44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 16, 2024 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by greeting everyone and wishing everyone a happy and pleasant return. I encourage my colleagues to work for the common good and in the collective interest rather than their personal interest. It is a subtle message. Some will hear it; others, not so much. That is where I wanted to start.
We are talking about Bill C‑379, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code to curb motor vehicle theft. The bill seeks to establish a minimum prison sentence of three years for a repeat offence when a person commits that offence three times.
The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle. We will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee. Our colleagues know how we work. We will determine whether it is good for Quebec and Quebeckers. If that is the case, we will vote in favour of the bill.
We think this could improve things. However, a lot of questions remain about the bill's current wording, such as the aggravating circumstances. The bill would add another aggravating circumstance: the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of organized crime. We agree with that, but this part already exists. The Criminal Code already contains a provision on that. Adding it serves no purpose. It is probably more of a political statement, a way to claim credit for doing it, than a material change to the legislation. We will study the matter and, if necessary, we will keep this aspect. However, our research shows that this provision exists in the legislation already.
There is also a provision preventing the use of conditional sentences. We do not necessarily disagree with this, but we would like to sound a note of caution and raise questions in committee. We must always ensure that judges have the discretion to use their own judgment. As their title suggests, these people are supposed to have good judgment. We need to trust them to use it. Throwing a young person in jail for a first offence and having them spend three years behind bars alongside career criminals may not always the best option to foster rehabilitation and reintegration. What we want is to reintegrate these people into society and the job market in a way that is constructive. We will study this. I am not saying we will oppose this clause when push comes to shove, but we have questions about it.
We are also backing the bill because we want to support the people on the ground. Bloc Québécois members are constantly on the ground. We have just come back from spending the summer in our ridings. We were on the ground, myself included. I try to visit a different region of Quebec each summer so I can talk to residents about their realities in connection with my portfolio, which is agriculture and agri-food.
This summer, I visited the north shore. My time there was brief, because I had to go home to deal with events in my riding. My riding was hit hard by torrential rains, so I had to cut my trip short. Nevertheless, I was able to spend a few days on the north shore and gauge the mood in the region. That is important.
In passing, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the people of Berthier—Maskinongé for their resilience. They showed tremendous resilience this summer in the face of these very unfortunate circumstances. I would also like to tip my hat to all the local elected officials, who are on the front lines when such things happen. When a city experiences flooding, they are the ones in the trenches calling for aid. People know me and know that I try to be very present and offer plenty of support. I kept in direct touch with all these people, and I tried to support them as best I could. Anyway, I digress.
I was talking about what is happening on the ground. The Montreal police department is asking for harsher sentences for auto theft under the Criminal Code. It has reported some troubling findings. One is that stealing cars is far more profitable and less risky than selling drugs. Of course, we do not want to encourage criminals to sell drugs either, but when we compare the two, it does not seem like auto theft is being tackled very aggressively, which may explain why this crime is so popular and growing exponentially.
In short, as I said at the start of my speech, as legislators, let us work for the common good. When cars are stolen, manufacturers are not particularly affected because the insurance company pays out the claim and the owner buys another car. That means auto theft may even increase manufacturers' sales numbers. The important thing is that we work for Canadians.
Who is going to pay for all this in the end? It is ordinary folks, who will have to pay more for car insurance. We have all seen insurance premiums shoot up in recent years. If they continue to go up, it is our fault, since we are doing nothing about it. We need to fix the problem.
I heard the parliamentary secretary say that not just one jurisdiction is responsible. That is just a way of shirking responsibility. He also said that the government held a summit on car theft. It was all just smoke and mirrors. When the media started putting the pressure on, it became clear that the Liberals had been doing nothing about this issue for far too long. That is the hallmark of this tired Liberal government. It is a wait-and-see government. It sticks its head in the sand whenever there is a problem, hoping that it will take care of itself. This government only acts when it has its back to the wall. Our job as the opposition is to put it in that position and tell it to do something.
Auto theft is surging, particularly because of technology. Take smart keys, for example. They seem like a magic solution to make life easier, but they have actually made it easier to steal cars. All the thief has to do is use an amplifier or a computer that they plug into the on-board diagnostics socket to clone the key's signal. Then they can easily drive off with the car. They park it somewhere for a few days and wait to see if it is noticed. Once they are sure it has not been noticed, they load it in a container, drive it to the port and ship it out. That is the big problem.
The bill before us is interesting in certain respects, but it fails to address some sizable gaps, such as the inspection of containers prior to export. What is the justification for requiring a warrant to open containers at the port, even when they are suspicious? A judge needs to issue a warrant, so that complicates matters. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials say that the port already has a security service, so they are not patrolling those areas.
