Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all witnesses here today. It was very enlightening and informative, I must say.
I thank you, Ms. Ross, first of all because of all the work you do. I think it's very important, and sharing your story helps us to understand.
I will keep in mind what you said about how we need more diagnostic centres. I look at the legislation, which in quotation marks is not necessarily even “in front of” Parliament anymore. I think this is important because we're in discussion mode, and we'll make recommendations. Sometimes, maybe it's my age, I get impatient because I think we were all pretty much aware of the situation, but I always learn something and so I'll keep that positive. At the same time, I don't think we'll be able to move it as far forward in this legislature as I wish we could.
However, the point on more diagnostic centres is a very important one because if, at some point in time, we do have a piece of legislation that comes into force, has an impact on the Criminal Code, and changes different things, it will be all fine and dandy but there are a lot of courthouses in this country. It's a big country, and if all the centres for diagnosis are in certain areas, there will be a lot people who will not be able to benefit from this situation. I'm a strong believer that justice should be rendered the same way for everybody.
I think in your testimony, there was some emphasis made by Professor Pei—I hope I say your name right, but believe you me, the way anglophones say my last name, I'm sorry, but not that much.
Anyways, Professor Pei, you were talking about moving beyond a one-size-fits-all system and the fact that we need more diagnostic centres. I am addressing my question maybe to you. How many of those exist in Canada?
Second, the more I hear about FASD, the more I wonder if section 16 of the code in any shape or way could find application because 16.1 says the following:
No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that renders the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
I am curious to hear your view on the matter.
For Chief Alexis, thank you very much for the points you made, which were very, very important, because I was also going to say that mandatory minimum sentences defeat the purpose of Bill C-583. I understand from your recommendation, and I'm sure the other members on the panel today would agree with you, that Bill C-583 or whatever shape it will come back in during a new legislature should give precedent to this over any mandatory minimum sentencing.
Those are my questions.