Thank you. It's a good question.
There are two reasons. The first reason is that the section 810.2 orders are given to very dangerous offenders, generally. They go to warrant expiry date, and there is nothing else to control them. Most of those who get these orders are men like Paul Callow. He's a good example because we all know about him. They are often just like him. We know, based on their records, that their past behaviour is a very good indicator of potential future criminal or bad behaviour. They don't suddenly, after a year, stop being potential sex offenders.
This is only part of it. It should always be hard work to put these kinds of orders on offenders, because after all, you are limiting their rights, but in light of the effort that goes into crafting these orders by the police and the crown attorney's office, coupled with the fact that we know they don't suddenly stop being sex offenders or potential sex offenders after a year, we felt that five years was an appropriate length of time.
Are we satisfied that it's been increased from one year to two years? Yes. Would we be more satisfied if the committee recommended to Parliament that it be changed from two years to five years? Of course we would.