seen that testimony—certainly there are safeguards in the process, including the right for the person who has been perhaps wrongfully designated a dangerous offender to appeal that decision. So there

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I guess the context we've tried to present in our brief is that if we look at the current situation and the characteristics of the dangerous offender population in the system right now, there's a high number of offenders that have been convicted. In many cases these are people wh

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  There are two benefits of those amendments. First is the extension, obviously, the greater time period. I guess you could always debate what an appropriate period of time is or how long it would be, and it may depend on individual cases, but one would assume that if somebody has

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  As you quite accurately pointed out, I'm not a lawyer either, but looking at proposed section 753--

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  So subclause 3(1) of the bill amends subsection 753(1) and proposes two new subsections, 753(1.1) and 753(1.2). Proposed subsection 753(1.2) says the following: Despite subsection (1), the court shall not find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied by the

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I don't think we saw it as being that automatic, and I think it's the last line of proposed subsection 753(1.2) that expands that doubt, because--

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Neither has the.... So from our perspective, it's kind of cascading. The first test is whether you are a dangerous offender. The second, then, would be--

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  First and foremost, what we're really talking about is prevention in those cases, and in particular, how we screen people who can access firearms. It's not just a question of screening the person—as is being suggested at present—at the time they first get firearms. How do we scre

Justice committee  Could I add something as well? Our organization strives to be non-partisan and we try to meet with members from all political parties to advance our issues. With the previous government, in fact, and with the last two previous prime ministers and justice ministers, we had good r

Justice committee  It was certainly before the announcement, but certainly I wouldn't call it consultation. There was nothing presented to us.