Debates of Feb. 27th, 2004

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you would find consent to defer the division on this issue until after government orders on Tuesday, March 9.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It has already been agreed that the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 8. Now, the Deputy leader of the Government is requesting that this division be deferred until Tuesday.

Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it you would find the unanimous consent of the House to call it 1:30 p.m., so that we may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

moved that Bill C-393, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to my private member's bill.

This is the fourth time I have introduced this bill in the House and I will continue to introduce it until it is passed because that is what Canadians want.

I will briefly tell the House what the bill is all about. The bill is about breaking and entering and it calls for a minimum two year sentence for repeat break and enter offenders.

How did the bill originate? Some time in 1998 the provincial justice ministers met. They identified break and enter as being one of the major problems in rising crime going on in Canada from coast to coast. They are the ones who looked at the possibility and came up with the idea that there would be a two year minimum sentence for repeat break and enter offenders. Based on that I introduced the bill at that time.

However, because of the undemocratic process in the House where a private member's bill must go before a committee, the government members, who were opposed to the bill, kept stalling it and making it non-votable.

I did not give up, which is why I am pleased to say that today the members on both sides of the House will vote on the bill. I hope Canadians from coast to coast will write to their members of Parliament and tell them what they and the chiefs of police have been telling me , which is that break and enter has become a serious crime that they want addressed. I hope that when the bill comes to a vote it will be sent to a committee.

Break and enter is not a property offence. It is a crime against a person. Break and enter is a violation of a person's home and property, often the only place of private ownership and privacy left for Canadians to enjoy. It is a psychologically damaging crime that leaves victims feeling personally violated and scared. It has the potential to be a violent crime because every break and enter is potentially a home invasion.

According to a Statistics Canada survey, 68% of Canadians favour a prison sentence for adults convicted of repeat break and enter. Bill C-393 would do what the majority of Canadians want, which is to impose real punishment on criminals who choose to violate our premises by breaking into our homes.

Currently there is no penalty for a break and enter offence but there is a maximum penalty: life imprisonment. While the maximum calls for life imprisonment, police statistics indicate that when repeat offenders are caught for break and enter they get away with a light sentence, which makes this a profitable business. The sentences that are being given out by the courts generally range from three months to eight months. When the offenders are caught and go before the court, the court hands out three to six month sentences. They are then back on the streets and back into their profitable business.

I have seen statistics, as recently as three or four days ago, for Regina. The statistics show that break and enter has been increasing in Regina as well. When I was on a talk show in Regina a couple of days ago I spoke with residents who all expressed serious concern. They thought I was asking for a very lenient sentence. Some of them wanted flogging and some wanted real punishment for these people.

The bottom line is that people are frustrated because they do not see the government doing anything on the issue. They want to know why there are not more police officers. They want to know whether people are being caught.

Yes, our streets could be safer if we had more police officers. We have been saying that for a long time. Instead of $100 million wasted on the sponsorship scandal, we could have more police officers on the streets arresting those who break and enter.

However, just having more police officers will not solve the problem. We do not need more police officers arresting criminals and then the courts letting the criminals off. In the whole context of fighting this crime, we do need more police officers but we also need more stringent sentences and better rehabilitation programs.

Why do I mention rehabilitation programs? I mention rehabilitation because, aside from the professional thieves, some people who commit break and enter crimes are on drugs at the time and find it is easy to break into somebody's house, pick up a television and sell it at the pawn shop for a couple of dollars to get their fix.

We have talked about the need for rehabilitation programs for people in those situations instead of just putting them into jail for two or three months and then letting them out.

I know what arguments the government and the bureaucrats in the justice department will put forward on this bill. The government does not believe in minimum sentences. It has bought into the argument that a minimum sentence, for some reason, is not reflective of a proper justice system, which is nonsense.

When we talk about punishment, we are talking about punishment that fits the crime. However when the government says that we cannot have minimum sentences, that we can only have maximum sentence, this gives leeway to the judges and allows them to make the decisions.

