Mr. Chair, I will address two points.
Regarding Ms. Rosenfeld, who testified, certainly the bill can unfortunately not apply to her, even if it was enacted at top speed, because Mr. Olson has already been serving his sentence for over 25 years. So clearly he can come back. And in any event, this bill is not retroactive.
However, I admit that Mr. Giokas's comments gave me pause, I have to admit it. Like my colleague Mr. Ménard, I too have studied it carefully. It seemed to me that it might respond to a number of fears, but mainly it responded to the objective... In other words, the judge could—and I would not want to repeat everything said by my colleague Mr. Ménard—impose a "graduated" sentence, under paragraph 745.21(b) that it is proposed to add by amendment LIB-1.
To start with, certainly amendment LIB-1, concerning paragraph 745.21(a) that it is proposed to add, deals with consecutive sentences, and so the eligibility periods are consecutive.
If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Giokas, it seemed to me that when I interpreted amendment LIB-1 and paragraph 745.21(a) and then subparagraphs 745.21(b)(i) and (ii) that it proposes to add, it met, or at least it avoided what you pointed out.
I would like to hear you on that question. I may not have understood correctly. However, it seems to me that we have to interpret paragraph 745.21(a) of amendment LIB-1 and then subparagraphs 745.21(b)(i) and (ii).