Bill C-379

Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to address motor vehicle theft by increasing the minimum term of imprisonment in the case of a third or subsequent motor vehicle theft offence, providing that primary consideration must be given to the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization and restricting the possibility for a person convicted of a motor vehicle theft offence of being subject to a conditional sentence order.

Veterans Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke about the fact that seniors on a pension are on a fixed income that has not kept up with the rise in inflation over the years. We should review how pensions are indexed. That might be a solution.

The Bloc Québécois also introduced the bill because this is not right. There is something unfair in the fact that a 68-year-old senior does not receive the same amount as a 78-year-old senior. I hope that my colleague's party will continue to support Bill C‑379.

Lastly, the clause for surviving pensioners who marry after age 60 makes no sense either. It is high time that we show respect for retirees. There are simple measures we can adopt.

What does my colleague think about repealing this clause as soon as possible? It shows that this morning's debate is important and useful.

Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:29 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-379 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from September 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Safety

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is federal because the federal Prime Minister is offering a Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemption to allow the drug dens to go ahead, and he has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on tax-funded, unsafe supply, which is killing our people and addicting our kids. It is just like on car theft, where he has brought in catch and release and house arrest for career car thieves.

Today, he has a chance to reverse himself and vote for common-sense Bill C-379 to bring in mandatory jail time for career car thieves. Will he do the right thing?

Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, common sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. This bill, which we are talking about today, Bill C-379, will be one step in the stop-the-crime initiatives that we have undertaken.

I do not know if one remembers when one received one's driver's licence, but I do remember when I received my driver's licence. Buying my first car, buying my first vehicle, was a huge milestone in my life. Where I come from, in the country, a vehicle is freedom. The ability to drive is freedom. That is why, from my perspective, auto theft is such a heinous crime. It takes away a person's freedom. Auto theft has been a long-standing problem in northern Alberta. It has more recently reached Toronto, and suddenly, this country is seized with it because of that. Auto theft has been a major challenge, going back a very long time.

Since I have been, probably, three years old, I wanted to be an auto mechanic, and I achieved that goal by the time I was 21. I was able to see first-hand and was able to interact with the auto theft deterrent systems on vehicles quite extensively. I programmed thousands of keys for people who either lost their keys or wanted an extra key, or something like that. I would program them when I worked for Chrysler dealerships. It was called the SKIM program, or “sentry key immobilizer module”.

That system was introduced in 1998. By 2006, every Chrysler product had it. When I quit in 2015, there had never been a case of somebody being able to undermine that system. It had been an incredible system, and it had worked very well. Around 2015, people had figured out a way to beat that system. Here we are, today, with no real way for auto manufacturers to build a system to deter or to make a secure key, without maybe even going back to a hard key again. I do not know about the vehicles that members drive, but most people do not have to put their keys in the doors to make them open anymore. It is not a hard key; it is a digital key. Maybe we have to go back to hard keys. I am not sure about that. Those were relatively easy to get around as well. I have had extensive experience with that, and I have watched the progression of these systems grow. I have enjoyed being part of that sort of thing.

I also had the luxury of being an owner. My very first car, in fact, was a Chrysler Neon. In 1999, that was the most stolen car in Edmonton. I also owned a Jeep TJ, which, in another year, was the most stolen vehicle in Edmonton as well.

For both of those vehicles, the police put out sting vehicles. It did not take very long, and they just had to arrest a few people stealing those sting vehicles, and they went from being the most stolen to the least stolen over just a couple of weekends of doing sting operations and charging people with auto theft. That was bringing people to justice.

We hear a lot from the NDP around mandatory minimums, how they do not work, and things like that. The deterrence effect of the law is a real thing. Bringing people to justice is a real thing. A real thing is ensuring that Canadians understand that if one steals a vehicle, one will go to jail.

For the police to have the backup, to feel that they can pursue this and to ensure that the police have the resources to do this, those are all other things, but private members' bills cannot spend money. This bill is taking one part of the law that we can affect with a private member's bill. I want to thank the member for bringing this bill forward and for ensuring that we can put into effect that deterrence mechanism to ensure that justice can be brought when our vehicles get stolen.