The degree of frustration in Canadians is increasing as they find that their streets and their homes are no longer safe.

What do we do about this whole situation? We as elected officials must listen to the people and we need to give direction to the court. Does anyone think that something is wrong with the justice system if it were to put somebody away for a minimum of two years for a repeat break and enter offence? Would it really be cruel to do that? No. We are talking about repeat break and enter offences.

When are we going to listen to the people? I have received many letters from the chiefs of police in Saskatoon, Toronto and other cities all supporting this minimum two year sentence. These are the people on the front lines fighting the crime who want this. The Canadian public wants it.

What is wrong with the government? It cannot have a problem with this minimum sentence. It needs to change its thinking. Minimum sentencing is also part and parcel of the tools our justice system has to ensure that our streets are safe.

What will happen now? The government will stand and say that a minimum sentence is not a good thing. However, because it is a free vote, I hope members of Parliament on all sides will conduct a survey and listen to what their constituents are saying. Canadians are asking us to make their streets safe.

I have already told the House that this proposal came from the provincial ministers. They want this be put into place. They have been listening to Canadians and Canadians are concerned about break and enter.

My house was broken into once. I know we all have a responsibility to ensure our homes are protected and our doors are locked so that criminals cannot walk in and steal our things. In all contexts, homeowners have a responsibility, but the police need the tools to do their job, the justice system has to show that repeat break and enter offenders are punished for what they do, and we need rehabilitation programs in order to make our streets safe.

I am sure all members of Parliament on both sides of the House have heard that we need to do something about break and enter. All statistics indicate that break and enter is on the rise. The police officers I have spoken to are very frustrated. Not only do they need the tools to do their job, they are frustrated when these people go to court and get off with light minimum sentences.

The only argument the government is putting forward is that it does not believe in this minimum sentence. Well we have to tell the government that this is one of the tools for justice so that we can address this issue of break and enter.

When I first introduced this bill and held a press conference in Calgary, I had people lined up whose houses were broken into. Members should hear their stories of how scared they were, the details of what happened and the violation they felt. These were private citizens who were asking that we make it safe. Seniors were telling me that they were scared because of the possibility of violence during break and enters. Violence often occurs during a break and enter if the criminals encounter somebody at home.

As a matter of fact, I was speaking to a person from Regina who was very fortunate. When he arrived home one day he thought his house was being broken into because the door was open but it was his children who had arrived home.

If we do not address this rising problem, which everybody is asking for, then what are we doing? What is our purpose?

I again appeal to members of Parliament on both sides to acknowledge that break and enter is on the rise and that we should provide the police with the tools they need, which is what the provincial ministers want. We should work for this and put it in the Criminal Code so we can address this rising problem that is taking place. I have the statistics on this.

I want to read a letter from a constituent who says:

I believe home break-and-enters to be one of the greatest invasions a family or person endures. I'm sure my family and I would be deeply traumatized by that experience. I believe this is a huge problem and always in the minds of all Canadians.

Once again, I am appealing to members of Parliament on both sides to please look at this bill. This is one of the tools that is needed to make our streets safe.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my Conservative colleague has brought this matter to the House. We know that breaking and entering a dwelling house is supposed to bring a maximum of life in jail and breaking and entering a business 14 years in jail. That is what we in Parliament have said should be the law of the land, but we know that out in the community there is a great dissonance or discordance between what the law claims to be and then the outfall of the consequence.

To respond to that larger picture, we have often proposed a sentencing grid. It would satisfy all these many circumstances where we find a disproportionate view by the public of the results versus the seriousness of the offence.

In other words, what I am talking about is how it is very easy for the justice system to produce the hierarchy of offences and its list of seriousness and then balance by a lateral grid of the history of the offender: that brings sentencing options to a grid point box. Within that box, it describes the somewhat narrower range of the prescription of what the judge must do.

