Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's remarks. He started by saying this is a terrible bill and accused my party and predecessors of fearmongering. He then proceeded to do his own fearmongering about bringing back the death penalty.
He brought up the bogeyman of prorogation, even though prorogation is something that has happened 105 times in 140 years, as though that were some scary thing.
The member says this is an ideological debate. Actually, it is an ideological debate and not on one side of the House. It is about competing ideologies. His position and that of the Bloc is certainly no less ideological than the position of other members in the House. Certainly there is an ideology about how we manage very serious crimes. We are talking about first degree and multiple murderers and about what has been characterized as the faint hope clause.
This debate is about truth in sentencing. We are talking about a 25-year sentence before parole. That is what murderers are given, but the faint hope clause allows them to apply much earlier.
The member is advocating now that victims should not be informed of early parole for a murderer, but we are talking about a 25-year sentence for murder. Victims' families have lost a family member, communities have lost a family member and the sentence for the person who has been murdered is life for sure. The deceased has lot an entire life at that point.
We are talking about the consequences for serious crimes. What is it about this debate that the member thinks is ideological only on one side of the House and why does he not honour the concerns of the victims?