44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 6, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/6/24 10:25:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I like the member, but he neglected to say a whole bunch of things around the issue of car theft that concern a lot of Canadians. First, when the Harper government was in power, it actually slashed $600 million from RCMP funding. It also cut over 1,000 border officers and gutted the crime prevention programs that were so effective in stopping car theft. The House will recall that under the Harper government, the highest rates of car theft in our country's history were found. Five of the worst years for car theft over the last 15 years were under the Harper government.
In December, with vote 3, we saw Conservatives vote again to cut CBSA funding. In vote 76, they voted to cut FINTRAC funding, and in votes 103, 104 and 105, proposed by Conservatives, they voted to cut over $100 billion in RCMP funding. Why are Conservatives so contradictory on issues like crime?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 11:53:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in reality, as members know, we take the issue of auto theft very seriously. I want to start by saying that the NDP, unlike the two other parties, essentially has a five-point plan. I will be moving that amendment at the end of my speech, so that the Conservatives could incorporate elements that would actually make a difference in combatting auto theft. It is something that has impacted many Canadians across the country; my neighbourhood is no exception to that. The reality is that we see those numbers rising, and the Liberals have not done anything to combat auto theft.
I note that the most current figures show an auto theft rate of 271 per 100,000 Canadians. That is 271 thefts for a population of 100,000 people. We do not want to go back to the days of the Harper regime, when the numbers were almost twice that. There were 487 thefts per 100,000, or 443 in some years. The five worst years, in terms of auto thefts over the last 15 years, were under the Harper regime. Therefore, the Conservatives need to learn a lesson from their very bad record in terms of the rate of auto theft that existed under the Harper Conservatives. How the Conservatives responded is illustrative of how important it is for the NDP voice in the House, as adults in the room, to actually bring forward very thoughtful policy.
The reality is that the Harper regime cut $600 million from RCMP funding. Why would that even make sense when, as I mentioned, there was a high crime rate? Why would the Conservatives cut and slash to that extent? It does not make sense. However, it is not just that; it is that over 1,000 CBSA border officers were cut as well. Therefore, the Conservatives gutted the CBSA services at a time when, as we know, the crime syndicates were increasingly international in nature.
There were cuts to the RCMP and cuts to the CBSA, but the most egregious cuts were to a program that ran across the country. It had a remarkable impact in British Columbia, and I worked very closely with it; that is the B.C. crime prevention centre, which invests in and works with local law enforcement to cut crime. We know that a dollar spent on crime prevention actually saves six dollars in policing costs, in court costs and in prison costs. Therefore, it is a remarkably effective investment. If the government invests in crime prevention in the country, it ends up achieving a lower crime rate, having fewer victims and, ultimately, saving money on policing, on prisons and on court costs.
What did the Harper regime do? Conservatives have never stood in this House and explained why they did this, but they slashed crime prevention funding to the point where centres such as the B.C. crime prevention centre had to close. None of this makes any sense at all.
If we go back to how Conservatives act now as opposed to how they acted when the Harper regime was in place, we see that we have to take action. For most of the years under Harper, the auto theft rate was higher than it is now. The Liberals have not taken action, and the NDP is pressing in this House of Commons that we adopt the five points we have raised. I hope to add them to the motion, if the Conservatives agree to act.
The Conservatives had an opportunity to provide additional supports for the RCMP, for CBSA and for FINTRAC, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. The reality is that FINTRAC plays a role in cutting down the financial transactions that, internationally, allow the crime syndicates to prosper. What did Conservatives do? In December 2023, they proposed and voted to cut the CBSA by $23 million. CBSA is already underfunded. As I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives cut 1,100 positions when they were in government. What possible reason could Conservatives give for slashing the budget for CBSA?
There is more. In vote 76, they also voted to gut FINTRAC, which has the primary responsibility to actually track and catch those who are using the flow of money internationally to foster crime. Conservatives voted to cut that.
