Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply because the hon. minister raises a valid point that what we are debating here is the legislation. As was said before, a thug is a thug and should be treated the same in every instance.
I want to remind the minister of what the Canadian Police Association has said. It is an organization he lauded in the Bill C-68 debate:
Bill C-41 is confused, contradictory and in large part wholly unnecessary. It is a blatant example of what a former Liberal member of the justice committee described as smoke and mirrors legislation. It is put forward as meaningful sentencing reform but it is only that in the sense that it will generate endless litigation with huge attendant costs for little or no purpose.
That is the statement of the Canadian Police Association about the legislation without regard to the categories that have been defined in this legislation.