SoVote

Feb/6/24 11:17:04 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9 Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just saying that this man, Jacques Lamontagne, is a seasoned professional and he said the following: There are more legal consequences to crossing the border with four kilos of cocaine than with stolen vehicles. Both crimes pay big dividends [to criminal groups and] the criminal underworld. Young thugs run less of a risk if they steal a Jeep Wrangler than if they sell narcotics on the street....There's not much of a deterrent if people know that they'll probably be let off for a first [offence] or, at worst, serve four to six months for car theft compared to a sentence lasting years for selling illicit substances. I will return to Mr. Lamontagne's use of the term “young thugs”. The phenomenon is fairly widespread. Crime gangs often use young people who often have no criminal record and are sometimes minors. They are asked to steal cars or transport illegal guns because the punishment for first offences is rarely harsh. It is a kind of strategy that these people use. I am not saying that the thieves should not go to prison, but I think that we need to focus primarily on going after these criminal gangs and their leaders. Where the Conservative Party goes wrong is in assuming that this entire crisis was created by the Prime Minister himself and by lax policies, like Bill C-5, as the Conservatives are claiming. The motion specifically calls on the government to "immediately reverse 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.” Reading the motion, it is clear that the Conservatives are trying to link the increase in auto theft since 2015 to Bill C-5. As my colleague mentioned earlier, Bill C-5 received royal assent at the very end of 2022. I have no idea how the Conservatives came to the conclusion that Bill C-5 is to blame, since auto theft has been increasing since 2015. I do not think there is one simple explanation. The Conservatives are trying to find simple solutions to complicated problems. They say that this Prime Minister has been in office since 2015, so he is responsible for all of society's problems. Again, I am not defending the Prime Minister, but at some point, members have to put forward serious arguments. Contrary to Conservative claims, Bill C‑5 did not do away with minimum sentences for auto theft. Subsection 333.1(1) of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum sentence of six months in the case of a third offence. The Conservatives may well say that is not enough, but there is one major problem with their assertion. Are they aware that subsection 333.1(1) was added to the Criminal Code by the Conservatives themselves in 2010 via Bill S‑9? If they now find that that is not enough, they have only themselves to blame. In this motion, the Conservatives also say that Bill C‑5 allowed for conditional sentences for auto theft. These are also known as house arrest, or what the Conservative leader likes to call Netflix sentences. It is true that the Liberals repealed subparagraph 742.1(f)(vii), which prevented conditional sentencing for auto theft. However, the other paragraphs in section 742.1 set out conditions for conditional sentencing: The court must be convinced that there is no risk to society, and the term of imprisonment must be less than two years. The judge may also impose any conditions they deem necessary. In other words, there is nothing preventing a judge from saying no to a conditional sentence. A judge should be able to exercise judgment. The Conservatives are assuming judges are not capable of doing that. A conditional sentence cannot be imposed for a sentence of two years or more, so it is not an option in the most serious cases, because the maximum sentence is actually 10 years. The Conservatives are also forgetting that there is always a bail hearing to determine whether an offender can be released while awaiting trial. Unless there are aggravating factors, it is rare for a person to remain in jail while awaiting trial for auto theft. In other words, the Conservatives' claim that criminals are being caught and and then immediately released because of Bill C‑5 is unfounded, because that was happening long before Bill C‑5 came into force. Once again, it is up to the judge to decide whether an offender should be kept in jail while awaiting trial and what conditions the offender must meet, especially since, as I mentioned earlier, criminals often use minors because they are handed lesser sentences. I agree with the Conservatives about one thing in every case. Part of the problem is that Ottawa has done absolutely nothing to control auto theft. Under the current conditions, even life in prison will not act as a deterrent, because the federal government is doing absolutely nothing to monitor the port of Montreal, where criminals can easily ship stolen vehicles overseas. I will come back to that later. However, I want to close by talking about the second part of the Conservative motion, which seeks to “strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure repeat car stealing criminals remain in jail”. Once again, it was the Conservatives who created a specific offence for auto theft, with their Bill S‑9 and section 333.1 in 2010. If they believe that sentences are not long enough, they have only themselves to blame. The Conservative leader proposed that a third offence be punishable by three years in prison instead of the six months set out in the Criminal Code. The current six-month sentence in the Criminal Code was a Conservative initiative. What the Conservative Party is proposing today are changes to measures it put in place when it was in power. The Conservative leader is also talking about eliminating house arrest, or conditional sentences, for thieves. As I said, a sentence of two years or more already cannot be