I'll briefly repeat my point about the amendments that are contemplated in relation to both those who breach and those who commit another serious personal injury offence while on a long-term order. These are the very people who....
As I stated before, sex offenders make up approximately 85% of the dangerous offender population. If you accept the truism that it's a small minority of offenders, particularly when it comes to sex offenders, who commit a disproportionate amount of this kind of crime, and those very same people just keep coming back to the well, the amendments that the provincial attorneys general have said we should include will be very good in terms of identifying those particular people.
If you put that together with the amendment that in effect creates a hearing where somebody is declared, the way the legislation is written is that rather than having to go through the dangerous offender hearing down the road, the hearing then converts to a situation where this person has already been declared, and now it's up to the judge to decide what to do. This person was originally put out on an LTO, potentially, and now what to do: am I going to now create an indeterminate sentence, or is there evidence to convince the court that yet again he can be put out on another LTO?
So I think the two amendments, those two pieces, are going to do a good job of making the court and the criminal justice system aware of those particular people and bring them back in a way that is not overly onerous. It puts it back yet again in front of a judge. It's not saying, “You struck out on the LTO, you're going to be indeterminate sentence.” It's not even that far. It's back in front of the judge.
Also, for those who were concerned that it might appear like a three strikes and you're out, I believe nothing could be further from the truth. I think it strikes certainly a balance that should, I hope, satisfy most.