SoVote

Feb/6/24 5:02:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, listening to that very carefully, one would almost think that this Liberal government had been in power for maybe one to two years and that it could reflect on the previous Conservative administration. When are the Liberals going to move beyond blaming all of the ills of this country on former prime minister Harper? Why do they not also go back to the Brian Mulroney years? They have had eight years to fix this mess, eight years. They have increased the public service by 40%, and they do not do a damn thing to increase confidence among Canadians.

100 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Feb/6/24 5:02:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, it is quite troubling. I agree with my colleague that the Liberals have done nothing, that they have been lax since 2015, and that the Bloc Québécois, and particularly my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, even raised this issue last year. However, I find it a bit ironic to hear the Conservatives worrying about the number of employees at the Canada Border Services Agency, considering an auditor's report dating back to 2015 and 2014. Who was in power before? It was the Conservatives. I was even an assistant at the time when CBSA employees were speaking out against the Conservative government's cuts. That happened around 2010. As it turns out, it was the Conservatives who were in power. I wonder if the member could talk about those cuts, the effects of which we are now unfortunately seeing.

153 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Feb/6/24 5:03:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the time has come to stop putting blame on old Conservative policies or what the Conservatives could or should have done. This government has eight years under its belt, and it has nothing to show for it but heartache, hardship and, now, this national and worldwide reputation: “Come to Canada, where we have a thriving criminal market for you to take advantage of.”

69 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/6/24 5:04:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in diving into the world of auto crime today, I found, of course, that the rate of theft of automobiles has also increased dramatically in the United States. I do not think our Prime Minister is responsible for that, but I am looking at it here in Canada. I will share an anecdote. One of the most shocking car thefts in my life was when I was in church and somebody went into the minister's office and figured they could open the desk. They picked a key up. They did not know what make her car was. They went outside, went beep, beep, and found and stole her car. I wonder if the hon. member knows, relatively speaking, and I think he knows more about car thefts and this issue of technological change than I do, how much the big increase in car thefts in Canada and the U.S. has to do with the ability to use technology, so that thieves can sit at the end of a driveway and actually scoop, remotely, the electronic signals to a computerized, on-off button kind of car. How much of our car theft increase is because it is just simpler to steal cars because of technological change?

209 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Feb/6/24 5:05:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is definitely a real concern, and it really accounts for a lot of the car thefts we are seeing. Criminals are very computer- and technology-savvy. There are ways Canadians can mitigate against these procedures, and I know that my local police service is educating the public on the steps they can take. For instance, people should not leave their vehicle in the driveway. If they have a garage, they should park it in the garage. As far as the key fob is concerned, they should make sure it is not readily accessible just inside the front door but close it in a shoebox or something, or perhaps put it in a closet. I know these are measures that will probably require that people adjust their daily habits, but these are ways that will block the infrared signal and prevent these criminals, these savvy criminals, from capturing the data and simply walking up with a second, handmade remote—

162 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:06:50 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

