I have a question on this amendment.
I adopt everything Marlene said and therefore would be supporting this mandatory minimum, but I want, in my own head, to be assured that we have a correct understanding of the hierarchy of offences in our heads.
If you look at part IX of the Criminal Code, which deals with offences against rights of property, there are things like theft, armed robbery, criminal interest rate, breaking and entering, and being in a dwelling house unlawfully. There's something here about oyster beds, which I found fascinating. Anyway.... It goes to the modernity of the code.
The way I read it, the most serious offence in this section is armed robbery. In 1995 there were mandatory minimums attached to some of those serious offences. We're now putting theft of a car at the next plateau in terms of mandatory minimums. I don't think there are any others, and we're leaving on the tree--maybe there will be other pieces of legislation coming forward--breaking and entering for the purpose of committing a crime, being in a dwelling house unlawfully, some of the other offences, and then just normal theft. It may be the right message that we see armed robbery as extremely serious, with heavy mandatory minimums. We see auto theft for the third time as something that needs to be curbed in society, and we see some of the other offences to be handled at the discretion of a judge in giving up to the maximum of whatever the case may be--six months, ten years.
Am I right that this is the only section of part IX that has a mandatory minimum?
I am happy to support this measure, but the message should be sent to the government, or the next government, that we need to look at the code and prioritize. If you looked in our communities and found that somebody has been the subject of a third home invasion, you might want to think of that as something you might want to look at as well, as long as it's measured and as long as it's proportional. In this case, this is fairly proportional, so I support it.
Thank you.