Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Hoover, for being here.
To some degree, I want to follow up on Mr. Ménard's question as to why we're using the reverse onus in these circumstances. I guess I'm looking for some numbers.
Mr. Minister, this is information I got from your department regarding how many are being designated at this point. From the time we started using the dangerous offender designation, there's been a total of 384 designations. That's going all the way back to 1978. In fact, the number of those being designated on an annual basis is increasing now. In the early years it was only eight, and now it's running at about 17 to 18 a year.
I don't know if this is available, but my question is—again following up on Mr. Ménard's—what problem are we trying to resolve? How many cases do we have on an annual basis--if you can give me this--where this would apply, where there would be a third offence and the individual after the assessment would be required to prove why he...? And I'm saying “he” advisedly because there have been no women designated as dangerous offenders as far as I know. So I'm asking if in fact there is a problem.
I want to add to that. I have a perception, from the experiences I've had and from what I've noted in the criminal justice system, that by and large for most of the offenders we're going after, we're usually going after them--when it's a serial killer or a serial rapist, somebody who has committed a series of crimes--after the very first time, and we're not waiting for the third time. I'm back to asking whether we do in fact have many cases where this is going to be used.