SoVote

SummarySpren for "Safety"

• The government is taking a collaborative and effective approach to address the growing challenge of auto theft in Canada, working with law enforcement, the insurance industry, and other stakeholders to prevent and combat auto theft. • The government is investing in a range of solutions, including prevention, detection, enforcement, and vehicle recovery, and is open to legislative and regulatory changes to address the issue, which is a complex challenge that involves links to organized crime.

• Auto thefts in Canada have increased by 34% and violent crimes by 39% over the last eight years. • Iran has hired Hell's Angels members in British Columbia as assassins, according to a recent U.S. indictment.

• The fall economic statement addresses money laundering that fuels organized crime, and voting in favor of the statement will help break down criminal organizations. • The member for Wellington-Halton Hills should consider voting against their leader's instructions and in favor of the fall economic statement to address the issue of money laundering.

• Bill C-59 is insufficient to combat organized crime and money laundering in Canada, which is estimated to be $133 billion per year (5% of GDP). • The government has failed to address money laundering and terrorist financing through Canada's big banks and has ignored reports on the issue.

• The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is asking the member to use reason and think about the votes they have cast, specifically regarding funding for police forces to combat guns and gangs. • The member's party leader instructed them to vote against this funding in an all-night voting session, which the Minister finds unbecoming of the member and their caucus.

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/6/24 10:23:41 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26 Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, I will start again. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone heard me. If the member would put his earpiece in, I think that would work even better. I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally realized that there is an auto theft crisis in Canada. I for one have been talking about it since October. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study this issue. The Conservatives agreed to it. They thought it was a good idea, but all they have done since then is hold up the committee's work. That is what they did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-26. Why are they doing that? The reason is that they do not think that the auto theft crisis is all that important after all. Why do they want to talk about it today? Is it because it makes for a good campaign slogan? Is it because they want to crack down on crime? Why has this become a priority for the Conservative Party today?

182 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/6/24 11:34:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. If we had been able to study the subject at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I think that my colleague from the NDP would have had a chance to tell me about that proposal. For months now, however, the Conservatives have been holding up our work so that we cannot get to it. I invited officials from the Port of Montreal. I invited police chiefs from the Montreal police force, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP to come talk to us about the situation and explain what they are doing. What should be restored at the ports? Why is there not enough surveillance? All of these questions are important, but the Conservatives refuse to let us discuss them. If not for their stalling tactics, we would already be having these discussions at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is unfortunate that they tell the media that they want to be tough on crime and stop auto theft but that, when it comes time to get to work here in the House of Commons, they balk.

196 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/6/24 12:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously concerned about the situation. My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia wants to ensure that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conducts a study. Strangely enough, the Conservatives do not seem to want that study to happen. They would rather have an opposition day about it, which, by the way, will not do much to change what is happening in the country. We are having an opposition day today and we will vote on a motion. Not much will change once we have voted on the motion, whether it is adopted or not. However, a study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security could get results by making serious recommendations and hearing expert testimony. Speaking of expert testimony, I would like to ask a simple question. The Conservatives are proposing a three-year prison sentence for a third auto theft offence. What expert proposed a three-year sentence? Why are the Conservatives proposing a three-year sentence as opposed to a three-and-a-half-, two-and-a-half-, four- or five-year sentence? What is the rationale behind the three-year duration? I am not for or against that. I just want to understand why. What expert recommended that? Why are they proposing a three-year sentence?

