If that's the case and it's the presumption that they rarely get parole, then the benefit of the bill from the perspective of the victim is that at least if the criminal or the convicted person is very unlikely to get parole under such heinous circumstances, why wouldn't we afford the victims the benefit of not having to go through these parole hearings? That's a question for Howard or the folks in B.C. If it's not likely that they're ever going to get parole, why would we put the victim through it?
