Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm listening to Mr. Harris and Mr. Muise, and I'm sorry I've been sidebarred into this, but Mr. Harris is at liberty to propose an amendment to the bill if he thinks it's so egregiously out of whack with what the public interest is.
Secondly, the only way this loophole could be a loophole is if a judge or an attorney general became an unindicted co-conspirator with a child predator. This is absurd, and it shows a misunderstanding of the provision that was legislated in the last session. In any event, my question here is really directed at Mr. Cooper, and it has a general focus.
The changes to the old Bill C-27, to the dangerous offender application process here, will not in your view, based on what you've said, increase materially the volume of dangerous offender applications because it doesn't really make any direct difference in how those are commenced--i.e., on the decision of a crown attorney. But where it will make a difference is that it will expedite them, or facilitate them, because it shifts the burden now to the convicted person who will have had three serious convictions. It sort of alters the burden and changes the deck of cards in a way that shifts the burden away from the state and the people to prove something and moves it over to the accused. That makes it easier for the state and the public to designate someone and to take them out of circulation. Is that consistent with your view here?