Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse the very qualified and judicious comments of the hon. member for Lévis-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, whose pragmatism has always benefited this House.
My colleague reflects the view of our caucus when he says that there is a point beyond which sentencing, because of its excessive nature, becomes counterproductive. I also heard the hon. member for Chambly, who is also a legal expert, and whose comments were just as judicious. He reminded us that the practical consequence of a bill like this one, if it is passed, is to authorize and encourage hit and run offences.
Is this what we, as parliamentarians, want? As I remember, the Criminal Code includes a provision requiring people to provide assistance when a person's life is in danger, although I cannot tell members which section it is.
We are acutely aware of the fact that we must deter people from driving under the influence. We do not believe that, from a social perspective, that objective can be achieved through excessive sentencing. We must think about it: life imprisonment.
The sentence is of course imposed by the bench, but the practical consequence of the proposed legislation is to allow a judge to impose life imprisonment on a person who drove under the influence, when those who commit the most serious crimes— those who terrorize us—can get away with a 14 year sentence.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand. It seems to me that the point of view defended by the Bloc Quebecois is a balanced, reasonable and rational one that calls for a fair trade-off between what the Criminal Code allows and the integrity to which we must aspire as individuals.
What I am asking the government to do—and I do not think it excessive—is to recall the bill, not to put it on the Order Paper for consideration by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
We are not in any way minimizing its importance. I would not like it myself if my sister, my brother or my little nephew were killed in a collision with a drunk driver. As parliamentarians, we do not wish to experience this in our personal lives, but I think that we must not go to extremes and pass bills as radically unreasonable as this.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is with us today. I say to him, as we have always done—we are a responsible opposition—that when the government introduces balanced bills, bills that are in the best interests of Quebec, we vote in favour. The list of bills that we have supported is a long one. We have always done so with this same sense of proportion and responsibility that must transcend political differences.
I repeat: this bill cannot be supported because, as the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has said, it goes too far.