Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the very significant interest shown by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. For many months she has expressed a great deal of interest here in the House and generally in finding a way to protect society from the very highest risk offenders. Her private member's bill is cogent evidence of her commitment to that cause. She is to be congratulated on that commitment.
May I also say that the hon. member for Calgary Southeast who spoke to today's motion has also demonstrated that she is most committed to finding ways of dealing with this risk to society.
I hope it is apparent from the speeches made on this side of the House in this debate that the members of the government share that commitment.
My colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, has developed at some length the rationale behind present part XXIV of the Criminal Code and its purpose. Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, the dangerous offender provisions, is a unique advantage which we enjoy in Canada and which sets us apart from many states in the United States.
The question is what about the bill? Would the bill be an effective way of improving public safety when it comes to high risk offenders? Much as the government is in agreement with the objectives stated by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, the government is not able to support this motion. We have concluded that the means contemplated by the hon. member's bill and by this motion would not be valid constitutional legislation.
What efforts is the government taking to try to meet the perceived need in a fashion that we believe would be valid or effective? Let me spend a few moments in the sense of reporting to the House what steps we have been taking in that regard.
The solicitor general and I have been working for some months to develop proposals that will both improve part XXIV and add other provisions to the criminal law which will equip our system to deal more effectively with the highest risk offender.
In May of this year the solicitor general and I convened a meeting here in Ottawa to which we invited officials of the Correctional Service of Canada, high ranking police officers, both from the RCMP and provincial forces, and psychologists who are trained and experienced in dealing with the psychopathic personality referred to by the hon. member. We also invited representatives of the Ontario provincial attorney general's office, police officers, defence lawyers and crown prosecutors. Involved in the meeting as well was an attorney from Washington state who has experience dealing with the sexual predator law in place in that jurisdiction. We spent much of the weekend looking at the present facts in Canada, the state of the law and the American experience in trying to identify specific steps we would take by statutory amendment or changes in practice to make society safer when it comes to high risk offenders.
We came to a number of conclusions. I hope that many of them will come forward in the near future in the form of statutory proposals.
I would like to explain the general direction which we plotted at that time and in the months since in order to assure the House that we are both aware of the problem and working in good faith toward solutions.
First, we concluded that part XXIV can be improved, for example, by removing the requirement for the testimony of two psychiatrists in these cases. Part XXIV can be improved by
removing the prospect of a definite term of incarceration, leaving only indefinite imprisonment as an option available to the court.
We felt that the whole process of identifying and assessing accused persons to determine whether they might be the subject of a dangerous offender application could be improved with better protocols or assessment. We are developing specific proposals in that regard.
Furthermore, it was felt that if part XXIV or the dangerous offender provisions were to be effective, a flagging system should be put in place throughout Canada so that police officers who are investigating or charging and crown attorneys who are preparing for trial and determining whether to ask the attorney general's consent to bring a part XXIV application could identify on the facts of any given case whether a specific suspect or accused is appropriate for such a disposition.
The solicitor general introduced a national flagging system which became effective in September of this year, which is intended to achieve that purpose. So far the flagging system has been well received. It seems to be working smoothly and effectively. No doubt it will be improved operationally as time passes, but I believe it is a significant improvement in the system.
Other proposals were discussed on that occasion which have been under review since that time. I hope and expect they will form part of the legislation which the government will put before the House at an appropriate time. For example, earlier this year there was a report delivered by a federal-provincial-territorial task force on high risk offenders which made a proposal that we find very attractive.
As the House knows, for a crown prosecutor, with the consent of the attorney general, to bring a dangerous offender application and for a court to declare someone a dangerous offender, with the consequence that they face indefinite incarceration, requires that a certain evidentiary threshold be crossed. Obviously, it is an exacting one because the consequence is very significant.
However, there are those cases in which the public safety is at risk because of the high likelihood of an offender re-offending and yet the prosecution does not feel that it can meet the high threshold now provided for in part XXIV. The federal-provincial-territorial task force proposed that in circumstances such as those, there should be a second category to which crown attorneys and courts can resort to protect society, but which involve a threshold of proof which is less exacting than part XXIV. They describe this as the long term offender category.
In circumstances that were appropriate for such applications, the crown might ask the court, when dealing with someone who has some risk of re-offending, not only to impose a term of incarceration for the original offence, but also to impose at the end of that term a mandatory period of supervision for a duration as long as 10 years after they are out of prison, during which time the person would be obligated to comply with stated conditions, whether they be complying with the reporting requirements, taking treatment as specified, wearing electronic bracelets or whatever the case may be. There would be some reasonable measure of continuing knowledge and control of people after they are out of prison when there is a real risk they will reoffend.
That suggestion from the FPT task force strikes the government as constructive and practical. I hope to put legislation before the House at the appropriate time which would codify that kind of provision.
We have examined provisions already in the Criminal Code such as sections 161 and 810.1 which empower the court to make either restraining orders-
