Yes, 50 cases per year.
You're quite correct that the Crown can apply for a dangerous offender designation on the first conviction; there's nothing stopping them. I guess we're making the point, and this comes to our attention from time to time, that there are individuals who repeatedly commit some of these very serious sexual and violent crimes, and people ask, well, what's the problem? Mr. Hoover indicated to you some of the challenges that have crept into the system.
In terms of your question to me, I think it's only reasonable that if you've been convicted twice, and now for the third time.... These are convictions of serious sexual violent crimes. It seems to me that what we are asking to do is only reasonable. To ask, “Could you please tell us why you shouldn't be designated a dangerous offender?” is, I think, a reasonable question to ask.
In terms of the presumption that the individual is guilty, we're talking about somebody who has done it. Again, I think the public has a right to require these individuals, if they're not going to get that type of sentence, to come forward and say why.
As I indicated to Monsieur Ménard, ultimately the judge has the discretion to give whatever sentence he believes appropriate. In that case, it doesn't have to be a dangerous offender. So that part of the system is preserved; it's still part of it. But again, I think what we're suggesting here is just reasonable.
Did you have anything to add on that, Mr. Hoover?