Vic Toews

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today on the Canadian Alliance supply motion brought forward by the member for Langley—Abbotsford.

I would like to begin my remarks by pointing out that there seems to be little doubt that Canada's approach to illicit drugs over the past few decades has been a dismal failure. I sincerely believe we need to start looking objectively and openly at new approaches to combat this very serious and complex problem.

When I say that there has been a failure in our drug policy, I do not point at any one particular agency or indeed any particular political party. I think we have all been a part of this failure. Our reluctance to look at genuine efforts to improve and change the system is a very important part of that failure.

At the onset of my comments I would also like to commend to members a reading of the special report that the Ottawa Citizen put out in September 2000. It was a report by Dan Gardner entitled “Losing the War on Drugs”. The first line indicates that for decades the United States led a global battle against illicit drugs. The results have been catastrophic. It is very important to read that report to get an understanding of some of the issues. One may or may not agree with the conclusions the writer reaches, but certainly I commend the report.

I also want to state that we have to recall that drug addicts are human beings. Whether they have brought this condition upon themselves or whether they are victims, they are human beings worthy of respect. They come from all types of homes and economic backgrounds and from all parts of the country.

My own riding of Provencher is a conservative, primarily rural riding. We do not have prostitutes in the streets of our communities. The hard drug problem and indeed even the soft drug problem are by and large silent and hidden, but I think there are ominous threats that will affect even relatively serene rural parts of the country.

I can point to the threat of methamphetamine, which is working its way through the United States and becoming more of a problem in Canada. As the minister of justice in Manitoba, I had occasion to work with American law enforcement agencies that have dealt with the horrendous problem of methamphetamine. In some of the seminars I attended and the discussions in which I took part, I was advised that in the state of California 90% of the child welfare apprehensions are related to methamphetamine abuse and many police officers and child care workers investigating these situations do not even realize that methamphetamine is at the root of some of these problems in terms of the immediate drug problem.

This very dangerous drug is finding its way not only across the United States but into Canada. For those of us who think that heroin, cocaine and other drug problems are largely an urban, large city problem, methamphetamine should be a wake-up call for police forces in rural areas, because its use appears to be growing primarily in rural ridings and among blue collar, Caucasian individuals.

Sometimes we tend to see a drug problem as belonging to another economic or racial group. There can certainly be very general categories when it comes to that, but I think it is important to remember that the problem of hard drugs ultimately affects everyone, no matter what racial background we are, no matter what economic background we are from and no matter where we live in our country.

Even though a riding like Provencher does not have prostitutes in the streets and the drug problems are primarily hidden, the reality is that even children and young adults from the riding of Provencher can become prostitutes and drug addicts. They drift to the streets of larger cities, where they die in anonymity.

The citizens of the large core areas of our cities suffer from the presence of drug addicts and prostitutes. Their streets are congested with johns, with organized crime and with other contributing factors to the problems raised by drugs. We see this more visibly in cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Winnipeg.

We should also commend those workers who are involved in this very difficult struggle on a day to day basis: the police officers, the social workers and the volunteer community organizations. They truly are angels in a very dark night.

With the debate today, I hope we can get beyond our apprehensions about this issue and have a productive and non-partisan dialogue. I appreciate that the Senate is also conducting hearings and studies in respect of this matter. However I think we as elected representatives need to participate in a very active way in the discussion. Because we are elected and because we are responsible to our constituents, we need to be involved in this process in a substantive way. This is not about duplication. This is about participation. We need to start thinking beyond our current policies and start asking ourselves the tougher questions about what is working and what is not.

If the motion is passed and implemented, parliament will have a new special committee examining the way in which the federal parliament can address the wide ranging problems that result from the non-medical use of drugs. The need for such a committee can hardly be in question.

The annual worldwide revenue generated by the illicit drug industry is approximately $400 billion American, which amounts to about an 8% share of total international trade.

Of course Canada does not exist in a vacuum, and In Canada alone each year the total economic costs attributed to illicit drug use is estimated at $1.4 billion, with billions more fuelling organized crime. According to the RCMP's 1999 report on drugs in Canada, the illicit drug trade is a principal source of revenue for most organized crime groups. This is a serious situation with no easy answers.

