Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Danson, thank you for being here and for shedding light on the reality of victims of crime.
In Paul Bernardo's case, it goes without saying that we're all stunned by the type of crime he committed. Through you, Mr. Danson, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the families of the victims. I can't imagine the pain they're going through.
Having said that, we're looking at changing the rules that are in place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most important part of your testimony is that, in some cases, such as the one before us, the least restrictive sentence principle shouldn't apply. Instead, a severe punishment, such as a life sentence, should be imposed.
However, you told us that you believe in rehabilitation. You said that, in the majority of cases, it takes a lot of effort and money to ensure that criminals who end up behind bars have a chance of being rehabilitated, so that they are no longer a danger to public safety when they are released.
All of this leads me to ask you the following question. There are cases in which rehabilitation is possible and in which the least restrictive sentence should be imposed. However, there are also cases, like Bernardo's, where rehabilitation isn't possible and where people must be kept behind bars in the public interest. Where do we draw the line?