Cliff Breitkreuz

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-41.

Canadians across the land are genuinely concerned about their criminal justice system. The law-abiding citizen looks to this House for common sense to ensure the passage of legislation which protects them and not the criminal.

Having said that, there are a couple of areas in Bill C-41 that I can support. The provision regarding victim impact statements is long overdue, and the parliamentary secretary just waxed eloquently on that. Victims must be permitted to make representations at hearings held to determine whether the court imposed period of eligibility for parole should be changed. I am also in favour of the part of Bill C-41 that will enable the courts to order offenders to make restitution to victims of their crimes. Finally the victim is getting some consideration from a system which has not served the interests of Canadians.

Unfortunately Bill C-41 does very little to address the real problem that plagues the law-abiding citizens of Canada. It appears that a criminal justice system does not even exist. What we have is a legal industry dominated by lawyers and judges who play a bureaucratic game with laws which tend to serve the criminal, not the public.

Since being elected as member of Parliament for Yellowhead my office has been inundated by constituents' concerns about our so-called justice system. They are frustrated with a system that bends the law for criminals and does little to protect and serve the community. As far as the majority of my constituents are concerned, offenders convicted of violent crimes, those whose crimes impact violently on others, should be stripped of their rights. I share their views. The commission of violent crimes against others is a violation of society and those who choose to engage in these acts should not be a part of it.

Mary Waites is one constituent of mine who has seen the law up close and personally and she did not like the view one bit.

Her son Julian was one of Canada's most wanted criminals for his involvement in a violent sexual assault earlier this year. Julian and another man are alleged to have brutally raped a woman at knifepoint.

Mrs. Waites wants her son put behind bars indefinitely because he is extremely dangerous to the community but Mrs. Waites knows the courts will eventually let her son back out on the streets so that he can continue to commit heinous crimes against innocent people.

Why does she know this? She has seen her son breeze through the court system time after time on charges of armed robbery, assault with a weapon and possession of stolen property.

He has a violent past. Twice during robberies Julian drew blood by holding knives to his victims' throats. He served sporadic jail terms but was always released. He will be released again I suspect.

Is this justice? Bill C-41 does nothing to ensure that dangerous repeat offenders like Julian Waites remain behind bars.

Margo Gurgens is another constituent of mine who has seen the legal system serve the criminal. Her younger brother was stabbed to death at the hands of Tim Mead. Mead was originally charged with second degree murder but when the legal people got their hands on the case, a guilty plea to a lesser charge of manslaughter was accepted.

For killing a man Tim Mead received six months imprisonment. Again our so-called justice system failed. Mead has been convicted of committing crimes against society since 1980. I suspect he will be back on the streets six months after killing someone. Is that justice?

Again, Bill C-41 does nothing to keep dangerous repeat offenders like Tim Mead from posing a threat to society. If the afore mentioned two cases are not enough to show how inadequate our criminal justice system is I ask members to consider the following.

In 1981 Norma van Gundy returned home on the weekend from hairdressing school to visit her family and friends. The youthful 17-year old met up with an old friend and through him she met Larry Read. At the end of the evening Norma's friend asked her if she would take his car and drive him and Read home because they had had too much to drink.

Norma felt obliged to help. She dropped her friend off and proceeded to take Read home. On the way home Read from the back seat of the vehicle viciously strangled Norma to death. Read then raped Norma's body in the car before driving himself home. He parked the car with the windows rolled up and left Norma's naked body in the back seat to freeze in the 30-degree below night air.

For this horrific crime Read was convicted of second degree murder but the judgment was appealed and the charge was reduced to manslaughter. Read spent only six years in prison but the story does not end there, sadly.

When he was released on parole Read made his way to another town where he became friends with a single woman and her 9-year old daughter. On a day when the mother was not home Read paid a visit to her house where her child was alone with their 12-year old babysitter.

The unsuspecting girls let Read in the door and their nightmare began. Read lured the two children to the basement, tied them up and beat them. He then took the girls for a ride in his car where he raped both of them. The psychopath took a knife to the 9-year old girl.

