Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member calls for consultations. I would remind him that Bill C-41 is before the House. A section of that bill got a lot of headlines and a lot of debate in this House. One of the sections that was dealt with in Bill C-41 was section 745. Surprise.
I was on the justice committee then. A lot of people had the opportunity to make whatever submissions they wanted to make on section 745. A few did. A few did say to get rid of it and a few said to keep it.
There was ample opportunity for consultation with respect to section 745. That is exactly where I moved my amendment to require that the jury be unanimous in reaching its verdict. When I say verdict, I should not use that term legally; I mean in reaching its decision of whether or not to allow for reduced eligibility for parole.
There was a lot of consultation on section 745. As it happens it is a huge bill which also contains the words "sexual orientation" and everybody started talking about that, except the people on the justice committee who were doing their jobs. We looked at every section and talked about a whole host of sections and made amendments. There were consultations.
Also, I have no problem at all, none, in saying that if there is one single member of a jury who says no, then it is no. Just as the convicted criminal has no problem if one single member of the jury says not guilty and the other 11 say guilty and he walks free. He has no problem with that. I have no problem with one saying no.