I have a second question for you. It's important to mention that, because it's somewhat different. Far be it for me to indulge in partisan politics. I'm completely incapable of doing that, although you seem rather skeptical.
The second thing I'm counting on a great deal is getting a realistic picture of dangerous offenders before this committee wraps up its work. To my mind, it makes every difference in the world knowing that of the 384 designated dangerous offenders, 333 are part of the prison population. We need to have an idea of the number of offenders who were declared dangerous offenders after a first, second or third offence and of the type of offence they committed.
How is the primary designated offence scheme different? With the secondary designated offence scheme, the presumption does not shift. At least, that's what you seemed to be saying earlier. I must have misunderstood you. Regardless of whether we're dealing with the primary or secondary designated offence scheme, when a third offence is committed, the reverse onus provision applies. Is my understanding correct? Basically, what is the difference between the primary and secondary designated offence schemes?