Deepak Obhrai

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I see that my time was stolen by the Liberal member so I could not make a 20 minute speech with questions and answers. I was going to put the record of the Prime Minister in front of Canadians when he stepped into office. In the Speech from the Throne he talked about a new Canada, a new vision and how he would provide a new vision. Subsequently, in his first budget presented in February, we see that the vision he talked about was priorities for everything and priorities for nothing.

The Prime Minister has been saying that every issue facing Canadians is a national priority. I agree. Issues are important and they must be discussed broadly. However, health care is the national priority. Job creation is the national priority. Farmers are the national priority. At the end of the day what is left is no priority. The government is walking around in a daze. Its members do not even know what to do.

In one of the corridors in Parliament we have a committee inquiring into the biggest corruption scandal ever in the history of Canada and the biggest corruption scandal in which the government has been involved.

The government says that it has a vision to present. I have been here for seven years. When I look across the way, I do not see any new faces. I do not hear any new ideas. I do not see anything new. All I see is recycled stuff coming back, over and over again.

I was in Toronto last week. In group discussions a gentleman asked me a point blank question. He asked what I would do for him. He asked what I would do for his community. I looked at him straight in the face and I said that I was going to do nothing for him or his community. He was taken back. I said that we did not do things for communities. Rather we did things for Canadians.

This is the vision we should have for Canada. We will provide the tools to go and fight. Those tools will give people the education to help them get ready to enter the workforce.

Let us look at the government's record on education. It promised to help 12,000 graduates per year. How many has it helped up to now? Only 2,000. Average student debt was $21,000, but recipients received an average subsidy of $509 in interest relief despite the fact that there was the prime minister's scholarship millennium fund.

None of the targets were met on promised interest relief to student loan recipients. If we do give the tools to our future generation, and they do not necessarily have to be university graduates, they can be tradesmen too, then we will be left behind. In today's globalized world there is competition. If we do not seize the opportunities, someone else will and we will be left behind.

The second point I told the gentleman was that we would create an economic environment where jobs would be created. We will not tax Canadians to a point where they cannot reinvest in the country. We will not create conditions where economic conditions are such that innovation, entrepreneurship are contained. What we need to do is create this environment, and we can do that by reducing taxes.

The government's record on reducing taxes is absolutely abysmal, despite the fact that it has said that it has been reducing taxes. About an hour ago, one member over there said that this was the greatest tax reduction ever. As far as I know, when talking to Canadians, nobody feels the tax reduction is helping their pockets. If they do not feel it in their pockets, I do not know what kind of tax reduction it is. Perhaps it is cooking the books only so the government can stand up here and talk about tax reductions.

If we do not create the economic environment for entrepreneurship or the creation of jobs, then where will the students and everybody else who is learning work? Creating an environment where jobs can be created should be a national priority.

Third, we would create laws to ensure that every Canadian who applied for a job would never discriminated against. Canadians can feel free that their education, skills and experiences in life are put to full use in Canada.

When we look at these things, then there is a vision. It is a vision that Canadians can look forward and can stand and say that they will fight the other countries and that they will fight for their rights. They can say that they have the tools to be a prosperous nation, the number one nation in the world.

However, what has happened in the budget? Nothing. There is a band-aid here and a band-aid there. Most important, there is a disconnect between the vision of the government and the Canadian people because of the way the Liberal government has been ruling the country.

I have a list, which was printed in the National Post , on how Liberal members of Parliament are given money for their little pet projects so they can get elected. There is absolutely no regard as to why. There is absolutely no regard as to transparency or to the value of what will help. They use taxpayer money as if it were a gift given to them to spend, not understanding that it is a trust given to them by Canadians for transparency to ensure that the things Canadians want are taken care of such as health care and all the other areas that have been crying for attention.

Now we see the same Prime Minister talking about the same area. Where was he all the time when he was the finance minister of Canada? Now the government talks about defence spending. It is the same old recycled dollars going into defence. Nevertheless, we still need it. We will wait and see. Please give the dollars, not just talk about it.

