Okay. I think I understand your point.
I understand Mr. Housefather's point, and I get where he's coming from. I listened carefully to Mr. Garrison's point and to Mr. Moore's point. I think the two are actually quite reconcilable.
I know that Mr. Garrison, somewhat in contradiction to Mr. Moore's point, spoke about how we want to put the right people in jail. I believe Mr. Moore's point is that, generally, our system does get it right. It gets it right almost always, and that's the whole point: When there is a wrongful conviction, it does strike at the heart of the justice system because it is meant to be rare. Frankly, I think it is rare.
Mr. Moore's point is that in most cases where the right person was convicted, the victim is reliving it. Mr. Garrison's point is that we want to get the right people in jail. The two are there; the two are reconcilable.
My concern is this. Let's say a person is convicted by a jury on May 1, and on May 2 that person is applying for a wrongful conviction. I don't know if that's your intention, Mr. Housefather, but that is what is permitted by this amendment. That is my concern.
That's why I asked whether Mr. Housefather's intent was to look at somebody who didn't have the resources. I think that almost everybody would get funding for a meritorious appeal through legal aid. I can't say that with one hundred per cent certainty, but that's my impression anecdotally.
I am concerned that somebody who is convicted on May 1 can then turn to this legislation on May 2. If that's not your intent, then I believe we should be looking at a subamendment. I am happy to put one forward, but I don't know. Again, that's why asked you for your intention.