44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 6, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:13:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during my speech I debated the ideas that the hon. member brought forward, but I did not—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chris Bittle: He is heckling and trying to shout me down, Madam Speaker.
I debated the ideas and questioned the stances he took with respect to policy. I did not question his education in terms of his qualifications as a lawyer or a prosecutor. I personally abide by the rules of professional conduct in the province of Ontario, and I am sure it is very similar in B.C., to not attack other lawyers on the basis of their qualifications. I hope that he will abide by the same thing.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here we are again, another debate where the basis of the Conservative argument is that it should be free to pollute in this country, and that the most challenging crisis that we face, the one that will impact Canadians the most, especially in their pocketbooks, is something that they deny.
The previous speaker said that climate changes, winter to spring to summer to fall, as if to deny the seriousness of the crisis. What is the main driver of increased food costs? It is climate change.
I have asked Conservative members, and none of them are willing to answer this. Why have the increases in food costs gone up even higher in the United States than they have in Canada, when most jurisdictions in the United States do not have a price on pollution?
Mr. Greg McLean: You are making that up.
Mr. Chris Bittle: Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way is accusing me of lying, and that is truly unfortunate. They can look that up themselves.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it just goes to show that, when confronted with the reality that food prices are going up in jurisdictions that do not have a price on pollution, the cognitive dissonance that exists on that side with respect to the science on the issue is loud and clear. It is truly unfortunate that this issue, climate change, is going to dramatically affect costs for Canadians. We are seeing it all the time.
We saw it in the summer when we were debating a motion brought by the Conservatives to eliminate the price on pollution, when we could not even see into Gatineau from Ottawa because the smoke was so thick. Hurricanes have ravaged us, and again Conservatives are denying the impacts of climate change during their heckles on forest fires and their spread. They cannot get it through their heads that this is a crisis that is affecting them, and that their constituents are facing droughts and floods.
Yes, the hon. member who spoke before me is correct that farmers are impacted by the weather, but they are also dramatically impacted by radical changes in the climate. Much of the Prairies has been under significant drought. What is that going to do to the price of food? What is the Conservative plan on pollution? It is nothing except to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it is not an issue, when it is the central piece as to why food prices are going to increase. If they do not have a plan to address the climate, they do not have a plan to address rising food costs.
Conservatives are correct that farmers are stewards of this land. I have a quote from a Saskatchewan farmer, National Farmers Union former vice-president Glenn Wright, who stated:
Farmers will be among the hardest hit if we don't act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the climate. For this reason—to protect farmers—the NFU supports pricing pollution; it is an important policy tool to reduce the harmful emissions fuelling the climate crisis and threatening farms and food supplies.
How do members of the Conservative Party deal with this? During this debate, they took to social media to threaten and harass senators. One of its members was even found to have violated the privileges of senators in the other place. Although they are independent senators, they accused them of being Liberal senators even though they do not sit in their caucus, while Conservative senators did not even show up to vote. I believe there were only one or two votes this pass-by, and Conservative senators, who sit in their own party's caucus, did not show up to work. Instead of coming here, and instead of trying to intimidate members of the other place, they should probably speak to the Conservative senators who come to their caucus meeting every Wednesday and ask them why they did not show up.
I would like to speak to a few things in order to clarify the record a bit. We have exempted gas and diesel for farm use from federal pollution pricing. We have created a rural top-up for rebates. We have returned $120 million to farmers thanks to carbon pricing proceeds. Over the last two years, we have invested $1.5 billion in programs to support farmers in reducing emissions on farms and growing their operations. Since the $500-million reinvestment through the agricultural clean technology program, more than 128 grain dryer projects have been approved. Nearly $500 million has been approved for research, development and adaptation for clean technology. There has been $12 million to reduce methane emissions from cattle and $670 million to support the adaptation of greenhouse gas reduction practices on farms.
What would the Conservative response be? It would be to gut everything, pretend climate change does not exist, just say that the unprecedented floods, fires and droughts are just the weather, and say that we should ignore the scientists and the experts.
