Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member for Trinity—Spadina.
The government has come forward with this legislation and is talking about its agenda on crime. We have asked time and time again of the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice for any piece of documented evidence that shows that minimum mandatory sentences, the main mechanism in the bill, are effective mechanisms in treating drug crimes, which is something of interest to all members of the House. There is a lot of evidence on the other side that says this mechanism and tool do not work for these types of crimes.
In this Parliament in which we try to construct laws that are based on reason and fact and effort of study, we have asked for those studies from the government. It has come forward with nothing and has said that it is just Conservative logic.
The chair of the committee yesterday yelled at me and said it was just logical, according to him. He did not need evidence. He did not need any research. He did not need any study. He just needed his own logic to craft laws. The logic of his perspective was enough. His ideology was enough to carry the day.
What is a Parliament? What are members of Parliament, if ideology is all we are relying upon in writing the laws for this country for future generations?
As we construct laws, as we look at the sensitive and often passionate and inspiring issues of drug law in Canada, what should members of Parliament be relying upon? Should it be their own personal ideology, or the best evidence that we can pull together to write the best laws that we can for Canadians?