231 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 1:07:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I started by acknowledging that crimes of the nature we have been talking about today affect all our communities. As much as we banter back and forth, I would not want to take anything away from the impact it has on victims. I wanted to amplify that point because I truly believe that all of us have a right to feel safe and comfortable in the communities where we live. As the justice critic, when I served in the Manitoba legislature, as well as during a number of years here in Ottawa, I have always recognized the importance of the issue of safety and crime. As legislators, we need to do what we can to keep our communities safe. Quite frankly, I am very proud of initiatives the Liberal government has taken over the last number of years to do just that: to keep the communities we live in safe. That does not mean the issues are resolved. I am not saying that at all. I think we have work to do. We will continue to look at ways to make our communities healthier and safer. Looking at today's opposition day motion, I see that it is very much a politically motivated issue brought forward by the Conservative Party. The message it is trying to give Canadians is that it is collectively tough on crime. I want to deal with that, because that is not the reality we have seen. Specifically, we are talking about automobile theft. The discussions, thus far, from the Conservative benches have been focused on Canada's border control, car theft and how vehicles are exported outside of Canada. It is interesting that one member who stood up actually criticized the government. That really stuck with me. The member said something to the effect that we need to support and to provide more money to the CBSA, Canada's border control agency. It is amazing that while the Conservatives were in government, they actually cut Canada's border control agents. At one time, we had close to 15,000 border controls. I have the actual number of full-time equivalents: 14,833. They were cut to 13,774 full-time equivalents. Those were well over 1,000 jobs cut by the former government and the former prime minister. The current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the cabinet of that former prime minister. That was a substantial cut, and now they are saying we need to have more. That was one comment. The Conservatives talk about it being in the motion. We talk about increasing sentences from six months to three years. That six months is in regard to someone getting caught stealing a car on a third occasion. The current law states that it is a minimum of six months. The Conservatives say that it is not tough enough and that they believe it should be three years. Again, who do members think put in the six months? It was Stephen Harper. Are Conservatives saying today that Stephen Harper messed up on that policy directive, and that Stephen Harper messed up on the cutbacks on the border controls? What the member did not reference, but I will, are the hundreds of millions of dollars cut also by Stephen Harper. Is the Conservative Party now saying that, too, was a mistake? Let us keep in mind that it is easy for the Conservatives to concede that Stephen Harper made a mess of things and made problems a lot worse with cutbacks, and that might have contributed to the increases we are seeing. I would remind Conservatives that they might want to throw Stephen Harper under the bus, but their current leader was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, and they need to be reminded of that. Let us think about it. This issue has been taking place for quite a while. The so-called “tough on crime” Leader of the Conservative Party, tougher than Stephen Harper was on crime, is tougher than when he was in cabinet. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time, last week, where we actually have the Leader of the Conservative Party giving it attention. Why is that? We announced that we are going to have a summit on the auto theft issue. The Liberal government has been working on it for a while now, unlike the Conservatives; it was not even on their radar screen until we announced the summit. Then, the Conservatives started saying that it would fit in nicely with their “tough on crime” bumper stickers, so they brought up the issue. Did they not study it? Did they not realize they are likely part of the problem? I was the justice critic in the Province of Manitoba, and this is a quote from a StatsCan report dealing with car theft in Manitoba then, which states: However, the province's 2007 rate remained the highest in the country...for the 11th straight year and was 24% higher than a decade ago. In 2007, Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it continued to be a problem for years after that. If we look at it 10 years prior, there was not a Conservative government. The point is that this issue takes more than one level of government to address it. That is the reason we have the minister responsible for public safety saying that we are going to have a summit. The Conservatives are howling, “just a summit”. They just discovered the issue, and we already said we are going to have a summit. We are bringing experts in. There is going to be dialogue, and things are going to be brought to the table. We are not only taking budgetary measures in the amount of tens of millions to look into how we can get at organized crime and organized gangs but also looking at legislative measures and possibly regulations that could be changed. We want to take a holistic approach in dealing with this issue. Unlike the Conservatives, who like to talk tough on crime, we believe that actions speak louder than words. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and to get the level of expertise to the table so that we will be in a better position to work with provinces and law enforcement agencies. As a national government, we would be in a position to see if we could do something legislatively or could do something through regulations, and perhaps there are other pockets where we could invest more to support this issue. That is ultimately what the Liberal government is doing. We are taking a progressive, holistic approach to make sure that the issue is dealt with, unlike Stephen Harper and the born-again Conservative right wing.

1139 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 2:50:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what this measure is about. It is about saving lives in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. We have said time and time again that we will be flexible about the 1,000-person cap. Right now, the challenge is actually getting an initial list of people out who are pre-approved to cross Rafah gates. I am extremely disappointed with local authorities that we have not been able to get this through, but that will not prevent us from trying. It is very difficult to extend these programs when we cannot even get people out. I am frustrated by it. We are in the House and I would use stronger words outside it, but we need to get those people out and into safety.

130 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/6/24 3:13:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Jared Guerard was a beautiful young Cree artist. He died this past weekend in a horrific house fire in Peawanuck. A young woman is also dead, and three others are in hospital fighting for their lives. This government knew that Peawanuck was at risk, yet the minister nickel-and-dimed the community over funding for a fire hall. A fire hall: that is basic stuff. People in Treaty 9 are tired of the trauma and the broken promises. We need a full comprehensive plan for fire safety in the north and no more fire deaths. Is the minister up to the job, yes or no?

107 words