Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for what he has said. However, I would also like to correct him when he says that debate serves no purpose.
I would remind the minister that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which includes Conservative members, accepted two NDP amendments. The first related to victims.
The minister says debate and conversation serve no purpose. Yet we listened to victims, and they said they wanted to know about the intended place of residence of the accused. The government had to backtrack. It realized that its bill was incomplete, and still had flaws. It was because the opposition was able to look into this and listen to the experts and the victims that we were able to solve the problem.
We proposed other amendments for which we requested verification. We also asked the government to change its position. Unfortunately, it refused.
The government did accept another amendment so that the legislation will be reviewed in five years because, as noted, it still has many flaws. Moreover, there has not been much consultation, particularly with experts working in the field of mental health.
If the minister says that debate serves no purpose, why did the Conservatives accept amendments which resulted in a better bill for victims?