I think the real issue that the crown declaration tries to get to is just to ensure that the first stage of inquiry is thoroughly examined by the crown prosecutor. I think the concern was that that's not always done. And again, those reasons are varied. It may not always be the same.
I can also suggest, for example, that the national flagging system, which is fairly young throughout Canada, is attempting to resolve this administratively by making sure that for those offenders who are migrant in nature--in other words, he may be convicted in Ontario the first time, maybe in Manitoba the third time, and in B.C. the fourth time--the crowns in each of those jurisdictions are aware in fact that this individual has this past and, if they are convicted again, that they're flagged for a part XXIV application. I think this is pretty much in the same vein as that effort.
It's important that there is a comprehensive approach to the management of high-risk offenders coast to coast, and if you have one jurisdiction that is perhaps less vigilant than another, it tends to break down. So this tries to make sure we have consistency in all jurisdictions.