This is related to the community problem that my colleague is referring to. We want to have personal deterrence, general deterrence and denunciation of the offence, but also some personal rehabilitation. I think the public is outraged about what they observe in the community, which appears to be an inappropriate consequence to the offences specifically related to breaking and entering a dwelling house, which is supposed to bring life in jail.

Perhaps the member could talk a little more about what Canadians want rather than system needs and justice needs: not an academic exercise but what the concerns are. I would like to hear more about the public meeting he had and the sense of anger, frustration and disconnection that he found in his constituents with what the government seems to be able to deliver.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Conservative Party, who highlighted a point about the seriousness of this issue. Let us discuss what people have said, as my colleague requested. When we went out to listen, people expressed from the bottom of their hearts a fear, a fear of invasion, a fear that their privacy was being invaded. No matter what has happened, when one stands and talks to them, those who have experienced break and enter, specifically those who have had an encounter with these break and enter criminals, have been traumatized for life.

My wife, who once ran a dry cleaning business, was at the dry cleaning store just before closing time when a break and enter criminal came in and put a knife to her throat so he could take the money and go to get his drug fix. He was subsequently caught, but my wife can never forget having a knife put to her throat.

These are serious questions. This is not simple and straightforward like it is when someone comes into our house, picks up the television and walks away. We go to the insurance company, put in the claim and get the money back. No, these are not those kinds of crimes. These crimes leave a lasting psychological impact.

This was the message I received every time I talked to Canadians. On a talk show I was on in Regina, it was amazing the people who were coming in. They said, “A two year minimum sentence? What are you talking about?” They thought this was a very light sentence. Canadians think this is very light because Canadians think that break and enter is a very serious crime. Those who are out there and face this problem take it seriously.

Yet members in the House and those bureaucrats in the justice department think this is not a serious crime, so there is no need for a minimum sentence. So why do we have maximum sentences? Let me quote what a police officer from Calgary said. He said that the best sentence he has ever seen for break and enter for a repeat offender was “no more than three years”. That is the hardest sentence he has seen.

From all walks of life, from police officers, from Canadians, from everybody, there is a plea to please address this problem. A minimum two year sentence is what we propose.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-393, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the offence of break and enter.

The government could not be more serious about its role in ensuring the protection of the public and providing for a fair and effective criminal justice system. In recognition of this fundamental and essential responsibility, all aspects of the system are under constant and rigorous review by the government.

However, careful consideration of the bill before us reveals that although well intended, the proposal would not render the criminal justice system any more effective, nor would it serve to further the protection of the public.

The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide for the imposition of a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years upon a second or subsequent conviction for the offence of breaking and entering, where the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling house.

I am certain that all members of the House share the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary East, which motivated him to introduce Bill C-393, and sincerely empathize with the victims of the offence of breaking and entering. Even those who have not been personally affected by an offence of this nature are capable of imagining the feelings of loss, violation and fear that victims suffer as the result of what is technically categorized as a property offence. This is a crime that can severely affect a victim's basic sense of security.

The existing provisions of the Criminal Code already clearly reflect the government's view of the gravity of the crime of breaking and entering and its effect on victims. Indeed, the view is significantly reflected by the fact that subsection 348(1)(d) of the Criminal Code provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It can hardly be said that the penalty for this offence is insufficient when it is the most severe sentence available under criminal law.

The hon. member for Calgary East now proposes to impose a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years for those convicted of a second or subsequent conviction for the offence of breaking and entering where the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling house.

However, mandatory minimum sentences have not been shown to have a positive impact on crime rates in the great majority of cases. In fact, mandatory minimums are completely contrary to the notion of effective corrections, which relies on individualized assessment of risk and needs and to the basic statutory principles of sentencing. The unintended side effect of mandatory minimum sentences includes increased federal incarceration rates, associated increases in costs, system dysfunction and reduced safety and increased disparity.

Limiting judicial discretion by providing for the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence for an offence can be seen as inconsistent with section 718.1 of the Criminal Code. This important section provides that every “sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. In other words, justice is best served when the judiciary has the necessary discretion to determine which sentence best fits the particular crime and offender.