For many people, their vehicle is their lifeline to the world. Their vehicle is often a personal statement. They have a lot invested in their vehicle. To wake up in the morning and to discover one's vehicle missing is a huge insecurity that builds in one's life. In many cases, people work out of their vehicles. Their vehicles are their places of work. To wake up in the morning and to discover that their entire business is missing, that all of their tools and that all of their livelihood is missing because somebody stole their vehicle, is often the case.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen that the Liberal government's soft-on-crime initiatives have led to increases in auto theft. Why is that? It is because there are no deterrents anymore. I have had constituents come in and talk to me about the fact that the people stealing these vehicles are brazen. They know that they are going to get away with it. They know what to say when they are stopped with a stolen vehicle to get out of it. The justice system has been a failure at bringing these people to justice, and because of that, there is no deterrence to auto theft.

The police are more than frustrated with this. They will build a case and make an arrest, only to have the courts slap the person on the wrist and build a revolving door to put the person out on bail. We have addressed this as well in other areas, saying that it should be jail, not bail, for repeat offenders because we see folks who have been charged with auto theft, out on bail and stealing more cars. This has become a major thing. I do not know if members have seen in the news that one of the suggestions as a solution for this is to leave one's keys near the door to ensure that one's family is not violently offended by an auto theft attempt. That does not seem like a solution.

We have seen the cost of living rise across the country, and auto theft is contributing to that. The increases to the insurance rates because of auto theft is making one more thing in our lives more expensive. We are seeing it all around in the distress that people are feeling because they cannot make ends meet. The fuel they put in their cars is one of those things, but their insurance is another thing that keeps on being driven up by the 105,000 cars stolen each year in Canada. All of these things together mean that we need to address auto theft, and I think this bill is a good step along the way.

We hear criticism from the NDP that we need a holistic bill. This is a private member's bill, and private member's bills are not allowed to spend money. We are not allowed to build big national programs that cost a whole bunch of money to set forward a strategy that will need money. Therefore, if we can push the government to do those things, that is great. I think we need that to put forward these sting operations that I experienced back in the early 2000s, when auto theft was also a challenge. There was a focused, concerted effort to bring auto theft down. A lot of levers were pulled to make that happen. That is when we saw the rise of immobilizer systems installed on vehicles as well. The manufacturers, insurance companies, government and community associations got involved, and we were able to bring auto theft down. However, now we see that this lack of deterrence from the soft-on-crime Liberals has driven up auto theft. We have also seen technological advances by the thieves.

I am hopeful that this bill will pass and that we will bring in that deterrence piece of the puzzle to ensure that we have a strong deterrence, that the police have the tools, that prosecutors are able to bring these people to justice and that vehicle thefts go down. However, this bill is just the first small piece on the start. We hope it will inspire the government to take bold action to bring auto theft down across the country. If it is unable to do that, common sense Conservatives stand ready to stop the crime, axe the tax, build the homes and fix the budget.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a good morning to you and to all of my colleagues in the House. I trust that everyone had an enjoyable summer back in their ridings. Here we are on the first day back.

I am pleased to rise today during Private Members' Business as the NDP's public safety critic to share some of my thoughts on Bill C-379. I know that the member for Prince Albert, who introduced the bill, is coming at this issue with sincerity. I think every member in the House, no matter what political party we belong to, understands that the issue of car thefts in Canada is serious. It is not a victimless crime. We all represent communities that have suffered from it. It is certainly something for which we need an all-encompassing policy response to effectively deal with it.

The bill before us today, Bill C-379, is a relatively short bill, as most private members' bills are. Essentially, the main part of the bill is seeking to increase the minimum term of imprisonment for repeat offenders from six months to three years.

Before I get into a discussion of the bill itself, I want to acknowledge the severity of car thefts in Canada. I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. That committee has been conducting a study into this very issue, and we are getting close to when we will be able to hopefully table a report in the House of Commons with recommendations for the government. That report, of course, will be based on the full spectrum of witness testimony we heard at committee.

