I don't think that's a fair characterization. It's not sitting on a shelf.
Let me just start by saying that in terms of our responsibility as the RCMP, our mandate, established by the RCMP Act, contemplates us doing a couple of things. One of them is to pursue and apprehend offenders. The other thing is to prevent crime. In that sense we have, and always have had, a very robust crime prevention approach to our responsibilities. It's perhaps trite to say that if you can prevent crime, you don't have to investigate it. It's getting to be very complex and very labour intensive to investigate, to a criminal justice outcome, crime.
That said, as I've testified at this committee several times, we have talked about some of the things we are doing in our terrorist prevention regime, from our counterterrorism information officers to our community outreach programs to now the application of what is commonly referred to as a hub kind of approach to dealing with opportunities, because not all of these offenders, not all of these individuals, present as high-likelihood success stories for an intervention, for a prevention action.
Within our high-risk-individual framework, we have developed a system whereby individuals are identified. If they present a risk, our primary responsibility is to keep Canadians safe, so we have investigative measures that we apply. Judicial interventions are sought—a peace bond is one of the issues in this new legislation—to try to bring conditions to mitigate the threat. For those people where we assess that they are good candidates for intervention, we will bring together a host of resources that already exist within many communities to try to intervene, to try to engage with family members, and to bring in counsellors, religious authorities, and others who can intervene to try to dissuade the individual from pursuing this path of radicalization.