Okay, thank you.
I think Ms. Besner answered my question in her last thought there about reasonable grounds to believe versus actual belief. It seems as though it is a more narrow concept.
I don't disagree with Mr. Garrison. The whole reason we're here is that people have told us the current legislation is unduly restrictive. The debate we're having right now is about to what degree we open it up. It's fairly plain. I don't know that we can simply say, “Well, they've said it's too restrictive; therefore, let's open it up.” As parliamentarians, our role is to question how far we open it up. What threshold are we looking at?
I take Mr. Moore's comments as apposite here. The threshold has been too high, but does that mean we make the threshold what could be unduly low? Then we could be looking at a flood of applications that are not themselves meritorious and were not the intent of the legislation, which is to say that too many people who were wrongfully convicted have not been able to avail themselves of the process. That is a problem. We want to remedy that. That doesn't mean we want to let people who are simply dissatisfied unduly avail themselves of the process. I worry that we are going too far.
I know this amendment is likely to be defeated, but I wanted to place my concerns on the record.
Thank you.