She required 120 stitches to her genitalia. Read is in prison again. The system will undoubtedly fail the law-abiding public again. He will eventually be released.

The shocking part of the story is that Larry Read brutally raped a woman before he murdered Norma and before he violated the young girls. This is our criminal justice system. It made sure Larry Read had his rights. Where was the criminal justice system for Norma van Gundy and the two little girls? Where is the criminal justice system for the families of these victims which are forever scarred by these acts of violence to their loved ones.

Bill C-41 does not do anything to protect society from the Larry Reads out there. Bill C-41 will not prevent sick, twisted individuals from reigning terror on innocent people. Bill C-41 is just another piece of democratic legislation, a band-aid attempt to fix an outrageously flawed criminal justice system. The point to be made is this. The Liberal government has been in power for almost one year. It has done nothing significant to change the way crime is dealt with in this country. To an increasing number of Canadians that is perhaps the biggest crime of all.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House in support of my colleague's private members' motion 278 which calls for the federal government to immediately initiate the privatization of all or part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The topic of privatizing the CBC comes at a very interesting time. During debate on Bill C-17, the ominbus bill on budget implementation, it was no surprise that members of the government opposite were staunchly defending the CBC. They claimed the CBC is the vehicle for protecting Canadian tradition and heritage with its programming.

However, today I would be very interested to hear what these same members of the Liberal Party would say. Several weeks ago CBC television announced it was changing its programming. It is now going to make a grab for ratings and revenue with a fall schedule that has more U.S. drama and fewer Canadian entertainment programs in prime time.

It would appear that CBC television is moving away from being the voice which preserves Canadian culture. It would appear the CBC television is moving away from programming which is chock full of Canadian heritage.

It would appear the arguments used by numerous Liberals during the Bill C-17 debate now have a somewhat hollow ring to them. The fiscal and economic realities of the day demand that the CBC make these changes. I submit that for the CBC to become truly viable and competitive it should move toward privatization.

It is quite interesting to note how times have changed. In the words of CBC vice president, Jim Byrd, it would be nice if we could stick our heads in the sand and say let us not worry about revenue. Mr. Byrd realizes that the CBC cannot proceed this way as he explained why the corporation is moving toward more U.S. programming. Not long ago this type of head in the sand thinking was indeed the norm for CBC. Given the debate on Bill C-17 it would appear that line of thinking was prevalent among some members of this House.

Unfortunately Canadian taxpayers can no longer afford to foot the $1 billion plus bill it costs to run the CBC every year. The taxpayer thinks in terms of dollars and cents. The taxpayer cannot understand why he or she must pay for something they generally seem not to want.

If one looks at the ratings of the CBC it becomes apparent that the CBC is not a very high priority for Canadians. In the interests of clarity I will outline 10 reasons why the CBC should move toward privatization.

The taxpayer of this country would seem to demand it according to the ratings and the fiscal realities that face the government demand it as well.

First, only 15 per cent of television viewers watched the CBC's English network for some part of the day in the 1990-91 season. The trend continued into the 1992-93 season when only 13.5 per cent of the viewing audience were tuning in to CBC television.

Reason number two is the declining audience viewing CBC during prime time which is between 7 and 11 p.m. In 1990-91 only 15.8 per cent of viewers were watching the CBC during prime time hours, which is any network's bread and butter. Two years later only 13.6 per cent were watching.

The third reason the CBC should be privatized lies within the programming. Huge sums of money are being squandered. A case in point is the marginal French service being offered by CBC radio stations in many parts of the country. CBUF-FM, the CBC's French language FM radio station in Vancouver, has a staff of 25 and an annual budget of $2.2 million. Its average audience in any given quarter hour over its entire broadcast area is 100 people. This is according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. It is quite obvious that this is not an optimum use of taxpayers' money.

The fourth reason, and it is similar to the previous one, can be seen in Edmonton's French language station, CHFA, which has a staff of 32 and an annual budget of $2.4 million. Again, according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, the station is lucky if it tops 600 listeners.