served at home. That said, Bill C-5 did allow judges to impose house arrest if they deemed it appropriate, but not automatically, as the Conservatives like to claim. However, the bill did not make any changes to release pending trial. Let us make one thing clear: The Bloc Québécois is entirely open to revising the Criminal Code to deal with auto theft. That is what the Montreal police department wants as well. This time, they believe that new sections should be added concerning the export of stolen vehicles and that there should be stricter penalties for ring leaders. I think that might be a good solution. I imagine that will come out in the discussions at the national summit on Thursday. The last proposal in the Conservative motion concerns the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the export of stolen vehicles. It asks that the CBSA be provided with the resources it needs to prevent auto theft in Canada. I could not agree more with this proposal. I spoke about this a few months ago. I think that the CBSA, which is under federal jurisdiction, needs to do more. Some people say that it does not have the resources it needs to do more right now, that it is short on labour and funds. They need to figure out what the problem is. Clearly, the CBSA is not doing enough right now. I spoke about auto theft and how thieves steal vehicles; that is the first step. The second step is exporting the vehicles. Like auto theft, shipping the vehicles out of the country is practically risk free. Clearly, for criminal gangs, it means higher costs and more organization, but it seems to be going well when you look at what is happening at the port of Montreal. That is because it is a sieve. Around 700,000 containers leave the port of Montreal every year. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, only 1% of all containers are searched. According to the Montreal Port Authority, or MPA, the law does not allow employees or the port authority to open a container unless a person's life is in danger or there is a serious environmental hazard. According to the port's director of communications, when the containers arrive at the port, it is already too late to do anything. The containers remain sealed unless law enforcement intervenes for a specific reason. They need a warrant to open them, so they need reasonable grounds. Police forces have access to the port and can intervene. However, they do not patrol there because the MPA already has its own security guards. The MPA does not intervene because the police can do it and the police do not intervene because the MPA has its own security guards, so that is just great. As for customs, the CBSA is responsible for controlling goods for export. CBSA agents can open containers. However, in October, we learned from the Journal de Montréal that there are only five border agents to inspect the containers in Montreal, which makes the task practically impossible. Yes, the CBSA is responsible for overseeing exports, but its mandate is more focused on imports. It also needs to look at what is coming into the country. That is understandable. Do changes need to be made to the CBSA's mandate to ensure that exports are better monitored? I think that is something we need to think about. Another reason why it is easy to export stolen cars is that anyone can rent a container by filling out a simple online declaration form for the shipping company. We could do it without any problem, just as a small business could. Anyone can change their form up to 48 hours after shipping, so that obviously makes it possible for thieves to cover their tracks once the goods are already on their way to Europe, the Middle East or Africa. Finally, criminals use numbered companies to fill out those forms. They often use the same or similar serial numbers to defraud the CBSA on their export declaration form. It should be easy for the Canada Border Services Agency to spot, easy to see that a vehicle serial number comes up repeatedly. At least, Le Journal de Montréal was able to do just that and identify the issue using a simple Excel document. However, for some unknown reason, it seems too difficult for the CBSA. As early as the fall of 2015, an Auditor General's report stated that export control at the border is ineffective and that only one in five high-risk containers was inspected. Now, we are being told that there are almost no inspections and that, even when there is a concern that there may be high-risk contents, only one container in five is searched and checked. It is easy to understand why there are a huge number of stolen vehicles passing through the port of Montreal without anyone noticing. I asked the customs union to come testify before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C‑21. The union told us that a lot of illegal or stolen material is shipped in containers that travel in and out of Canada not only by water, but also by train, and that the agency performs almost no inspections. At the time, the government dismissed the criticism out of hand, saying that it did not consider this information important. What Le Journal de Montréal's investigative bureau reported, in a nutshell, is that only five officers at the Port of Montreal conduct searches. They rely on a temperamental cargo scanner that is constantly breaking down. The agency refuses to second an investigator to a special stolen vehicle export squad. The same serial numbers come up again and again. Critical information is not being forwarded to port services or police in a timely manner, and the agency apparently omits to report high-risk containers to its partners. We see that many organizations are involved, but, despite that, nothing is getting done. I would be very pleased to answer my colleagues' questions and I hope the summit being held next week will contribute to finding solutions to address this scourge.

