Okay.
Secondly, it's my understanding that in regard to Mr. Lee's concern, the right to remain silent, if someone is appearing before the parole board they also have the right to remain silent if they so choose. Considering that this process, this privilege, still exists, and has for many years now, somewhere along the line someone must have thought about whether this had passed a charter or constitutional test. It must have, because it's still being used.
If either of these things, the reverse onus or the right to remain silent in the case of a parole application, were at some time proven to not pass the constitutional or charter test, I would doubt very much that they would still be used today. I would suggest that because of the similarity between the reverse onus and the right to remain silent, certainly it's similar enough to assume that we're on safe ground on this.