To put this in context, there has been a significant increase in vehicle thefts across the country. According to Statistics Canada, there were 83,416 vehicle thefts recorded in 2021. Then a year later, in 2022, that number jumped to 105,673, which is a significant increase in just one year's time.

Between February 26 and May 23 of this year, the public safety committee held six meetings, with a total of 42 witnesses, and 11 briefs were submitted. Committee members were also invited to take a trip to the port of Montreal, so they could see in person what CBSA operations are like there and some of the challenges that CBSA members deal with in how they inspect containers, because that is the primary port through which stolen cars in Canada exit our country to find lucrative markets abroad. It is a very big problem.

There is an incredible amount of transnational criminal organization that goes into these operations, and the payoff can be quite significant. For one stolen car, people can fetch a price of anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000, or even higher. It is a significant return on the investments that criminal organizations make to do this. However, I would like to underline this point by encouraging members to wait for that report so that we can review the recommendations within it.

I do believe that, to effectively deal with this problem, we need an all-encompassing and holistic approach, which would rely on not only criminal law but also a variety of policy measures and programs, to tackle it. The main problem I have with the bill is its reliance on mandatory minimums as a cure-all for a very real and complex problem. The reason for that is that, if we look at the evidence, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence out there, it shows very clearly that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control. That is our guiding star in this debate. We want crime control. We want to see it come down.

The evidence, which is very clearly available, shows that mandatory minimums do not have a beneficial effect on that. They represent an intrusion of the legislative branch into an area that is under judicial jurisdiction. They constrain judicial discretion. There is evidence that they deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families and communities.

I say this in the context that auto theft, the crime itself, is not victimless. We have to keep it in balance that, when a person experiences a car theft, it is a very real problem we must address, and it causes a significant amount of hurt in our communities. However, I firmly believe, and the evidence bears this out, that sentences must be based on individual contextual factors relating to each offence and each offender, rather than on one-size-fits-all legislated minimum sentences, which often result in ineffective, expensive and unduly harsh periods of incarceration.

The John Howard Society has done a meta-analysis of 116 studies on this subject from both Canada and the United States. It is a massive analysis of the literature and evidence that is out there. One of the main findings is “custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation.”

I do not want to beat a dead horse on this fact. Members here have a variety of tools at their disposal. They have the Library of Parliament and can read that same evidence, but this point needs to be hammered home: It is very clear that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. There is evidence that, if we put in lengthier periods of incarceration, we could actually see an increase in recidivism among offenders, and that is certainly not a result that we are aiming for.

I also want to talk a bit about the cost because, in addition to the fact that mandatory minimums affect indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians in a very disproportionate way, there is also the fact that the cost of housing an inmate in a federal institution has now reached $428 a day. If we multiply that by 365, we see that the cost for an individual in a federal institution, per year, is $156,220. That is an astonishing cost to taxpayers and far more expensive than crime prevention and social outreach programs, which often have much better results and a far better track record.

If we were to take that cost, which is a fact borne out by the statistics, under the member's proposed Bill C-379 and its mandatory minimum of three years, we are looking at an expenditure of nearly half a million dollars per person convicted under this change to the law alone. Anyone who is sentenced for over two years is automatically placed in a federal institution, whereas those sentenced to two years less a day are under provincial jurisdiction, but those provincial incarceration costs are relatively similar. I am not saying that jail time is not justified in certain cases, but I maintain that this is up to the trial judge to determine, given the facts of the case and the nature of the accused who is before the judge.

We should be putting far more resources into a variety of programs, such as the training resources for youth program or the help eliminate auto theft program, which has had very good success in the province of Manitoba since 2014 and 2015. Those results showed a 30% reduction in gang involvement. The results also indicated that 95% of the people did not receive new charges while in the program, 93% of the property offenders in the program did not receive new charges, there were zero new auto theft charges during the program period and 95% of the participants did not receive new offences against person-related charges. If we look at those results and the cost of these programs, compared to the $156,000 per year to put someone in a federal institution, we see that the cost of these programs ranged anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000 per participant, and they had amazing success rates.