2088 words

All Topics

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Feb/6/24 11:29:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canada was known as a safe country, but after eight years of Liberals and other parties that support them, such as the NDP and the Bloc, we are seeing an incredible increase in all sorts of crime, including auto theft. In Montreal, we have seen an increase of 100%. Everyone is paying the price. We are paying more for our automobile insurance. Will the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of our common-sense motion to protect Canadians, including Quebeckers?

85 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/6/24 11:30:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing I really like about the Conservative motion is that it says we need to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with the resources it needs to operate. Something in the earlier discussions caught my attention. Liberal Party members said the Conservatives cut CBSA's budget when they were in power. Why is there one single officer stationed at the Port of Montreal to conduct searches? Is it because of the Conservatives' budget cuts, I wonder? Anyway, today they have changed their minds and they want to do more, but maybe they should not blame one government for this whole crisis when the previous government essentially did nothing or actually helped worsen the crisis.

117 words

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 11:31:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite spoke a bit about the Conservative approach to finding solutions to this challenge and referred to those solutions as simplistic. Does she believe that the Conservatives' position on how to go forward in finding solutions actually would result in some real solutions in the long term to take on this issue?

56 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/6/24 11:31:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am concerned, and I do not think I am the only one. Most of my colleagues and the people in our ridings are concerned to see the Conservatives proposing such simple solutions to problems that are always a bit more complex. We need to take the time to analyze the situation. As my colleague said so well earlier, the argument behind the Conservatives' motion lacks intellectual rigour. Auto theft is obviously a big problem, and we want to do more to stop it. The Bloc Québécois has been talking about it for months and has been asking the government to do more. It is baffling that the police themselves have joined forces to do more, which in itself is a good thing, but that the federal government, which is responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency and the country's ports, is doing absolutely nothing. We need to examine the issue properly. There is going to be a summit, and that is good. As I was telling the minister earlier, I hope that the chiefs of Canada's major police forces will be invited, especially the Montreal police chief, because their organizations are already getting results when it comes to tracking down stolen vehicles.

211 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/6/24 11:33:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives are now saying “Oh, get tough on crime,” yet when the Harper administration was in government, between 2010 and 2015, it cut close to $600 million from the RCMP budget and laid off 1,100 CBSA officers. To boot, on crime prevention, it underspent $28 million that had already been allocated. The Conservative leader now continues to call for cuts to the RCMP's budget, as well as to the CBSA's. The member talked about the port, and I absolutely agree. The federal government disbanded the port police in my riding back in 1997, and we have seen the fallout as a result of that. Would the member support what the NDP has been calling for all along, which is that the government should in fact ensure that the port police is restored?

144 words

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

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/6/24 11:35:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things that are really interesting is the lack of training that is being provided for CBSA officers. Right now, people have to go through a recruitment process before they even get a job, and that is hard for women, who actually have to travel to one of two locations, away from their family members, including their children, for up to 18 weeks to get training to get into the service. I would ask the member if she would support reforming this process to make it more friendly for families and for workers who have children to actually get the training necessary, because we are short thousands of officers.

