Thank you.
My concern is about making amendments on the fly without having the benefit of hearing testimony or studying it. Mr. Garrison rightly pointed out that it would then be inconsistent with an act that has had all of that work done, such as listening to victims services and the ombudsperson specifically to talk about this.
It's not that I'm opposed to proactive notification, but it's not for me to decide what's right for victims in terms of the way they receive information, what the most appropriate forum for them is or how we make the process better. I think that kind of top-down approach of telling people what is best for them is what has gotten us a little bit into this situation of forgetting the trauma-informed process that is needed.
That being said, Ms. Gagnon, I'm just curious. At the top, you were mentioning the information that is already sent out in the letter. You were speaking quickly because of the nature of this committee. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. Your interpretation of this bill is to just provide more details, as Mr. Carrie spoke about, of that calculation with a better plain language explanation.
Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes these decisions come as a result of, let's say, an offender's lawyer filing something in the courts to have a different calculation or to have a different ruling, and it's not just X, Y and Z and nothing ever changes within that formula.
Would there be that opportunity? How do you see the implementation of this act, notwithstanding this amendment, for that clarity around how these decisions are made? Even if at the time of sentencing it might be one thing, sometimes changes can happen over time.