Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Cohen.
I would like to go back to the questions raised regarding the right to remain silent. You were very clear about the point that the right to remain silent is not necessarily something that is guaranteed by the charter, but which has resulted from various Supreme Court decisions made over the past 20 years.
My question will be a little bit more focused. In the Criminal Code, since you work with the Criminal Code, there are some presumptions. There are already some presumptions. Presumption counters what we refer to as the right to be presumed innocent and the right to remain silent, because we are presuming that you are guilty, for example and it's up to you to prove the opposite.
With respect to receiving stolen goods, when we talk about theft and receiving stolen goods, we have used the presumption for more than 50 years, ever since the code has existed. Has an attorney ever attacked this issue? Since the charter came into existence, has there ever been an attack that demonstrated that presumptions in general—and I am not only referring to this presumption—would violate inalienable charter rights? That is my first question.
I also have a related question, which is also a comment. We often see, when we go to court, the crown attorney present a notice of prior conviction in order to obtain an additional conviction. A presumption is made. We are already indicating that we will be seeking more severe fines, a longer prison term. We are already presuming something. This has never been questioned, at least, personally, I have never seen this being overturned or quashed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would therefore like to know whether or not the question put by Mr. Lee, of the Liberal Party, was relevant. I would also like to know whether or not Criminal Code presumptions have ever been questioned or overturned by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.