113 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/6/24 11:35:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I can say is that some housecleaning is definitely in order at the Canada Border Services Agency. The Customs and Immigration Union has appeared before us a number of times and in a number of fora to underscore things that are happening that maybe should not be happening. Mr. Sabourin was recently in the gallery when the bill introduced by my colleague from Mirabel to protect whistle-blowers was passed. He had taken a stand and complained about what was going on at the Canada Border Services Agency, but no one believed him until a few months ago. While this may not be today's topic, I think it is important that we review what is going on at the Canada Border Services Agency, simply so that the people he mentioned are treated well.

138 words

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 11:36:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion in the House on this important issue today. We have heard many comments about the Conservatives in past governments making cuts to mitigate the effectiveness of fighting auto crime, but we have also heard about the tactics they have used in the House and in the committee structure to stop the process of finding long-term solutions. The member hinted at some of the committee processes that have been taking place and how the Conservatives have delayed finding real solutions to this issue. Can she comment a bit more on what was really behind the delay tactics by the Conservatives?

109 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/6/24 11:37:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of my Conservative colleagues was honest enough to tell me how he felt about this. These are tactics. The Bloc Québécois is an opposition party. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois will never come to power in Ottawa. We are here to represent the interests of Quebeckers. Even though the current government is not our favourite and we do not always agree with it, we try to study and improve each bill as much as possible and make gains for Quebeckers. My Conservative colleague told me that his party, as the official opposition, would oppose any bill introduced by the Liberal government to stop it from passing. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is studying Bill C‑26 on cybersecurity, which is extremely important, and the Conservative Party is doing everything it can to delay it. The Conservatives always have an issue or a concern that is more urgent, or a motion to move. They are always filibustering, which is unfortunate. People elected us to do important work here in Ottawa, and we are being prevented from doing it because of these tactics. I want people who may be watching at home to realize this, but it is extremely difficult to get the message across. In any case, we in the Bloc Québécois continue to do our job, and we are very proud of that.

