Thank you.
I only have one question for Mr. Cooper, but just before that I will make a couple of comments.
Thank you for the Bill C-27 amendment, the good amendment on the long-term offenders. I have to compliment our critic who proposed that and got the attorneys general to agree to it, and the government agreed. It's an excellent amendment. Of course, on the age of protection, on October 26, 2006, and March 14, 2007, we offered to fast-track that, so that actually could have been law now.
That being said, Mr. Cooper, I agree with your point that the collection, storage, and retrieval of data and statistics need a lot of improvement. We've learned that in committee, but that's not what my question is about. Our critic made the good point yesterday that in this law there could be 100 dangerous offences and an application never has to be brought, but the Attorney General does have to say whether he reviewed that option. My question is not about that either.
My question is about what Mr. Lee raised yesterday in committee, and that was this. If you can put yourself on the other side for a moment, on the defence side, with all the data you mentioned you had collected and the effort you have to make to make your case under the existing system of proving they are dangerous under one of the various categories, (a), (b) or (c), I believe, in the Criminal Code, you pick one and use your data to prove that. Now the onus, if the application is actually brought, will be on the criminal. Mr. Lee's question was how would you then proceed as a defence lawyer? Which of those categories are you going to try to defend? The onus would have been on the prosecutor to prove you are a dangerous offender. As a defender, where are you going to start in your defence? Under which category? All categories? What would you do to try to suggest that you are not a dangerous offender?