Number one, that is arguable, but my point is that if you look at the actual paragraph—and I quoted it in my brief—Chief Justice Lamer immediately says, “I reiterate that even in the case of first degree murder, Parliament has been sensitive to the particular circumstances of each offender”, and he cites this process. So you take that out of the decision-making matrix and you've got a whole new issue. He's saying he accepts the constitutionality of the 25-year minimum and in doing so he recognizes what Parliament has structured, including the 15-year review. If you take the 15-year review...it's opened everything up.
On November 4th, 2009. See this statement in context.