Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  We meet regularly with the Canadian Bar Association, which provides us with feedback, and did so on former Bill C-27, which is again, as you are aware, replicated in Bill C-2. There are also perhaps more informal consultations. I attempt to familiarize myself with case law, poi

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I think there's always a concern that new provisions based on interpretation could result in unintended consequences. We always try to look carefully at that. I can suggest, based on the comments in committee on Bill C-27 by the Canadian Bar Association, that we have taken full c

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I can only reiterate what I have already said, and that is that we're not in a position to provide any explanation as to what the potential impact of the amendment would be, whether it be in subsection 753(1) or in section 754. Again, clearly section 754 provides guidance to t

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I suppose that's the most logical spot, if you were going to pursue that type of amendment. But I would reiterate that there has been no analysis done by the department and there has been no consultation. I think it would be premature to provide departmental support or an opinion

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I appreciate the nature of the motion, and I think I understand fully what you're attempting to do. Again, with something like that, prior to the Department of Justice advocating such an approach, I think we'd want to consult fully with stakeholders who are on the front line of

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  In deliberations during the formulation of the policy behind this, we were able, as much as possible, to look at case law and convictions. It's certainly not in the thousands on an annual basis. Again, based on our review and our discussions with our provincial colleagues who a

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I think the answer is fairly straightforward. They've certainly considered many issues that are in the bill, and there are other issues that aren't in the bill that they've discussed. There are various opinions at that table. I'm not sure which provision you want me to talk to in

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I think strong desire was expressed, both publicly and during meetings of senior officials, for reforms that specifically respond to the Johnson problem, as the minister stated on June 5 in his testimony and most recently again. Johnson created some conundrums in interpretation i

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Well, the first obvious opportunity for judicial discretion is at the time the crown applies under section 752, when the crown may have to make argument to the court that in fact the predicate offence is a serious personal injury offence. If the judge finds it does not meet the s

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  That was not a decision of mine personally. You would have to address that perhaps to other officials. Again, my responsibility is lead counsel on the dangerous offender legislation.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Again, I would refer you to the statements of the minister, back on June 5.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I think the clear statement of the minister—The question of whether he would allow a motion to Bill C-27 was put, as I recall, and his response was that if it was at that moment, we weren't ready because there were still consultations going on, but that he was hoping—and I believ

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I have no authority whatsoever over Mr. Cooper and I have not discussed whether he should or should not submit such an amendment. The first time I heard of such a proposal was when he made that statement here. I have not seen any proposed amendment. I don't know what stage he's a

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  On your first question as to whether we had more than 48 hours' notice to put a bill together, clearly we did. On the second question regarding how the issue of including the breach of LTSO evolved, I first heard of that issue in November 2004, when it was raised by the Ontario

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Once again I could assure the honourable member that we have taken a close look at the potential charter attacks on this provision. I would suggest that yes, it is correct that ordinarily the burden is on the crown to prove the criteria in proposed subsection 753(1), as you laid