SoVote

Feb/6/24 4:28:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I will say to my hon. colleague that I did prepare the speech myself. I am not sure if his notes came from the opposition leader's office, but I did see that he spoke off the cuff and therefore I am going to make the assumption, I will be charitable, that he came up with the question, and as a former prosecutor, I certainly hope that he did. In fact, to go back to that, the member was a prosecutor and certainly would have seen the effects of the Conservative Party's cuts with respect to the CBSA and the RCMP, and also the many social cuts that it made, such as cuts to various programs that youth relied on. I think that is relevant in the discussion too. I will repeat that it is a party that wraps itself in the flag, wraps itself in a discourse of law and order, but does not present any serious solution to what is admittedly a serious issue, a serious problem in this country, and is not to be taken seriously at all.

187 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/6/24 4:29:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, we have a situation where one party is pointing fingers at the other, and then that party just points fingers back. One says it has a better solution, and the other says the opposite. Eventually, everyone points fingers at our party. That said, prevention is always a good thing. Have mistakes been made in the past? Yes, mistakes may have been made in the past when prevention measures were eliminated. We know that these prevention measures were eliminated. We know that these are good measures, including adding more CBSA officers. That is a good preventive measure. Why not implement that right away, without waiting for the results of another meeting of discussions and consultations? We are aware of possible solutions. We can move forward. Why not go ahead and follow some of the same approaches that have worked in the past?

145 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Feb/6/24 4:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our colleague is wondering why we need to have a meeting now and why the government is taking this approach. It is interesting to hear a Bloc member say that, because the Bloc is always talking in the House about the importance of co-operation between the federal, provincial—Quebec in particular—and municipal governments throughout Canada. In this case, however, she is saying that we need to take immediate action. It does not make sense. I think that we have to engage all levels that are involved in the issue in order to come to a solution.

102 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Feb/6/24 4:32:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on an issue that was brought up by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He was talking about being proactive versus reactive. My issue is that most of this motion deals with the Criminal Code, which is fundamentally a very reactive piece of legislation, in that it is brought to bear after the fact. I have a greater interest in being more proactive in heading off the problem before it becomes too large an issue. We know that people do not just wake up one day and decide to steal a car. There are a lot of different circumstances and a lot of provisions in the Criminal Code that allow judges to mete out the appropriate sentence based on the individual crime. What could the government be doing more of, proactively, to prevent the crime from happening in the first place rather than relying solely on a reactive element like the Criminal Code?

162 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Feb/6/24 4:32:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, because he always offers constructive ideas and has something important to say every time he speaks. I know that he has spoken in the past about the importance of making sure that we are investing in youth programs as a preventative measure. I think that has a place in this conversation but I also take very seriously the idea that criminals should be punished for the crimes that they commit. Therefore, I follow with great interest what the summit will produce on that score. The government did move ahead with legislation that did advance that. I want to see more on that.

