Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. McCuaig.
I come from Moncton, on the east coast of Canada. I am following the case of the Davis family.
The Davis family, of Moncton, underwent a similar circumstance. Their 17-year-old daughter, 15 years ago or more, was killed on St. George St. in Moncton, not far from where my uncle lived. It was a brutal, premeditated murder. The convicted person has shown no remorse, no tendency toward rehabilitation, and has been putting the family through a recurring nightmare of recounting the incident and giving evidence at successive National Parole Board hearings. It's horrible. The revisiting of the crime for the family is something that is very hard on them, and from your testimony, I know that it is very hard on your family. It's why I have to ask these questions as we go toward this faint hope disappearance act.
Do you think that the sentence given in this case was too light? Do you think that life should mean life imprisonment in this case? With respect to this Mr. Richardson--and I know in the case of the Davis family, Mr. Mailloux--I fear for when these people eventually get out at the end of their sentences. They've shown no motivation toward rehabilitation. They are, the day they get out, a danger to society. Yet our long-term offender and dangerous offender provisions don't kick in automatically. It's almost as if these people have to get out and do something, and then we....
There seems to be a bit of a gap for a number--a small number, I think, but a number--of very serious offenders. I wonder what contribution you can give us, what evidence you might give us, to guide us in some of the other sections of the code to prevent what I think are obvious crimes. There are going to be obvious crimes committed, serious ones, by these very unrehabilitatable offenders. Can you give us any advice in that regard?