Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to much of my colleague's speech, but I am having a hard time understanding some of his arguments.
From what I see, this bill is intended to close loopholes and ensure that serious crimes are prosecuted, including cases that did not go to trial because of the Jordan decision. The Bloc Québécois had said that the notwithstanding clause should be used because that makes no sense.
My colleague generally agrees with the idea of minimum sentences. However, from what I understand so far, more such sentences will be imposed. I am therefore having a hard time understanding the opposition. Could my colleague clarify his position on this? I am interested in hearing it.