I would imagine you're going to tell us if , in your opinion, these amendments are in order. The Bloc Québécois has two problems with this bill. We feel that there is little room for any amendments, even though after glancing at it quickly, what Mr. Comartin is proposing appears interesting. I'll have to discuss this with Ms. Freeman and my colleague the whip. All committee members were provided with approximately thirty scientific studies in both official languages which appeared to call into question the effectiveness of minimum mandatory penalties.
As far as we're concerned, the crux of the bill is the increase in penalties, that is from three years to five years, depending on the offence committed, based on the belief that minimum mandatory penalties have a deterrent effect. However, based on the literature, and on the evidence, both the scientific kind and the testimony presented by most witnesses, we do not believe the committee should be moving in this direction. That's out first point.
The fundamental focus of the bill is minimum mandatory penalties and people either believe that these act as a deterrent, or they do not. Unlike past situations where a judge always had discretionary authority to impose minimum penalties, minimum mandatory penalties bring into play the science of law.
Mr. Chairman, is it too early to ask if you consider the amendments of our colleague Mr.Comartin to be in order?