As well, paragraph 718.2(d) of the code states that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”. A key element of effective sentencing and corrections is distinguishing between offenders who need to be separated from society and those who can be safely and better managed in the community. Reducing or removing discretion makes the criminal justice system more arbitrary and expends resources unnecessarily on incarceration when other measures can be less expensive and more effective.

In the United States, there is now a movement away from strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences. This movement includes Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court and has even led several noted jurists to resign from the bench.

Justice Kennedy has stated:

I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In all too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unjust.

As the mandatory minimum penalty proposed by the bill before the House today is two years, this would result in virtually all individuals convicted of breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling house being incarcerated in federal penitentiaries as opposed to provincial facilities, where the majority is now incarcerated. This could result in offenders being placed in correctional facilities that are not suited to their needs and the risk they pose to society.

The proposal submitted by the hon. member for Calgary East is apparently motivated in part by his concern about criminal acts known as home invasions, a concern shared by all members of the House. Home invasion crimes have been the subject of much analysis and consultation by the Department of Justice. This matter was addressed as part of Bill C-15A, which received royal assent on June 4, 2002.

As a result of that legislation, the Criminal Code now provides that home invasion is an aggravating factor in sentencing for certain offences. A court sentencing a person for unlawful confinement, robbery, extortion or break and enter would have to consider it an aggravating circumstance that the offence was committed in an occupied dwelling where the offender was either aware that it was occupied or was reckless in this regard, and where he or she used violence or threats of violence against a person or property. In other words, the presence of any of these factors would justify the imposition of a harsher sentence.

Recent court judgments indicate that the judiciary is taking heed of this important amendment to the Criminal Code and is indeed imposing more serious sentences in home invasion cases. For example, soon after this amendment came into force, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a ten year sentence in a home invasion case. The hon. member read a letter from someone saying that the most severe penalty they had heard of was three years, but here is one for ten years.

Honourable Mr. Justice Hall, speaking for the court, said it must be made clear that those who engage in planned home invasions will, upon conviction, face significant penalties. Justice Hall suggested that a sentence in the range of eight to twelve years should be generally considered appropriate in this class of case.

Similarly, in June 2003, the New Brunswick Provincial Court sentenced an offender to seven years' imprisonment in relation to a home invasion. The trial judge stated that a lengthy sentence was necessary in light of the severity of the offence.

The application of the fundamental principles of sentencing and the taking into account of mitigating and aggravating factors allow the courts to arrive at fit sentences such as these. This is the way sentence determination should be carried out, not through the mechanical process proposed in Bill C-393.

Although the hon. member is well intentioned, the proposal in the bill would make the justice system more arbitrary, fetter judicial discretion, and increase federal incarceration costs. Equally important, it would not improve the protection of society.

The government is fully committed to improving public protection. This will continue to be a key priority of the government. However, Bill C-393 falls short of this important objective and therefore, in our opinion, should not be supported.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this afternoon on Bill C-393, a private member's bill introduced by my Conservative colleague.

I will not go into technical details, as the Liberal member before me did. Why? Because I do not want to make people feel as I did when I was taking criminal law at the Université de Montréal. I do not want to teach law this afternoon; nonetheless, we are here to pass legislation. We are here as legislators, and I understand that my Conservative Party colleague wants, in his own way, to right certain wrongs he sees in society.

However, I want to try to address the social impact of this bill. I want to read the bill's summary, which nicely summarizes the bill the member has put before this House.

The purpose of this enactment is to provide for the imposition of aminimum mandatory period of imprisonment of two years upon a secondor subsequent conviction for the offence of breaking and entering wherethe offence was committed in relation to a dwelling-house.

We all agree that breaking and entering is a serious violation of our rights. We always feel violated when our homes are broken into. I think the legislator addressed this. For the benefit of those listening, I want to indicate what the current penalty is. Paragraph 348(1)( d ) of the Criminal Code states:

—if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable

(i) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for life.

