Thank you, Chair.
I too laud the purpose of this bill. It's well intentioned. The intention is to enhance public safety.
I've heard a lot of testimony. I've read the bill. I had a private conversation with Mr. Cooper. I find it most persuasive, on the whole, that it will not in fact enhance public safety.
Mr. Nicholson said that this bill remedies a problem. Well with all due respect, that begs a question. The question is whether it will in fact remedy the problem. My interpretation of the evidence and the testimony is that it will not. In terms of thinking of the victims of crime, we would serve the victims of crime much better by recognizing that this would not improve their safety.
Mr. Cooper says that we're implementing the government's will. With all due respect, frankly, I take that comment amiss. He says that we are ignoring evidence. I can assure Mr. Cooper that we are acting—I certainly am acting—on the basis of all the evidence, all the details, all the arguments that I've heard. I'm acting on my own behalf, in good faith. I take it quite amiss that Mr. Cooper would impugn the good faith of me and of my colleagues in this manner.
The comments about the minister I think are totally irrelevant. This is about the bill. If Mr. Cooper can't address the issues of the bill without slagging the minister, I think it underscores the weakness of his argument right there.
The bottom line is that I therefore concur in recommending that this bill not be proceeded with in the House.