For the 871,000 containers that left the Port of Montreal in 2022, how many inspectors were there? I hope members are sitting down before I give the answer. According to the Canada Border Services Agency, there were five. There were five inspectors for 871,000 containers. Then they are surprised that auto theft has become so popular and is happening so much. Sooner or later, something needs to be done.
This is the same Canada Border Services Agency that was responsible for the ArriveCAN scandal. This resulted in a shameful waste of public funds because of cronies who lined their own pockets, their buddies' pockets and the pockets of four or five other middlemen. This is off topic, but I need to point out that the same thing will happen with pharmacare and dental plans that go through private companies. The government needs to transfer the money to Quebec and let us manage these areas ourselves.
Getting back to the topic of auto theft, there is a problem with the Canada Border Services Agency. There is negligence. The media even reported that some suspicious containers were not inspected because someone's shift was over or someone was not working evenings or weekends or had something else to do. I am not saying that all this is true. I know the importance of avoiding populism, unlike some other individuals here in the House, but this does raise some serious questions.
As for the Canada Border Services Agency, the Bloc Québécois is on record as saying, and I would like to reiterate it now, that in light of the ArriveCAN scandal, the CBSA should be placed under third-party management. If the government wants to be serious, it must intervene.
Just look at the way the port of Montreal is managed and inspected. There are five inspectors for 871,000 outbound containers; there was a refusal to provide an inspector for a special squad that would have worked on vehicle exports; and there were requests from Montreal's police chief. The penalties for those who export the cars need to be increased. This is something we could have control over.
There is a lot of work to be done on this file. The Bloc Québécois will go to committee with an open mind but also with a lot of questions and a lot of suggestions for improvements, as we always do in the best interest of Quebeckers.
1618 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wish a good morning to you and to all of my colleagues in the House. I trust that everyone had an enjoyable summer back in their ridings. Here we are on the first day back.
I am pleased to rise today during Private Members' Business as the NDP's public safety critic to share some of my thoughts on Bill C-379. I know that the member for Prince Albert, who introduced the bill, is coming at this issue with sincerity. I think every member in the House, no matter what political party we belong to, understands that the issue of car thefts in Canada is serious. It is not a victimless crime. We all represent communities that have suffered from it. It is certainly something for which we need an all-encompassing policy response to effectively deal with it.
The bill before us today, Bill C-379, is a relatively short bill, as most private members' bills are. Essentially, the main part of the bill is seeking to increase the minimum term of imprisonment for repeat offenders from six months to three years.
Before I get into a discussion of the bill itself, I want to acknowledge the severity of car thefts in Canada. I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. That committee has been conducting a study into this very issue, and we are getting close to when we will be able to hopefully table a report in the House of Commons with recommendations for the government. That report, of course, will be based on the full spectrum of witness testimony we heard at committee.
To put this in context, there has been a significant increase in vehicle thefts across the country. According to Statistics Canada, there were 83,416 vehicle thefts recorded in 2021. Then a year later, in 2022, that number jumped to 105,673, which is a significant increase in just one year's time.
Between February 26 and May 23 of this year, the public safety committee held six meetings, with a total of 42 witnesses, and 11 briefs were submitted. Committee members were also invited to take a trip to the port of Montreal, so they could see in person what CBSA operations are like there and some of the challenges that CBSA members deal with in how they inspect containers, because that is the primary port through which stolen cars in Canada exit our country to find lucrative markets abroad. It is a very big problem.
There is an incredible amount of transnational criminal organization that goes into these operations, and the payoff can be quite significant. For one stolen car, people can fetch a price of anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000, or even higher. It is a significant return on the investments that criminal organizations make to do this. However, I would like to underline this point by encouraging members to wait for that report so that we can review the recommendations within it.
I do believe that, to effectively deal with this problem, we need an all-encompassing and holistic approach, which would rely on not only criminal law but also a variety of policy measures and programs, to tackle it. The main problem I have with the bill is its reliance on mandatory minimums as a cure-all for a very real and complex problem. The reason for that is that, if we look at the evidence, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence out there, it shows very clearly that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control. That is our guiding star in this debate. We want crime control. We want to see it come down.
The evidence, which is very clearly available, shows that mandatory minimums do not have a beneficial effect on that. They represent an intrusion of the legislative branch into an area that is under judicial jurisdiction. They constrain judicial discretion. There is evidence that they deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families and communities.
I say this in the context that auto theft, the crime itself, is not victimless. We have to keep it in balance that, when a person experiences a car theft, it is a very real problem we must address, and it causes a significant amount of hurt in our communities. However, I firmly believe, and the evidence bears this out, that sentences must be based on individual contextual factors relating to each offence and each offender, rather than on one-size-fits-all legislated minimum sentences, which often result in ineffective, expensive and unduly harsh periods of incarceration.
