Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Muise, for being here again.
Just to pick up on this point, on the Callow case, when I started studying it, my initial reaction was that they didn't have enough evidence, that he hadn't committed enough crimes. But then when I explored his history, combined with the five convictions, it seemed to me that he was a classic case for it.
Do you have any knowledge as to why the prosecutors in Toronto did not move for dangerous offender? They certainly didn't need this legislation to do it. They didn't need the third time around. They didn't need to give him a third time. Do you have any idea why they did not?