SoVote

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

Feb/6/24 12:35:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to believe some of the things the Conservatives will say. He said they were going to increase supports and have more CBSA officers. It was the Conservative government that cut over 1,000 Canada border control service officers back in 2000. Then the member says that they will increase the penalty from six months to three years. Who do they think put in the six-month minimum? It was Stephen Harper. Does the member not know what the Conservative Party has actually done? How can he stand and say what he has when the Conservative Party in the past did the absolute opposite?

109 words

Mr. Arpan Khanna

Feb/6/24 12:36:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is obviously entitled to his opinions, but not to his own facts. The government has been in power for the last eight years. It has had eight years to fix this crisis. They are federal courts, federal CBSA, federal RCMP, federal Criminal Code and it is a federal Prime Minister. The Liberals have been sitting on the sidelines watching this crisis unfold. Now that it has blown up, they are holding summits, they want amazing photo ops and they want a pat on the back. They have caused the chaos in our housing, in our judicial system and in our communities. We are going to stop that with our common-sense plan to get car theft under control.

123 words

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

Mr. Arpan Khanna

Feb/6/24 12:38:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, that is very rich coming from the Bloc when its members supported these catch-and-release, soft-on-crime bills, like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Quebec alone has seen a 50% increase of auto thefts in the last few years. Instead of standing up, joining the common-sense Conservatives and supporting our motion to help those in Quebec, he is not. It is time that the Québécois stand with our party, stand with Canadians, and start putting the rights of victims first, not the criminals.

94 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/6/24 12:39:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the most effective programs Canada used to have was our detector dog program. We still have some of it today, but the Conservatives cut it. In fact, this was brought in under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, working with our border officers Why would the Conservatives oppose detector dogs and have they changed their position? They were very effective, not only to anti-terrorism but for smuggling as well. They were very effective in ensuring Canada would be well-known for its security. Do he and his party regret this and will they change their position on detector dogs? Why do they not like detector dogs when they are effective against terrorists and smugglers?

123 words

Mr. Arpan Khanna

Feb/6/24 12:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and time again that the New Democrats continue to prop up the Liberal government. They are part of the problem. They talk a big game of standing up for Canadians, but when they have the chance to do that, they are in lock arms with the Liberal government. They are part of the same problem. Will they join us in voting for this common-sense Conservative motion to put the rights of victims ahead of our criminals?

