I couldn't disagree with you more, Mr. Comartin. I don't believe that's the case. I indicated to you that the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that the presumption of innocence as articulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to individuals who have not been convicted. Once convicted, you don't get that presumption. In the cases that you indicated, you quoted the statistics correctly, but again, I ask the question, how many individuals escaped and didn't get that dangerous offender designation who should have had it, but by reasons of the challenges that Mr. Hoover indicated to you, and the procedures that criminal defence lawyers are developing in terms of having their clients avoid that designation when in fact they should get the designation...?
So as to whether a judge has the ultimate discretion to give a lesser sentence than that of dangerous offender, I believe that would be perfectly in order if that's what a judge concludes. But as for saying that he or she would be offended that we are asking that individual who has been convicted of three serious violent sexual offences to show why they shouldn't get a particular sentence, I disagree with you that it would be a problem.