Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question worries me without worrying me. It is a highly relevant question.
I remind hon. members that the bill does not specify what would happen if just one person raced for the fun of it. There has to be at least two cars for this bill to apply. That is debatable.
As far as the point made by the hon. member is concerned, this goes back to the debate on minimum sentences. I was wondering about that too, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. The judge needs to be given some latitude. I believe strongly in personalized justice with a case-by-case approach. The judge has the necessary knowledge for giving a ruling with a view to protecting the public and the individual's rights. In that sense, the question should be asked, especially when the hon. member gives the example of a young man who was inadvertently involved in an auto theft committed by his neighbour. The neighbour told the young man to drive the car, but failed to tell him the car was stolen. This poses a problem. The judge is in a good position to give a balanced ruling. If there is a minimum sentence, then the judge no longer has any choice.
He could even decide to acquit the accused because a five-year sentence would seem unreasonable.
The hon. member is right to ask these questions. I look forward to discussing this at greater length in committee.