All right. On this amendment, I have just this brief comment.
I think Canadians, the public, want to know that one means one, and I think when a judge sees that and orders that, that's what they want the judge to say. There's a lot of talk around here about judges and their accountability and their discretion, and there are different points of view on that. However, this is a very clear message to judges that one shall mean one. The only footnote I would put to it--I'm not sure I'm supporting these amendments--is that the evidence appears to be that in all sentences given, close to all, over 98% of sentences, whether in remand facilities, provincial or federal facilities, the statistics seems to be that two-thirds of that time in all of those sentences is served.
It would be a bit disturbing to me as a lawmaker, as this rolls out, which is why I think the Department of Justice and the government must monitor this bill carefully, that the person on remand would possibly, if one equalled one, serve more time at the end of a sentence if he or she were remanded for almost the entirety of that sentence, as given, than a person who, on the first day available, pled guilty and would receive, according to the statistics, two-thirds of the time.
Mr. Daubney, I don't know if you have any evidence to counter what Dr. Doob presented last time by way of that analogy, but the glaring inconsistency of having someone on remand serve more time than a person normally convicted of an offence troubles me. Do you have anything to offer on that?