I'll just say a few words, and then my colleague Mr. Hoover may want to elaborate.
It's always difficult for us, as officials, because we don't get the motions very far in advance, and I realize that. So we don't have an opportunity to fully explore them, but on our first reading of this, it did seem that this would extend the period indefinitely for which an application could be brought, and it would subject a person who was otherwise receiving a determinate sentence in a penitentiary to have this—that a dangerous offender application could be brought—hanging over their head, so to speak, for the duration of their sentence. If there were further consideration of this in the future, we would need to do a very careful charter analysis of this provision, because this could be putting us in the sphere of that which is unconstitutional and not justifiable. It would have to be looked at in the whole context of the rights available to an offender who is incarcerated.
The sentence is the sentence. This would be something else that could occur later. There is no obligation on a person to undergo treatment. We know that is a concern for a variety of reasons, but there is no way to compel them to undergo treatment while they are in an institution. At least, that is our understanding. The threat of a dangerous offender application if they refused would appear to compel them to take treatment. Officials from Correctional Service of Canada would definitely be better placed to advise on the programs currently in penitentiaries and the types of treatment that are available, because some people apparently are not suitable for treatment in any event.