I think this is really germane to the discussion.
Mr. Lobb, to you directly, this is about this bill. There are members standing up, Conservative members standing in the House, saying that I side with pedophiles, that I side with sex offenders. How dishonest when members themselves, through the course of committees and talking to witnesses, express sympathy for their situation.
We hear from a young aboriginal man who went through the horror of the residential school system and who had to deal with the pain of being a victim and going through that system. He unfortunately acted out in ways that he probably wished he hadn't. Committee members expressed sympathy for him. They expressed happiness and congratulations that he's moved beyond that; he's now moved into a life where he's successful, and for a long time he's been clear of any criminal wrongdoing. The committee members expressed that sympathy, and then the next day they talked about them as hardened criminals who we should have no sympathy for. It's pretty rich.
When I've expressed concerns with this bill, it's not been with respect to serious sex offenders; it's been with respect to circumstances, as I've outlined earlier, where you could have somebody who is a young mother, who's finding it very difficult to make ends meet, who makes some bad decisions, who writes some fraudulent cheques. That series of decisions could put her in a situation where she's never eligible in her entire life for a pardon.
When I ask questions of the minister, the minister himself acknowledges that there are weaknesses in the bill that need to be amended. For posing those questions, even when the minister agrees with me that the bill needs to be changed, the next day in the House of Commons, and for many days thereafter, I'm talked about as being soft on crime. I understand the objective, which is purely political, but I think it's a darned shame, because at the end of the day there are actual lives tied up in these games. There are people who are actually going to be impacted by the politics that are being played here.
When we sit at this committee and we have an opportunity to debate this bill and the government attacks anyone who asks thoughtful questions, when the government goes after and maligns and smears somebody who simply wants to ensure we pass good legislation, shame on you. You do an enormous disservice to this place. You do an enormous disservice to good legislation and to good debate.
I think members really need to reflect upon that, upon the reasons they're sent here to committee like this. When you have witnesses like we had here, people who are often caught in cycles of victimization, victims themselves who then play out a cycle of victimization and criminality, who have broken it, who clearly have gotten better, who put that in the past....
There was the gentleman who I think we were all taken by, who in a difficult time in his life was selling steroids, who acknowledged the mistake, acknowledged that it was something he shouldn't have been doing. Folks, that gentleman who you were expressing sympathy to, who you were commending for the improvements he'd make in his life, under this bill would potentially never in his life be able to get a pardon.
The other thing that bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is that when we take a look at the amendments that have been given to the committee, we really can't.... I was here at about 5:30 yesterday when we were in receipt of the amendments. We had an emergency debate last night on Haiti. I don't know about some of the members, but I didn't leave the House until 11 p.m. I was about 19 hours on the road this morning--it's to make a point. There were pretty horrific roads this morning. My point, Mr. Chairman, is this. When are we supposed to look at these things? I suppose if I had foregone sleep last night, I could have had the opportunity to look at the government's amendments that they so kindly gave to us late last night--and I can see Mr. McColeman feels very badly for me.
My point is, if we're here and we're going to be debating this matter, how can we seriously debate amendments that we haven't even looked at?
The second point I would make--and I would ask this directly of the government. The minister acknowledged, and, Mr. Chairman, I saw in your own comments that there was room for this bill to be amended and there were areas where it needed to be improved. Yet I don't see any of those amendments before us. We got a couple of days' notice that we were going to be dealing with this. I suppose the government's intention is that we should fix their bill in that period of time, that I should have been sitting by candle through the night writing legislative amendments. This is what is ridiculous about this, this notion that we have to move on this now, when the government itself has acknowledged that this bill needs amendments and it needs to be changed.
I would ask the government, where are those amendments? Are they willing to bring them forward? Are they willing to aid us in drafting them? I can give them very specific areas where this legislation needs to be amended and improved. I have no problem at the appropriate time moving to clause-by-clause and moving forward with the bill once those amendments are ready.
Once we've had an opportunity to look at—how many pages here—15 or 16 pages of amendments that we got late last night, once the government has had an opportunity to draft and deal with some of these items, and once we'd had an opportunity to finish hearing from witnesses, we would be happy to move forward.
There are several witnesses who are still on the table that different members want to hear from that we've not heard from, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned, for example, that we haven't heard from any groups representing women offenders. Obviously, this is going to have serious ramifications for female offenders. Yet at this point we still have not had an opportunity to hear from any of them.
At this point, Mr. Chair, if the government could comment on some of those items, we can see if we can move forward. I can repeat them if Mr. Mackenzie isn't clear. When can we get those kinds of amendments? What about hearing some additional witnesses? What about giving us a little bit of time to look at the 15 or 16 pages of amendments that you've given to us?
If you're serious about this bill and you're serious about passing good legislation and not playing games, can you give us those kinds of answers?