Thank you for appearing, Mr. Minister and Mr. Hoover.
We've had similar legislation, dangerous or habitual offender legislation, since about 1947. Recidivism has always been a condition. In addition, we've found over time that because there were significant numbers in our society who were committing, at least in the past, offences with punishments in excess of two years, they were included as dangerous offenders.
We notice that in this legislation we've actually narrowed the scope, as it were. Since 1997, of course, we've significantly changed the legislation to preclude those offences, but of late...and I know one of my confreres was discussing the actual historical changes, referring to some numbers. In looking over some of the research that the researchers were so kind as to present to the panel, we notice that we've gone from about 14 to 22, and I'm talking about over a decade. So over a 10-year span, we went from 14 to 22. I see on page 5 of the research that the numbers are currently up to 39, and today we heard that your estimate is approximately 50 people who it's anticipated might be classed as such.
I'm just wondering, in this category, why would your analysis indicate that we are going to continue on the incline? Most of the argument against this is that there should be a decline. If we're to assume that this legislation won't have an effect, I can't see that. Historical patterns are showing us that there's an increase in people who are designated as habitual criminals.
My question is very simple. Could you go through some of the analysis you've done in order to come up with the number of about 50 persons?