I wanted to pursue the same line of questioning with both the criminal defence lawyers and with Mr. Doob.
First of all, reverse onus already exists in the code in practice. Secondly, these changes that Ms. Jennings talked about make it at least more comfortable for me. The crown does not have to pursue dangerous offender; they just have to make sure they've considered that option. And secondly, the judge can determine what sentence there should be.
Do you not think that either the crown attorney or the judges, for whom I'm sure we all have great respect, would use those provisions to ensure that the provision of proportionality was not abused, and that a proportional sentence was provided, and indeed, that if a dangerous offender hearing wasn't required the crown attorney wouldn't proceed with it?
Perhaps we could start with Mr. Doob and then the criminal defence lawyers.