Obviously, the objective here is the sentence and imprisonment for life. This is such a serious crime that the legislator has already indicated that the offender could receive the maximum sentence of life in prison.

I think that the citizens listening to us can understand that. Nevertheless, before we arrive at the maximum penalty, it is up to the discretion of judges. That is why we have courts and judges who hand down sentences proportional to the gravity of the offence. Our criminal law is based on what jurists and others who know something about the law call precedent. According to precedent, judges in a particular kind of situation have taken a particular kind of position. I think that this is healthy.

In his introduction, my colleague said that this was the fourth time he had introduced this bill, that he would not stop introducing it and that he had the support of Canadians. I would just like to say to him that the Bloc Quebecois will not support his bill. It is not because breaking into a dwelling is not a serious offence. It is so serious that one of the most severe penalties, life imprisonment, may be applied.

Still, the punishment must fit the crime. That is the point where we place our trust in the courts to make the right decision, depending on the type of offence.

I will continue by telling my colleague we have to be careful of the message we are sending as members, especially to young people who are listening to us. It is not up to us in this House to hand down sentences in the place of the courts. We are here to try to adopt new rules and new legislation to promote the work of those who are enforcing the law. That is our job, not to replace the judges.

That is what worries me in the bill tabled by my colleague. If ever we adopt the two year sentence and this does not suit him because, again, he is told the rulings are not harsh enough, he will come back in a few years—I wish him many years in this House—with another amendment to change the minimal sentence from two years to four, five or ten years.

That is the problem. We cannot stand in for those whose job this is. The judges in Quebec and Canada have this responsibility. They are the ones who have to impose a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

This is what people have to understand about the way our law works. Of course, as legislators, we are here to make the laws and we leave it to others, to legal specialists, to determine sentencing. In our cases, it is up to the judges to determine the sentences according to the rules of the courts.

I am ready at any time to support my colleague who is asking for a vast awareness campaign to make people understand that break-ins are serious offences.

We have to make them understand that the action that they might be contemplating in order to make money, by breaking into residences, is a very serious offence and that they could receive a maximum penalty for it, namely a sentence of life imprisonment. They have to realize this. Some of our fellow citizens may not fully understand the gravity of their actions.

However, if we are always trying to take the place of the courts and to decide what the sentences should be, in my opinion, we are taking on a responsibility that we do not have. We are here to try and clarify the situation. We are here to act as legislators, to try to come up with standards that society will respect, but we are not here to take the place of judges.

This is what I see in the bill that was introduced by my colleague. By saying that there must be minimal penalties for a subsequent conviction, it is as if we wanted to replace the courts and tell judges, “You did not do your job right”. I do not think this is our role as members of Parliament. We are not here to replace judges; we are here to pass legislation to clarify the law.

In this case, if there was a legal tangle, if we did not understand the text, I repeat, the current legislation already provides, at paragraph 348(1)( d ):

—if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable

(i) to imprisonment for life—

Thus, in the current paragraph 348(1)( d ) of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty that may be imposed by a judge is imprisonment for life. So, this is a serious offence. This is why this penalty was decided on. Legislators who were here before us, members who were in this House before us decided to allow the courts to impose the maximum penalty, which is imprisonment for life.

That tells us how serious this offence is. What has our hon. colleague concerned are the lenient sentences handed down by the courts. This is where we have to be careful, because penalties are proportional to the severity of the crime.

If young Canadians or young families are watching this debate, I want them to know that members of Parliament are not always able to bring people or the justice system back on the right track when sentences are too lenient. We are here to support them.

Not voting in support of this bill does not mean that we think that breaking and entering a dwelling-house is not a serious offence. The maximal penalty for such an offence is imprisonment for life, and we agree with that.

On the other hand, I do not believe that we should tell a judge that there will be minimum sentences. In my view, we should let the judiciary determine the sentence according to the seriousness of the offence. Up to now, we have been confident in the courts, in the manner in which they have handled sentencing. We know full well that there will always be circumstances where citizens—even ourselves sometimes—will find that judges do not give tough enough sentences.

