I don't have any empirical evidence before me that I can cite. I think this is a broader public policy position that we take.
It's the same reason we believe that mandatory minimum prison sentences are appropriate in certain circumstances. People can talk about whether a mandatory prison sentence facilitates deterrence or denunciation, but what is clear is that it incapacitates a criminal and that individual cannot then commit those crimes.
I think a similar philosophy is applicable in this case, and for that reason I'm very supportive of an extension. You could ask exactly the same question: Why increase it to five? Why not go down to one? Why not allow the person to make an application the day after?
This is a judgment call we have to make as policy-makers, as parliamentarians. We bring our experience to this job to make that determination. I wouldn't agree with a one-year extension. I wouldn't agree with a two-year extension. I don't agree with a three-year extension.
Where do we go from that? Do we agree on four years? Do we agree on five years? I think five years is good. Everything I know about the criminal justice system and my experience in life tells me that five years is a pretty good compromise from never giving it or giving it immediately.