I'm not directing the question to Mr. Harris, but if Mr. Harris has information about this golden constitutionality opinion, I'd love to see it.
I want to ask Professor Schurman a question, because she teaches law and because my friends opposite here often engage in hypotheticals. Mr. Harris referred to this bill as targeting the worst of the worst. I'd be happy if we had a bill that actually did that, and properly did it. But we don't use those words. We have to use regular words in our statute, so we have to design something that protects our citizens.
I want to ask Professor Schurman this. Let's forget about the side of the scale that deals with the worst of the worst, the guy with the record as long as your arm, with tons of violent offences, Eddie Greenspan, our colleague, is his lawyer, and he has a full hearing and then is designated. Let's go to the other extreme; let's go to a citizen. Could you conjure up a hypothetical that in your mind would place these sections at risk in a constitutional challenge because of the circumstances of the person who is accused or convicted, because of the circumstance surrounding it? My gut tells me there is a vulnerability here to a charter challenge. Not on the “worst of the worst” scenario, but in some county town in northern Saskatchewan or northern Quebec, where you get a citizen who is suddenly facing a presumption. The citizen doesn't have a full education, might not have the best of lawyers, and might have committed some of the offences that you refer to in your testimony.
Can you offer us that hypothetical that you think would be likely to show an extremely weak charter position?