This has to do with the rights in relation to parole boards and the conduct of parole hearings. Clause 97 deals with waiver and postponement of hearings, which is important. It refers back to an earlier provision of that section. We believe there should be the right to postponement, but the problem has been, I think, that victims have complained that individuals are cancelling hearings without notice. It's a problem that has been brought forward by victims. They want to have rights in relation to parole hearings, including allowing for victim statements for parole hearings, as was part of clause 96, which we supported. So we support these changes.
We also support, of course, the right of offenders to have a proper opportunity to have their parole hearing taking place when they have the information that they need. So there has to be a balance here. I think it's the point of both clauses 96 and 97 that offenders who seek parole have a right to do it. I think we need to remember that some of these concerns about parole hearings and how offenders are affected by that came about as a result of a couple of very high-profile and frankly outrageous abuses of the system by one or two individuals. Clifford Olson comes to mind as really provoking the families of his homicide victims by abusing the system.
Now Mr. Olson is dead. I don't know of any other examples like Mr. Olson's behaviour in terms of jerking around the parole system. Perhaps members opposite do. But I do know that victims' groups are rightfully terribly concerned that families of victims of horrendous crimes, such as those committed by Mr. Olson, have every right to be disturbed by a law that allows this to happen.