SoVote

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

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

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/6/24 5:22:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives are always focused on tough-on-crime approaches and they are calling it common sense, but I think it is nonsense, and I will tell members why. We know that recidivism rates for people who are incarcerated are higher than 80%. It costs over $225,000 a year to incarcerate one woman in a federal penitentiary. It costs well over $125,000 to incarcerate one male. I am wondering why the Conservatives want to waste all this money on solutions that we know do not work instead of investing those multimillions to billions of dollars into dealing with the root causes of crime.

109 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Feb/6/24 5:23:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing my colleague's comments, and I would agree with her that we do have to address the causes of crime. However, where I would part company is when she said that Conservatives were tough on crime. I do not know if that is the characterization I would use, but rather we are tough on certain crimes. Something our leader has emphasized is the idea of recovery. What does recovery do? It addresses substance abuse, which is often at the root cause of crime. So, the two are not mutually exclusive. I would suggest that we can address serious crime and also address recovery, because when we address serious crime and that which it is impacting—

122 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:23:35 p.m.
Watch

We must resume debate. The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

11 words

Vaughan
King

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Feb/6/24 5:24:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick. After eight years of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime policies, we see crime, chaos, drugs and disorder rampaging through our streets. In our major cities, the spike in car theft since 2015 is extreme, increasing by 300% in Toronto. The Liberal government's dangerous catch-and-release policies have unleashed crime and chaos in our communities. The Prime Minister's reckless Bill C-5 allows for house arrest of these criminals, even those with long rap sheets. This means that they just walk out onto the streets and continue committing more crimes. Increasing crime has been very troubling in the riding of King—Vaughan. I have to acknowledge Joe from @notonjoeswatch, a large social media page based in the city of Vaughan. He produces a page informing constituents of where the crimes are proceeding. Over the past year, in Vaughan, which I represent, break and enters have increased by 45%, vehicle thefts by 30%, assaults by 13.8%, sexual violations by 11% and robberies by 10%. These are scary statistics, which are causing many in my riding and across the country to live in fear. I have heard many scary stories from my riding and around Canada. People are getting their doors kicked in, their houses robbed and their cars stolen. Crime is up and people are scared. Recently I toured a neighbourhood in Kleinburg. They had to hire a security service company to protect their homes and cars, to the cost of $5,000 per household, which totals in excess of $200,000 a year, not included in their property taxes. How ridiculous is that? We need to ensure that we can protect our citizens based on the security of what we now feel is weak. The Leader of the Opposition, who, by the way, for those who are not aware, will be our next prime minister, will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

333 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:27:02 p.m.
Watch

Order. It being 5:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is as follows. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to the House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

102 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/6/24 5:29:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:29:53 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:29:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-1001

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S‑1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada. This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/6/24 5:30:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:42 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/6/24 5:31:05 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

