Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I would suggest that at the front end it is the crowns' responsibility to consider whether or not they have a fair opportunity to--

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  No.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  A third conviction on the designated list will trigger a requirement by the crown to declare in open court whether he has considered fully the part XXIV application sentencing option. In addition, a third offence of the primary list will in fact shift the onus of proof to the off

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Yes.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  You understand the bill correctly. That's correct.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Well, as a former defence attorney, I would take every possible opportunity to attack the credibility of my adversaries. I would have to suggest that the consideration of any automatic requirements for a crown to do anything in the criminal process is misguided. I think it woul

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Proposed subsection 753.3(1) is the breach. That's the conviction for a breach. So if you're convicted of the breach, then you come back under this provision. What this provision does is it does away with the part of the hearing where you have to prove he's a dangerous offender,

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  This provision in fact is the authority for the reconsideration of the individual who was previously given a dangerous offender designation but given a lesser sentence from the original hearing, so if the individual subsequently is convicted of a breach of the long-term supervisi

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  This is part of the new reforms that were not in Bill C-27. Again, this one was the addition. If you recall the discussion last year, one of the concerns of the provincial attorneys general, which was also stated in committee, was the lack of ability to bring an individual back f

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I'm not sure where you're reading that from, and so you might want to draw my attention to it, because I can't quite find it in the provision itself.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Well, that's not exactly correct.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Yes, we have. We've done our analysis. We've taken a hard look at this. I can also point you to more recent case law. The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Grayer, as a matter of fact, suggested that the right to remain silent in a dangerous offender proceeding is something that

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Yes. Any of the firearm offences that have a minimum possible penalty of at least ten years open up the door for a potential dangerous offender application as long as they meet the remaining criteria for serious personal injury offence. All you have to do is take a look at the ne

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  The right to which you speak can be found perhaps in a couple of places. In section 11 there is a right not to be compelled to give witness against oneself during a proceeding. There is potentially a section 7 right--fundamental principles of justice--that applies perhaps more br

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  It's exactly the same as it is under the current procedure. It's exactly the same procedure you see currently. Basically it's at sentencing, although there is provision currently in part XXIV, dealing with dangerous offenders,that allows the crown to give notice if it intends to