Now the government is talking about a health first ministers conference in July. The Prime Minister wants to ensure that there is a deal. What was he doing all the time he was the finance minister? How come there was no deal with the provinces at that time? He was the one who was responsible for cutting funding for health care. Even now there is nothing in the health care accord that says that there is stable funding. It is still left to the government to decide how much funding it will give and which funding it will cut. Then it will expect the provinces to do it.

Let me tell the government, there is only one Canadian taxpayer. If it is going to shift the burden to the provinces, it does not shift the burden off the shoulders of Canadians. The main thing Canadians are telling the government is to get off their shoulders and take its hands out of their pockets.

The ad scam and abuse of our tax dollars is just amazing. Now the government says that we have a public inquiry. When we go to the polls, Canadians will speak on the record of the government on fiscal management.

[Dalai Lama, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians, it gives me great pleasure and honour to welcome to Canada His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama has inspired millions around the world with his teachings of non-violence and peaceful coexistence. The world recognized this great man's contribution to humanity by awarding him the Nobel Prize in 1989. I personally was exposed to the great teaching of the Tibetan monks through reading Dr. Lobsang Rampa's books.

The Dalai Lama is the political and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. His struggle to bring dignity and human rights to his people must be recognized and supported.

The Dalai Lama has shown courage, compassion and, most of all, exemplary leadership through the hard times he and his people have faced and continue facing.

We are honoured with his presence in Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I know he was a deputy minister and that finance is his portfolio. It is good to see his propaganda for the new Prime Minister and telling Canadians what great managers they are.

I know the member is a very sincere and honest gentleman but let me ask him a question. He said that when we get visitors from outside the country they want to know how we did it. The member should tell them that the Liberals are experts at putting their hands in the wallets of Canadians. They do it on the backs of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars. They have, of course, perfected the art of spending wastefully.

This year did the member ever receive any money on behalf of the federal government that was spent in his riding? I see the Liberal members of Parliament have been doling out taxpayer money in their ridings so they can get re-elected. The guy they want to call a Liberal, the turncoat member, presented a $50,000 cheque to a riding in Nova Scotia on April 5 to buy bookshelves for the local library.

The member just stood and said that the Liberals were great managers of taxpayer money. My question is a simple one. Did you ever dole out any money this year into your riding?

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talked about the record of his government. He said that his government brought in these programs. Let me ask him some point blank questions. What about the sponsorship scandal? What about the gun registry scandal? What about the flag scandal? What about the HRDC boondoggle?

Most important, he talked about the GST rebate. It was his government that said that it would eliminate the GST for all Canadians, not only for municipalities. What happened to that promise?

[Canada Elections Act, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have not discussed the role of the bureaucracy in what is happening in Parliament. We tend to look at bills and we tend to see that the backbenchers do not have power and so on.

My colleague is absolutely right. As I mentioned, I am getting so frustrated with the bureaucracy and with the disrespect the bureaucracy has for members of Parliament that I am becoming an ineffective representative of the people who I was sent here to represent. The bureaucrats think they run the show.

Yes, all of us who have been on committees know that parliamentary secretaries who come to committee have been briefed by the bureaucrats and are told what to say. We all know that after parliamentarians from all sides of the House have reached an agreement on how something should go because of what we have heard, the bureaucrats suddenly interfere.

I want to explain to everyone how the bureaucrats interfere. There is a system in the committee. The government always says that it listens to the committee. What we have now are parliamentary secretaries who are running the agenda after they have come from the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats will indirectly go through them in the committee and suddenly the whip will crack the whip, and boom, whatever is on the agenda is gone.

I do not wish to give the name, but sometime back in the House we moved a motion concerning Taiwan. However the views of the members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, on the motion were contrary to what the bureaucrats, the mandarins, in foreign affairs wanted. What did the mandarins in foreign affairs do? Parliament passed this resolution and boom, they put it off. They had the nerve and the gall to call the representative of Taiwan into their office and try to give him a hard time by asking him why he had lobbied for this when the views of Parliament were contrary to the views of the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is how deep the interference of the bureaucracy is in trying to pass its own agenda by bypassing Parliament.

