Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today, for agreeing to come before this committee on such short notice.
I have some questions for the Association of Chiefs of Police. Mr. Pecknold, you talked about how it's no longer the time for quick fixes and band-aids just won't do it, that in fact a comprehensive overhaul of our criminal justice system is really required, urgently needed. You said you would be prepared to answer questions specifically about different sections of Bill C-27, so I do have a couple of questions about Bill C-27.
If the association had cognizance of the original Bill C-27 and has now examined the dangerous offender section of Bill C-2, you will see that the government has brought forth some significant amendments, one of which deals with the long-term offender, breaches of the long-term offender's supervision order. That actually was a Liberal proposal, because we felt that if someone had been deemed a long-term offender under the current system, it meant that in many cases they had gone through a long-term offender hearing, was found to be dangerous, but the judge examined whether or not a long-term offender designation and supervision order would be sufficient to control the level of dangerousness in the community, etc.
On the issue of the crown's discretion to either trigger or not trigger an application, under Bill C-27, as it now is in Bill C-2, do you not...? Has the association thought about whether, if we were truly interested in protecting Canadians, ensuring safer communities, a better way would be in fact to ensure that there are actual assessments made, that there's an actual trigger, that it becomes automatic—it could be on second or third conviction, taking care of the issues Maître Schurman raised about arbitrary offences—so that you actually have an expert assessment of the offender, a repeat offender in many cases? If that assessment shows that the individual should not be designated a dangerous offender, the assessment still will provide much information to correctional services, for instance, to ensure that they receive the proper programs, the proper therapy, whatever it is they need to enhance the chances of their actually being rehabilitated or to control the risk of dangerousness and the possibility of repeats. That would be rather than what we have now, which is if there's a third conviction, the crown might seek an application. There's no guarantee that the crown...and you could have then the situation that Maître Schurman is talking about, where they'll be pleaded down.