First, I'd like to correct the record. I think I made it clear. From where we sit, the reverse onus provisions that are contemplated in Bill C-27 are absolutely appropriate in the context of the charter. As we worked to craft the Martin's Hope recommendation, we believed that the “three strikes and you're in”--in other words, one robbery, two robberies, three robberies--would not withstand charter scrutiny. So I just want to clarify that.
I think the number one reason, the overriding reason that attorneys general haven't proceeded with dangerous offender hearings is that when they looked at--particularly pre-1997, before the long-term offender provisions--the standard that was required to meet a determination of dangerous offender, they recognized that in a lot of cases they weren't likely going to meet it. And so they weigh their resources. They don't proceed with cases that have little likelihood of conviction. When they realize they're not likely to have somebody declared a dangerous offender, they don't proceed. I think that has probably been the number one overriding reason, particularly before 1997 when the long-term offender provisions came in.