I think everybody wants to have a system that has the right balance and reflects the need for public safety. Everybody is in agreement with this. Our position is that the bill responds to some of the victim's needs, but not all of them. It gives information rights, but it does not give rights to financial aid, services, or support. That's a mistake.
The second part has to do with a mental health strategy that looks at the way in which you could prevent some of the...to improve the way access to services and identification is done, and that those are done in the appropriate way. I think that's what we are hearing. We are concerned that the use of the word “brutal” in proposed paragraph 672.64 (1)(b) regarding high-risk accused is unworkable. It is vague enough and arbitrary enough that it will not do what the government wants it to, and it has the potential to raise some constitutional challenges.
Finally, I want to reinforce how important it would be to have a proper evaluation framework to see what the effect of this bill is on the ground. Experts have feared it would have the reverse effect. I think the responsible way, if you're going to go forward, is at least to ensure that you're putting yourself on notice that in three to five years, you will be able to see whether it worked, whether it did the things the government said it was going to do.