Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. O'Sullivan, I'm not surprised, because we've heard a number of the witnesses and some of the people you've actually mentioned already. But the lack of knowledge that remains about how this system works is amazing to me. You repeated it today. Speaking on behalf of the victims, you mentioned the fear that at the 15-year mark, the 17-year mark, the 19-year mark, the 21-year mark, the 23-year mark, and the 25-year mark they're going to be faced with an application. That's just absolutely false. I'm just going to share some information with you, as ombudsperson for Canada for the victims of crime, and ask that somehow your office assist victims to get this knowledge, to counter a good deal of the fearmongering that has gone on and been whipped up into really highly passionate levels.
There have been only four cases in which somebody has applied a second time. Last year, 25 years was in fact what people served, even when they applied for the faint hope clause. So we can say to the victims' families and their friends and their loved ones, “You don't have to worry about that”. I really would ask you to do that. That's a comment.
I do have a question. I strongly support your comments about the importance of communication to the families of the victims of murder in this country. What came out at the last hearing from Mr. Head, who is the Commissioner for Corrections, was that at the year before the person is eligible to apply for early release—just to apply for it—they consult with that person. Now, we know from the figures we have and the history we have that only 18% apply. So 82% of the victims' families could be told that at that time. Would you support an amendment to this bill that would require Corrections Canada to advise the families of the victims of murder in this country at that time--mostly at the 14-year mark--that in fact the person is not going to be applying for early release, so they won't have this trepidation, this fear of having to go through the process again?