Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me venture to sum up your statements within their context. The doctrine of reasonable doubt is not natural. People naturally tend to think that there is no smoke without fire. Besides, the rule of law is firmly established and constantly defended because errors are made when it is not enforced. Basically, every civilized country has adopted it.
As a matter of fact, when faced with spectacular crimes and ominous threats, some people cannot accept the doctrine of reasonable doubt. This is the case with firearms, despite the fact that firearms-related offences are on the decrease. You can see this if you take the time to consult all the data compiled by Statistics Canada. You can find this in the publication that Statistics Canada made freely available a few months ago. We are referring to the most recent publication, number 82-002-XPF in the Statistics Canada catalogue. The document gives criminal statistics for 2005. On page 7, we can see that less crimes were committed.
For instance, robbery involving firearms was down by 5%, whereas robbery involving other kinds of arms had figures similar to the previous year's figures. We hear that the overall number of robberies is on the increase, but firearms-related robberies continue to go down. We know all this. Nevertheless, we do not feel that the government's attempt to table this bill is based on any real danger. Basically, the public revolution against some specific crimes has made the government unable to apply the doctrine of reasonable doubt.