I originally thought we might have seven minutes, but in the five minutes that I have, I'm very interested in the crux of your evidence, and that's with regard to constitutionality.
You were very clear.
We are, or I am, now used to three and a half years of ministers coming with laws without tabling or even referring to the constitutionality of them--charterproofing, in other words--and that's a good minister with good staff. We're used to that by now. We're numb to it. It's not great, but it's the way it is.
You mentioned the constitutional issues here, the charterproofing issues, that would be gone if the faint hope disappears. I think you're saying that someone in the new regime, newly convicted with a life sentence or convicted of treason, for that matter, would apply for a charter challenge on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment because he or she is facing 25 years without the chance of applying for parole. What kind of evidence would be led? How successful would it be? What are you relying on in terms of case law or international comparison to conclude as you will?