Isn't it curious that those phrases were lifted from the parliamentary secretary Mr. Petit's speech when he supported this bill? It's interesting that discretion can be used as an argument to keep this bill. It is one of the positive points you brought up about the bill. It's what we've been harping about for quite some time with this government. They've come around on the idea that judges are trustworthy with our laws, which is good--that's the good part; we're always looking for the good on that other side.
But let me put a hard case to you. In the late 1970s in my community, Constable Bourgeois and Constable O'Leary were murdered by Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Ambrose. I remember it as a kid. They admitted to the murders and were convicted. Of course, that was in the late 1970s, after the death penalty was repealed. They are now gradually coming up for parole.
I can tell you that to a person, Liberals and Conservatives--and even Bloc, if there were supporters in Moncton--would be appalled if they had the collective corporate memory of the people in the community that this can happen.
When you say it's not a problem, what you're really saying is we have to trust the parole board for this. I'm not sure, maybe that's a separate issue, because many people don't have faith in the parole board. Why should we have faith in the parole board? In that case, I'm guessing a local judge, local community, or local jury would have some influence in suggesting that those two individuals, Hutchison and Ambrose, should have got--and it's a clear case of two murders--parole ineligibility of 50 years. I can see that happening and a judge granting that if he had the discretion. It's a clear case to me.
Why should we trust the parole board to do what might have been a judge's job?