Perhaps the most egregious votes were votes 103, 104 and 105. Conservatives voted to cut over $100 million from the RCMP. Conservatives would say that is a lot less than when we were in government and slashed $600 million.
However, the reality is that, given their actions in December, their motion today shows huge hypocrisy, a contradiction that is difficult for any Conservative to defend. That is why they are choosing not to debate this in the House today. They are choosing not to respond to why they gutted the RCMP, CBSA and crime prevention programs, as well as why, over the last 15 years, they had the five worst years for auto theft. The Conservatives have not explained that or why they voted to cut FINTRAC, CBSA and the RCMP.
Let us see what the Conservatives do in the House on the issue of crimes that affect all Canadians, from New Westminster—Burnaby to Montreal and Saguenay. We know that there is an international crime ring that makes money by stealing vehicles. The Conservatives' answer at the time, when they were in power, was to make significant cuts to the RCMP's budget, reduce the services of the Canada Border Services Agency and apply budget cuts to every program intended to prevent crime. That is what the Conservatives do. Right now, they are talking about common sense, but their actions in the past made no sense at all. There is very clear evidence that we cannot rely on the Conservatives. They do exactly the opposite of what they themselves are proposing in this motion.
To conclude, this is serious business. The Liberals have not acted as they should have. The Conservatives are contradicting themselves because they made budget cuts to all essential services aimed at preventing auto theft across Canada.
As is our practice in the NDP caucus, as adults in the room, we are actually going to propose something that would mean real action to counter auto theft and take out the parts of the Conservative motion that are disinformation. I hope they agree to the following amendment.
I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “changes the Liberal government made in their soft on crime Bill C-5 that allows for car stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of jail” with the words “cuts made to crime-prevention programs and to frontline border officers made by the previous Conservative government”, and adding the following after paragraph (c): “(d) require auto manufacturers to improve security features in the cars they sell”, and “(e) put in place tough new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts.”
This is actually a five-point plan that would make a difference in auto thefts. We certainly hope that the Conservatives accept this amendment, which would fight auto theft in Canada.
1212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 12:04:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it says, “put in place tough new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts.” The member has obviously not read it, so I do not believe he should comment on it. Conservatives should just accept the amendment.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 12:06:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, they do not. Conservatives are absolutely appalling when it comes to crime. We have talked about how high the auto theft rate was under the Harper Conservatives. They just said no to putting in place crime prevention programs, reinforcing frontline border officers, requiring auto manufacturers to ensure that there are security features in the cars they sell and putting in place tough new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts.
We know that Conservatives are soft on money laundering and organized crime. They will not take on corporate CEOs who are spending $10 on a car door for a $100,000 automobile. They are not putting in place any of the measures that would address the issue.
Of course, when we look across the country at which provinces have the highest crime rates, they are the Conservative provinces. In every single case, they have policies that are designed to fuel crime, not cut it. Therefore, for Conservatives to say no to this common-sense amendment just shows complete and utter hypocrisy.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 12:08:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Conservative plan, and the Conservatives voted in front of the entire country. Every Canadian saw they wanted to cut over $100 million from the RCMP budget. Every Canadian saw they wanted to gut CBSA; they did it when they were in power and they are doing it again. Every Canadian saw they wanted to gut FINTRAC, which is supposed to be ensuring that criminal financial transactions are caught at source.
I think every Canadian saw in December how a Conservative government would act. We lived through the Harper regime. We know that, when it comes to crime, Conservatives simply do not have any smart-on-crime policies at all. The NDP offered a way to fix their motion, and they rejected it. They do not want to tackle organized crime. They do not want to crack down on money laundering. They do not want to install the crime prevention programs that save so much money and make sure that Canadians are not victims of crime. The Conservatives do not want to restore what they gutted when they were in power. They do not want to compel automobile CEOs to put in place security measures to ensure that cars cannot be stolen easily.
They said no to all of those things, and it is on the record.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
