Mr. Speaker, it is difficult not to stand in the House and say that the NDP is not soft on crime.
I am going to ask the member about the contradiction. He talks about being tough on crime. I have heard him say that a number of times in the House. Yet he voted against the tough measures proposed by the original bill introduced by the government.
The government wanted to ensure that people who broke into homes, burned down property and stole cars could not serve their sentence in the comfort of their living rooms. Why would the member have voted against such measures? We know, as citizens, that criminals behind bars cannot break into homes, steal cars or burn down property. The list of offences goes on.
It is unbelievable the things that the member and his party believe should be eligible for conditional sentences, things like assault with a weapon, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons.
Why the contradiction? If he is tough on crime, why did he not stand up, support the original bill as introduced by the government and ensure that these types of sentences could not be served at home?