11 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/6/24 5:06:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Unlike some members of the Liberal Party, particularly the member for St. Catharines, I do not think we should be here doing cartwheels about the fact that the Liberal government has essentially been asleep at the switch and is now finally convening a meeting. At the end of the day, this is a government that has failed, and that is why we, as Conservatives, have four very clear priorities: one, to axe the tax; two, to build the homes; three, to fix the budget; and four, to stop the crime. We require common sense. Where is the first place to start? Let us look at where we are now. Again, the member for St. Catharines will say we have no problems and there are no real big issues here. He will say the Liberals have been responsible. That is what I took from his speech, that they have been eminently responsible. Tell that to all the people who are now suffering from car theft. I can say this: There are people who, historically, would not have even sought release on bail, based on a bail system that we, as Conservatives, may have even criticized as being too lenient. Now those people are released in what I would called a pro forma way. That is why I am excited to rise on what our common-sense plan is. Why? This is a Liberal government that loves to say, “We are going to.” We are going to do this. I believe somebody said today, “We are going to crack down on auto theft.” When have we heard that before? The member for St. Catharines expects us to believe it: “We are going to.” This is just like when the Liberals said they were going to make it easier for people in the middle class and those entering the middle class. “We are going to balance the budget”, after a series of what? It was a series of deficits. They said, “We are going to run small deficits; just trust us.” After eight years, the trust has evaporated. We can no longer trust that the Liberals are going to address problems when it comes to crime. People have talked about importing American-style justice, and certainly I would not advocate for that. There have been varying degrees of consequences. At the same time, I also would not advocate for the leniency we are seeing. The member for St. Catharines can misrepresent my words when it comes to the fact that Bill C-75 raised summary offences from six months to two years less a day. We can do cartwheels about that. That is actually something that I believe was done based on the Jordan principle and based on system actors, when we did not want to proceed by indictment yet wanted a greater sentence than six months. Nobody here on this side has ever said we will repeal those sentences, yet the Liberals will stand up repeatedly and say they have a minimum sentence, and bail is working. How many times have we heard that? The bail system is working. I think that all one needs to do is walk down the street and see circumstances that are largely inhumane for a lot of people, and that does not just have to do with bail. That has a lot to do with substances and, in large part, what the Liberal government has done when it comes to substance abuse. This is a government that, at the end of the day, loves to convene, but convening does not get results. Where were they four years ago when it was clear that bail was becoming a problem? Where were they when key decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada came down? Typically, Parliament used to respond to those decisions. The Liberals said no, they were comfortable and they would just let them be. We then had a series of decisions that Parliament did not respond to. That was a deliberate choice, a value judgment, based on the Liberals' saying, essentially, in my view, that they just do not care. It is just like they do not care and have not cared about housing, like they have not cared about inflation, and now, how they have not cared about auto theft. It is a government, frankly, that does not have its head in the game when it comes to crime. It does not have its head in the game when it comes to just about anything. We have a Prime Minister who stayed with friends for an $84,000 vacation. His response was not to apologize to Canadians. No, he can never admit fault on his own behalf. What was his response? He said that, like many Canadians, he stayed with family or friends. I am going to get to some of the things that were said yesterday by the justice minister. It is interesting, because there are Liberals, again, like the member for St. Catharines. I know he is a lawyer, and perhaps he went to a faculty of law in American Samoa. I say that in jest. On proceeding by indictment, there is a maximum term—

893 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:12:52 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary, on a point of order.

9 words

Secretary

Mr. Chris Bittle

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:13:35 p.m.
Watch

It is well noted. I remind the hon. member that although he did say “in jest”, it is not quite the appropriate comment to make.

27 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Feb/6/24 5:13:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if only people in this place would look in the mirror when they make comments like that. It is unfortunate.

22 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:14:04 p.m.
Watch

Did the hon. member understand what I said?

8 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Feb/6/24 5:14:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did understand and, with respect, I will move on, because I have fairly strong feelings on this.

20 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:14:19 p.m.
Watch

I asked the hon. member to first realize that to question someone else's education is not something we do. The member did say that it was in jest, but it is still on the record. I would advise the hon. member to just retract what he said.

