Okay. I can read, and I'm a lawyer too, and it says item 3 of schedule 1. Item 3 means something. You act as if those words are not there, with respect.
Mr. Minister, last June the New Democrats worked with the government to pass what I think we all agree are important changes to strengthen the pardon system in Canada. The NDP pushed to fast-track the proposal to give the National Parole Board discretion to deny pardons in any case of an indictable offence or an offence by summary conviction if it involved a sexual offence against a child, if this would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The NDP also pushed...in fact it was our party that insisted the list include manslaughter, which is the provision that ensured Karla Homolka would not be eligible to apply for a pardon this summer. Thanks to all parties' work on this issue, under the Criminal Records Act it is in effect today.
I think it can be said that the parole board now has the discretion, which you properly identified it was lacking before, to deny pardons for any kind of serious offence, as all indictable offences or sexual offences involving children are.
I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, isn't it better for the National Parole Board to have that discretion to grant or deny pardons in individual cases where it's appropriate, or not to do so, rather than have arbitrary categories like more than three indictable offences, or a certain offence, and you're precluded forever from having a pardon? There are varying factors. Not all offenders are exactly the same.