I have a difficulty with Mr. Comartin's amendment NDP-10, new proposed paragraph 753(2)(b). Mr. Comartin's explanation and the case he uses confuse me. It states in the last six lines:
and it can be shown that the offender has refused and continues to refuse any treatment available to the offender while in custody and that the offender continues to constitute a threat to society.
But Mr. Comartin uses the example of Mr. Callow. Had he consulted the documents, an independent analysis that was done of the Callow case clearly demonstrated that Mr. Callow did not refuse treatment through his years of incarceration. He went through numerous treatment programs. Initially the assessments following the completion of the treatment programs showed they did not have much of an impact on the level of danger he represented, but in further years they showed that his level of risk diminished.
There was a great deal of media coverage when Mr. Callow was released. Incorrect information was given out by Corrections Canada, which then corrected it. Corrections Canada initially mistakenly said that Mr. Callow had consistently refused to accept any treatment available to him in close to 20 years of incarceration. Corrections Canada then had to correct that because it was not factual. I want to put that on the record.
I'm not sure if Mr. Comartin's amendment would do what it's seeking to do; therefore I would like to hear from the officials on this amendment.