Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think it's important to reiterate in this time that the designated offender part of this bill is designed specifically for the “worst of the worst” criminal, for the most incorrigible criminals in our society. Lest we get led astray by some of the comments that this will filter down to those who are not deserving of it, that's absolute nonsense: this designation is for the very worst in our society, who simply cannot take responsibility for what they're doing. I think it's important to keep repeating this, so that those folks who are watching this proceeding today have a clear understanding of why it's there.
Secondly, Professor Schurman, I appreciate your legal opinions. You've done a very great job. Your opinions are important to this. I think it's important also for the record to say that this bill wasn't drafted on the back of a napkin in an afternoon; it was drafted with the assistance of the finest legal and constitutional minds the Minister of Justice can find. When they signed off on it, they signed off with an understanding that it may face a constitutional or charter challenge in the future and they signed off with the complete confidence that this bill will withstand any constitutional or charter challenge. I think that's important to put on the record as well.
What we have here is a difference in legal opinion, which some day will be determined in the Supreme Court, likely. So appreciate those comments.
I want to ask one question before I finish on this reverse onus that witnesses yesterday seemed to be quite afraid of and that I think you, Mr. Jones, stated your apprehension about.
It's my understanding that in fact the reverse onus is used in the criminal system today when it comes to applying for parole, whereby someone who's making application for parole must go before a parole board and prove to them that he or she is worthy of getting parole.
That type of process seems to have worked pretty well up till now. If someone can't show the parole board hearing that they should be let out on parole, they simply don't get parole.
I'm trying to find where all the apprehension about this reverse onus comes from concerning a person who is already convicted. There's no question about whether they're guilty or not, as they've already been convicted. Now the onus is on them to tell the judge why they shouldn't be designated a dangerous offender, if that's what the crown is seeking.
It's an extension of a process that's already used today, so I can't understand the apprehension that defence lawyers in particular have with it, other than the fact that they're going to have to go from being defence lawyers to some other type of law where they're having to prove something rather than defend it.
Could you comment on that?