That being said, I agree with my friend, Mr. Dechert, that the members of this committee ought to vote against this amendment for the reasons Mr. Dechert explained.
The whole argument that judges will be reluctant to grant an additional 25-year sentence is not only overstated, but we haven't heard any evidence that that's the case. We've heard some speculation from an eminent defence lawyer, but certainly we haven't heard any judges, for example, who came before the committee and opined that they might be reluctant to do it.
This bill is specific to the most heinous of criminals. We all know who they are: Olson, Pickton, Williams.
The cases that have been cited were the crimes of passion, or they're drug deals gone bad where there might be more than one victim. Those situations are covered by the discretion in the unamended bill, where a judge who doesn't want to give consecutive periods of parole ineligibility doesn't have to, but can for the most heinous criminals.
I just want to close and remind all the members of this committee of the very compelling evidence of Ms. Rosenfeldt, who was here on Tuesday, I believe. When specifically asked by my friend, Ms. Jennings, whether she would support an amendment that would allow for something in between zero and 25 years of a consecutive period of parole ineligibility for a multiple murder situation, she unequivocally said no, she would not support that amendment. She supports the bill as written, and so do I.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.