House of Commons Hansard #45 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parks.

Topics

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

April 30th, 2004 / 1:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to remind my hon. colleague who has just spoken that another prairie boy recalls a time when it was illegal to lock a rural church or school simply because in blizzards and storms those were places one could get into. Things have changed.

We will not find one police force across Canada, including the RCMP, that will not support this bill, not one.

Let me tell members very quickly what is happening now. In the rural areas where I come from, break and entry is now so common that when the RCMP are called, people are told, “Sorry, but we won't be getting there because we're three days behind in looking at breaks and enters”. That is what it is like. It is a common thing.

Now another thing has developed. Some of the insurance companies now are asking, “Was your property properly secured? Did you have the right locks and buzzers?” I do not know. Then the insurance companies are saying, “You must have done something wrong because you were broken into before”. Again it is the victim who takes the rap. Again it is the victim who has to pay for everything.

We in Canada are not helping young people one little bit unless we have legislation like this. That is not going to stop them. I have a nephew on the police force and many good friends on the police force who are dealing with the same person up to five times on break and enter.

In Regina and other cities, we have another terminology: home invasion. It happens every night. Groups of three or four people get together and go into someone's home. And it is not what they take: it is the collateral damage. We have people who move to another area. The value of their house goes down. They lose thousands of dollars because the same gang that has already served terms for break and enter moves about. It is home invasion.

If only these young people would follow the law, if only they were forced to know the law and if only the judicial system would follow this bill: what have we got to lose? What does society have to lose by adopting my hon. colleague's private member's bill? What loss is it to society? Society has nothing at all to lose and everything to gain.

I urge the government to stop playing around with these issues, pass the bill and show Canadians once and for all that it can adopt a bill from this nasty party over here which the government claims wants to get tough on crime. Let us see the government get tough on crime and bring some law and order to this country on breaking and entering.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Seeing no other member rising, I will now give the floor to the hon. member under whose name the motion stands for the right of reply for a maximum of five minutes.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to wish my friend who just spoke the best of luck in his retirement. I have been very privileged to have worked with him during the last seven years I have been in Parliament. I would like to thank him and his wife for all of their contributions to the Canadian public.

When I first introduced my bill, I was amazed at the amount of support that I received from citizens, from the provincial government and from police forces right across the country. I have given numerous interviews on radio stations and television stations across the country specifically talking about Bill C-393 and its importance.

The Toronto chief of police captured the whole debate on this issue as to why the bill is necessary and important when he said:

Deterrent sentences such as the one you have proposed are absolutely necessary if we are ever to realize the goal of truth in sentencing. Too often breaking and entering is viewed as a victimless property crime. In fact, it is a very serious and traumatic violation of a citizen's sense of safety and security.

That statement was made by the chief of police of the largest city in Canada.

I am sure that if government members were to go back to their ridings and talk with their citizens they would be told to support Bill C-393. I hope that when the bill comes up for a vote, people will know which of the members on the other side did not take this issue seriously and voted against it. I look forward to the upcoming vote.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 5 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 1:47 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:47 p.m.)