Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you, but I certainly do not apologize to the party opposite. Correct me if I am wrong, and we can check Hansard , but whenever the hon. member speaks he makes very vituperative remarks about the great Liberal Party. I took a little offence to that. But I will go on to the end.
If while in flight—and the hon. member was in full flight, although he was not in as full flight as the hon. member for Wild Rose when he discussed this bill—in a stolen motor vehicle following the commission of an offence the offender posed a danger to the lives of persons—and I might add that the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia could pose a danger as I have actually seen him drive a motor vehicle—for example due to excessive speed, this too would be considered an aggravating factor meriting a harsher sentence.
The sentencing provisions contained in the Criminal Code also enable judges to exercise their discretion to impose consecutive sentencing upon offenders where appropriate. Our sentencing is comprehensive and provides the flexibility needed to tailor sentences to the factual circumstances of the offender's conduct.
The proposals contained in Bill C-219 are simply not required to address the conduct of offenders using a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following the commission of an offence. We already have the tools at our disposal to deal with this situation.
Bill C-219 is flawed. Members opposite know it. The Canadian public knows it. We on this side of the House will certainly know it and we will not participate or partake in such a flawed bill because we know what is right for the Canadian public.