That's a fair question, and, yes, I do believe in rehabilitation. More importantly, I believe that criminals found guilty should have the opportunity for rehabilitation.
In the Bissonnette case, which was struck down, it was for parole ineligibility periods of 50, 75 and even 100 years. It's very different. In this case, as I mentioned in my presentation, it's just a combination of the total. That's how we arrived at 40 years. There is opportunity for rehabilitation.
Furthermore, this was modelled after Bill C-48, protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murder acts, which also extended ineligibility. It did survive a charter challenge. In the scope of the 40 years, it has survived the charter challenge. It is a long period from the 75 and 100 years within the Bissonnette decision. It allows for the possibility of rehabilitation. However unlikely it may be in this case, I do agree that it is a valid requirement for the possibility of rehabilitation.