Madam Speaker, to pick up on a statement the member just made that if members had any thoughts about the victims, we would actually vote in favour of the legislation, I would say it is a very difficult issue. I recognized that from the onset.
I listened very closely to the member for Edmonton Griesbach in the presentation of the legislation. He did a fairly good job at presenting it by encapsulating it in his own words. He said that was how he felt. There was a question posed to him with respect to the legislation being charter-compliant. His response to that question was that he is not a lawyer. Nor am I. I am not a lawyer either. He was expressing how he felt.
If I pick up on that point, I believe that more than 95% of Canadians would be sympathetic and understand how the member for Edmonton Griesbach was feeling about the issue. They would be very sympathetic toward him. I for one think of the horrendous crimes we see in society. They are often televised to the nth degree or used through mediums of communication, with graphic descriptions of what has taken place. One can only imagine the feelings of family and friends as a result of that horrendous crime. I think we all need to appreciate the emotions of family, friends and the public as a whole, when we hear about crimes of a nature like the one that was cited.
I applaud the member in terms of recognizing this as Brian's bill. That is an appropriate thing to do. I believe the member was saying that Mike and Dianne are the names of the parents. I cannot imagine, which I should not even say, what the parents had to go through from the moment they heard of this horrendous crime that had taken place in the community, let alone going through the judicial system and now having to deal with the issue of parole. One can have sympathy, but to have empathy is another thing.
First and foremost, for anyone, I think we can all agree to send condolences, offer prayers and express sympathy when there is a vicious, horrendous crime. It is really important to recognize that right up front. When I think of the types of laws that we debate and talk about here on the floor of the House of Commons, we have these giant hearts, we want to be sympathetic and we want to act on our feelings. However, there are other things that we have to consider as legislators, such as the Charter of Rights and superior court rulings, particularly Supreme Court of Canada rulings. We cannot just ignore those.
The previous speaker referred to our having the notwithstanding clause. I think we need to be very concerned in regard to the degree to which parliamentarians, whether at the provincial level or at the national level, are prepared to engage and say we are going to use the notwithstanding clause.
I would take a look at the origins of the notwithstanding clause, which came in the early eighties. It was put in place for a specific reason that is, no doubt, very compelling. The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause. We have to be very concerned in regard to when members start asking to use the notwithstanding clause.
There is a reason I caution members on this. It can be upsetting. Many things take place in our judicial system that upset me. All forms of decisions are made that I might not necessarily agree with and that I suspect many of my constituents would not agree with. However, what I do know is that this is absolutely essential. It is a centrepiece to the foundations of our democracy.
We are all wearing poppies. The members of our Canadian Forces fought the wars that preceded us for the pillars of democracy, independent judiciaries and an independent media. These are the types of things were fought for. That is why we are all wearing the poppy today.
We should not, under any circumstance or even in special circumstances, turn to the notwithstanding clause. We should look at the importance of recognizing the independence of the judiciary. That means decisions will be made that we do not necessarily agree with.
As legislators, as the Bloc has expressed, that does not mean we have to take a tangible position today on a private member's bill. What it does, and this is where I applaud the member, is it allows for more discussion to take place on an important issue that no doubt Canadians are concerned about.
From a government perspective, all members should be concerned. What we have to look at, and what I look at, are two things in particular: judicial independence and what the Supreme Court of Canada is saying, and the issue of the Charter of Rights. I have personal feelings that I share with the select few individuals here in regard to the crimes that take place in our communities, but I have a legislative responsibility that I believe is absolutely critical in the discussions on issues of this nature.
I would like to think that when I look at the bigger picture of parole, whether it is day parole or full parole, the Parole Board of Canada has done a pretty good job for Canadians. I believe it has a success rate of over 90%. If it can assist in reintegrating individuals, I see that as a positive. I will not comment on what I would do in Brian's story if I was sitting on the Parole Board, but I would like to think that judicial independence also ensures that justice is served in a very real and tangible way.
To Brian's family, I am always open to hearing their perspective first-hand. I suspect they are following the debate. Whether they want to write, have a phone call or meet in person, I am always open to doing that. As a parent and as a grandparent, I know the loss of a child is pretty difficult, let alone what they have had to go through.
My prayers are with the family. We will have to wait and see what happens as the debate continues through the House.