In light of this, I would like to bring to members' attention a letter that called into question traditional methods of dealing with illicit drug use.

Almost three years ago, the secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, received a letter signed by a variety of both academic and public figures, including a former UN secretary general, a former U.S. secretary of state, a former U.S. surgeon general, Nobel laureates, former presidents and cabinet ministers of Latin American countries and, indeed, in among that list was a number of prominent Canadians. What was so remarkable was not so much who signed the letter but the content of it. The letter stated:

We believe that the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself.

This is an extraordinary statement. The main thrust of this statement of course was that the consequences of social deterioration from illicit drugs resulted not so much from drug use per se but from failed drug policies.

The concerns articulated in this letter focus on the idea that international trends reflecting primarily punitive drug control measures have empowered criminals, corrupted governments, eroded security and impeded efforts to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis.

The letter also claims that significant resources are being depleted on ineffective and increasingly more expensive interdiction efforts, and that not enough is being expended on reducing drug related crime, disease and death.

I cannot imagine that anyone here today would dispute the kind of substantial and permanent harm that results from the use of illicit drugs by members of our society. However, this letter and many other briefs and documents currently in circulation indicate that there is significant and widespread disagreement as to how best to solve the issue in society.

To that effect, we are proposing today to create a committee to analyze these issues carefully and as objectively as possible.

The current strategy in Canada is almost identical to the strategy introduced by the Conservative government almost 15 years ago. Therefore, I do not think finger pointing is productive in this debate.

Both policies, the former and the current of the Conservative government, clearly articulate the overall long term goal of harm, reduction and rehabilitation, in addition to the principles of criminal prosecution and education measures intended to combat and prevent the abuse of such substances.

The reality is that these strategies appear to have failed almost completely.

The Addiction Research Foundation has been conducting the Ontario student drug use survey since 1977. I would like to mention some of its findings today in the House.

The percentage of students using cannabis in the last 12 months peaked at 31.7% in 1979 and then fell for the next six surveys to 11.7% in 1991. In 1993 it increased slightly to 12.7%. Since 1993 usage has climbed back up to 25% in 1997. The percentage of users is now highest in grade 11 at 42%. That is an astounding figure when one considers this is an illicit drug and that 42% of grade 11 students in Ontario utilize this drug.

Peak usage of glue and solvents was in 1979 and then there was a sharp decrease until 1991. Numbers rose again after reaching 1.8% for glue and 2.6% for solvents in 1997. The 1999 survey gives a sharply higher figure for glue at 3.6% and solvents at 7.1%. The issue of glue and solvents is a horrendous problem in the core area of the city of Winnipeg and some other rural prairie cities and does significant damage to children and adults. We have been powerless to do anything about the spread of this horrible addiction.

The peak for LSD was in 1981. The trough was in 1991 at 5.2%. However it has risen back up to about 7%. Overall, LSD usage has risen over the past decade.

Cocaine has been tracked since 1977 while crack cocaine, which is usually associated with urban ghettos primarily in the American cities, has been tracked since 1987. Cocaine peaked in 1979 at 5.1% and then fell only to rise again. Crack cocaine usage has increased sharply. Cocaine usage rose sharply in 1999 to 3.7%. The usage of crack increased in 1999 to 2.4%.

Thirty-six percent of students in 1999 said that in the last year someone had tried to sell them drugs. Thirty-two percent said that they had observed someone selling drugs.

I think the statistics are clear, whether we look to Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, the maritimes or Quebec, illicit drug use, particularly by adolescents, our future here in Canada, has been increasing steadily over the past decade.

Additionally, the Vancouver drug scene has seen a huge increase in the purity of heroin and the introduction of cheap cocaine and crack to the city in the early 1990s. I always have to remark about the conjunction of the words pure and heroin. It almost has a very chilling effect on one when something that devilish and that horrible can be considered pure, but of course I understand it in the chemical sense.

The number of illicit drug overdose deaths have averaged 147 per year over the past seven years. Many of those who die from drug overdoses are not even the heavy drug users. Casual users do not know the strength of street heroin and mixing alcohol with heroin dramatically increases the risk for overdose.

Experimentation with marijuana in Vancouver has risen by 50% in the last five years to 58% of the 17 year olds interviewed.