113 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 4:33:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I only hope that I can speak half as well as the other Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. That is my goal. It is aspirational. It is a very high bar, but I will do my best. We all know auto theft is impacting more and more Canadians. In doing so, it is undermining public confidence and feelings of safety. A serious conversation is best needed to address this issue, as we owe it to our constituents to ensure we propose a meaningful impact for solutions in this area. That is why I was disappointed yesterday to see unserious proposals coming from the Leader of the Opposition. His alleged reforms would be to do things that are already being done and would have no practical effect. We know that criminal law is not always the best solution here. We are focused on improving enforcement and working with manufacturers to increase security for vehicles. This Thursday, we are bringing together federal, provincial and municipal governments, law enforcement and industry to discuss how we can combat auto theft. The Conservatives, and I think the Bloc just momentarily, are saying these are empty gestures, but it is an understanding of the complexity of this issue. The Conservatives think that, magically, we will change the Criminal Code, and this will disappear. They have even said they would repeal some of the provisions we have brought forward, which I believe have been to actually increase sentencing for auto theft, which again shows how unserious and slogan-based the Conservative Party is. However, we are bringing together all people at the table. The face of auto theft varies from place to place in Canada, and what we know about auto theft is different from what it may have been 30 or even 10 years ago. According to available data, Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are the jurisdictions most impacted by auto theft, but the circumstances facing these jurisdictions differ. For instance, Alberta vehicles are being stolen for parts or resale domestically after having their vehicle identification numbers, or VINs, replaced. In Ontario and Quebec, we know that certain cars are targeted for theft so that they can be shipped to overseas markets in Africa or the Middle East. This activity is mining the pockets of transnational organized crime. Make no mistake; transnational organized crime activity is big business. I was astounded to read about the scale. Even in data reported by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime from 2009, it was estimated that $870 billion, annually, was being generated by transnational organized crime. We can all imagine that number is much larger today. That number is staggering and far exceeds the GDP of most countries around the world. We need to think about what that means. Money in the hands of organized crime, including money generated by auto theft, can be used to facilitate other criminal activity, like drug trafficking, people trafficking and migrant smuggling. Therefore, in the fall economic statement we proposed a number of measures to combat money laundering in Canada. Those measures would target organized crime in Canada and, in turn, would have an effect in combatting auto theft. However, the Conservatives are opposing legislation, slowing it down at every turn. Even in the committee I sit on, the committee on public safety, the Conservatives are filibustering legislation to deal with cybercrime and cyber-activity to prevent us from getting to a study on auto theft. They talk a good game. Again, it is slogans. They get angry and pound the table, but when it comes to actually doing something and listening to experts, Conservatives are nowhere to be found. They are even filibustering legislation that I think they support, and the odd time we get to hear from a witness, cyber-activity is funding these same types of criminals. Again, when it comes down to taking action on crime and protecting Canadians, it is crickets from the Conservative caucus. Maybe “crickets” is not the proper word, since there are lengthy filibusters, but I think the analogy still holds. It is truly unfortunate to see all this legislation being slowed down. It is unfortunate to see the Conservatives voting against funding the police. We know, when they were in power, that they cut the RCMP, and they cut 1,000 officers from CBSA, and we are struggling to get back at it. It takes years. It takes time. The Leader of the Opposition the other day boasted about more cuts coming and that they can do more with less. I do not think that is what Canadians want to hear, that the Conservative Party is going to, once again, like it historically has done, cut police. That is not what Canadians want to hear when there is a situation that needs to be addressed, but that is what the Conservatives are offering. They will change the Criminal Code in the hopes that it will do something, and cut frontline policing. They have voted against it at every turn. They are showing us what they are going to do by voting against it. It is also interesting at the public safety committee to hear Conservative members beat the drum on American-style criminal law. That is a great thing for them to bring forward, but when I ask, time after time, if they could point me to a place that has enacted those types of laws in the United States that have made those communities safer. It is great for them to tell their constituents that they are going to bring these things in, but we can see the laboratory down south. We can look across the border and see that it has not worked. Again, it is empty rhetoric that is not going to do anything. Our government is committed to the work of public safety. As I mentioned, this Thursday, ministers responsible from across Canada, will join federal counterparts and leaders of law enforcement to consider the impacts of auto theft here in Canada and to identify the ways to work together. The federal government is showing leadership in this space by convening this urgent meeting. As the Minister of Public Safety said, “Collaboration is the key to identifying solutions.” The Bloc and the Conservatives can disagree and say that we should take action without listening to the experts and without understanding the complexity of crime. There is a place for the federal government. It needs to be there. However, there needs to be a place for the provinces, which oversee policing, and it is the same for municipalities; they need to work together. We are there. We made a big announcement with the premier of the Province of Ontario, in terms of money to help curb guns and gangs and to go after organized crime. Again, the federal government is taking action. What does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It votes against that money, and that is truly shocking. I have said before that the sole component of the Conservative Party environmental plan is recycling slogans. It really is in full gear when Conservatives talk about criminal justice, but there is nothing to back it up. It is just empty words. When it comes time to answer questions, they are nowhere to be found. They are a completely unserious party on this particular issue. I would like to note that we already have an extremely robust criminal law framework to address auto theft. This legal framework includes specific offences that target auto theft and related activity. It includes things like tampering with vehicle identification numbers, possessing items used to break into a vehicle or using computer systems to intercept car fob signals in order to steal a vehicle. In fact, the Liberal government, in 2019, raised the maximum penalty on summary conviction for theft of motor vehicles to two years. The previous government had it at 18 months, I believe. Would members like to know what legislation the government did this with? It was Bill C-75, the very legislation the Conservative Party leader is proposing to repeal. I am surprised he wants to lower penalties for those who steal motor vehicles. Again, it is empty slogans. His plans are unserious. The Conservative Party is unserious when it comes to public safety. The Criminal Code prohibits possession of stolen cars for the purpose illegally exporting them. Sentencing courts have the ability to impose significant penalties in cases where organized crime is involved. Sentencing courts must impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offences and the responsibility of the offender. Sentencing courts cannot impose conditional sentences for auto theft when prosecuted on indictment or committed for organized crime. Again, this flies in the face of the empty promises from the Leader of the Opposition. Serious criminals cannot and should not get house arrest. This is what the law says. Again, we hear some heckling that it is incorrect, but that is the fact. That is in the legislation that they, with their slogans, say they are going to repeal to actually make it easier for criminals to get away with it. Conservatives want to lower sentences, and they are laughing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Chris Bittle: Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is laughing while he is heckling. He thinks this is a funny joke, which is what he just said. It is truly a disappointing and unserious party, the Conservative Party of Canada. We are going to get action done. We are taking action on this file.

