44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 16, 2024 11:00AM
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
Mr. Speaker, common sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. This bill, which we are talking about today, Bill C-379, will be one step in the stop-the-crime initiatives that we have undertaken.
I do not know if one remembers when one received one's driver's licence, but I do remember when I received my driver's licence. Buying my first car, buying my first vehicle, was a huge milestone in my life. Where I come from, in the country, a vehicle is freedom. The ability to drive is freedom. That is why, from my perspective, auto theft is such a heinous crime. It takes away a person's freedom. Auto theft has been a long-standing problem in northern Alberta. It has more recently reached Toronto, and suddenly, this country is seized with it because of that. Auto theft has been a major challenge, going back a very long time.
Since I have been, probably, three years old, I wanted to be an auto mechanic, and I achieved that goal by the time I was 21. I was able to see first-hand and was able to interact with the auto theft deterrent systems on vehicles quite extensively. I programmed thousands of keys for people who either lost their keys or wanted an extra key, or something like that. I would program them when I worked for Chrysler dealerships. It was called the SKIM program, or “sentry key immobilizer module”.
That system was introduced in 1998. By 2006, every Chrysler product had it. When I quit in 2015, there had never been a case of somebody being able to undermine that system. It had been an incredible system, and it had worked very well. Around 2015, people had figured out a way to beat that system. Here we are, today, with no real way for auto manufacturers to build a system to deter or to make a secure key, without maybe even going back to a hard key again. I do not know about the vehicles that members drive, but most people do not have to put their keys in the doors to make them open anymore. It is not a hard key; it is a digital key. Maybe we have to go back to hard keys. I am not sure about that. Those were relatively easy to get around as well. I have had extensive experience with that, and I have watched the progression of these systems grow. I have enjoyed being part of that sort of thing.
I also had the luxury of being an owner. My very first car, in fact, was a Chrysler Neon. In 1999, that was the most stolen car in Edmonton. I also owned a Jeep TJ, which, in another year, was the most stolen vehicle in Edmonton as well.
For both of those vehicles, the police put out sting vehicles. It did not take very long, and they just had to arrest a few people stealing those sting vehicles, and they went from being the most stolen to the least stolen over just a couple of weekends of doing sting operations and charging people with auto theft. That was bringing people to justice.
We hear a lot from the NDP around mandatory minimums, how they do not work, and things like that. The deterrence effect of the law is a real thing. Bringing people to justice is a real thing. A real thing is ensuring that Canadians understand that if one steals a vehicle, one will go to jail.
For the police to have the backup, to feel that they can pursue this and to ensure that the police have the resources to do this, those are all other things, but private members' bills cannot spend money. This bill is taking one part of the law that we can affect with a private member's bill. I want to thank the member for bringing this bill forward and for ensuring that we can put into effect that deterrence mechanism to ensure that justice can be brought when our vehicles get stolen.
For many people, their vehicle is their lifeline to the world. Their vehicle is often a personal statement. They have a lot invested in their vehicle. To wake up in the morning and to discover one's vehicle missing is a huge insecurity that builds in one's life. In many cases, people work out of their vehicles. Their vehicles are their places of work. To wake up in the morning and to discover that their entire business is missing, that all of their tools and that all of their livelihood is missing because somebody stole their vehicle, is often the case.
Over the last couple of years, we have seen that the Liberal government's soft-on-crime initiatives have led to increases in auto theft. Why is that? It is because there are no deterrents anymore. I have had constituents come in and talk to me about the fact that the people stealing these vehicles are brazen. They know that they are going to get away with it. They know what to say when they are stopped with a stolen vehicle to get out of it. The justice system has been a failure at bringing these people to justice, and because of that, there is no deterrence to auto theft.
The police are more than frustrated with this. They will build a case and make an arrest, only to have the courts slap the person on the wrist and build a revolving door to put the person out on bail. We have addressed this as well in other areas, saying that it should be jail, not bail, for repeat offenders because we see folks who have been charged with auto theft, out on bail and stealing more cars. This has become a major thing. I do not know if members have seen in the news that one of the suggestions as a solution for this is to leave one's keys near the door to ensure that one's family is not violently offended by an auto theft attempt. That does not seem like a solution.
We have seen the cost of living rise across the country, and auto theft is contributing to that. The increases to the insurance rates because of auto theft is making one more thing in our lives more expensive. We are seeing it all around in the distress that people are feeling because they cannot make ends meet. The fuel they put in their cars is one of those things, but their insurance is another thing that keeps on being driven up by the 105,000 cars stolen each year in Canada. All of these things together mean that we need to address auto theft, and I think this bill is a good step along the way.
We hear criticism from the NDP that we need a holistic bill. This is a private member's bill, and private member's bills are not allowed to spend money. We are not allowed to build big national programs that cost a whole bunch of money to set forward a strategy that will need money. Therefore, if we can push the government to do those things, that is great. I think we need that to put forward these sting operations that I experienced back in the early 2000s, when auto theft was also a challenge. There was a focused, concerted effort to bring auto theft down. A lot of levers were pulled to make that happen. That is when we saw the rise of immobilizer systems installed on vehicles as well. The manufacturers, insurance companies, government and community associations got involved, and we were able to bring auto theft down. However, now we see that this lack of deterrence from the soft-on-crime Liberals has driven up auto theft. We have also seen technological advances by the thieves.
I am hopeful that this bill will pass and that we will bring in that deterrence piece of the puzzle to ensure that we have a strong deterrence, that the police have the tools, that prosecutors are able to bring these people to justice and that vehicle thefts go down. However, this bill is just the first small piece on the start. We hope it will inspire the government to take bold action to bring auto theft down across the country. If it is unable to do that, common sense Conservatives stand ready to stop the crime, axe the tax, build the homes and fix the budget.
