Thanks very much, Chair.
With respect to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition on using section 33, the notwithstanding clause, it's important to note that section 33 is section 33 of the charter. Of course it's legal. Of course it's part of the charter for a reason. Once used, the laws in question are, of course, constitutional.
When we're talking about the rationale for using the notwithstanding clause.... Look, as my colleague, Mr. Kurek, pointed out, when you have someone like the Quebec City mosque shooter who stormed a place of worship, who murdered in cold blood six innocent worshippers in a place where they must have felt safe—we have to feel safe when we go to our places of worship—the violation of that sanctity can't be overstated. For the heinous disregard for the lives of the victims in that terrible event—I'm not going to use the name because they don't deserve the notoriety they were seeking—what the shooter deserves is to spend the rest of their natural life in maximum-security prison. What we've seen is that's not the reality that the individual is going to have to live with.
What are the other options? They'll go to medium security, and then they'll end up with a security override and they'll be in minimum security, and they'll be living in a townhouse with other offenders on a street where there are no walls and no barbed wire.