Mr. Speaker, I do not take the same position as the member across the way. For example, I support the mandatory revocation of driver's licences for impaired driving for those who kill on our roads. I know the member may not support that but I believe the majority of members in the House do.
This type of attitude that parliamentarians cannot send out messages in our legislation setting certain floors is a completely irresponsible attitude. We would not be responding to the demands of our constituents.
When I look at the calls by people like MADD Canada, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, it calls for mandatory licence prohibitions and the elimination of conditional sentences for those who kill on our highways. The member across the way may not have concerns about those kinds of killings but killings on highways, for example, are one of the leading criminal causes of deaths. The member may not be concerned about that but I am.
I have worked long and hard in the justice system to bring about administrative licence suspensions roadside and the administration seizure of motor vehicles for those who drink and drive.
I was very disappointed to see the member stand in the House and say that we should just open this up and remove mandatory sentences, such as licence prohibitions, fines or conditional sentences.
I do not know whether the member is a lawyer but he sounds like a lawyer who is more interested in representing the interests of the accused. Our government is interested in rebalancing the system to ensure that victims have a voice in our country's legal system. This bill, in that respect, reflects that and I am proud of the steps our government has taken.
I would discourage the member from making those kinds of irresponsible statements about what Parliament should be doing in respect of helping victims.