I do not want it to escape the Conservatives that, during their time under the Harper government, there were significant cuts to the RCMP budget and the CBSA budget, which put us in the position we are in now. Just last year, in December 2023, the Conservatives voted against the estimates that provided important funding to the RCMP, the CBSA and Public Safety Canada.

In conclusion, New Democrats want to see action against the auto theft crisis, but we want to see investment in those prevention programs that obviously have a track record and are more cost effective to the taxpayer. On that, I will stick by my principles. Despite all the rhetoric from the Conservatives, they know that the evidence does not support their argument. What is borne out by the evidence is that crime prevention programs are where we need to be putting those smart taxpayer dollars for effective results.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by greeting everyone and wishing everyone a happy and pleasant return. I encourage my colleagues to work for the common good and in the collective interest rather than their personal interest. It is a subtle message. Some will hear it; others, not so much. That is where I wanted to start.

We are talking about Bill C‑379, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code to curb motor vehicle theft. The bill seeks to establish a minimum prison sentence of three years for a repeat offence when a person commits that offence three times.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle. We will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee. Our colleagues know how we work. We will determine whether it is good for Quebec and Quebeckers. If that is the case, we will vote in favour of the bill.

We think this could improve things. However, a lot of questions remain about the bill's current wording, such as the aggravating circumstances. The bill would add another aggravating circumstance: the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of organized crime. We agree with that, but this part already exists. The Criminal Code already contains a provision on that. Adding it serves no purpose. It is probably more of a political statement, a way to claim credit for doing it, than a material change to the legislation. We will study the matter and, if necessary, we will keep this aspect. However, our research shows that this provision exists in the legislation already.

There is also a provision preventing the use of conditional sentences. We do not necessarily disagree with this, but we would like to sound a note of caution and raise questions in committee. We must always ensure that judges have the discretion to use their own judgment. As their title suggests, these people are supposed to have good judgment. We need to trust them to use it. Throwing a young person in jail for a first offence and having them spend three years behind bars alongside career criminals may not always the best option to foster rehabilitation and reintegration. What we want is to reintegrate these people into society and the job market in a way that is constructive. We will study this. I am not saying we will oppose this clause when push comes to shove, but we have questions about it.

We are also backing the bill because we want to support the people on the ground. Bloc Québécois members are constantly on the ground. We have just come back from spending the summer in our ridings. We were on the ground, myself included. I try to visit a different region of Quebec each summer so I can talk to residents about their realities in connection with my portfolio, which is agriculture and agri-food.

This summer, I visited the north shore. My time there was brief, because I had to go home to deal with events in my riding. My riding was hit hard by torrential rains, so I had to cut my trip short. Nevertheless, I was able to spend a few days on the north shore and gauge the mood in the region. That is important.

In passing, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the people of Berthier—Maskinongé for their resilience. They showed tremendous resilience this summer in the face of these very unfortunate circumstances. I would also like to tip my hat to all the local elected officials, who are on the front lines when such things happen. When a city experiences flooding, they are the ones in the trenches calling for aid. People know me and know that I try to be very present and offer plenty of support. I kept in direct touch with all these people, and I tried to support them as best I could. Anyway, I digress.

I was talking about what is happening on the ground. The Montreal police department is asking for harsher sentences for auto theft under the Criminal Code. It has reported some troubling findings. One is that stealing cars is far more profitable and less risky than selling drugs. Of course, we do not want to encourage criminals to sell drugs either, but when we compare the two, it does not seem like auto theft is being tackled very aggressively, which may explain why this crime is so popular and growing exponentially.

In short, as I said at the start of my speech, as legislators, let us work for the common good. When cars are stolen, manufacturers are not particularly affected because the insurance company pays out the claim and the owner buys another car. That means auto theft may even increase manufacturers' sales numbers. The important thing is that we work for Canadians.