244 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/6/24 11:39:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to split my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, which is a beautiful place in Canada. I appreciate the member's work on this file, along with that of several others. He has had a long tenure in the House, so I will be looking forward to his comments after mine. With regard to the Conservative motion in front of us, I come from Windsor, Ontario, which is the automotive capital of Canada. It is also a border crossing in Canada with a maximum volume of trade taking place. We have grown up with this as a part of our DNA in our area. In this debate today, I want to tackle not only a little about the auto industry, but also some of the CBSA elements that are being put forward in this motion. It is a bit emotional for me because, in my community, we have seen the struggle of, as well as the lack of support for, the workers, the men and women who are on the front line of protecting our country from the United States. The longest, undefended border in the world is between Canada and the United States. At the same time, there are some very bad people who have tried to cross over with some bad intentions. Some of them are our own citizens, while others are American citizens. These instances have significant consequences, as any border MP would know, from Hamilton to Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, to other parts of Canada, even out to the west coast. I want to refer to that a bit later. However, I want to point out one thing that we have not talked a lot about. We should not let the auto industry off for its lack of innovation in stopping auto theft. Billions of dollars have gone into the auto sector for innovations, and I have supported that because they are very important. At the same time, with the lack of a Canadian national auto policy, there is little we can do. There has been a carrot-and-stick approach to the issue. Looking at this historically, my father was an executive for Chrysler for much of his career. I remember the days when we heard debates on a number of different issues that were brought to the auto sector, and it refused to put in innovations. One of the most obvious ones from the history books was the issue of seat belts. Those in the auto sector actually resisted having them for many years. There were also auto makers who did not want to stop having smoking devices and smoking elements in their cars. There were others who had innovations in their vehicles that turned out to be bad for the public, such as headlights that would pop up and recess at different times. There have been a lot of great innovations and good things that have taken place within the auto sector, but the personal vehicle manufacturing industry does bear some responsibility. When there is massive public support to help transition this industry into a modern, safer place for all of us, then there is an expectation that public policy should be a part of that, and stopping auto thefts should also be a part of it. They have moved to automatic start devices as a competitive practice in the industry. At the same time, they have not kept up with the fact that someone can hack into these systems. There is a dual obligation in these matters. I have worked with the auto industry over a number of years. I am sure that, if we put proper pressure on it and responsibility afterward if it does not do that, then we would get some achievements to help Canadians. We have to remember that losing a vehicle is not just a financial crime. The vehicles can often be used for a theft during that moment, with other victims, along with other types of crime that take place. We have focused on this a lot. I am going to transition to the exportation issue because Canada has basically become a cottage industry for many of the organized crime elements that want to steal our vehicles to sell abroad. The reality is that auto theft in general has significant consequences, not for its individual crime, but for the subsequent crimes that take place once the vehicle is lifted. I mentioned the history of the men and women who serve on our border. I want people to picture what it is like to be at the border. I have a busy community where there are tens of thousands of people who cross every single day. When I was growing up, many times there would be a summer student, rather than a border officer, in the PIL booth that we pull up to. Sometimes, people had to borrow bulletproof vests because they did not have enough vests at the border for our workers. I remember those days. If one were to go to where they are right now, one would see that they are finally armed and have some support. In the past, they would have to rely on municipal, provincial or federal police forces when there were problems with Americans and others showing up with arms or other types of illegal weaponry, drugs and other things. We have to remember that, even under the best of circumstances, they could have somebody pulling up who is their friend, neighbour, family member, or somebody they know from their community who they are coaching soccer or hockey for. They have a job that is really hard in making sure that they do the proper scrutiny of every single person that crosses. They are making sure our country is safe. That job is very much a strained job in many respects, and it does not get the support or understanding that it should. I believe this is what led to a famous quote in the House, for which I have yet to hear the Liberals officially apologize for, when Derek Lee called our border officers “wimps” because they walked off the job when armed Americans were coming. They had been identified as having criminal backgrounds, and border officers had to walk off because there were not proper supports at that time, even from law enforcement. This brought a lot of clarity to me on how far away this place is from the job that needs to be done at our borders to keep us safe. We have seen successive Liberal and Conservative governments not even finish out the terms of collective agreements before they have to start bargaining again. That is just one thing. What I am trying to impress upon this debate is that this is a cultural thing. We can talk about finally restoring some of the cuts that took place under the Conservative regime, such as when it cut the detector dogs or when it cut back on officers, or under the Liberals right now and the poor training program that has left us thousands of workers short. We are short 2,000 to 3,000 border service officers right now. We also have to change the culture of that organization itself, and it will be beneficial to hold a round table on that, but I wonder how much the union is being included in this. I was included in a town hall meeting in Montreal on gun violence when Ralph Goodale was public safety minister, and sadly, all those efforts went nowhere because the government never followed up on the meeting. The subsequent government did not either. When we talk about the specifics of what is taking place in Montreal, there are some very specific issues that can be resolved. It has limited space and a current team that consists of eight officers who look at the exportation of vehicles and whether vehicles are stolen or not. There are vehicles properly being exported and others that are not, and there is a limited number of officers looking at this. There is a fixation right now on making sure the imports are prioritized over the exports. Again, if we are putting the strain on the officers to get the vehicles out into our supply chain, we then need to reprioritize how we are doing it. The Conservative motion does not really give us a whole lot on that. We also know the Port of Montreal is short on space. That area is short on space, so the vehicles get stacked up, even the ones that have been found to be illegal. The workers then need to call in the Montreal police force to help get rid of them because they do not have the right equipment. I talked about the bulletproof vests needing to be shared among workers back in the day. In this situation, they do not even have a tow truck or the capability to clear out the space. Management has not done anything to increase the space available, so they have rented space to look at these exports. On top of that, there has been no solution to increase that space or for them to get their own space. People are left with very practical problems that create problems for the inspections. It is important to talk about the fact we have a management-heavy industry right in the CBSA culture and with hiring at the CBSA. In some areas, there are seven managers to six officers. There should be a better ratio of boots on the ground. The government has focused on the worst things it could focus on, such as the ArriveCAN app, where it focused on developing an app versus training officers. This is one of the worst things it could do. We need to stop looking at technology as being the only silver bullet in dealing with this situation. The problem is that the technology we do bring in is so often broken. Right now, there is screening and other types of equipment in Montreal that had to be brought in from Windsor, Ontario, because the equipment in Montreal could not be fixed. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to have the proper and sustainable environment for it and we need to train the workers. I want to complete with a very important point, which is about the training of officers. Currently, one has to come in as a recruit who does not get paid. We need to start hiring, training and supporting those people. We need to be giving better opportunities for the training to take place so we can make getting boots on the ground a reality.

