I think the Department of Justice could probably deal with this matter more directly in terms of their analysis of the justification of expanding the DNA regime. But my understanding is that it has been reviewed and that it would withstand scrutiny for charter analysis, that it's reasonable to expand the regime in the way that the committee has put forward, and that current case law that the Supreme Court of Canada has brought down suggests that the regime potentially may be changed in the future.
But again, that was not within the scope of the bill that you see before you. So it's a hypothetical issue, and I would assume that this would be addressed by Parliament during its five-year review, as to whether or not the regime should be changed through a major expansion. What offences and what kind of regime would be followed would be for that discussion. A full analysis should be done at that time of the potential charter and justifiable reasons, and perhaps the Canadian Bar Association may have further submissions to be made about the potential offences that would be considered at that time.
Before us today we have only this bill, and the considerations with regard to those impacts are all we have looked at. If we're going to look at a further expansion, then I think we'd have to take that, and look at it for those purposes at the time. But if the committee chooses to put those things forward, I guess we'd have to look at the benefits that would flow from it in terms of the potential for public safety.