Mr. Speaker, I will try to go slowly in order that the interpreter and my colleague may fully grasp what I am saying.
I do not understand—and perhaps you could explain this to me—why you are changing something that works perfectly well. The faint hope clause works perfectly well. We have all the numbers from the solicitor general and the parole board. All the numbers show that among all the prisoners released as a result of the faint hope clause, none reoffended by committing an offence as significant or serious as murder. There has been no failure.
There are currently 4,000 prisoners serving life sentences at a cost of $100,000 each. If you do the math, it costs several hundred million dollars a year.
My question is: why change something that works just fine?