The John Howard Society has done a meta-analysis of 116 studies on this subject from both Canada and the United States. It is a massive analysis of the literature and evidence that is out there. One of the main findings is “custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation.”
I do not want to beat a dead horse on this fact. Members here have a variety of tools at their disposal. They have the Library of Parliament and can read that same evidence, but this point needs to be hammered home: It is very clear that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. There is evidence that, if we put in lengthier periods of incarceration, we could actually see an increase in recidivism among offenders, and that is certainly not a result that we are aiming for.
I also want to talk a bit about the cost because, in addition to the fact that mandatory minimums affect indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians in a very disproportionate way, there is also the fact that the cost of housing an inmate in a federal institution has now reached $428 a day. If we multiply that by 365, we see that the cost for an individual in a federal institution, per year, is $156,220. That is an astonishing cost to taxpayers and far more expensive than crime prevention and social outreach programs, which often have much better results and a far better track record.
If we were to take that cost, which is a fact borne out by the statistics, under the member's proposed Bill C-379 and its mandatory minimum of three years, we are looking at an expenditure of nearly half a million dollars per person convicted under this change to the law alone. Anyone who is sentenced for over two years is automatically placed in a federal institution, whereas those sentenced to two years less a day are under provincial jurisdiction, but those provincial incarceration costs are relatively similar. I am not saying that jail time is not justified in certain cases, but I maintain that this is up to the trial judge to determine, given the facts of the case and the nature of the accused who is before the judge.
We should be putting far more resources into a variety of programs, such as the training resources for youth program or the help eliminate auto theft program, which has had very good success in the province of Manitoba since 2014 and 2015. Those results showed a 30% reduction in gang involvement. The results also indicated that 95% of the people did not receive new charges while in the program, 93% of the property offenders in the program did not receive new charges, there were zero new auto theft charges during the program period and 95% of the participants did not receive new offences against person-related charges. If we look at those results and the cost of these programs, compared to the $156,000 per year to put someone in a federal institution, we see that the cost of these programs ranged anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000 per participant, and they had amazing success rates.
I do not want it to escape the Conservatives that, during their time under the Harper government, there were significant cuts to the RCMP budget and the CBSA budget, which put us in the position we are in now. Just last year, in December 2023, the Conservatives voted against the estimates that provided important funding to the RCMP, the CBSA and Public Safety Canada.
In conclusion, New Democrats want to see action against the auto theft crisis, but we want to see investment in those prevention programs that obviously have a track record and are more cost effective to the taxpayer. On that, I will stick by my principles. Despite all the rhetoric from the Conservatives, they know that the evidence does not support their argument. What is borne out by the evidence is that crime prevention programs are where we need to be putting those smart taxpayer dollars for effective results.
1489 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 2:12:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up.
The carbon tax has increased the costs of food, fuel and home heating. As a result, we are seeing record numbers of working Canadian families relying on food banks. To make matters worse, the NDP-Liberal government plans to quadruple the carbon tax, and it continues to vote for soft-on-crime policies. Since 2015, violent crime in Winnipeg has gone up by 67%, car thefts have gone up by 63%, homicides have gone up by 100% and gun crime has gone up by a whopping 177%. This is the Liberal-NDP record: Canadians struggling to afford food and crime and chaos in our streets.
Today in Elmwood—Transcona, Winnipeggers have a simple choice. A vote for the NDP is a vote for the Liberals and their soft-on-crime carbon tax agenda. Only a common-sense Conservative government will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that criminals have nothing to fear under the NDP-Liberal legislation. Bill C-48 has done nothing to stop the crime in our communities. Instead of listening to premiers and law enforcement, who have called for bail reform, the justice minister pretends that C-48 is a success. It is an abject failure.
When will the minister stop protecting criminals and start standing up for victims by reversing their catch-and-release policies?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 8:42:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my wonderful colleague across the way, whom I worked with so closely on putting forward and realizing a red dress alert. In fact, we just tabled the study in the House today, which was just so exciting.
We hear a lot of rhetoric from the Conservative Party about tough-on-crime approaches. I know that tough-on-crime approaches do not work. I will be sharing an example of how they do not work this evening in my intervention.
How does my colleague feel about this rhetoric of being tough on crime, getting people off the street, enforcing treatment or violating constitutional rights? Does she feel that this could potentially worsen the situation, particularly for indigenous people, and the justice system right now?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 8:44:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Ben Perrin has written a book, which I have not read yet, about how these failed policies do not solve the crime issue but actually make it worse. These tough-on-crime policies will not keep Canadians safe; they would actually make it more dangerous for the public safety of Canadians and indigenous people.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