Feb/6/24 5:31:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight and pursue the discussion of a very complex piece of legislation. It did not start out being complex, when our colleague initially put it forward as Bill C-234, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. Of course, this is the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act as it relates to on-farm use of fossil fuels. It has now been amended in the Senate to exempt one of the larger uses of fossil fuels on farms. Of course, farm communities are not pleased; however, I wanted to step back. This piece that would now be exempted under the Senate amendments is the on-farm use of propane fuel for grain drying. In other words, activities that take place in buildings are now no longer exempt from the fossil fuel exemption that came through in the first version of Bill C-234. As the Green Party members and I voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity, if I may, to explain why we voted that way and what I think we should do for a fundamental reconsideration of the way we price carbon on farms so that it has some intellectual and scientific coherence. Let me first start with why we voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration. I recall really clearly when carbon pricing came forward, which we favour, to be very clear. We think we have to monetize carbon. If we treat pollution as something free, nobody will pay attention to what it really costs society, what it really costs humanity to treat the atmosphere as if it were a large, free garbage dump for our pollution. That is clearly not acceptable. We moved forward, accepting that there would be, unfortunately, a patchwork, because some provinces had already moved forward. British Columbia brought in Canada's first carbon tax, a well-constructed and logical revenue-neutral approach to carbon pricing. There have been changes, and some provinces brought in their own versions. What the current Liberal government brought forward was essentially a backstop; for those provinces that did not have their own systems, the federal government brought in a carbon price that would apply everywhere to try to equalize the pricing among all the different provinces and have a system that remained revenue-neutral. British Columbia brought in the revenue-neutral carbon tax under the government of previous premier Gordon Campbell, who pretty much represented the right wing of B.C. politics. Nevertheless, it was a really well-designed carbon price. The revenue-neutral part of it was that, as British Columbians, we got tax cuts that were how we received what citizens now actually receive as a rebate check in those backstop provinces. This became a bit more complicated than it perhaps needed to be. When the Liberals brought this in, they said they were not going to apply it on farms; farmers would not have to pay the carbon tax. At least, that was how it was communicated. When farmers realized that they were not paying a carbon tax on the diesel they put in their tractors or the farm equipment they use, but they were paying a big one on grain drying, they became quite concerned. That is the source of Bill C-234. We felt, in principle, that once the farming community has been told that carbon tax will not apply to them, one should stick to that. It also happened that, because of the climate crisis, the need for grain drying increased. This is one of those things that may sound counterintuitive, of course, but we had what farmers in the Prairies referred to as “the harvest from hell” that winter. I am going to back up and say that I know it is not the first time we have ever had the need for grain drying. We have had wet harvests before. It was not a novelty, but it was particularly bad. They were still trying to get crops out of the fields when there was snow on them. Grain drying became much more intense, and the use of propane for grain drying actually increased. That is when farmers said, “Well, wait a minute. We were supposed to be exempt from carbon pricing.” Before diving into what has happened to Bill C-234 since then, I want to step back and ask this: If we wanted to monetize carbon and, preferably, keep farmers who are essentially land stewards on board with the need to respond to the climate crisis, how would we do that? I would say that the reason farmers should be particularly on board with measures to reduce greenhouse gases and avoid an ever-worsening climate crisis is that, if there is one economic sector that is a big loser and at risk in a world of climate crisis, it is agriculture. In the Prairies now, there is a multi-year drought. Some of my friends who are farmers on the Prairies say not to call it a drought. They say to call it “aridification”, because it is just going to keep getting drier as a result of climate trends and global warming. With respect to the impact on the cost of food, we talk about inflation in grocery prices, and a good chunk of that is the impact on certain agricultural products because of extreme climate events. Whether droughts or floods, extreme weather events wipe out certain kinds of food. The price of vanilla went sky-high because of the impact of storms hitting Madagascar, as but one example. Of course, grains all around the world started costing a lot more because of a combination of Putin declaring war on Ukraine and crop failures caused by extreme climatic events. As someone who wants to see us all pull together, it was distressing that one component of Canadian society would be alienated from efforts to act on climate by what felt like and, I have to say, looked like a betrayal on a promise. This component is severely impacted by the climate crisis and, therefore, should be onside with doing something to keep it from becoming ever worse; at the same time, it is a part of our society that plays a big role in how carbon is sequestered. If the Liberals say they are not going to apply carbon taxes on farms, then farmers are surprised to be paying a walloping carbon tax, how did that happen? I am sorry to say this to my Liberal friends, but it is because the Liberals do not really understand a lot about farming; when they made the promise, they did not realize that fossil fuels used on farms were largely used in buildings to dry grain. It is fine to exempt tractors and on-farm equipment, but here we come to the crux of what I wish we had done, which we could perhaps still do: We can enlist farmers as the creative land stewards they are, as farmers sequester carbon through their practices and on-farm activities, such as zero-tillage agriculture, getting rid of summer fallow, and making sure they are doing more perennial and fewer annual crops. Farmers are massively effective at sequestering carbon in soil, and guess what? We talk about planting forests as a way of sequestering carbon and carbon sinks in forests. Those things are real; that is true. However, right now, and largely because of climate change, our grasslands are better at sequestering carbon than our forests are. Why? The soils hold an enormous quantity of carbon. Climate conditions causing forest fires wipe out the carbon we were sequestering in forests, releasing it by the millions of tonnes into the atmosphere. It is not just in the summer; every province in this country started having wildfires that were out of control in the spring, in May of last year, and all the way through late fall and some into the winter. When forests burn, we lose all the carbon. Here is something interesting, and scientists are looking at this a lot: When grasslands burn, we do not lose all the carbon. Most of that carbon is stored well below the soil, in the root systems that do not burn. Therefore, if we are offsetting for greenhouse gas, I generally think we are better not to plant a tree but to plant a billionaire; I usually say that in jest, just to make sure everybody understands that. We are better off protecting the grasslands. Where ecosystems exist with grasslands, it is better to sustain them and keep them robust, which means this: What if, instead of just having carbon pricing on the fuel they burn, we pay farmers for every tonne of carbon they sequester? What if we had an actual balance sheet on carbon pricing, thanking and rewarding farmers who have taken on board protecting ecological services, such as wetlands, protecting biodiversity and making sure they are restoring the health of soil, improving the profitability and the health of the food, and keeping carbon out of the atmosphere? I say thanks to farmers.

1537 words

All Topics