But if you understand the way the process works, when the application for the dangerous offender is before the court, there is always a consideration, like the “included offence” concept, always the alternative of the long-term offender or some other criminal penalty if the judge concludes that's sufficient.
So if you go back to proposed subsection 753(1.1), the reverse onus applies there. It seems to me that if this section went through, which I'm hoping it won't, the reverse onus would also apply to the accused person's having to establish that it would be sufficient to have him designated as a long-term offender or to have some other penalty as a result of the third-time conviction.