Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I've got it.
In your first question, Monsieur Ménard, you asked how this was different from American legislation. All legislation in the United States, of course, is not the same. The criminal law power is part of each state. You may be referring to what is usually referred to as a law in the state of California--and again I'm not an expert on California law--which carries automatic convictions or rather automatic sentence provisions for individuals who have been convicted of three crimes.
In Canada we have what is known as a rebuttable presumption. If an individual has been convicted of the three types of crimes that I indicated in my opening statements, then there is an onus on the Crown to direct the court's attention to whether the Crown will proceed with a dangerous offender application. The onus would shift to the individual to demonstrate--and it's a rebuttable presumption, and that individual would have all the safeguards built into the Canadian system.... They can bring evidence to show that they cannot or should not be designated a dangerous offender. So to that extent, there's nothing automatic about it. There, of course, would be a hearing that would determine this, but again the individual could rebut that presumption.
What are the problems with the dangerous offenders law as it stands? I think there was some need for clarification after the R. v. Johnson decision in 2003 to clarify some of the procedures and the criteria with respect to dangerous offenders.
You made reference to Madam Jennings' comments about some of the issues that arise regarding an individual who has been designated a dangerous offender but nonetheless receives a long-term offender sentence, and about how there have been some problems. She identified a couple of groups that have indicated there were problems in that area. In addition, I can tell you there are provincial attorneys general who believe that there should be some resolution, some clarification on that. So I think there are a number of problems, a couple of which I've just mentioned to you.
You have another question?