Thank you.
I agree with you. The fact that they said “discretion” in a sense defeats the purpose of what the witnesses are saying, because they're hoping that it will be the case. Aren't you afraid that they might never apply it because of that discretion? It's a catch-22. If you had put it as an obligation of the court to impose, we definitely would be seeing that case in the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact that it's a discretion doesn't mean that if a judge imposes it, the decision will not be sent to the courts.
That's why I think it's so important to get that legal advice that would say, based on the jurisprudence, the specific cases that are in the purview of this bill. The fact that they're horrible crimes, not just any petty crime. It's people like, to use the words of Ms. Ashley, a dangerous psychopath. We think of Bernardo. We think of these people. I still say there's that aspect that is still very questionable in the file on that basis.
I'm afraid the jury might say that this is such a disgusting individual there's no possibility of parole for 40 years, and the judge will say he's afraid it will be contested and just go on with the 25 years. So we're doing it for nothing.
Do you have statistics on the number of cases your bill could apply to?