The essence of democracy is that this is Parliament and this is where we talk and make our points of view. This is where we agree and the bureaucrats are supposed to do what? They are supposed to implement what we say, not just from their side but from our side as well. That is the way it is supposed to be in a democracy.

However that has all changed. Now it is from the other side coming down to this side. As we sit here I have been frustrated on many occasions, as have all the members of Parliament on this side and, surprisingly, on the government side. Many of the members of the government used to be on this side too. They know how the bureaucracy works but what do they do? They pander to the bureaucracy. Why do we have to pander to the bureaucracy?

To whom is the bureaucracy accountable? The way it is supposed to work is through a narrow window, which would be the deputy minister to a minister, and that is it. There is no other kind of distinction. When bureaucrats come in front of committees, I agree with my friend, we are nuisances and not many members of Parliament to do their job.

I am a critic for the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, and I do not even know the name of the new president or where he is. When I meet with the bureaucrats of CIDA they do not even know who I am. They do not even bother watching what we are doing or listening to what we are saying. It is as though I am irrelevant. The opposition is irrelevant. We do not have points of view. They know what is good. They know how to spend the money.

I am proposing that CIDA be accountable to the Parliament of Canada and be legislated. It is not legislated now but it keeps on running, and it will keep running with $3 million more.

Canadians and NGOs are frustrated. They cannot make CIDA listen because the bureaucrats do not have to listen to anyone now. Yes, somewhere, some time we will have to address the issue of the bureaucracy.

[Canada Elections Act, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3 for the second time. I would like at this time to acknowledge my colleague, the member for North Vancouver, who has put a tremendous amount of effort and time into this complicated bill and has been one of those big sources of information to us in the caucus as well as being here in the House debating and laying out what exactly is wrong with the bill and how it should be addressed.

This morning when he spoke again on the bill, he again outlined our party's position. We are supporting the bill, but we know there are flaws in the bill and we are trying to highlight those flaws to make sure the message goes out about those flaws. However, because of the urgency of time, the election coming up, and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision hanging over our heads, we need to have this legislation go through.

We are supporting the bill, but as he pointed out, supporting it despite the fact that work done by him and through the committee was ignored, as was that of the other parties, which all agreed to the initial proposal of a 12 man rule. As was pointed out, the former minister who was looking after this bill was absolutely adamant about any changes to his bill. He stuck to his guns despite the fact that all information indicated that the Supreme Court of Canada would throw out this bill and ask Parliament to fix it. The minister refused all kinds of compromises on anything. As the member for North Vancouver pointed out, it was a total waste of money. The bill went to the Supreme Court and we are now back here debating the bill, with the one man rule as well as what a party should consist of.

Last time the government House leader spoke to the bill, he talked about the points. He said it strengthened democracy but he wanted to make sure there were more views and henceforth they brought in several administrative issues. But the essence of the bill still remains that it is to register political parties.

Registering political parties is a very important aspect. In a democracy, people express their points of view through a party system. That is the way they do it. Where there is no party system, then it is a different system, but nevertheless, parties are essential to democracy. Therefore, it is very important that we recognize how parties are registered and how they play an important part in one of the pillars of democracy, which is direct elections.

I agree that we do not want abuse of the political system. Otherwise we will lose the trust of Canadians. They will become detached. As it is, with the current state and the way things are going, Canadians are becoming pretty cynical about politicians anyway. I hear this all the time. People write to us and talk to us and tell us that politicians are not held in that high a degree of respect, not as they should be.

How did we politicians come to lose that high degree of respect we had in the 1950s compared to the level now in the 21st century, where we have lost so much common ground? It is because of facts like these: there are a lot of flaws in democracy, many politicians have not handled themselves well, promises were made but not kept, all these things. There is a democratic deficit, as the Prime Minister likes to say.

Over a period of time the PMO became the driving force in the Parliament of Canada. It was making the decisions and the decisions started away from the other parties in the House of Commons.

