Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say this about a kind of throwaway remark you made, but I think it needs to be addressed.
You asked why the Liberals are not supporting mandatory minimums. I have to say this is a misrepresentation of the historical record, and indeed of the contemporary record. There are more mandatory minimums for gun-related crimes in the Criminal Code, some 20, than for any other crime except murder. Those mandatory minimums were introduced by the Liberal government some 10 years ago when the opposition, your party in its predecessor form, actually opposed them.
In November 2005, following a meeting of federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice, as the Minister of Justice at the time, upon the unanimous recommendation of those ministers, I introduced a comprehensive legislative package that included targeted mandatory minimums in the matters of smuggling, trafficking, and use of a loaded weapon in a public place.
The issue, therefore, is not having mandatory minimums or not. The issue is why your government has introduced a range of mandatory minimums of such scope and excess, including mandatory minimums, for some, of 10 years, when, number one, all the evidence has shown that such mandatory minimums neither are a deterrent nor are effective; when the very evidence relied upon by the Minister of Justice to support them—that is to say, evidence from the states of Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York, as examples—demonstrated the exact opposite of what the minister claimed; when they have a disproportionate impact on aboriginal people; and when experts have concluded that such mandatory minimums are wrong-headed as a matter of policy and suspect as a matter of law.
It is not a question that we did not support mandatory minimums. We supported those we felt were effective as a matter of policy and not suspect as a matter of law. To turn it the other way around, why is your government introducing such mandatory minimums when the evidence demonstrates otherwise?