1606 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/6/24 4:43:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of members from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I will say this much. Sometimes, people say really funny things, and my colleague just said something very funny. Perhaps it was because the speech was just not that compelling. At the end of the day, the member has spoken all about what they have done about auto theft. I will remind him that Bill C-75 did not just raise the sentence, as though he is saying that we are targeting auto theft. It was actually two years less a day that it raised it on summary conviction. It raised every summary conviction to two years less a day. The Liberal government can say that it is targeting this time after time. There is an epidemic here, and I want to know this: Will the member admit, fundamentally, what police and citizens across the country are telling us, that there is a problem?

163 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/6/24 4:44:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that the hon. member is criticizing us for increasing the summary conviction penalty across the board in the Criminal Code. That is their criticism that he wants repealed. They say we are soft on crime. I am surprised that the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, as a former prosecutor, would stand in the House and talk about making it easier on criminals. We cannot make this up, but he just gets up. He should go back to listening to his colleague and laughing in this place, because that was just a joke.

99 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/6/24 4:45:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is possible to do two things at once. I will clarify my previous question to ensure the member understands. Obviously, consultation and coordination are essential when it comes to an issue as serious as auto theft, and crime in general. That said, there used to be preventative measures in place, but they were removed. Everyone knows that they are preventative measures. They have never been reinstated. We should be perfectly capable of considering their reinstatement while also discussing, coordinating and consulting. Why do my colleagues think we cannot do two things at once?

96 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/6/24 4:46:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I do think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, perhaps myself not always so well. The government is addressing these things. The government is focused on poverty. It is focused on gangs. It is focused on finding activities for young people and funding those programs. We can do multiple things. Though the member from Kamloops wants to repeal stronger sentences against criminals, we want that to stand. We can do multiple things at the same time. The government is taking this seriously, working with provincial leaders, working with the Province of Quebec, to find a solution to this crisis.

109 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/6/24 4:47:22 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, as I listen to the interventions and think back to the effectiveness of the NDP in this 44th Parliament, I think about, for example, what the MP for Vancouver East and I have done in securing $4 billion over seven years for urban, rural and northern housing. I think about the member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre who got unanimous consent by all of Parliament that residential schools are a form of genocide. Having said that, I am struck by the fact that there are 24 Liberal MPs who represent Toronto and the general area of Toronto alone. What I am asking is this: Why have they failed to take action to stop criminals from stealing cars?

118 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/6/24 4:48:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nunavut for her concern about southern Ontario. The members of the Toronto caucus have been very vocal and, again, have been behind many of the items and legislation the Liberal government has brought forward. I know the Conservative Party wants to repeal tougher sentences for those who steal cars, but at the end of the day, this is something I know Toronto members have stood strongly on. As a member from southern Ontario, I have stood strongly on it. Perhaps the member for Nunavut should consult with members from the 416 area before asking such questions.

107 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/6/24 4:49:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Nunavut, who is entitled to the same rights and privileges we all have in this place was just insulted by the previous speaker, a parliamentary secretary for the Liberal Party. I believe that the member should apologize for demeaning her and her right to intervene in this place.

60 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 4:49:34 p.m.
Watch

If the hon. member for Nunavut wants to raise a point of order, it is her right. The hon. member for Nunavut.

22 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Feb/6/24 4:49:42 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I would indeed like to rise on that same point of order because I am quite offended that I am being told that I might not be smart enough or might not have the level of information that I need to be able to ask smart questions. I did point to the effectiveness of what the NDP has done and pointed to the difference between that and what the Liberals have not done. The member did not answer my question in this manner.

84 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/6/24 4:50:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard the parliamentary secretary speak to and answer many questions. I can assure the member that there was in no way an attempt to be personal on the question or to be—

37 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 4:50:33 p.m.
Watch

We are getting into debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

9 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/6/24 4:50:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, I did directly answer the question of the member for Nunavut when she said that Toronto members were doing nothing about this. I stood up for Toronto members, as that was insulting to them. It is debate. I just responded that the member should speak to Toronto members about their actions. If she took offence at that, I do apologize.

65 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Feb/6/24 4:51:00 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I find it difficult to accept that apology because I do not think it is a sincere one.

19 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 4:51:17 p.m.
Watch

I do not think we can dispute the sincerity of a member's sentiments when they express an apology, and I believe the hon. member did so. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant has the floor.

39 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 276