The fifth reason is that overall funding is increasing for the CBC while the number of people tuning in is decreasing. According to the CBC's 1993 financial statement, over $941 million was spent on CBC television. One year earlier $913 million was spent. What is the justification for spending $28 million more on CBC television when fewer people are watching?

The sixth reason is that overall funding for CBC radio services went up from $293 million in 1992 to over $307 million in 1993 but listnership is declining. In 1991, 12.6 per cent of the listening audience had their dial tuned into CBC English radio. One year later only 11.7 per cent were listening.

A similar pattern occurs when we consider CBC French radio. In the spring of 1990, 9.1 per cent were tuned in compared to only 8.7 per cent in the fall of 1992. What is the justification for funding increases?

Reason number seven is the poor performance of CBC English television during the supper hour from 6 to 7 p.m. The regional CBC television stations cannot compete with their private counterparts during the all-important news hour.

In Edmonton the CBC news hauled in a paltry 8 per cent of viewers during the supper hour in 1992. In 1993 viewership dropped to 5 per cent. The same can be said on almost all regional CBC networks. In Regina the CBC was watched by 25 per cent of the viewers during the news hour in 1992. That number was cut by over half with only 12 per cent watching in 1993. The trend seems to be nationwide, fewer people watching, yet it takes more and more money to run the CBC.

Reason number eight is something called debt. Recent estimates put the CBC at a shortfall of $180 million over the next four years. The CBC has a $45 million deficit on its operating budget on revenues of over $1 billion.

Reason number nine deals with the CBC's power to borrow money. Why is the federal government allowing the CBC to borrow money in the first place? Would it not be more financially sound to privatize, at the very least, portions of its operations, thereby realizing substantial savings? The savings could then be applied to finance new cost effective ventures.

Last but not least, the tenth reason for privatizing the CBC is the very nature of its existence. The CBC is changing its mandate. No longer will CBC television be the vehicle for Canadian culture and heritage. It is moving to more U.S. content in order to boost its ratings. Taxpayer dollars are no longer required to support the old mandate of protecting and promoting Canadian culture.

For the CBC to have the incentive to go after advertising dollars and increase its ratings, it certainly should move toward privatization. Privatization would ensure a viable CBC that should make money rather than fritter it away.

In the last 10 years about 2,000 jobs have been cut at the CBC in an effort to downsize and streamline the crown corporation. Despite drastic cuts to the staff budget, CBC's deficit continues to climb. There is no incentive at the management level to ensure a bottom line.

The federal government took another step toward killing the CBC's profit motive by giving it the authority to borrow another $25 million. As long as this type of practice continues the CBC will remain an indebted corporation, and that is unacceptable to Canadian taxpayers. It is time for a major overhaul of "mother corporation".

[Petitions, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant Standing Order 36, I rise today to present three petitions calling upon the federal government to revise the Young Offenders Act.

The petition is signed by approximately one thousand residents in the Yellowhead riding and wants the Young Offenders Act to ensure that those convicted under the act must be subjected to punishment which fits the severity of the crime.

I strongly support the contents of this petition and the petitioners' belief that a strong Young Offenders Act will result in fewer incidents of criminal offences.

[Young Offenders Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Julian Waites was a boy who found himself in trouble with the law. He faced over 40 charges in youth court, mostly theft related. He played the Young Offenders Act like a harp knowing precisely which strings he could pull and when.

His mother, Mary, desperately wanted the courts to punish her son so he would be deterred from repeat offending. She wanted the courts to give him a jail sentence, send him to work camps, anything that would make the young boy think twice about repeat offending.

Julian was incorrigible. He resisted help from his family and the law allowed him to continue his life of crime. Today Julian Waites faces charges of sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats.

Mrs. Waites largely blames the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act for her son's current troubles. He was not punished for the crimes he committed as a youth and his mother says the Young Offenders Act actually encouraged him to repeat offend. Mrs. Waites is convinced that a tougher Young Offenders Act might have given her son a chance at a normal life.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his observations.

It has to be a concern because even the projection down the road is that the CBC does not have the capacity to balance its budget. To lend it more money exacerbates the problem and certainly does nothing to resolve it.

