Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister, for your presentation.
We Liberals have a few concerns about the reverse onus clause in Bill C-27. At present, the burden of proof usually rests with the Crown when a hearing is conducted further to an application to declare a person a dangerous offender. Further to your bill, the burden of proof will now rest with the offender who has been convicted of a minimum of three offences.
Firstly, has this provision been put to the proportionality test set out in section 1 of the Charter?
Secondly, if the bill is eventually adopted and passed into law and down the road, someone challenges the reverse onus clause, if the court were to find the challenge well founded, would this put all, or part, of the dangerous offender regime at risk?
Thirdly, why does the violation of a long-term supervision order not automatically result in a hearing to declare the offender a dangerous offender? The fact of the matter is that many offenders have already been declared dangerous offenders at a hearing on the basis of prima facie evidence presented by the Crown. However, because of jurisprudence, the judge is required to assess whether the risk and threat that this offender represents can be controlled in the community by means of supervision orders.
Can you explain to me why that is? The Liberals are very tempted to bring in an amendment which would ensure that violating such an order would allow the Crown to request a hearing to declare the offender a dangerous offender.