Both Mr. Ménard and I have made it quite clear that we're opposed to the use of reverse onus. One of the concerns I have is of the quality of the evidence that the accused person will be required to bring forward.
As I understand the process, although we've never used this before, probably a clerk or a police officer will be put on the stand. It will be said this person has committed two prior offences and has now committed his third. They fit within the category in the code of designated offences, and that's all the evidence that will be put in. So there will be no evidence put in by the Crown of a psychological or psychiatric nature.
If in fact that is going to be the pattern of what we see, what I'm asking you is, where would the accused person be able to get evidence to establish in the reverse that they are not dangerous offenders?