Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can say sincerely that we agree with our colleagues on many aspects of the anti-crime bill. But there are other issues on which we do not agree with them.
I have met a few times with my counterpart from Quebec, the minister whose portfolio is similar to mine, on the provincial side. We want to develop agreements whereby we can continue to recognize the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces, especially Quebec, that have developed their own specific programs. We will continue to work respectfully with the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec.
Regarding mandatory minimum sentences, my colleague said that there are no studies proving that mandatory minimum sentences can prevent crime. I do not agree with him.
We know one thing for sure: people who are in prison cannot commit crimes against our citizens. For each individual case, there would be no crime committed against our citizens.
In response to his question about the appeal courts, it is true that there are documents that show the severity of appeal court sentences and can be used to determine whether judges hand down stiffer sentences to repeat offenders. Three weeks ago, I produced a list of judgments in courts in western Canada. The list shows that people who have committed 50, 60, 70, 80 and sometimes more than 100 crimes continue to receive very light sentences.
I understand that judges have reasons for the decisions they hand down. I am not arguing with that. But if offenders receive stiffer sentences, of more than two years, they are sent to a federal rather than a provincial prison, and they can benefit from addiction treatment programs that can prevent them from reoffending.