Thank you, Mr. Moore, for that question.
Obviously, whether it's survivors of the mosque shooting in Quebec City or the Bosma family or others who have been victims of these horrific acts, our sympathy goes out to them. We do our best to make the system work as quickly as possible.
We diligently tried to fill the position of ombudsperson for victims of crime. Sometimes there are things that turn out to be out of your control in the way those processes work at an individual level. I won't go any further into detail, but we did our best from the beginning to fill that position. We have now done so. I think everyone agrees that the person we have picked is very good.
The difference between the Bissonnette decision and this case is that the Supreme Court gave us a couple of paths to move forward. The Bissonnette decision, again, doesn't change the actual sentence that the convicted killer got in that case. It only adds eligibility for parole. I appreciate that this is important, but eligibility for parole does not mean the person will get parole. We did our best to defend that case as part of the discretion a judge has to impose that kind of sentence. That was the argument the Attorney General of Canada made in that case in front of the Supreme Court. The court didn't accept it by a 9-0 decision.
I'm open to suggestions, but it doesn't have a path, or two paths in the case we're looking at today, with Brown and Sullivan. It doesn't have an easy or clear path. The decision of the Supreme Court was pretty clear in terms of the interpretation of the Constitution.
I would just underline that eligibility for parole is not parole. It doesn't guarantee parole, and the sentence as it exists still stands.