Who is going to pay for all this in the end? It is ordinary folks, who will have to pay more for car insurance. We have all seen insurance premiums shoot up in recent years. If they continue to go up, it is our fault, since we are doing nothing about it. We need to fix the problem.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say that not just one jurisdiction is responsible. That is just a way of shirking responsibility. He also said that the government held a summit on car theft. It was all just smoke and mirrors. When the media started putting the pressure on, it became clear that the Liberals had been doing nothing about this issue for far too long. That is the hallmark of this tired Liberal government. It is a wait-and-see government. It sticks its head in the sand whenever there is a problem, hoping that it will take care of itself. This government only acts when it has its back to the wall. Our job as the opposition is to put it in that position and tell it to do something.

Auto theft is surging, particularly because of technology. Take smart keys, for example. They seem like a magic solution to make life easier, but they have actually made it easier to steal cars. All the thief has to do is use an amplifier or a computer that they plug into the on-board diagnostics socket to clone the key's signal. Then they can easily drive off with the car. They park it somewhere for a few days and wait to see if it is noticed. Once they are sure it has not been noticed, they load it in a container, drive it to the port and ship it out. That is the big problem.

The bill before us is interesting in certain respects, but it fails to address some sizable gaps, such as the inspection of containers prior to export. What is the justification for requiring a warrant to open containers at the port, even when they are suspicious? A judge needs to issue a warrant, so that complicates matters. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials say that the port already has a security service, so they are not patrolling those areas.

For the 871,000 containers that left the Port of Montreal in 2022, how many inspectors were there? I hope members are sitting down before I give the answer. According to the Canada Border Services Agency, there were five. There were five inspectors for 871,000 containers. Then they are surprised that auto theft has become so popular and is happening so much. Sooner or later, something needs to be done.

This is the same Canada Border Services Agency that was responsible for the ArriveCAN scandal. This resulted in a shameful waste of public funds because of cronies who lined their own pockets, their buddies' pockets and the pockets of four or five other middlemen. This is off topic, but I need to point out that the same thing will happen with pharmacare and dental plans that go through private companies. The government needs to transfer the money to Quebec and let us manage these areas ourselves.

Getting back to the topic of auto theft, there is a problem with the Canada Border Services Agency. There is negligence. The media even reported that some suspicious containers were not inspected because someone's shift was over or someone was not working evenings or weekends or had something else to do. I am not saying that all this is true. I know the importance of avoiding populism, unlike some other individuals here in the House, but this does raise some serious questions.

As for the Canada Border Services Agency, the Bloc Québécois is on record as saying, and I would like to reiterate it now, that in light of the ArriveCAN scandal, the CBSA should be placed under third-party management. If the government wants to be serious, it must intervene.

Just look at the way the port of Montreal is managed and inspected. There are five inspectors for 871,000 outbound containers; there was a refusal to provide an inspector for a special squad that would have worked on vehicle exports; and there were requests from Montreal's police chief. The penalties for those who export the cars need to be increased. This is something we could have control over.

There is a lot of work to be done on this file. The Bloc Québécois will go to committee with an open mind but also with a lot of questions and a lot of suggestions for improvements, as we always do in the best interest of Quebeckers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, welcome back. I find that our summers go by awfully quickly, that is for sure.

It is nice to come back and talk about some important issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. As we see the days proceed ahead of us, we are going to have a lot of good and hopefully healthy debate on the issues that we know Canadians are very much concerned about. As much as possible, we will try to put them into a perspective that gets us a better understanding of where the Conservatives are on a number of policy fronts, because they do send confusing messages.

Let us take a look at Bill C-379 as an example. What we see is a bill that likely Stephen Harper would not have introduced. Why? If we look at his former legal adviser, Ben Perrin, he did not speak very positively about Conservative members of Parliament in regard to the legislation they are proposing today.

When we think of auto theft, we have to realize that not just one jurisdiction is ultimately responsible. Let me give a tangible example. In the province of Manitoba, we had very serious auto theft taking place in and around 2004 to 2008. We had thousands of vehicles being stolen every year, and no province in the country, on a per capita basis, was doing any worse than Manitoba.