It would be a much more credible thing for the other side to say that the bill needs to be passed, and that they have a plan to reduce emissions, but they do not. They have zero plans to address this existential threat that we face as a country. It is a pocketbook issue and a security threat; experts are saying this across the board, and farmers are telling us they are impacted, yet Conservatives stick their head in the sand and say that polluting in this country should be free.
They all ran on it, which is the other thing I do not understand. If we go back into our time machine, just a couple of years ago, we would see that Conservatives all ran on a price on pollution, but it was a little different from ours. We give rebates right back to people. However, for the Conservative's price on pollution, people would get a Government of Canada credit card and would build up points, and maybe they could buy a bike at the end of the day if they built up enough points. I think “The more you burn, the more you earn” was their slogan at the time, but it was good to see them acknowledge a price on pollution, all of them. Every single one of them ran on it.
It was interesting at the time, but it was good to see every major political party in this country addressing climate change. I thought it fell flat, and I guess voters also felt that it fell flat in addressing the climate crisis. However, what the Conservatives have taken from their poor attempt at pricing pollution is to ignore climate change, despite seeing it with their own eyes across the country with record highs, record droughts, record floods, atmospheric rivers and hurricanes that are stronger than ever. They abandoned their constituents.
This is the Conservative playbook. They talk a good game in terms of affordability, but when it comes to addressing the number one driver of that in terms of food prices, they are absent. They are silent, and their silence will be costly for Canadians. The farmers they claim that they stand up for will be the most hurt as they suffer from severe weather, which makes it harder to produce and impacts the bottom line for farmers. It is truly disappointing to see a Conservative Party embrace climate denial policies in the United States and try to bring that north.
This is a mechanism that works. It puts more money in the pockets of Canadians. It will be responsible for 20% to 30% of our greenhouse gas reductions. Again, if the Conservatives have a plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, I would like to know, but they do not. They have absolutely nothing. We want to return that money to the pocketbooks of Canadians.
I thought it was telling, when the Government of Saskatchewan was having a fight about carbon pricing, that it had to reassure its constituents not to worry, and they would still get the rebate. I think it was the first time I have heard Conservative politicians talk about a climate rebate in this country when their constituents were worried that it was going to be taken away. That is another affordability issue where eight out of 10 families receive more than they put in, and the Conservatives want to say “No, we'd rather give it to oil executives. It would be better in the pockets of the shareholders of oil companies than it would in the pockets of Canadians.” That is where the Conservative Party is right now. It is out of touch on the number one issue that is driving food prices.
I wish the Conservatives would go back and embrace what they brought in the last election and what they ran on, which was a price on pollution. It was a reasonable time, but none of them stood up at the time except one. I forget the member's riding, but I will give her credit. Also, there was one member who stood up at the time to challenge Mr. O'Toole on that policy, but all of them embraced it. They ran on it and took it home to their constituents. They went to the polls. They all got elected on that promise to price pollution, yet we see them sit and do nothing. They put their heads in the sand.
I have asked what the Conservatives will do when there is no action on the dramatic issues that are impacting climate. We know that carbon dioxide causes this. However, some Conservatives will say that carbon dioxide is great and that it feeds plants, as if to minimize the impact of carbon pollution in our society.
However, this is having a dramatic impact that we can see. Even in my own community, it does not even rain the same way it used to when I was growing up. All of us can see it. We can go outside. It is hitting us right in the face, and ultimately, the Conservative Party is going to ignore it.
I can appreciate that the Conservatives' want to see different changes to policy and, as I said, it would be a lot more credible to come up with a plan, any plan. When the Leader of the Opposition is pushed, he will say they are going to invest in technology, as if there is one magic bullet out there. Technology is part of the solution, but what will those members do when faced with a crisis so severe? Early on, there was basic denial and heckling that it even existed, that food prices increased in other jurisdictions and that climate change was the source of that.
1646 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
