Let me say that my scrutiny of these provisions doesn't mean I don't want to support the bill. We over here do want to support the bill. We just want to make sure it's as good as we can make it.
My question here concerns the procedure that will be in place for the convicted person if there is to be a dangerous offender designation. The way the presumption operates here now is that it will presume the person has met any of the conditions in paragraphs 753(1)(a), 753(1)(a)(ii), 753(1)(a)(iii) or 753(1)(b). There are all kinds of different particulars there. There's repetitive behaviour. There's a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour. There is brutal nature. There is the sexual impulses part. There's a whole list of particulars.
In a normal, non-presumed hearing, those things will be set out by the prosecutor to say, “We think you are one of these categories or more”. If there's a presumption, the bill contains no mechanism that would provide the convicted person of the particulars on which the crown relied upon. In other words, it just says, “You're one of those dangerous offenders. Now, prove you're not.” The convicted person has no particulars with which to start and to disprove the presumption.
So I'm suggesting to you that procedurally we have a serious weakness here, where a convicted person is going to say, “I've got no particulars and I have to rebut a bald presumption and I'm unable to do it.” I think it is a very serious weakness and I'd ask you to respond to that and on whether or not you think we may be able to fix this, if you think it's a problem, before the bill gets through the process here.