Two things have happened in our democracy for the erosion of confidence with the public. One was the prime minister getting the power and then making his members of Parliament irrelevant by asking them to vote based on party lines. We saw the last prime minister many times declare votes of confidence for the government when really they were not. It was his own political agenda that he wanted to push through, bypassing his own backbenchers who were elected by the people. His members did not want this, but they could not vote their conscience for the simple reason that the prime minister determined votes of confidence in the government.

These kinds of things have a tendency of eroding confidence and that erosion carries on. When I am campaigning in my riding, people ask questions about what I can say or do. They put high hopes in their elected officials, that we can stand in the Parliament of Canada and speak what they feel is important because they elected us.

Is that really what has happened? No. The current Prime Minister talks about the democratic deficit and how he will improve upon it. We will wait and see. Honestly, he is not connecting well with Canadians on democratic deficit. We know that. The government and the Prime Minister have miserably failed to send out the message to the people in my riding that they are dealing with the many issues of which they talk, such as the democratic deficit, bringing confidence to the government and transparency.

My other point is the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has become so bad that there is a real erosion of power of elected members. As a matter of fact I have noticed that, based on the government's track record and the prime minister's track record. They tell their deputy ministers not to listen to members of Parliament or not to listen to the members of the opposition.

I have met so many bureaucrats from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Foreign Affairs, most important from Revenue Canada and others. Their senior bureaucrats have the least amount of respect for members of Parliament, forgetting the fact that in a democracy it is the members of Parliament who are the ones who represent the people. The bureaucrat's job is to listen and implement policies that the members of Parliament make.

What do we get? I have numerous examples of bureaucracy such as Revenue Canada in Calgary. I have not had good experiences with the bureaucrats there. The immigration office in Calgary does not talk to us. When we talk to the bureaucrats there, they have a habit of saying that they will not answer our questions.

I wrote a letter to the immigration officers in Damascus. They have not bothered replying, yet their office said that they should reply to members of Parliament so members could represent their constituents. The constituents depend on us. They want answers and they look to us for answers on issues. Sure, there are laws. We are intelligent enough to figure out that the laws are there. If the laws are not complied with, we are here to change them.

What happens to members with the bureaucracy is a simple fact. I have had people walk into my offices and say that bureaucrats have told them to go talk to their member of Parliament on small issues, not them. After seven years of this experience, I am have become exceedingly sure that another problem that needs to be addressed is the huge bureaucracy and the way it ignores the wishes of the people.

If government ministers tell their deputy ministers to listen to them only, then that message goes to the other bureaucrats, and they in turn think of a local member of Parliament as a nobody. The bureaucrats we have receive instructions from ministers.

Lo and behold there has been a change of prime minister and many ex-ministers now find themselves on backbenches. They now will get the chance to experience what they have instituted.

In order for democracy to work well, a balance needs to be met. I am not saying there are no good bureaucrats. There are excellent bureaucrats as well. However, like anyone else in any profession there are bad apples who give them a bad name. We need to find a balance among Parliament which makes the laws, the judiciary and the bureaucracy to have an effective way of governing.

Let me get back to the point of political parties.

I am the senior critic for international cooperation. CIDA gives a lot of money to promote democracies around the world. On many occasions I have had the opportunity to go to these countries. I even had the opportunity to be an election observer in Chiapas. However, that was before a former minister for international cooperation sent her own buddies to be election observers, what is called blatant patronage.

Canada has tremendous experience in elections. Elections Canada is a highly respected institution which has helped upcoming democracies. Elections Canada helped in the elections in South Africa. It has a high degree of respect in that country. Other countries ask us how democracies should work and how political parties should work. We need to set examples.

It is important that we highlight the fact that in our own Parliament we can debate issues with each other. However, it is also important to admit the fact that there are flaws in our own Parliament. The House of Commons is the institution of democracy.

It is a privilege for me to stand here today, having come from Africa 25 years ago and having adopted Canada as my country. I am very proud of that fact. I am thankful to the people of Calgary East for giving me the opportunity to represent them in this great institution, the Parliament of Canada. When I go back to my constituency, people tell me they have confidence in me, and they want me to talk about issues that are of importance to them. That comes out of the great institution of democracy.

