Monsieur Ménard, I actually don't agree with your characterization that this is similar to--I think you indicated--American law, whereby you get three convictions and you're automatically given a particular sentence. This is very much unlike that. All we are saying is that when that third offence has been committed, the presumption shifts to the individual to show why he or she should not be a designated offender. That presumption can be met, and ultimately it's at the discretion of the judge as to whether there is that designation or a lesser one. So to that extent, it makes it very, very different, in my opinion.
On June 5th, 2007. See this statement in context.