Thank you, Professor. I appreciate your pointing that out.
Mr. Goldstein, to go back to what you said, I'm not quite getting it; what you're saying is not quite holding water. Under the current system as it is, where you've already said you trust the discretion of the crown prosecutor, and under the system as it will exist if Bill C-27 passes, there's still a discretion for the crown prosecutor. In fact, the actual process we're going to go through as to whether someone is or is not a dangerous offender will look very similar. You're going to have one side saying, “No, my client is not a dangerous offender, and here' s why”, and you're going to have another side saying, “No, the person is a dangerous offender, and here's why.” That exists now and it will exist under Bill C-27.
What Bill C-27 does, number one, is prevent applications from falling through the cracks, because it puts an onus on prosecutors to say whether or not there's going to be an application; and two, it puts that onus on the offender, who only after being convicted of a third violent or sexual offenc, must show—not whether there should be a dangerous offender application, not whether they're guilty or innocent.... The onus is now on them, after a third violent or sexual offence, and the only onus on them is, to show why they shouldn't be designated a dangerous offender.
I fail to see how this in any way is taking away discretion. I don't think, once the DO process is under way, there's going to be any seismic shift in the role of defence counsel and of prosecutors.