Canada has had over 100 years of democratic experience. We can go around the world and be proud of our democracy. However, we should always strive to improve our democracy. We need to improve. We do not need to erode the freedom of speech and the freedom we have in democracy. We must be absolutely vigilant to ensure that we never lose that.

The government wanted to include the 50 member rule in the legislation. It puzzles me why we would want to restrict that. I do not know why we would want to restrict freedom of speech by having the 50 member rule. Thank God for the Supreme Court's decision that numbers are not acceptable.

My party proposed the 12 member rule, and other parties agreed with that. It would have fulfilled many of the objectives in the bill. The bill indicates that there now has to be 250 members and three people sitting in office. These are administrative issues. The 12 member rule would have met all kinds of issues.

It is with great pride that I stand in the House of Commons and debate the issue of political parties, which are in essence one of the vehicles by which to express in the House the views of the people.

In conclusion, as members know, my party has just merged, and we had a great convention. There is a new party called the Conservative Party of Canada, to which people now can express their views in the forthcoming election. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said in Alberta that there were clear views and Canadians had a clear choice. Canadians will make the choice in the next general election as to who will lead because now they have a clear choice, and I am a very proud member of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Once more, I want to just mention the great job my colleague from North Vancouver has done on this bill.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's motion states that this House recognize that the current government is not new, but is one that is linked to the past decade of mismanagement, corruption and incompetence. That is the essence of this motion.

We should listen to those members of Parliament because at the end of the day they are the same members of Parliament in the same government. The finance minister was with the old Liberal government. This is not the new government. Now these Liberal members stand and say that they are as angry as other Canadians.

My colleague from the other side mentioned HRDC and said that it was not $1 billion, but that it was $600 million. That is $600 million of taxpayer money. Now it is $6,000, and then maybe he will say $600. This is the same government which mismanaged Canadian taxpayer dollars. It has a huge record. I talked about that today in statements by members. We even had a flag scandal. Flags were given to the Canadian public. A gentleman in Vancouver said that he was paid $5,000 for the delivering nothing, not a single flag. The invoice was sent and the money was taken. That is how the government operates.

What did the Auditor General state? Quite clearly she identified that the government was not taking care of taxpayer dollars. We now have the Liberal members of Parliament on the public accounts committee literally attacking her and trying to discredit her. Today the Liberals stood and tried to defend their record. They said that they were not responsible for all the mismanagement and that they provided a stellar government. Canadians will tell them at the polls what they think about their stellar government. We are talking about incompetency.

Let us talk about something else such as the immigration department. We know the Liberals claim that they are absolutely a pro immigrant party, that they want immigrants, that they want new Canadians. They even used the figure of 1% of the population, which is 300,000 people. Let us forget about the 300,000. They cannot even manage the current immigration, the 220,000 people who are coming into Canada. People are coming into my riding. It used to take 18 months to process an application. Now they are talking 36 to 38 months, and it keeps increasing.

The lives of refugee claimants are hanging in the balance. It was two to three years. Now it will be six or seven years. When I spoke to the immigration officers in India and elsewhere, there was one simple answer. There are no resources and what the government says does not match the rhetoric.

I see I have used up my four minutes. I could have used my full 20 minutes to talk about the incompetency of the government.

[Government of Canada, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians in my riding of Calgary East share the same goals like other Canadians: families raising their children; senior citizens looking forward toward quiet retirement; new immigrants looking forward to settling in their new country; and youth aspiring for a brighter future.

They all work hard and pay their taxes. In return, they expect responsibility and fairness from the federal government. But what do they get in return? They get patronage, self-promotion and abuse of taxpayer dollars, for example, the sponsorship program, the Liberal flag scandal, an immigration scandal due to patronage appointments, and Gagliano crying to Canadians that he is poor, while we know that is not the truth.

It is time to get rid of this government. It clearly does not deserve the confidence of honest and hardworking Canadians.

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2004]

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.

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2004]

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.