83 words

Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 12:40:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion and to illustrate our action in taking up the fight against organized crime and auto theft. It goes without saying that Canadians must be able to live free from fear of crime in their neighbourhoods. Not only can auto theft cause financial devastation, but it also makes people feel unsafe in their own homes. I know that auto theft is a top of mind issue for many. In fact, I expect most of us here know someone who has had their car stolen recently. In fact, one of my colleagues had his car stolen recently. As a resident of the GTA, I understand the toll these crimes can take on individuals and communities. It disrupts our lives and it undermines our feelings of safety. It also costs Canadians significantly. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, auto theft claims totalled $1.2 billion in 2022. This is unacceptable. It puts on us an onus to work together to find ways to denounce this conduct. This is why our government is throwing its weight behind the solving of this issue. We have been working on measures to tackle auto theft for months now. Most recently, we announced $121 million in funding for Ontario to combat gun crime, gangs and organized crime, including auto theft. Auto theft is a timely topic for discussion this week, as the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have invited key players from across the country to come together and identify solutions to auto theft. Political leaders, police, border agents, auto and industry executives will be among the attendees. I am confident that these productive conversations will lead to concrete suggestions for how we can better stop auto theft from occurring in Canada. It is ironic that members opposite are highlighting the problems of auto theft when they refuse to support our solutions. The Conservatives have promised to vote against the fall economic statement and are delaying its passage. This critical legislation contains anti-money laundering provisions that will crack down on organized crime networks and contribute to fighting auto theft. The vast majority of auto thefts are not spontaneous crimes committed by one or two individuals. Highly organized networks of criminals are involved at various stages, from targeting a vehicle to the theft itself to its trafficking through major ports destined for resale markets in Africa or the Middle East. Criminals may use the proceeds of crime from stolen vehicles to facilitate other forms of serious crime like trafficking drugs, people and firearms. This is why I am sad to see my colleagues across the way opposed to the important changes with which we are trying to fight organized crime. The Leader of the Opposition announced his so-called plan to combat auto theft the day before yesterday. We know it would not actually accomplish anything. He proposed measures that are either ineffective or already exist. We have real solutions. The Criminal Code has a comprehensive framework that addresses motor vehicle theft along the spectrum of the crime. This includes preparatory offences, offences for the actual theft, trafficking and possession of stolen property offences, and proceeds of crime offences. The Criminal Code also includes specific offences to address organized crime activities. It includes many offences that address the situation when violence is involved during a theft, such as the use of a firearm. Many of us are aware of devices that thieves use to acquire a key fob signal and relay that signal to unlock or start a vehicle. These devices are illegal under the Criminal Code. It is also illegal to knowingly possess any instrument that can be used to break into a motor vehicle for that purpose. Both of these offences carry a maximum penalty of 10 years if proceeded by way of indictment. The Criminal Code also has general provisions that address auto theft. For example, theft of property over $5,000 is punishable on indictment by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or two years less a day imprisonment on summary conviction. Theft under $5,000 is punishable on indictment by a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or two years less a day on summary conviction. The Criminal Code also has a specific motor vehicle theft offence, which is punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction. In the case of a third, or subsequent conviction, a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment of six months applies. In fact, our government took action to crack down on auto theft in Bill C-75, by raising the maximum penalty for motor vehicle theft from 18 months to two years less a day. This is another example of our sustained focus on eradicating auto theft from our communities. This is the very legislation that the Leader of the Opposition wants to repeal. He would lower maximum sentences for auto theft. As always, the leader of the Conservatives would rather spread disinformation and spark fear across the country than focus on facts. The Criminal Code also contains a comprehensive legal framework that targets criminal organizations, offences relating to criminal organizations, including participating in criminal organization activities; recruitment to a criminal organization; the commission of an indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization; and instructing the commission of an offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. The organized crime provisions have specific sentencing outcomes. First, sentences imposed for any of the organized crime offences must be served consecutively with sentences imposed for other offences arising from the same transaction. Second, courts are required to consider, as an aggravating factor at sentencing, that an offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. This is one of the measures the Leader of the Opposition has committed to enacting to solve the problem of auto theft. It is already in place; he is catching up. Again, he is not proposing real solutions. There are also Criminal Code measures that aim to prevent offenders from benefiting from the proceeds of their crimes. This includes pretrial seizure or restraint of proceeds of crime and the possibility of forfeiture of proceeds of crime following conviction or a fine in lieu of forfeiture in certain circumstances when the proceeds are no longer available. These are just a few of the offences that currently can be leveraged by law enforcement and prosecutors to address auto theft. The Criminal Code is a helpful tool to penalize auto thieves, but we are also working on comprehensive solutions to prevent auto theft from occurring. On Thursday, key players will gather in Ottawa to discuss more solutions. The meeting will feature law enforcement, industry leaders and all levels of government coming together to identify short, medium and long-term actions to combat auto theft to continue to strengthen our initiatives that are already under way. There are many ways we can address the problem of auto theft, and everyone has to be part of the solution. The Leader of the Opposition wants to boil things down to empty slogans that do not solve anything. We will be looking at regulatory change, what industry can do to help, how provinces and municipalities can help and how to improve enforcement. I look forward to working with everyone who is serious to solve this problem. I am grateful for the efforts that are already under way to combat auto theft and I look forward to a productive day of discussion on Thursday for the next steps.

1304 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Feb/6/24 12:48:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since York—Simcoe is now considered part of Toronto under the government's goofy carbon tax regime, I feel I can comment on Toronto and York Region. The facts are what they are. Auto theft is up 200% in York Region. There were 4,290 vehicles stolen in 2023. I guess my hon. colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore hears different things. His speech makes it look like it is all good. When I travel through York—Simcoe, people tell me that our country is not the same. A recent newspaper article reported that a car was stolen and in less than six hours, the gentleman was stealing another car. He was charged with impaired driving and he was out on bail again. These violent crimes have to stop. God help the people of Toronto with their property tax increase, but the NDP mayor of Toronto is cutting the Toronto Police Service budget. Could my colleague comment on that?

162 words

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/6/24 12:49:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the member already knows where I stand on cutting police budgets. I disagree with any effort taken by a municipal government that will somehow limit or curtail the ability of the police forces to do their job. This is a serious problem, and we do not deny it is a serious problem, but serious problems require serious solutions, not slogans. The Leader of the Opposition held a press conference in front of the Port of Montreal and said that he would impose mandatory minimum sentences. There already is a mandatory minimum sentence. I have sat in rooms with people from the law enforcement community. I have met at other times with automakers and other levels of government. Each of them point fingers in other directions. This needs to be a collaborative effort where everybody gets together in one room and asks what each can do. That is going to happen on Thursday.

