Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Typically, as the crown does, I get the same information in the disclosure package, which includes the filed psychiatric assessment. Typically, in all dangerous offender applications, the routine is that once I get that assessment, that is going to dictate what I do next with my

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I can't speak for the Conservatives, but certainly from the departmental perspective that is correct. There is no mandatory or automatic nature to these provisions.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  The last part of your question I think I understood. If I misunderstood the earlier part, you'll have to forgive me. If I have this right, you're wanting to know the difference between the designated and the primary list, the impact of those two lists. Is that correct?

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  That's not applicable at all to the--

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Again, on the designated list, if there are two prior convictions from the designated list plus, in the crown's opinion, the third conviction is for a serious personal injury offence, then the only thing that does is require the crown to declare his intent on whether or not he ha

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Yes. Certainly I think that the concern expressed by provincial attorneys general was that individuals who, prior to the decision in R. v. Johnson in 2003, would otherwise have been designated dangerous offenders were not being designated dangerous offenders post-Johnson and were

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Okay. I'll try to be quick. It's a complicated question in some sense because it's a complicated provision. Essentially, the dangerous offender designation has been around for quite a while. Originally, you could get an indeterminate or a determinate sentence when you had a dang

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  It would not apply in that case.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  No, not unless there was a significant nexus differentiation between the three offences. Ms. Kane's point is that by adding a requirement that there be a two-year sentence, it perhaps lends the court to move away from those convictions that are part of one series of events, beca

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  No. In that particular case the presumption may well apply. If you have, for example, three different victims months apart, clearly the intent of these provisions is that the presumption would apply in that case, because there is no nexus between the different offences. In that c

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Again, just to--

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  That's a fair question. Again, the way it's worded is to leave some discretion to the court. There is often a fine line between the nexus of one offence to the other. What we wanted to avoid was, in one sense, an individual who is subject to the presumption when there is a nexus

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I don't think so. That's certainly not the intent. If it's one of a series of events, then we would suggest, based on case law and jurisprudence, that in fact it would only be seen as one series of offences, not separate offences. In other words, if an individual commits a break

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Again, we're talking about a relatively large number of individuals who would go through that particular threshold. We're talking about each of those individuals taking up a very large amount of resources. We're talking about what I would argue would not be a significant increase

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Well, I would suggest that's the job of the crowns at the front end.