Thank you very much for your explanation. I have a couple of other questions, if I still have time in my seven minutes. Goodness, I have four minutes left.
If Bill C-27 were adopted entirely now with no amendments, the prosecution would still have no obligation to apply for a remand and assessment order. If it's ordered by the judge, when the assessment order is filed, depending on the conclusions drawn within that assessment report, it provides the prosecutor with the possibility of applying for a dangerous offender hearing.
Under the current system, once an application for a dangerous offender hearing has been filed and the assessment has already taken place, if the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the statutory criteria for declaring the offender a dangerous offender have been met beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge must look to see whether or not the threat and risk the dangerous offender poses to the community can be controlled within the community.
I've also spoken with prosecutors, and they've basically said that as a result of R. v. Johnson, the courts are more and more requiring the prosecution to prove a negative so the individual is not declared a long-term offender: the risk and control cannot be controlled in the community for X, Y, and Z reasons. So Liberals are looking at the possibility of bringing an amendment that would place the burden on the offender to prove that he can be controlled in the community, and therefore the long-term offender designation is appropriate.
We believe that would not be a problem constitutionally, because the criteria for designating the person as a dangerous offender has already been proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. We believe that would be more effective than the amendment the government is bringing, which says neither party bears a burden in the matter.
If it's not something that the CPA has had an opportunity to look at, I would appreciate your looking at it and getting back to us.