Okay. Given that, are you in a position to comment on the impact...? You've just said that the research shows clearly that dangerous offenders who have been designated as such are clearly a high risk and are a completely different population, in terms of characteristics, from long-term offenders, and then again from the general population within the correctional system.
In that case, is the reverse onus that is created under Bill C-27...? It states that if the prosecutor makes an application for an expert assessment, and an order is given, then once the assessment report is filed, if the Crown applies for a dangerous offender hearing and designation, the offender is automatically presumed to be a dangerous offender. And the court shall deem that offender to be a dangerous offender unless the offender shows, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she is not a dangerous offender.
Are you in a position to say that this would then create a danger that we would have offenders who normally, under the current system, would be, for instance, designated long-term offenders, but because they don't have the resources or whatever, they will not necessarily be in a position to overturn the presumption that they are dangerous offenders? Therefore, they would have a designation that is in fact an incorrect designation.