Other areas of concern are HIV and hepatitis C infection, increased drug misuse among youth, inadequate treatment services and the relationship between crime and substance abuse.

If we look at the economic costs, we need to look far beyond the simple cost of enforcing drug laws themselves. Illicit and illegal drug use is a significant contributing factor in a wide range of crimes, such as property offences, violent crimes, robbery and prostitution. That does not even take into account the organized crime rings that thrive on the commerce and the money generated by this trade.

As elected representatives, we need to participate in an active, substantive way. Burying our heads in the sand and saying that this will not affect our particular riding because it is a quiet rural riding and we have other things to concern ourselves with will simply delay the problem. One day the problem will even be in those ridings that we consider safe and secure from the problems of drugs.

I commend my colleague for bringing the motion forward and I commend the motion to others in the House.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the very productive and non-partisan approach that members in the House are taking. I would like to commend the former speaker for his comments. I noted he brought forward again the Le Dain report, which many of us recall, and the recommendation in that very significant but overlooked report.

The issue of gradually reducing the penalties on illicit drug use is of course a contentious matter, but would the member have any initial views on the non-criminalization and the elimination of penalties for the use of these drugs? I ask the question based on comments that I think many of us have received from constituents. Certainly these are comments that I have received from constituents when I served in the Manitoba provincial legislature where I represented an urban riding.

The comments go along very generally like this. If all presently illegal drugs were legalized and the distribution properly controlled, there would be no incentive to rob and otherwise injure law-abiding citizens. Then we could divert resources from law enforcement to more intensive social services to get to the root of the problem. Has the member any further comments to add on that?

[Justice, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House leader said that this legislation was not a priority for his government and that he wanted to see the legislation put over until the fall.

Will the Minister of Justice correct the House leader and tell him that Canadians care?

[Justice, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the ability of sexual predators to lure children, including through the Internet, is a concern to Canadian parents and members of our party.

Will the justice minister commit today to ensuring that specific and separate legislation is brought forward dealing with the use of the Internet to protect children against these predators?

[Justice, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, no wonder there is no reform in parliament if 30 years is a short time.

In Ontario police estimate there are as many as 900 federal fugitives at large. The federal government contributes $500,000 to track them down. By comparison, the Ontario provincial government gives $4 million.

This is a threat to public safety. Why will the federal government not provide the necessary resources to apprehend dangerous federal fugitives at large?

[Justice, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned that local police in Belleville, Ontario, caught a convicted bank robber who escaped from a federal prison almost 30 years ago.

Currently the Liberal government does virtually nothing to capture violent, hardened criminals who escape from federal institutions. Will the minister commit today to creating a special unit within the RCMP to apprehend the hundreds of federal fugitives at large in Canada today?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in debate on Bill C-15, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts. When the bill was first introduced almost two months ago, one of my new colleagues asked “Animal cruelty, child pornography, and firearms, what do any of these issues have to do with one another?” and said he did not understand why they would all be put in one bill.

While past practice has often demonstrated that logic is not essential to the legislative process or for the legislative provisions themselves, there is a clear logic to grouping together the diverse provisions of this bill. It is a Machiavellian logic motivated by the politics of cynicism. It is a logic that raises the spectre of the worst of the American legislative process.

It is a logic that attempts to coerce agreement from opposition parties by requiring their consent to a political agenda of flawed partisan legislation as a precondition to the enactment of legislation widely recognized as necessary for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. How else can one logically explain, for example, the coupling of the provisions seeking to amend the fundamentally flawed legislation concerning the billion dollar long gun registry failure with provisions that seek to protect our children from sexual predators?

This omnibus bill is a deliberate and cynical attempt to curtail any substantive debate on the flaws of the political agenda evident in the long gun registry provisions and to require members either to accept legislation that our constituents fundamentally disagree with or to vote against legislation that our constituents would never want to oppose, such as laws aimed at protecting children.

There is no question that there are some good provisions in the bill. Most important, the legislation contains long overdue laws against luring children over the Internet for the purposes of committing a sexual offence. I commend these initial efforts to protect children from criminals using the Internet.