However, we should always bear in mind that we did not attend the trial and follow all its stages, and that we were not informed of all circumstances of the case. This is why we have the judiciary. It would be too easy to play the Monday morning quarterback, to use a popular term, and claim that we would not have made such a decision.

What our constituents, our fellow citizens, the Quebeckers listening to us must understand is that when a judge renders a decision it is after hearing a case and after hearing witnesses. Often, trials last for hours, even days, and, in order to arrive at a sentence, one has to have all the evidence.

The Bloc Quebecois will vote against this proposal, and will continue to support the current judiciary.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend the member from the Conservative Party for introducing the motion before the House today. He is one of my favourite Conservative members of Parliament. I am not sure if that is a compliment or not. He is a very funny and gregarious fellow, likeable and liked. That will probably doom his re-election in Calgary, but so be it. However, I mean what I am saying. He has brought before the House today a very important issue, the issue of break and enter.

I come from Regina. I represent, along with the Minister of Finance, the inner city of Regina. I probably have about 80% of the inner city in my riding and the Minister of Finance probably has about 20% in his riding. We have had major problems with crime in the city of Regina, as in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton.

We have crime that is really ghettoized in certain areas, much more than in other areas. Unfortunately, Regina was the capital for auto thefts in North America. A couple of years ago a program was brought in by the city and the provincial government, and it has greatly reduced auto thefts in Regina.

We have also one of the highest murder rates and one of the highest rates of violent assault. Just recently it has been break and enter. There have been a lot of B and Es, and they have gone up. I saw the figures the other day in the Leader Post . They have gone up by a very astronomical figure in the last while. A lot of these people are young and young aboriginals. It is a problem we will have to resolve.

At the outset, we have to be tough on crime. I have always taken that stand. If people commit crimes, they have to be punished for those crimes in the appropriate manner. At the same time we have to also be tough on the causes of crime. We not only have crime in the inner city of Regina, it across the land.

Just today there is some controversy regarding Conrad Black in a courtroom in the United States. The judge is suggesting that he cannot sell his holding company. We have crime at all different levels. I am not saying that is a crime, but we have things that look inappropriate, according to what the judge has said.

Break and enter is a major problem in my province and in many communities in the city of Regina, Saskatoon and other places. A lot of the people who commit these crimes are young. One reason they do it is because they find themselves in total despair. These people do not have an education, a job, the training or skills, and they learn crime on the streets. Somehow we have to get the younger people off the streets and give them the training and skills. We have to give them some hope and inspiration that there is a better life.

As I walk the streets, I can see the despair and poverty of some of these younger people. I see houses that are not properly insulated. I see the alcoholism and prostitution. Many kids are born into these circumstances. This is what I mean by the cause of crime.

The member for Calgary East is suggesting something that is a novel idea for B and E. It is not a novel idea in terms of other crimes. He is suggesting a minimum sentence of two years when there is a second offence on a domestic dwelling. I certainly support his intentions, but I do not support the idea of a minimum sentence for break and enter for a few reasons. I just want to lay them on the record.

In principle, we have very few crimes where we have a minimum sentence. It is important that I put some of these on the record.

Under the Criminal Code, we have a minimum sentence now for 29 different criminal offences. Of those 29, 19 became effective in 1995 with the firearms registration. Before that we only had 10 offences where there was a minimum sentence. I want to go over them.

They are: drinking while impaired with a blood alcohol level of over .08; failure or refusal to provide a breath sample; betting pools; selling, bookmaking and placing bets on behalf of others. These five different offences have a minimum sentence of 14 days and a maximum sentence of anywhere between 2 and 5 years, depending on the offence.

In Canada there are three different offences where the minimum sentence is life. For high treason, first degree murder and second degree murder, the minimum sentence is life. Then there is the offence of living off the avails of child prostitution which has a minimum sentence of five years.

