Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I provide some thoughts regarding the amendment that is being brought forward by my colleague from Mount Royal. He is an individual who has contributed immensely to the whole justice debate over the years, not only as a justice critic but also as a former justice minister. Not only members in this chamber but many people outside the House of Commons listen to what he provides, whether it is in the form of legislation, private members' business or amendments. I emphasize how important it is that the sponsor of this bill listen very closely to what the member for Mount Royal talks about regarding his amendment. I believe it would make a whole lot of sense for the government to accept the amendment.
We can recall other times when the member for Mount Royal, in dealing with justice, brought forward amendments to substantial government legislation at the committee stage, but the government voted all of them down. Neither we nor the government members were allowed to bring forward the amendments at third reading. The legislation had to go to the other house in order to introduce the amendments which the member for Mount Royal was unable to get passed in committee because the Conservatives voted them down. In the other place, the Conservative senators were able to introduce the amendments and send the amended legislation back to the House.
I raise that to highlight how important it is that the sponsor of the bill recognize that the amendments that are being brought forward by the member for Mount Royal on behalf of the Liberal caucus are of a very serious nature. If the member wants to improve the legislation, we highly recommend that he vote in favour of the amendments.
Having said that, I ask that the government not see our bringing forward these amendments as an endorsement of the bill itself. We are trying to improve the bill. The bill still has a fundamental flaw in it with regard to about minimum sentences. My Liberal colleagues and I, and I would like to think all members of the House of Commons are appalled when we see news stories about a missing child. We know the very profound impact that situation has on the community, and more specifically on the parents and family members of the child. We know that if a child is not located in a short period of time after being reported as missing, the chances of the child returning are not good. Far too often, unspeakable things are done to children who are abducted. Victims are created. I would like to think everyone believes, as I do, that the primary victims would be the parents.
My children are older now, 23 and 20, but I shudder to think of one of them going to school and never returning when they were growing up. We can sympathize with people who have to go through that trauma, but we can never genuinely empathize with them because it is such a shocking and horrible experience. Having said that, our hearts, thoughts and prayers go out to those victims.
As my constituents of Winnipeg North watch the news, they may want a kidnapped child to be brought back home but, sadly, it may not happen. Quite often, the remains of the child may be found or we may apprehend the person who perpetrated the crime. When that name is flashed on TV and people read about it in the newspaper, the gut feeling of the vast majority of Canadians is to put that person in jail and throw away the key.
I do not want to defend a pedophile or some of the twisted minds that might be out there, but I do want to defend our judicial system. I might not agree with it all the time but I will defend the decisions of the courts. Who we are as a nation includes having independence within our judicial system.
I choose to believe that our judges are in the best position to get an accurate assessment of what has taken place. Through the support of our judicial system and the different stakeholders, they are able to make an educated decision as to what the consequence should and could be in all situations, including one where a child is kidnapped.
After having had the opportunity to listen and talk to others regarding the legislation, I have not heard examples or specific cases of an offender being let out of jail within a year or so after kidnapping, murdering or raping a child. I do not hear members of the public saying that our judicial system is letting us down on that front.
Prior to this debate, we were debating a government bill that would take away the opportunity for judges to recognize, on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, when an offender may not be able to pay fines. I think we have to be very careful when we do that.
I will conclude with a study from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University entitled, “Mandatory Minimum Penalties: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures”. It observes that mandatory minimum sentences calling for lengthy prison terms can carry a massive financial cost and grossly disproportionate sentences.
It also notes that where prison overcrowding results from mandatory minimums, such increases in incarceration rates can lead to the early release of other offenders who were not the subjects of mandatory minimums, thereby weakening the justice system's response to other crimes.
We need to have the facts on the table. I do not believe the government has done the background work to provide the information necessary to justify this, but I hope it will recognize the value of passing the amendments brought forward by the member for Mount Royal.