The Canadian Alliance has consistently called for legislation to protect children from those who keep finding ways to prey on their vulnerability. Law enforcement agencies and child care agencies regularly advise the public through the media or otherwise that predators frequently use the Internet, mask their identities and pretend to be children or young adults in order to lure children into a situation where they could be sexually abused. These situations are becoming more common and I am relieved to see that the government has finally recognized the great need to amend the law. It is a good first step, at any rate.

However, I have serious doubts whether the legislation, which attempts to provide protection to children from sexual predators, will be either effective or sufficiently broad. The same government that has to date failed to create an effective national sex offender registry now wants us to believe it can keep track of the criminals who lure children over the Internet or who deal in child pornography. Why should we believe that it would follow through with effective measures that enforce the legislation?

Furthermore, these provisions would only provide legislative protection for children who are less than 14 years of age. Canadians would be shocked to learn that even under this legislation an adult could lure a 14 year old girl or a 14 year old boy over the Internet with no legal consequences. Parents and children deserve a greater measure of assistance and protection from these predators.

I agree with those law enforcement and child care agencies that recommend that the law set out for child luring should be extended to all children under the age of 16. This way parents and other concerned authorities would have some legal recourse to protect children of 14 and 15 years of age who fall prey to sexual predators they encounter over the Internet.

There are also new offences set out for transmitting, accessing or distributing child pornography over the Internet, punishable by a maximum of 10 years. This is a laudable goal, but I would be interested in being advised of the practical difficulties involved with these kinds of investigations and prosecutions in order to determine whether these legislative proposals meet those very real concerns.

Similarly, I would like to point out that in Bill C-15, although there are provisions for substantial maximum sentences for accessing child pornography, luring children for sexual purposes, animal cruelty, criminal harassment and a variety of other offences, the legislation will be ineffective if judges will not impose appropriate sentences.

When maximum sentences are increased it is rare to see a proportionate increase in sentences, as many judges simply ignore the direction signalled by parliament when it enacts these changes in legislation. Not only do the appeal courts appear to be reluctant to establish sentencing ranges that are proportionate to the crime committed and the legislative penalty provided, there is a corresponding reluctance on the part of the government to send clear, legislative directions to the courts that the sentences imposed on many serious and repeat offenders are simply inadequate.

This apparent reluctance on the part of the government is compounded by the imposition of new and fundamentally misleading sentencing tools that encourage the pretence that offenders are in fact imprisoned, while the truth is that they are free to exploit more victims in our communities.

I refer of course to the practice of authorizing and imposing conditional sentences. As crown attorneys continue to advise, the enforcement of breeches of these conditional sentences are increasingly rare because of the lack of adequate resources to apply these very complex provisions. Then the failure to provide the appropriate resources fulfils another political agenda of the Liberal government to make it appear that these sentencing provisions are in fact working because there are so few reported breeches.

Accordingly, unless the government takes the necessary steps to implement effective and truthful sentencing in the Canadian justice system, these important child protection provisions in the bill will simply be another example of the failure of our laws to protect the vulnerable in our society.

In terms of the animal cruelty sections of the bill, I am aware that the government has made certain changes from the previously proposed legislation, Bill C-17. However there are still significant concerns that many organizations, businesses and individuals have in respect of these provisions.

I know that some of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance will go into further detail on many of these issues, but I would also like to touch briefly on the issue on behalf of the various groups that took the time to contact me personally to raise their concerns. These groups included the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Ontario Farm Animal Council, the Ontario Veal Association and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

These organizations have consistently said that they welcome amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. Many of these groups support the intent of the bill as its objective is to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty and neglect. However, despite the minor improvements to this legislation, they advise that this bill requires significant amendments before it becomes acceptable to the vast majority of hunters and farmers, many of whom are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihood.

One of the central concerns with the bill is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification, excuse or colour of right” in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. However in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would effectively remove these provisions outside the ambit of that protection.

Moving the animal cruelty sections out of the ambit of property offences to a new section in its own right is also seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered. These groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could in fact have significant and detrimental implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses.

Another major and very serious concern is that the definition of animal is too broad, subjective and ambiguous. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15 includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. This definition marks a significant departure by providing protection for an extremely wide range of living organisms which have never before been afforded this kind of legal protection.