Those are the original 10 offences that had a minimum sentence in the country. Then came 1995 with the gun legislation. Parliament, in its wisdom or lack thereof, decided to add another 19 offences that had a minimum sentence.

Those 19 offences are: using a firearm during the commission of an offence; using an imitation firearm during an offence; criminal negligence causing death by a firearm; manslaughter by use of a firearm; attempted murder by use of a firearm; causing bodily harm with intent with a firearm; sexual assault with a firearm; aggravated sexual assault with a firearm; kidnapping by firearm; hostage taking by firearm; robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; possession of firearm knowing it is unauthorized; possession of a weapon device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized; possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence; weapons trafficking; possession for purpose of weapons trafficking; making weapon into automatic firearm; importing or exporting firearm or prohibited weapon, or restricted weapon or prohibited device, or prohibited ammunition.

For many of those offences there is a one year minimum sentence. For about 10 others there is a minimum four year sentence. For manslaughter, attempted murder with a firearm, the offender gets the minimum sentence.

I would be more inclined to support the member's motion if it were worded that we look at whether offences and other violations of the Criminal Code should have a minimum sentence. Break and enter is very serious but manslaughter with a knife is serious also. Manslaughter with an axe is serious. Attempted murder with a bow and arrow, knife or an axe is very serious. Yet for those offences there is no minimum sentence in Canada.

There is no reference here to sexual assault or to rape of many women in terms of a minimum sentence. As I said, for theft with anything else but a firearm, there is no minimum sentence. We are dealing with fraud allegations in the House of Commons and the sponsorship program scandal. Again, for fraud there is no minimum sentence. Also for assault, mugging, et cetera, unless it is with a firearm there is no minimum sentence in the country.

Rather than just cherry pick, we need a motion before the House that we review the Criminal Code and see whether or not there is anything else that we should add to the list of minimum sentences. Indeed, maybe there are some of these sentences that should not have a minimum.

I want to make two points why I would like to keep the list of minimum sentences relatively short.

I am concerned about flexibility. Minimum sentences may sound really appealing to a lot of people and serious crimes are bad and should be punished, but sometimes I think minimum sentences are wrong because they are not flexible.

An effective justice system must necessarily be an individualized justice system. Obviously not all cases are the same. The justice system must be flexible enough to respond to a specific need and the nature of each case. Our system must be fair and humane if it is going to be effective and mandatory sentences often simply strip away the fairness and humanity from our legal system. Because they are completely rigid and predetermined, minimum sentences can result in the gross miscarriage of justice.

I want to refer to a case on which I think most members would agree with me, and that is the Robert Latimer case. What he did, and I do not want to pass judgment, may have been very, very wrong. I happen to think personally that what he did was wrong. It may have been very wrong, but to have Robert Latimer and Karla Homolka, or someone like her, in the same situation for a minimum sentence I also think is wrong. One of the things the judge said was that he did not have flexibility in the case of Robert Latimer. That is why we need some flexibility in terms of our system.

There have been many studies indicating that minimum sentences often do not work as a detriment to serious crime or any kind of crime in this country or in other jurisdictions around the world.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add some thoughts to the debate on my colleague's private member's Bill C-393, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with breaking and entering.

I wish to congratulate my colleague from Calgary East for bringing this bill forward, not once, but on a number of occasions in the past, as is the case for so many of us in this chamber on both sides of the House. He should be given some marks for persistence if nothing else.

We continue to utilize the private members' business avenue to bring forward concerns that we continuously hear from our constituents on a wide variety of issues. So often government prorogues Parliament or there is a break in parliamentary procedures and bills die. They have to be resurrected and reintroduced, and go through the process all over again. It is incredibly frustrating.

I am saying this not just on behalf of the Conservative Party or the official opposition, but all opposition members and indeed government backbenchers who take advantage of private members' business to highlight issues and bring them to the chamber on behalf of their constituents.