This country's private network runs pretty close to the taxpayer subsidized CBC. They both have newscasts, long newscasts. Both have public affairs programs. They both have Canadian content and all kinds of other content. There is not too much difference in how they are run, except one is on the backs of the taxpayers and the other is on the free enterprise system.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to offer a few comments on Bill C-17, confining my remarks mostly to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

My colleague from Lethbridge spoke eloquently on the measures we support in Bill C-17 and outlined the steps we would take to put our country's economic house in order.

It has been said countless times in this House since January and it bears repeating, that Canada has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Canada's debt is rising and will continue to rise at a significant rate as long as federal governments keep trying to push through omnibus bills like Bill C-17, the budget implementation act. By this time next year Canada's debt load will be approaching $550 billion. The debt is growing by $1,473 per second. That means every man, woman and child in this country is in hock for over $20,000.

The fact that this federal government is pushing through omnibus Bill C-17 which includes authorizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to borrow money shows its lack of regard for the taxpayers of this country. I submit that the CBC is an ill-run crown corporation and should undergo a thorough review. It is a bottomless money pit. Taxpayers are sick and tired of having to support what seems to be a planned to lose failure.

Bill C-17 will give the CBC the authority to borrow $25 million so it can operate with more businesslike flexibility. This is akin to not only letting the fox into the chicken house but also to locking the door and throwing away the key.

I am very sceptical when the government assumes that borrowing $25 million would achieve more efficient management practices. Companies are in the business to offer services, sell products and to make money, not to borrow to go even deeper into the red. The Canadian taxpayer is already on the hook for $1.1 billion per year for the operation of the CBC. If this crown corporation cannot achieve more businesslike flexibility with $1.1 billion in appropriations from Canadian taxpayers, what possible good will come of another $25 million of borrowed money?

The track record of crown corporations is not good. They are endless black holes where the money goes in rarely to be seen again. The federal government should not be competing with the private sector, especially when the private sector is doing the job. Recent history is littered with examples of defunct, broken down crown corporations.

Peter Foster, who penned the book Self-serve: How Petrocan Pumped Canadians Dry , has followed the Petro-Canada fiasco very closely. He calculates that Petro-Canada has amassed a total debt of over $15 billion which of course is on the backs of the Canadian taxpayer.

Another debacle of the federal government is its involvement in the Hibernia project. Admittedly Hibernia was initiated by the former government, but it was a former Liberal government that caused the Petro-Canada fiasco. The government has an 8.5 per cent stake in the Hibernia project which has cost taxpayers about $3 billion in loans and grants. Just last week it was confirmed that Hibernia has a cost overrun of $1 billion.

When will the meddling stop? When will the federal government learn that crown corporations are generally a detriment to the Canadian taxpayer? It seems few lessons have been learned for the near future.

Like most crown corporations the CBC is not like a private sector business and is incapable of acting as such. The CBC has no shareholders or customers in the normal sense to answer to. There is little will to strive for efficiency because there is no bottom line to meet. Bill C-17 will further ensure that the CBC will be able to operate without worrying about such minor things as turning a profit and generating revenue.

Government members keep harping about their red book: "Read the red book. It is in the red book. We are keeping our promises". That is often the type of rhetoric we hear from across the floor, but it appears the federal government has not quite been keeping its promises. The red book states that the Liberals will "exercise unwavering discipline in controlling federal spending and will re-order current spending priorities to make sure that maximum return is obtained on each investment".

Bill C-17 goes against what the Liberals promised to Canadians via the red book. There is no unwavering discipline in controlling federal spending. In fact, the portion of Bill C-17 dealing with the CBC states that the CBC may be allowed to borrow an amount even greater than $25 million, with parliamentary approval. What is to stop the government allowing to lend $50 million, $150 million, or even more to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If the CBC is to become a viable enterprise it must stop trying to borrow its way to prosperity.

A recent estimate places the CBC at a $180 million shortfall over the next four years. The CBC currently has a $45 million deficit and an operating budget of over $1 billion. Any private business facing this kind of debt with the intent of borrowing more money would most certainly be out of business. However, it seems crown corporations act on a different philosophy, a philosophy of spending with no regard for how great the cost.

