In terms of the first point that was made by the witness yesterday—and I haven't seen that testimony—certainly there are safeguards in the process, including the right for the person who has been perhaps wrongfully designated a dangerous offender to appeal that decision. So there is an ability to appeal the court's decision if in fact the offender believes himself or herself to have been wrongfully designated.
We have heard time and time again of cases where there's a reluctance to take the case forward because the threshold is seen as being very high. Really, this bill doesn't change the threshold. There's nothing in it that says we're going to lower the threshold to put more people in jail; it simply says we're going to lower the threshold in making those applications, encouraging an application's being considered after three serious convictions.
The statistics in our brief have simply been regurgitated from the Library of Parliament material already provided to Parliament about this, but they certainly paint a picture of psychopaths, of people with serious sexual abuse issues, and people who are generally victimizing women and children, and—of course, there are lots of generalizations here—in many instances, people who are considered to be at the far end of the scale or spectrum of potential for rehabilitation.
Because of that, and because of demonstrated repeat behaviour and unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate those offenders, a determination is made that the person should no longer be returned to the community because of that concern. There is still a process in place, though, that even once the designation has been made, after seven years it has to be reviewed every two years.
So there are checks and balances all through the system. From our perspective, there are people living in our communities—and in some cases, their lives perhaps didn't start out on the easiest path—who unfortunately present a risk so serious to others that their liberty has to be curtailed.