What we found was that a provincial initiative made the difference. It was about working with MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance. It was about looking at how Ottawa might be able to complement some of the actions that would help us bring the rate down. However, let there be no doubt that it was not about any single level of government, and the lead government in this situation was in fact that of Manitoba.

I understand and hear about the issue of stolen vehicles in Ontario in particular. I can say that my Liberal colleagues talk about it at great length because they understand how important it is. That is why we had the national summit.

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here. The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola gave such a great speech. His comments are surely appreciated in the House. His knowledge and his wisdom are a benefit to all Canadians, and I want to thank him for being here today. He did a wonderful job.

I want to talk about the great riding of Prince Albert. It has been home to three prime ministers, believe it or not. It has a great history and great people. I am from a combination of the agriculture sector, which is strong, vibrant and growing, and the forestry sector, in which we hope to see a rejuvenation and a rebirth, bringing along first nations and first nations involvement. There are some great opportunities that will be happening in and around Prince Albert and in the district itself.

When I look at the budget and look back at the needs and wants, and the questions I get, in my riding, the budget is a failure. It did not listen to what Canadians want. It did not listen to what Canadians require. It talks about a lot of things and throws a lot of things at the wall, but there is not anything to really address affordability. There is nothing really there to address crime, including rural crime. There is nothing there, really, to address the day-to-day costs of living. I am going to talk a little about that today and about what residents are saying to me in the riding of Prince Albert.

While many of my colleagues have raised various serious problems with the budget today, I am going to focus on a variety of areas that directly impact communities, families, poverty and, of course, crime. I am also going to add addictions and mental health to that list. After nine years, the NDP-Liberal coalition has had every opportunity to address these issues and effect real change for Canadians, yet its policies have done nothing but make things worse. For families, the tax-and-spend approach continues to make life more unaffordable, as they feel the real-life impacts of the Liberal inflationary policies.

According to the Prime Minister, after nine years of his leadership, one in four children goes to school without food every day. Again, I come from a riding with agriculture. We grow food. We raise beef. There is no reason for kids to go to school hungry, but when one's parents cannot afford the basic necessities, when they have to choose between making the rent payment or the mortgage payment and buying good, nourishing meals, that is a shame. That is what the government has created.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, roughly 64% of one's average monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. When I grew up, housing was a dream that was achievable. We dreamt of owning a house. Actually, I was lucky to own a house relatively young in life and able to own a house right through. I own a house today.

I look at kids and people's grandkids, and that dream has become a fantasy. It is something they actually look at and very realistically say, “If I am going to own a house, I will have nothing else. I will be house poor. The cost of owning a house is so unachievable; it is not an option for me.” That dream has left Canadians. It is crazy. There is no reason not to have that dream. There is no reason not to work toward owning a house. There is no reason not to have a house, a safe place to raise one's family, one's kids, especially in Canada. After nine years, this is no longer an option.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year. Two million Canadians are going to the food bank.

Why is the government not listening when it hears stats like that? These are stats, hard, hard figures, talking about what is actually going on in this country. There are two million Canadians going to the food bank just so they can feed their family. Does the government not think this is a problem? Should it not address it in the budget? Should the government not say, “Wait a minute. Maybe we need to change course. Obviously what we have been trying is not working”? One would think that there would be serious reflection on what has been done, but there is nothing.

The NDP-Liberal coalition talks about caring for families. What it has done is the exact opposite. Under its watch, its failed policies have contributed to the worsening situation we see across our country. The budget is nothing more than a continuation of failed policies. There is no reflection, no second sober thought, just continuing on and barging ahead with the failed policies.

With nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending, it is no wonder Canadians cannot get ahead. As Canadians try to take one step forward, the Liberal government keeps pulling them back two steps at a time. The Liberals are hurting people. They do not understand it, but they really are hurting Canadians.

Let us look at housing, for example. Nine years after the Prime Minister promised to lower the price of housing, of rents and mortgages in Canada, they have doubled, and Canadians are forced to live in tent encampments in nearly every city across Canada. It is cold here. It is -30°C or -40°C in the wintertime and they are stuck living in tents. How shameful that is.

