Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have two quick questions. I want to go back to some of my comments yesterday regarding the similarity that I see—not as a lawyer, as I'm not one—between a parole hearing, an application for parole, and the reverse onus that is in that process and the reverse onus we're talking about now.
Mr. Cohen, you just made a statement in which you stated that two things, proved fact and dangerousness, are present within the reverse onus system in the dangerous offender designation process. I would suggest that in a parole hearing, those two principles exist as well: proved fact, the person is in jail, it's been proven, the person has been judged guilty; and second, dangerousness is something that's considered in the parole application. Is it safe? Is it dangerous or not to society to let this person out at this time? So while the circumstances may admittedly be different, we are dealing with a very similar process.
It is my understanding that in the reverse onus, as it applies to a parole application, someone who's incarcerated must prove to a parole board that they are worthy to be let out. That's a reverse onus.
Has that ever been challenged? Has that successfully passed the Constitution or charter test, so to speak? I would assume it has, since it's still in existence. Am I correct in assuming that?