Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who has attempted to put this debate in its true context. We have in front of us a simple bill, Bill C-53, a bill that has been discussed and negotiated after several years of discussions not only with the provinces and the territories but with each official judicial power and each provincial justice ministry. They have unanimously endorsed our position.
Members opposite seem to have difficulty understanding that this bill deals with provincial legislation which affects offenders serving two years less a day. I sat hear patiently this morning and listened to the rhetoric and the challenges of the members of the Reform Party. They challenged the government as to what it has done. I will remind them of our initiatives.
I remind them of the provisions in Bill C-45 to establish someone as a long term offender. I remind them of the indefinite sentences that have been imposed on those long term and dangerous offenders. They are indefinite sentences in the sense that they will no longer only get 10 years but a judge has to condemn them to indefinite sentences. This means they are not eligible for parole before seven years. It also means that after those seven years their sentences could be prolonged by a subsequent two years and cannot come up for review before two years.
Why did Reformers vote against those initiatives? Why did they vote against the initiative to allow for 10-year supervision after a complete sentence has been served by an offender? Instead they have chosen to hide behind the rhetoric.
I will ask the member specifically since it was he who brought it up. Last spring when it came time to review section 745, the infamous faint hope clause, we could have put serial killers behind bars for good without eligibility for parole. We could have specifically addressed the case of Clifford Olson to prevent him from even applying. Why did the member's party vote against all these initiatives? Why, why, why?