As I've indicated, there are some provisions in it that are vulnerable. The use of the word “brutal” is not one that commands sufficient definitional certitude for it to pass an arbitrariness test. That's the first part.
The second part is there's some difficulty in reconciling the way in which the framework is limiting the therapeutic approach, which limits the way you treat the disease. That also may raise some concern on the security of the person, fundamental justice....
In our view, that's where le bât blesse, in the malleability of the terms that are used. It's not going to be sufficient to say that we know what we mean because those were the tragedies that were dealt by Parliament at the time. That's our concern. The wording just does not do justice to what's being sought.
It's quite possible to give good informational rights to victims, which should be present throughout the system, and they are. They should continue to be forcefully advocated for. The other needs should be looked after as well.
There's a nice argument now that section 7 also provides some ways in which to reconcile these rights.