Allowing a company to accumulate further indebtedness at public expense from the overburdened taxpayers' point of view is just not right. This type of action is not conducive to cost effectiveness and is taking us down an ill-fated road.

Arguments have emanated from across the floor that the CBC is a tradition chock full of Canadian heritage and culture. That argument rings somewhat hollow, especially if we consider how many Canadians appear to be interested in tuning into the CBC.

CRTC chairman Keith Spicer recently scolded CBC executives for ignoring viewers, politicians and pundits who feel the CBC has lost touch with its audience. Mr. Spicer told the CBC executives at a licence renewal hearing that: "You're just going to batten down the hatches and bulldog forward and do what you damn well please". Spicer continued: "It's not just good enough to blindly defend every last brick, every single amplifier, every last job, or every last budget dollar for its own sake to refuse to admit that CBC can and must change".

Perhaps the change referred to is to begin privatizing the CBC. Fewer and fewer Canadians are tuning in to CBC programming which proves that the CBC must change. Only 15 per cent of television viewers watched the CBC's English network for some part of the day in the 1990-91 season. Two years later only 13.5 per cent were tuning in. Between the hours of seven and eleven, known as prime time, which is any network's bread and butter, only 15.8 per cent of viewers were watching CBC in the 1990-91 season. The percentage dropped to 13.6 per cent two years later.

These facts beg the question why are Canadian taxpayers forced to pay for something which is obviously of little interest to the majority of Canadians? The spend, spend, spend mentality of this government must stop.

Last week during the debate of Bill C-17 a government member stated that the $25 million borrowing authority this bill would grant the CBC is a relatively small amount. Canadians are tired of hearing such rhetoric from their elected representatives.

The reason our national debt will approach the $550 billion next year is because previous governments and now the present government continue to look at $25 million as a drop in the bucket. Well $25 million is not a drop in the bucket and until the government realizes this Canada's debt problem will in all eventuality continue to grow and grow at an alarming rate.

The $1.1 billion subsidy to the CBC cannot continue. To begin allowing the CBC to borrow huge amounts of money is something we cannot support. We are supporting four of the five sections into which we have broken down Bill C-17, but we do not support the CBC borrowing authority.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my allotted time with another member from my caucus.

[Witness Protection Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-206, the witness protection act. Members of the Reform Party are calling for numerous improvements and major changes to Canada's criminal justice system. Reformers, some members opposite and indeed most Canadians want to see the federal government take action on many fronts.

The Young Offenders Act and the parole system both need to be fixed. Stricter sentencing guidelines for convicted people must be implemented. The protection of law-abiding Canadian citizens must be an integral part of a major overhaul of the criminal justice system. Penal reform and consideration of capital punishment are other areas that should be pursued.

Bill C-206, the private member's bill pertaining to the relocation and protection of witnesses, is a step in the right direction. This private member's bill is an important one and it is a long time coming. For far too long, witness protection programs, where they exist, have been administered in a helter-skelter type manner. Canada does not have a national witness protection program which is rather ironic given our federal system where the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the federal government.

I commend the member for Scarborough West for the work that he has done in an attempt to fix just one aspect to facilitate an improvement on how justice is done in our country.

Complaints have been forthcoming for some time regarding the lack of adequate protection of witnesses in the current unorganized, hodge-podge way in which witnesses are dealt with in Canada. It is no wonder Canadians are losing faith in the criminal justice system when the state cannot uniformly protect its witnesses, the people it relies on to gain convictions against organized crime.

Introducing a national witness protection program is only a beginning step in the right direction when it comes to reforming Canada's justice system. Perhaps there can be no full and complete reform of the criminal justice system without addressing the entire legal industry. There is some speculation suggesting that our criminal justice system is in such a bad state of affairs because of the proliferation of lawyers which just may have something to do with the clogged court system, both criminal and civil.

Observations are beginning to be made in the United States that the true cost of the ballooning lawyer industry in American society amounts to billions upon billions of dollars per year. In the United States the number of students graduating from law school is 10 times higher than those who graduate from engineering.