48 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Feb/6/24 5:14:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, so be it. I look at section 333.1, and I see here a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in jail after three convictions, so again the Liberals will do cartwheels over this and claim they have a mandatory minimum, that Conservatives do not realize they have a mandatory minimum and that Conservatives love mandatory minimums. It is a minimum of six months in jail when proceeded by indictment. With all due respect to members, like the member for St. Catharines, I ask how often that will be invoked. How often does somebody obtain the maximum sentence when anybody proceeds by summary or by indictment? Let us reflect on what the hon. minister said yesterday, “First, mandatory minimums for auto theft for repeat offences already exist in the Criminal Code, so he is not changing something that already exists. Second, an aggravating factor for an auto theft that occurs with organized crime is already on the books too, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code”. I can tell members that I have never once, in working in the justice system for years, actually seen that provision employed. There is a reason organized crime is so successful. It is because it is organized. People do not wake up and say, “I was caught for auto theft. You are right. There was a gang helping me out. Forget safety of my family. Forget my safety. Forget safety of my friends. An organized crime gang was taking these vehicles, shipping them across the Atlantic, changing the VINs, and I am prepared to admit that.” The reason organized crime is successful is because those things do not happen. The hon. minister or the member for St. Catharines might do cartwheels about this and say this is wonderful and that they are cracking down on organized crime. That fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. How easy is it to prove the presence of organized crime beyond a reasonable doubt? I would love to note that section and, by that, research it to see how many times it has been successful when it comes to auto theft. Anecdotally, I have never seen it. Here is another quote: ...the Leader of the Opposition purports to be tough on crime. Who do I listen to about crime measures? Police officers. What do they tell me? They tell me that this is not an individual crime; this is backed by people who are organized criminals. How do we deal with that? We get tough on money laundering. The government has had eight years, and in those eight years Canada has become a money-laundering haven. Again, they are going to convene. They are going to figure this out. They are going to have more meetings. The time for meetings has come and gone, and with respect to the hon. minister, somebody whom I do respect and whom I have had constructive discussions with, he must be talking to different police officers. The police officers I am talking to are not happy about the current state of affairs when it comes to their ability to have people detained, to have serious people with serious criminality processed for breaches and to have the law reflect meaningful consequences. We are at a point now where the law, despite this six-month mandatory minimum, really needs to reflect a serious consequence, and that is why I am proud to support an opposition motion to make it a three-year mandatory minimum—

589 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:18:42 p.m.
Watch

For questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

16 words

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

Feb/6/24 5:18:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just a few days ago this was not even an issue for the leader of the Conservative Party. It is only because there is a summit that now he has been made aware of the issue, and now he wants to advocate. In his last words, the member is saying that what he wants to do is make a change. If someone gets caught three times stealing a vehicle, then they are going to have go to prison for six months, and they want to extend that to three years. It was Stephen Harper who actually put in the six months. That is hard to believe. The hypocrisy just kind of oozes out of the cup. Members opposite have been saying they want to see more money invested. They cut hundreds of millions of dollars. They say they want more staff. They cut over a thousand staff. Does the member not recognize the reality that the Conservatives were a disaster and did not contribute then, nor today, to the actual debate of the issue?

176 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Feb/6/24 5:19:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk hypocrisy, let us talk about today versus 2014. People were not afraid as they are today to walk down the street. People were not afraid that their vehicle would not be there to the same degree in 2014 as they are today. People were not worried that their domestic abuser or the person who hit them, the person who sold drugs, was going to be released on bail and then be back a mere half an hour or two hours later. They were not afraid. So, the member can pontificate all he wants about how wonderful things are. We have never had it so good under these Liberals, he will tell us. I invite the member to Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo officially right here, right now. Let us take a walk down the streets and talk to people about the points he just made.

152 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/6/24 5:20:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, yes, thefts did increase in 2023. However, contrary to what the Conservatives may say, Bill C‑5 did not abolish minimum sentences for car theft; not at all. The Conservatives can claim all they want that it is not enough, but there is a major problem with their statement. It was the Conservatives who added section 333.1 with Bill S‑9 in 2010. The accusations and attacks need to stop. We need to act quickly. What does my colleague think? We have to deal with this car theft situation. Sooner or later, it could be mine or his that gets stolen. We need to act quickly.

111 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Feb/6/24 5:21:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, mandatory minimums do change with time. I will remind the House that it was not long ago that Internet luring, a defence I believe should have life imprisonment, was at five years. The hon. member for Abbotsford had to petition to get it to 10 years, and then under the Harper government it went to 14 years. I believe there was no mandatory minimum before the Harper government imposed it. However, times change. Right now, auto theft, as the hon. member mentioned, is up substantially. She asked whether we have to address this quickly. We do have to address this quickly, because it is not working. We want to look at this issue as a whole. People say that it was like this eight years ago, but car theft was not like this eight years ago, and changing times require changing measures, and they require changing minimums.

150 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 276