Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
After Monsieur Ouellette's remarks referring to Mr. Bagnell, Mr. Bagnell just whispered to me that he was in fear of biker gangs resorting to Ski-Doos up in the Yukon. So you never know what the future will bring.
I'd like to address a question to Mr. Toller. I was going to ask how the heck you manage to actually ID someone who has an organized crime connection if the court hasn't already found that. Of course, your documents today have included the commissioner's directive, which shows how CSC does that. I've had a look at it. It looks very good. I should commend CSC for doing just that. This was issued in 2003. I'm sure it's a very useful procedure.
The only question that lingers--and I don't want to be seen as going to bat all the time for the alleged bad guy here--is if, in the scheme of things, an offender in an institution is wrongly designated. The procedures here would seem to preclude that. There's a very fair system of investigating and vetting and designating. But in the event, if there would be a problem with that, the protocol here doesn't identify it.
Would it be the offender's procedure that he, or perhaps she, would go to the ombudsman or the correctional investigator if there were a problem? Is there any escape from being wrongly designated, other than the de-designation that's mentioned here?