Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment's purpose is to deal with the factual type of situation we had in the Callow case this summer.
What I'm doing here with this amendment is combining the existing (a) and (b) in that section. I'm not taking away from that at all. We're just combining it into one subsection and then introducing a new paragraph in the form of the (b) that's in NDP-10.
Mr. Chair, what these sections deal with is when the prosecutor can bring an application for a dangerous offender designation. Basically, the first paragraph in my amendment would provide for two opportunities. The first is within six months of the conviction on the most recent offence that's triggering the application, or at a later period, if new evidence that was not available to the crown comes forward. That's the (a) part and that's already in the legislation. They're in the Criminal Code.
The second part would introduce the authority, the mandate, to the prosecutor to be able to bring an application at any time after the individual was in custody, having been sentenced, and in federal prison, if two criteria are met. The first is that the individual had shown that he—and I'm going to say “he” because it's almost always a “he”—has refused and continues to refuse treatment that is available. The second criteria would be that the offender continues to constitute a threat to society.
In the Callow type of situation, this would have allowed the prosecutor to have moved to bring that designation when it became obvious that Mr. Callow was not responding to any attempts at rehabilitation that were being provided to him by the correction officials.
That factual situation has occurred more than once, although the Callow case is the most recent and I think probably the most high profile one.
Those are my comments, Mr. Chair. Thank you.