In terms of practical difficulties, this definition as worded could cause potentially enormous problems by extending the criminal law to invertebrates, cold blooded species such as fish, as well as the extremely wide variety of other types of both domestic and wild animals.

In her speech last Thursday, the justice minister assured us that what was lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill received royal assent. She promised the House that these changes would not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals, such as hunting, farming or medical and scientific research.

Her statement was at the same time self-evident, but also misleading. Of course the new provisions would not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out. The law only prescribes illegal activities. The problem is, and therefore the concern, that these new provisions would arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities by increasing the scope of this provision.

If it is not the minister's intent to prohibit the presently acceptable and legitimate activities in Canadian agricultural or fur industries, I would suggest that the wording of the legislation be amended to clarify the intent of these provisions. If it is not amended, I and many of my colleagues will have a very difficult time supporting the bill.

The riding of Provencher, which I have the honour to represent, is primarily a rural riding. The farmers and hunters and other businesses associated with those activities have enough to worry about these days without having to wonder if they are going to be criminalized for practices they have been carrying out their entire lives. I have the option of voting against the bill on the basis that farmers and others who use animals legitimately have voiced reasonable and serious concerns regarding the implications the bill would present. However, in this case I would also be voting against new laws to protect children.

It is a difficult situation and one of which I am certain will be exploited by the Liberals for crass political advantage. It is truly unfortunate that the minister is asking us to consider provisions that deal with the lives of children in the same context with provisions that impose conditions on how farmers and hunters and related businesses should handle animals.

There is no legal requirement to proceed to weigh the merits of this bill on the basis of such inappropriate relative comparison. It demeans the value of human life and at the same time prevents the House from fully considering the impact of the animal cruelty provisions on the economic circumstances of many rural people of Canada.

Bill C-15 contains a number of good things. As I have said, it contains updated legislation to protect children to some extent from sexual predators on the Internet. It would make viewing, transmitting and distributing child pornography over the Internet an offence punishable by up to 10 years.

More important, the bill would increase protection for police by creating the new offence of disarming a police officer. The bill outlines reforms to rules governing criminal procedure. These are procedural reforms that are long overdue. Much of this legislation in the bill is in fact badly needed. The opposition has been calling for these provisions for years. Personally, I am relieved to see that the measures are being finally introduced.

As I have said before, I would like to support the bill. The bill presents a very difficult situation. I am disappointed that the government would put such diverse and I would argue completely unrelated issues in the same bill. As I stated earlier, I see this approach to lawmaking as a blatant and cynical political move on the part of the Liberal government to force flawed legislation through the House. More important, it shows a callous disregard to the constituents who have asked us to serve their best interest in the House.

I would ask the minister to consider introducing a motion to split this legislative package into several bills. That would remove the provisions that have a broad base of support in the House so that those provisions could be fast tracked and proclaimed. We saw an example of that this morning with Bill S-4.

Members in the House are willing to co-operate. I believe that on many provisions there is broad if not unanimous consensus in the House to move them forward. The technique of bringing forward a motion to split the bill would accommodate the need to move those provisions that do have that broad consensus, while subjecting the others to a more rigorous debate and, I suggest, to better legislation. If need be, I am prepared to sit down with representatives from all parties to facilitate that discussion.

[Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I simply echo the comments of the minister and thank the staff and all those who worked very hard on this bill. We appreciate their efforts.

[Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill S-4, an act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of the province of Quebec and to amend certain acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

I will keep my remarks very brief. As we know, Quebec has its own civil system of law based on the French model, whereas the other nine provinces have a legal system based on English common law. The bill is a reflection of a work plan established by the federal government to ensure that the federal law which applies in all 10 provinces has the same vocabulary as the Quebec code and that the federal law takes into account both law traditions.

In reviewing the federal law some laws were found still in force by virtue of having been adopted by the pre-confederation parliament but made only applicable in lower Canada. In Bill S-4 the statutes are being repealed or amended to reflect the current situation.

In any case the bill enacts necessary amendments. I have no issues with either the intent or the substance of the bill. I therefore support the immediate passage of the bill through the House.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the bill in respect to break and enter crimes. As my hon. colleague for Calgary East has stated, Bill C-290 provides the courts clear direction from parliament on the seriousness of break and enter crimes.