156 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/6/24 12:50:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9 Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that auto theft is a scourge and needs to be addressed. I would like my colleague to comment on the rhetoric, the reasoning behind today's Conservative motion. They claim that the explosion in auto theft is because of the Liberal government. They say it is because of Bill C‑5, even though that bill did not receive royal assent until late 2022. They also say it is because sentences are too lenient, but these sentences, which were added to the Criminal Code in 2010, were the result of Bill S‑9. That bill was introduced by the Conservative Party, the government at the time. If the penalties are too lenient, the Conservative Party only has itself to blame. I wonder what exactly my colleague is proposing. We know there will be a national summit this Thursday. There was talk of giving more resources to the Canada Border Services Agency and giving existing police forces the means they need to take action. In his opinion, what more should the government be doing to counter this scourge?

185 words

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/6/24 12:51:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the reason behind the motion is simple: It is politics. The Leader of the Opposition read something in the paper and thought, “Oh, here's something I can talk about and score a few political points”. Let us be honest. However, what more can be done is why we are convening this meeting on Thursday. As I said earlier, it has to be a collaborative effort by all parties involved. Auto manufacturers have to be at the table, and they have to be able to say, “This is what we can do to make our cars more safe and protect them against auto theft.” We need law enforcement communities. My friend from Lake Simcoe said that they should stand up and tell us what they can do and what resources they need. The federal government needs to step up and correct some of the problems created by the previous Conservative government, including enhancing the level of resources that are available to CBSA. It is a group effort that has to be done with everybody at the table.

183 words

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

Feb/6/24 12:52:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the issue of gang crime is serious, but we see that the Conservatives have voted against CBSA. Under Stephen Harper, all the tough-on-crime bills they brought proved unconstitutional. They had more recalls than the Ford Pinto, which shows that this is not a party that is serious about dealing with crime. It was all about stunts, it was all about fundraising and it was all about giving their no-name members on the back bench a reason to get up and holler and shout. Once again, what we see with these Conservatives is that they are doing it from the front bench, not the back bench, but it is the same old shenanigans.

117 words

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/6/24 12:53:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that there is no such thing as a no-name member in this House. However, anybody who stands in this House or outside this House and accuses any other member of being soft on crime is being disingenuous and it is disrespectful to the people who live in this country, because everybody in this House, regardless of political stripe, believes in law and order.

70 words

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 12:53:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised earlier, I withdraw my comments and apologize.

15 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:54:00 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. minister for his comments. We will consider the issue closed.

14 words

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

Feb/6/24 12:54:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by providing a thought in regards to the seriousness of the issue. I would like to think—

24 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:54:21 p.m.
Watch

I believe we have a point of order from the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

16 words

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Feb/6/24 12:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not about the current speaker, but I wanted to catch it early so that I did not cut him off and I hope he will be given the chance to begin anew. I missed the debate earlier, but I have been in this chamber before when the question of T-shirt wearing was raised and I want to press that again. I understand that you said there was an agreement that had been struck that if a member came in here wearing a T-shirt under a jacket, it is permissible. I have not heard of this before, and I would ask you to report back to this chamber when in fact that agreement was made or perhaps you can do it now. I find that a breach of the chamber's rules.

137 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:54:59 p.m.
Watch

I will read this again, because this has happened on a number of occasions. I think I erred this last time when I allowed the hon. minister to speak. We either are going to allow T-shirts or not allow T-shirts. I would say that they are not allowed, and so I am going to make a bit of a ruling on the fly here. There is no rule for women's attire, except we might say that the Standing Orders do not prescribe a dress code for members participating in debate. However, Speakers have ruled that all members desiring to be recognized to speak at any point during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business attire. The added point to that is when people speak to S.O. 31s especially and want to wear their team's shirts, that has been permissible on a number of occasions in this chamber. I just want folks to be more judicious in their attire in the House. Falling short of prescribing what that attire should be, slogans on T-shirts should not be acceptable in the House of Commons.

191 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Feb/6/24 12:56:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I appreciate that and I appreciate the intervention by my Conservative colleague. I just want to be clear, because we have rules. A male who is not wearing tie should not be recognized. We have had rules where, let us say there was a hockey tournament and a team wins, members wear their jersey. However, we do not have a rule where someone, just because they are supporting a team or an issue, gets to come in and wear it. We have a very narrow window. I just want to make sure that those are terms under which someone could wear something that is not business attire. It is in that specific instance that perhaps Regina has won or, God help us, the Toronto Argonauts finally win, on that day we give them that one moment. Other than that, we have to have respect for the Chamber.

154 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 276