In Japan and other countries whose industrial output is higher per capita than in the U.S. the opposite is the case and that is 10 engineering students graduate for every student who graduates from law school. I suspect both sets of figures may apply to Canada as well.

It is interesting and instructive to note there are 100,000 lawyers in Washington D.C. alone. The American capital has one of the highest crime rates in the United States. It seems that the proliferation of lawyers and the proliferation of laws go hand in hand. Part of the solution is to recognize that there might be a problem.

People want and demand fair but quick trials and sentencing in criminal cases, but the courts are backed up as a result of the growth of a system which is, as we all know, extremely top heavy. Justice, due process must not only appear to be served but seen to be served and as efficiently as possible.

The Young Offenders Act is a major contentious issue with Canadians. It represents yet another inadequacy in Canada's criminal justice system. The Reform Party believes, as do most Canadians, that the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property must be placed ahead of other objectives.

The present Young Offenders Act flies in the face of that major objective. It is the young offender who is protected, not law-abiding citizens. Youths between the ages of 12 and 17 are abusing the system. For committing murder they face a maximum sentence of five years. For armed robbery and violent sexual assault they can only be sentenced to a maximum of three years. For lesser offences, such as vandalism and theft, young offenders can get away with only a slap on the wrist, often in the form of community service work. Numerous instances exist where even this minimal sentence is spurned.

Where is the government's action on the Young Offenders Act? All we get are vague postulations, even as recent as this afternoon in question period, postulations but no action.

Another blatant breakdown in our criminal justice system is the issue of parole. Parole is now virtually automatic after one-third of the sentence is served. Parole must be discretionary, given for good conduct and should not amount to more than one-quarter of the sentence. Patronage appointments to the parole board must cease.

In 1987 parole reform was suggested by the federally appointed Canadian Sentencing Commission. So far we have got nothing. Perhaps the whole bureaucratic parole system should be abolished. Where is the government's action on the parole system?

Another flaw of the criminal justice system lies within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 7 to 14 of the charter cover the legal rights of the accused. Judicial interpretation of these sections has made the work of police and prosecutors more difficult in areas such as detention, search and seizure, interrogation and the speed of cases going to trial.

In fact it can be argued that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually hinders the Canadian justice system as it protects the criminal. The rights of the victim are not taken into account. Victims must be compensated by the offender to the greatest extent possible. Yet it is the offender who is compensated to the greatest extent by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

People, indeed members, cabinet ministers and some provincial governments are calling for the abolition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Great Britain from whence we inherited much of our system of government and criminal law does not have a written charter of rights and freedoms. I doubt that anyone would argue that the fundamental rights of the people in the United Kingdom are in grave danger.

Obviously the Canadian justice system is in rough shape. Law-abiding Canadians are demanding that the Young Offenders Act and the parole system be overhauled. They are demanding that the criminal justice system work for them and not for the perpetrators of crime.

It is a sad state of affairs when Canadians must wait to have their criminal justice system fixed one private member's bill at a time, but it is a start. Again I commend the member for Scarborough West for taking the initiative to do what is necessary and I support the member's efforts on Bill C-206. I support it as I hope do all members of this House.

[Carbon Tax, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let us lay this speculation to rest. We are genuinely concerned, given the fact that the national energy program was imposed by a Liberal government in the early eighties which was disastrous to Alberta and the west.

Will the government put an end to the speculation and just answer the question? Is the government considering a carbon tax. Yes or no.

[Carbon Tax, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Recently the former and current premiers of Alberta, as well as senior oil patch executives, voiced their concerns about the imposition of a carbon tax.

When questioned by my colleague from Prince George-Peace River, the Minister of Natural Resources said that to get a definitive answer we should ask the Minister of Finance. I ask him to provide the House with a one-word answer. Is the government planning to impose a carbon tax? Yes or no.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 15th, 1994]

With respect to the GST and businesses which have gross sales exceeding $6 million per annum, will the government amend the GST regulations to allow these businesses to make their remittances on a quarterly or 60-day basis rather than on a monthly basis?