Mr. Speaker, I listened to the brief comments of the member opposite. She referred to the reasonable prospect of success. That is rather an ambiguous term which has not be defined.
It reminds me a little of the relativity of medical and other information as contained in Bill C-46 wherein sexual assault victims will now be protected. Any information they might have granted or given to a doctor, a counsellor or whomever will be protected and will be denied to defence counsel unless the relativity of the evidence is established in the mind of the court.
Professional witnesses appeared and told us that the courts, without any question, were considering the relativity of information. They are not willing to leave out any information so relativity is a matter of speculation from their point of view.
We are faced with the same thing. What judge would say whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of success? All the applicant has to do is create a doubt in the mind of the judge as to whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of success. We will have as many different definitions of that as we have judges sitting on the cases.
Does Clifford Olson have a reasonable prospect of success? I do not know. There are some judges who might say yes to that. He would not have in my mind. He would not have in the mind of the victims. He very well may find judges who will not take the onus of responsibility but will leave it to a judge and jury to hear the whole of the evidence and view it from stem to stern.
By relying on the second level or another level of appeal in Bill C-45 is unproven. It is untested.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment on that, bearing in mind the evidence that was submitted before the standing committee on Bill C-46 with respect to the judges simply saying any evidence might be relative to the defence.