1444 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/16/24 11:40:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we should give careful consideration to this bill and study it in committee. That said, neither the Bloc Québécois nor I are prepared to vote for it in its current form. Make no mistake: We need to tackle the problem of auto theft.
In 2022, according to the reams of figures I have looked over, 10,595 car thefts were reported in Quebec. Over the same period, 70,000 were reported in Canada. That is huge. It means that more than 29 vehicles were stolen per day in Quebec, a 138% increase from 2016. Obviously, this has unfortunate consequences for car owners who have their vehicle stolen, but it also affects all vehicle owners and drivers. Car insurance premiums increased by 50% between 2012 and 2022, mainly due to the increase in car thefts. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed.
We in the House of Commons must deal with many types of crimes. Crimes against the person are something the Bloc Québécois cares deeply about. However, just because auto theft is less serious does not mean we should neglect it, because it is still a major problem.
That being said, the Bloc Québécois is inherently against mandatory minimum sentences. We all know that mandatory minimum sentences have next to no effect on people who commit crimes. The same goes for the ban on conditional sentences. The bill proposes banning conditional sentences and also increasing the minimum sentence from two years to three years. I must say that I do not really believe in all that. This bill was introduced in good faith, I am sure. I think that the people introducing it believe this would have a positive impact. We in the Bloc Québécois do not believe that.
However, we think we need to tackle the problem. In particular, when it comes to increasing sentences, we think that the fact that the theft was committed on behalf of a criminal organization should be an aggravating factor. Everyone in the House knows that we have been pushing for more aggressive and serious action against criminal organizations since 2015. At the time—I think it was in 2016—I tabled a bill to create a registry of criminal organizations to make it easier to identify them, streamline the prosecution of crimes committed for their benefit and possibly consider membership in such an organization or the use of emblems to identify as a member or supporter of a criminal organization a crime. The bill was rejected at the time, but here we are again. We have not given up, we will continue to fight.
When we look more closely at car theft, we can see that the real problem does not lie with the young men or women who go out drinking on a Saturday night and decide to steal a car. This is of course a problem, but the real scourge is the organization behind the thefts, the criminal organizations that pay and encourage often disadvantaged youth to commit these crimes on their behalf. I agree that it is important to punish the individual who actually stole the vehicle. However, as I said earlier, I think that punishing them with mandatory minimum sentences and banning conditional sentences is a bit much, because we are not allowing the judge hearing the case to adapt the sentence based on the particular situation. Personally, I believe in our judicial system. I think that we need to trust the judges who hear the arguments to determine the right thing to do.
We believe that minimum sentences are useful in cases of crimes against the person, since it allows us to send a clear message. Minimum sentences may well make certain individuals think twice, namely those who would otherwise commit crimes against the person on impulse or for all sorts of reasons; we should be tough on them. We need to stop the epidemic of vehicle theft. I would not say that they apply in every case, but in many cases we support mandatory minimum sentences. However, when it comes to car theft, I think it is almost counterproductive to deprive ourselves, as a society, of the assessment a judge can make of a particular situation after hearing all the evidence.
Mandatory minimum sentences are therefore a bit of a problem. Systematically refusing conditional sentences is another problem. We need to trust our judges. However, when there are aggravating circumstances and when the crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization, I agree. It think that is essential. We still have a lot to discuss. We are sitting in the House of Commons and adopting provisions to amend the Criminal Code. That is a federal jurisdiction. Too often, the federal government tries to interfere in the provinces' jurisdictions, and we call it out every time, but this is clearly a federal jurisdiction. In fact, I would say that I still have a hard time understanding why there have been no results after all these years. I am a younger member of the House. I have been here since 2015. For nine years we have been working on this, and nothing has come of it. There have been others before me, but we never managed to tackle criminal organizations severely enough. I think we should be ruthless. Criminal organizations need to be effectively and harshly sanctioned.
That being said, there is another option when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences. We have always looked at crimes to determine whether they merit mandatory minimum sentences. I have shared my thoughts, but could we also consider another way of eliminating crime or perhaps rehabilitating a person who has committed a crime? I think we could. I think that we should look at that more closely. I am thinking among other things about the electronic bracelets used when criminals are released. I wonder whether, instead of sentencing a person who stole a car, for example, to two or three years in prison, regardless of the number of years, we could put them in prison for six months or a year and then have them serve the rest of their sentence out in the community, but wearing an electronic bracelet.
It would be more difficult for criminal organizations to recruit individuals wearing an electronic bracelet. I do not think that many criminal organizations would want to hire people to commit crimes if they are being monitored through an electronic bracelet that can provide information about who and where they are at any given time. That would be risky. This might also help rehabilitate those people, who, rather than going back to their former life of crime might choose—not all but some of them—to try to abide by the rules of our society, the society we ultimately want to have.
This is not a cure-all. I am not saying that it is the only solution, but it is a solution that we could look into. Perhaps I might also change my mind at some point for all sorts of reasons that I am not aware of today, but I do not think that we should cut corners when looking into this issue. Minimum sentencing is counterproductive, but I support alternative ways of rehabilitating individuals. I think that is a good idea.
In closing, we need to be tough on crime committed by criminal organizations, and the Bloc Québécois can be counted on to support these kinds of sanctions. In the meantime, let us study this bill in committee and see how it can be improved in the interest of all Quebeckers and Canadians.
1295 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
