Madam Speaker, the member did an outstanding job of expressing his thoughts to justify bringing forward the bill and really showing a great deal of sympathy to the victims. That is where I would like to continue, in terms of my question.
I genuinely believe that no matter their political stripe, people can relate to the circumstances surrounding these horrendous crimes and be very sympathetic to them. Where we can act, we should act.
I listened to the Bloc's position on the legislation. They are not supporting the legislation, but I still respect what the Bloc is saying and the concerns they raise. I would like to think that it does not take away from the sympathy they actually have towards victims. We heard the member for Bourassa talk about the government's potential position, with respect to the legislation, that there are some concerns with the legislation. Those concerns need to be addressed.
I put forward my question for the member, and I was encouraged by his response and hope that it is all in good faith. The motivation for the legislation should be focused on the victims. When we talk about the victims, I would even expand it a little more to talk about our communities. Often when we hear of these parole eligibility hearings taking place, it generates quite a bit of media attention. Through that media attention, all forms of opinions and thoughts are developed in our communities.
For me, I want to make sure there is some justice for our communities and for our victims. I think it is really important for them to not have to relive these horrific incidents that have occurred. Even though, as has been pointed out, and the member is aware, the victim does not necessarily have to attend a parole board hearing. However, I can understand why they would want to attend. I can understand how the media attention generated by the appearance of someone who has committed a horrendous crime filters into the community and then into the homes of the victims. It is very real. It is very tangible.
Based on the assumption that the motivation is right, in terms of bringing forward the legislation, and that the member is genuinely open to amendments, there is an opportunity, in an apolitical fashion, to see the legislation ultimately get to committee. That could be a very healthy situation. We will have to wait and see how that ultimately develops.
Private members, and it does not matter from what side of the House, will often identify an issue that is important to them, and that could be because of a personal experience, because of a constituent in the riding they represent raising a particular issue or because of a stakeholder, in this case, the victim. The types of victims we are talking about in this situation come from all regions of the country.
I can appreciate when a member identifies an issue and then chooses to bring it forward in the form of a private member's bill. What I like about private members' bills is the fact that they are programmed. We know that at most, there will be two hours of debate on this legislation. I would argue that that is a good thing. Otherwise, we might not ever see a vote on the legislation that would enable it to go to committee if it passed.
It is important for me to raise that because I personally believe we need to look at rule changes so that we can apply the same principles and program votes to government legislation, though maybe not two hours. I say that as the member is concerned about the file on crime. We are also concerned about the substantive legislation before the House today. There has been so much work dealing with issues like bail reform.
I know the member is very determined about his legislation that he has brought forward, and I believe he will get apolitical support to ultimately see it continue to proceed. I think we need to look at the crime file in a more apolitical fashion in general, because what the member has proposed is very similar to what we are trying to push in other legislative initiatives, and they are not always treated in the same fashion.
Looking at the legislation, there is a need for some amendments to it. There was a concern about whether or not there should be an ability to appeal, for example. If some form of amendment could be brought forward on that, we would see it being more compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we do not have some sort of appeal mechanism in there, it might not stand up against the charter and we could see it being ruled on in a superior court, or even at the Supreme Court. That issue has to be dealt with. I am very interested to hear how the member believes we can look at incorporating that into the legislation.
I have a great deal of confidence in our judicial independence and judges being able to use discretion. When we talk about changing the law in the form we are talking about today, where we exceed the 25 years that is currently in place, there should be an obligation for the the judge to provide some form of explanation detailing why we need to be able to extend eligible parole past that 25 years. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense.
I am not a lawyer by profession, but I used to be a justice critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago. I can tell members that not only did I learn about joint responsibilities for our justice system; I also learned the importance of being charter-compliant. I would highlight two areas of concern, but there might be some additional concerns out there. That is the reason I look to the member in the hope that we will see amendments to the legislation so that more members of the House will feel comfortable to the degree that we could see it pass.
At the end of the day, if we can do that, the real winners would not be the members of the House, but the public as a whole. Canadians would benefit. That is the reason why, when we talk about legislation in general—