1794 words

All Topics

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Feb/6/24 11:48:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about facts. In York region, car theft is up 200%. In 2023, there was 4,294 vehicles stolen. Violent crime is up 39%. I was out last weekend in my constituency visiting a couple of farms, and people are worried about creeping crime in my riding. They said to me that this country is just not the same anymore and that there is crime and chaos everywhere. I am going to cite the latest, which comes from an article in BradfordToday, which states that a suspect who was arrested twice in less than six hours faces multiple charges. Within six hours, he went from stealing one vehicle to stealing another vehicle. I wonder if my colleague can comment on that.

126 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/6/24 11:49:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know about the validity of the statistics that were put before me, but the question, to me, is why the Conservatives voted against the RCMP and CBSA funding, and other initiatives, in the last budgetary moment. They created a special process in Parliament, where they itemized all of the votes. They specifically made us vote on those allocations that they now complain about, including those for prisons. That is a unique thing that I have not seen in my 20 years here. When we have done this before, one selects the things one supports and then one votes against the things one does not support. They voted against prison supports. They voted against RCMP supports. They voted against public safety supports. Why did they specifically create a parliamentary process to prove that they do not support those initiatives?

143 words

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 11:50:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have noticed that, over my last two years in the House, Conservatives use crime as a mechanism to anger Canadians. The simple fact is that, yes, crime has shifted in the last few years, but there is no question that Canada remains among the safest countries on the entire planet. In fact, there was a report that just came out for travellers in Canada, and it said that Canada was the safest country on the planet to travel to as a traveller. I wanted to maybe get a comment from the member. Does he believe that Conservatives are using crime as a way to create anger among Canadians to divide Canadians and pull more support to Conservatives?

120 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/6/24 11:51:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here is what we have: We have either aggressive behaviour with Conservatives using it as a hot-button issue, or we have what I would argue is passive aggressive behaviour with the Liberals, where they can create a summit and have all these meetings, just like the one I participated in that was related to gun violence and youth gangs, and then they not do anything about it. The reality is that we need action at the end of the day. Whether it is aggressive or passive aggressive, I do not really care. I just want to see action because Canadians deserve that.

105 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/6/24 11:52:12 a.m.
Watch

We have time for a brief question from the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

15 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/6/24 11:52:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot make any promises. As the member mentioned, there is also a technology factor involved. I have never had my car stolen, but I have had things stolen out of my car three times in the past two years in my riding. My key hangs two feet behind the door, and thieves hack the signal. It seems to me that these technologies are quite advanced. They can be hacked. I cannot believe that no one can develop a system to block this signal, to prevent the system from being hacked. It is inconceivable to me that this is impossible. The member touched on this in his discussions with auto manufacturers. I wonder if he could tell us more about that.

123 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/6/24 11:53:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would be really good to go back to the auto sector on this. They are launching vehicles with poorer technology for stopping auto theft. As for the member's experience, I am sorry to hear of that. I can tell members that, at different times, I have found my car broken into. I am just happy that they were just instances of people basically taking what they wanted and not vandalizing the rest. I have had other times where the windows have been smashed because they saw something. These things are not new. They have been happening for a long period of time, but the reality is that, with changing technology, and with the automation of vehicles starting remotely, we have not kept up with security, in how this is used to sell vehicles, maintain them and keep them in our driveways.

145 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 276