We're about to change the legislation here. So I'm asking you about charter applicability not to the old rules, the existing rules, but to the ones we're going to change them to, and the new ones impose a presumption on the person who may or may not have this right to remain silent.
Wouldn't you agree that it's not the old dangerous offender provisions we have to measure, that it's the new ones here? I'm asking you not to measure the charter acceptability of the old provisions, but rather the new one, where we've imposed on a three-time convicted person a presumption that they are a dangerous person, and the only way they can get out of that box, that presumption that the law is imposing, is to come forward and speak, and they have to deal with those issues. Now, that may be a very common sense thing to do. My question is, does that breach the right to remain silent, and is that right there? Have you, as a department, determined that the right to remain silent applies in the sentencing phase?