Mr. Speaker, at the foundation of the hon. member's question is an interpretation of these judgments that I do not share. So we start from different points of departure.
With reference to her suggestion that our approach has been piecemeal, in the case of Daviault the House at the initiative of the government took specific steps to deal with the decision that we thought resulted in a criminal law that was inappropriate. There should be responsibility for acts of violence committed when one induces one's own intoxication.
In other instances we have taken a very comprehensive approach, for example in Bill C-41 where we comprehensively reformed the whole structure of the sentencing process in the criminal law, and as in Bill C-68 where we entirely took a new and comprehensive approach toward the control of firearms.
Our approach has been responsible, it has been coherent and it has been effective.