Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make sure that my colleagues opposite understand that it's not so much a question of cost. In fact, I haven't even talked about that. I think Parliament must address this because it is a question of principle. I find it hard to accept that the burden of proof is being transferred from the state—with all its resources—to individuals, who, in most cases, won't have sufficient resources. The committee would do well to explore why in the past we haven't used the Criminal Code provisions that enable the state to incarcerate these people for an indeterminate period by declaring them dangerous.
Mr. Muise, in your study, you concluded that the question of the burden of proof might not pass the Charter test. Consequently, you didn't make that recommendation. I'm very glad to hear it. You produced a study, which I haven't seen. There appear to be a number of people who have previously been convicted of crimes, who have served their sentences and who have returned to society. I don't believe there are any limits to the number of times the state can try to have someone declared dangerous. Why, with all these instruments, hasn't the state done it? Why is it that this measure is underutilized? In your opinion, it is. How have we come to that? Before concluding that we must reverse the burden of proof, I would like to know why it's not sufficiently used. Why is that, in your opinion?