Mr. Speaker, if an individual, regardless where—in Montreal or anywhere else—broke into homes three times, it will not be hard to convince me that it is not a case for conditional sentencing.
Is my colleague asking if this was appealed, if an appeals court upheld the decision? It is easy to understand that this is not a case for conditional sentencing.
Statistics presented in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights indicate that for break and enter offences conditional sentencing is rarely used. We cannot assume that the exception is the rule.
At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that according to the data provided to us, conditional sentencing is a marginal reality of the sentencing system. It happens in only 5% of the cases; three times out of four it is a property offence. It is not about cases where an individual commits three offences of residence theft. In such a situation conditional sentencing would not be recommended.