I am very supportive of my colleague's initiative to apply a minimum sentence of two years. Obviously, there could be more than two years, but two years would be the minimum for people who are committing a break and entry.

The Liberal member for Simcoe North, if I understood him and I was in the chamber for the duration of the debate on this subject today, said that justice was best served when the judiciary had the greatest amount of discretion in handing down sentences. That seemed to be the major thrust of his opposition to my colleague's private member's bill.

One of the problems that we have in Canada, and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle from the NDP referred to this in his remarks, is that judges have far too much discretion in our sentencing provisions. All too often, because there are no minimums, judges let criminals off with the proverbial slap on the wrist. What my colleague is endeavouring to do is to highlight this problem in one particular crime, breaking and entering.

The member for Simcoe North tried to get the whole argument off onto one facet of breaking and entering which is home invasion. He rightly described it as being much more serious of course than a simple break and enter.

I do not think that we can disguise the seriousness of this and how people that have been subjected to a break and enter feel about it. They feel that it is an invasion of their person; it is not just their home that has been invaded. They feel that they themselves have been violated.

When they go to court and see the criminal convicted, and all too often it is a conditional sentence where not a day in jail is served, or a fine, it does not do justice to the feelings that they as victims have. That is why my colleague felt the necessity to bring this forward and instill some minimum sentence.

I noted as well that my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle said that he wanted to make it very plain that he believed we had to be tough on crime.

Yet, anyone who has watched the proceedings in the House of Commons over the last number of years, and I have been here 10 years now, and would like to check the record would see that time and time again my colleagues and I from the old Reform Party of Canada or the Canadian Alliance brought forward private members' bills or opposition motions on our supply days that did exactly that, get tough on crime. The record would show that the NDP and very often the Bloc voted against those motions. I would take it with a grain of salt when I hear an NDP member say that he wants to get tough on crime.

He went on to talk about things that had nothing to do with this piece of legislation. He talked about the despair that people feel when they are raised in poverty and the hopelessness they face when they have no opportunities. Those are valid points, but that has nothing to do with this bill. This bill deals with a specific crime and the wish of the member to see a minimum sentence introduced into the Criminal Code to deal with that specific crime.

The Bloc Quebecois member, in addressing this particular bill, said at one point in his intervention that he thought it might be a good idea to have an awareness campaign to ensure that those who commit break and enters are aware of the seriousness of the crime. He thought that it was appropriate to put our trust in the way that courts administer the system.

He said several times that it is not the role of Parliament nor parliamentarians to replace judges and that we should not be here to do the work of judges. I agree with that. However, we are seeing all too often, and what I hear in Prince George—Peace River, too much leeway given to judges. All too often we see sentences that do not fit the crime, certainly not in the opinions of the victims and not in the opinion of the broad spectrum of Canadian society. Canadians feel that we do not have an appropriate justice system anymore.

I have remarked many times in the chamber that people are increasingly frustrated with our legal system, especially once they become victims and are thrust into the system. They go to court to hopefully get their day in court, see justice done, see the guilty held accountable, and the criminal held responsible for his or her crime. They see criminals basically laugh at the justice system, thumb their noses at it and walk out of the court scot-free. The victims are left feeling violated and victimized again.

It was not bad enough in this particular case that the victims had to be subjected to a break and enter, a violation of their home, but when the criminal gets off basically scot-free, they are left with the sense that they have been violated once more.

We must send a strong message and we are not going to do that, with all due respect to my Bloc colleague, with an awareness campaign. We are not going to do it by having someone conduct an educational campaign or put advertisements on television saying people should not do that because it is not very nice to break into somebody's home.

How we are going to do it is by providing real deterrents. We are going to do it by passing legislation like Bill C-393 introduced by my colleague from Calgary East. It gets tough on crime by providing real deterrents, a minimum sentence where individuals who make a conscious decision to break into somebody's home would know that they would do two years in jail minimum, maybe more depending on the nature of the crime, but that would be the minimum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2.11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 8, 2004, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.11 p.m.)