I have a fair bit to say on this, because I felt exactly the same way as Mr. Holland did within moments of seeing this legislation tabled. One of the advantages of being new to Parliament is that I still approach my duties with a fair degree of sincerity and good faith that the work we do here matters. The kind of cynicism that I think underpins this act of the government is something that disappoints me and something I don't have a lot of experience with.
Mr. Norlock makes a fair point, in the sense that this legislation will come back to the committee. I hadn't considered that. I suppose that mitigates some of the effect of this, and I'll give that due consideration.
But this is what I wonder. What does this action of the government say to the witnesses who testified here? These people took their time to come here and to give their input to the committee, and the government didn't wait to even hear officially what that input was. What does that say to them?
Second, this is a statutory review. In my opinion, the whole purpose of what a previous Parliament put into law has been gutted because there hasn't been one. If government is going to act and make their legislative changes without waiting for the very statutory review to help inform their future legislative moves, there hasn't been a statutory review at all.
Third, I think this was disrespectful of all the members of this committee, including my colleagues on the government side.
I have a couple of questions in my mind that I don't expect to be answered here. If the government members did not know that this legislation was going to come.... I want to pause to say that this legislation wasn't drafted on Sunday. I'm a lawyer; I know how long it takes for legislation to be drafted. It would have taken weeks for this legislation to be drafted before it was introduced this week. If the government members did not know, then I think this action is just as disrespectful of them as it is of us, and if they did know, I have some other questions.
I want to point out, contrary to Mr. Norlock's comment--with which I will disagree, with respect--that there is no urgency to this legislation this week, none. Nothing has happened in Canada in the last two or three days that would justify an emergency, urgent introduction to Parliament of amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registry Act. I might be able to understand, if there had been some urgency and someone could explain that to me, but there is none.
The last point I want to make is that I have a different conclusion from Mr. Norlock's point about this being a minority Parliament. That's precisely my point: this is a minority Parliament. That means that when we have to take up a parliamentary statutory review, the review must reflect the current makeup of this Parliament, and it's not a Conservative majority Parliament. That means that the statutory review must be informed by the input of all of us. To reflect that statutory review means that the minister should have—must have—in front of him the review of this committee, which is made up of no one party that has a majority, and with all of our input, which the majority of Canadian citizens have decided they want reflected in their legislation.
When you have a bill like this and—I'll call it a stunt—when I see a stunt like this pulled, whereby the government puts forward legislation that reflects only the Conservative perspective, without the input of all the members of this Parliament, of all the members of this committee, and of the witnesses who testified, I think this committee ought to express our displeasure in the most stark terms. I would hope that members on the other side of this table agree with that. As I said, I think their rights as parliamentarians and their hard work have been disrespected as much as all of ours have been.