Yes. Certainly I think that the concern expressed by provincial attorneys general was that individuals who, prior to the decision in R. v. Johnson in 2003, would otherwise have been designated dangerous offenders were not being designated dangerous offenders post-Johnson and were in fact being given lesser sentences. The difference, I think, was that pre-1997 you were a dangerous offender but you could get a determinate sentence. So there was a certain label, a certain watchfulness. Post-1997 you did not get the dangerous offender label at all; you were a long-term offender.
And now that we've had the opportunity to study the individuals who have gone in the post-Johnson world from being a dangerous offender to being a long-term offender, it turns out they are somewhat more difficult to manage under the long-term supervision order. I'm not suggesting that none of them can be managed. The courts have, in some cases, made the proper decision. And as Johnson says, it's a constitutional decision, something that's required. The discretion is required by the court in this case to determine whether or not a lesser sentence can manage the risk posed to the general public. So in that sense this is a very significant change.