The bill would set out a minimum two year sentence for repeat and subsequent offences for break and enter crimes in a dwelling house. That needs to be stressed. We are talking about the residence of a person.

The bill would not simply denounce break and enter crime as a serious violation of a person's sense of safety and security. By providing a two year minimum for repeat offenders the bill would prove a very effective deterrent against these kinds of criminals.

Let me give the House a quick but telling example of why Liberal policy with respect to break and enter law has failed and why we need to seriously consider amending the sentencing provisions for break and enter crimes.

In my home province of Manitoba preliminary statistics released by Winnipeg police on March 20 show that Winnipeg's crime rate jumped almost 40% in the first two months of this year. The police service is stretched to the limit as front line officers fight to protect law-abiding citizens.

According to Winnipeg police, these statistics show that certain crimes, particularly break and enter crimes, are on the rise after several years of decline. A member across the way says we should talk to the province or to police. There it is. We are told to blame the province and the police when we have the tools to deal with it here.

It is a typical Liberal response to simply pay lip service to an issue and let someone else deal with it.

I want to compare statistics for the first two months of 2001 with those for the first two months of 2000. I will give the precise numbers. Nine hundred and nineteen residential break and enters were reported in January and February 2001. Seven hundred and ninety-three were reported for the same period last year. This is not just a matter of statistics. This is a matter of personal safety for the people of my province and the people of Canada. People live in fear because of what is happening not only on the streets but in their own homes.

This parliament does not show its citizens the respect to which they are entitled in their own homes. If we let gangs run loose on the streets what courtesy are we showing to citizens? What fears build up in their homes when they cannot even lock the door and know they are safe?

Members across the way say that it is a police problem. It is not a police problem. Police arrest these lawbreakers every day and the turnstile justice system sets them free almost immediately.

The situation is not unique to Winnipeg. As my hon. friend from Calgary has indicated, it is a serious problem in his city as well. It has become such a problem that the Calgary police service has formed a break and enter unit in every district to take over from the single unit which until recently served the entire city.

Officers are becoming increasingly frustrated watching criminals receive little more than a slap on the wrist from the courts. My friend across the way said that we should let judges determine sentences because they have all the facts. Yes, they have all the facts and all the tools, yet they are doing nothing.

When I was in provincial politics one of my constituents suggested that one way to reduce crime in Winnipeg would be to make each judge live on a block in the downtown core. We would perhaps not see the callous attitude with which people in those areas are treated when they come to the courts for justice. Let judges live in the downtown core and deal with gangs not in the courts but face to face when they come through the doors into their homes. It is disgraceful.

The police know what they are talking about. Thinking citizens know what they are talking about. The statistics are clear. The vast majority of break and enter crimes are committed by a very small group of people. Winnipeg City Police have told me that when they put one of these gangs away the break and enter rates drop dramatically. As soon as they are on the street again the rates zoom up.

Incarceration for break and enters into residential homes is a clear deterrent and has a clear impact on this horrific crime. This is not a property crime. This is not a property crime. It is an invasion of people's security. It is a violation of the rights outlined in the section 7 of the charter: the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The charter protects criminals in our courts but parliament does not grant the same courtesy to law-abiding, taxpaying citizens. That is a disgrace.

Break and enter crimes fund gang related activities, such as drug purchases and distribution. The bill's sentencing provisions would cut off what is a real and substantial revenue source for these career criminals.

My friend across the way indicated that the new amendments would give the courts direction. The courts have always had the ability to impose life sentences, although they gave up on that a long time ago. They no longer even take the facts into account.

My learned friend knows that the real purpose behind the Liberal bill is to allow the government to stand and pay lip service knowing that judges will do nothing about this crime. It is a fraud on the Canadian people. That is why my hon. friend from Calgary introduced this private member's bill. It is absolutely necessary.

The terror of this crime is illustrated by a newspaper article in today's Winnipeg Sun . The article describes an ordinary break and enter that turned into a home invasion in which police officers and citizens feared for their lives. I recommend that you read the story, Madam Speaker.

Let us think about it. While people in core areas of Winnipeg, Toronto and Vancouver are crouched in their homes worried about what is happening to their cities, the government refuses to respond. I ask all hon. members to respond by voting in favour of this very necessary bill.