Under the Prime Minister, Canada is building fewer homes than we did in 1970 when we had half the population, and housing is more expensive for everyone. We are not building houses. What policies has the government put in place that have actually disincentivized Canadians to build houses? Liberals should reflect on that and maybe change course.

From speaking to the members of my community, I know that parents are worried about the life that their children will have. Before the current Prime Minister, Canadian households earning the median income could cover the cost of owning a house. Roughly 39% of their pay went to housing. According to RBC, that number has now risen, and Canadians now need to spend 64% to 69% of a median income just put a roof over their head. That does not leave a lot of money to take the kids to soccer. It does not leave a lot of money for buying hockey equipment.

It does not leave a lot of money for kids to take their mothers to a Mother's Day brunch on Sunday. The moms out there should not be mad at their kids if they do not invite them out for brunch this year. They really would like to, but they just cannot afford to because they have spent so much on housing and everything else. Moms are tremendous people. They did not foresee raising kids in a country where they would not be able to fulfill the dream of owning a house. That falls upon the government, the NDP-Liberal coalition.

We need a government and a budget that are focused on addressing the affordability challenges Canadians face. The government has caused those challenges and only gives a facade of caring when it is down 20% in the polls. The Liberals are not doing it for Canadians; they are doing it to maintain power.

Let us look at the crime wave across Canada, an issue that is plaguing our streets and making life less safe for Canadians. Auto theft and violent crime are on the rise under the Prime Minister. Canadians are tired of the Liberals' catch-and-release programs that have led to higher insurance costs, higher security costs and a higher human cost. There is nothing but talk, platitudes and photo ops. There is no real concrete action.

I recently put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-379, an act to amend the Criminal Code for motor vehicle thefts, which would lock up for three years those who have stolen a third car. It would not include a newcomer or somebody who went for a joyride and did something stupid; it would be for the third offence. If someone has been convicted three times, the individual should at least get three years. It is common sense. It would show action and that we are moving forward.

I also proposed that judges and prosecutors take into consideration that a crime was committed to benefit organized crime. For this, people would receive a stronger sentence. If someone is stealing a vehicle for third time, they are not a petty criminal. However, the NDP-Liberal coalition has indicated that it is going to vote against the bill. This is an example of making photo ops and not taking action, but again they do not listen. They are not reacting to what Canadians need; they are doing what they think their failed policies are filling in, and they are continuing with failed policies.

All the Liberals have done is photo ops and more photo ops. It is real people, whose cars are being stolen and who are victims of violent crime and extortion, who are feeling the impact. The budget fails to treat the crime wave as the epidemic it really is across this country. It is one thing to host a summit, but it is another thing to implement meaningful legislation, which the budget would not.

I would like to talk about the $61 billion in new inflationary spending that will end up costing every Canadian an extra $3,687 a year. Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that he was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with his spending that balloons interest rates, but the Prime Minister did not listen. It is not a surprise. Even the former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, warned the Liberals that their spending is making it harder to bring down interest rates, but again the Prime Minister did not listen. As a result, the Bank of Canada went on the most aggressive interest rate hike campaign in its history.

As the millions of Canadians renewing their mortgages know, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, and struggling families cannot afford the higher taxes that come with him, so when it comes to this budget, I will not be voting for it. This budget missed the mark in so many ways. The Liberals had a huge opportunity to get things right, and for the ninth time in a row, they failed.

Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you again. It has been a little while since I have spoken here. It is the end of the day, so there is only a small audience. I prefer to speak at 10:15 a.m. or 12:30 p.m., when there are a few people around. Right now, there is no one. However, I have colleagues who are on their way. They are coming to support me.

Vehicle theft is a serious crisis. It is a scourge, an important issue. I commend the initiative of my Conservative Party colleagues for introducing a bill to try to resolve this crisis. We are not convinced that Bill C‑379 is the answer to this crisis. There will certainly be a way to improve what is before us. In any case, we definitely need to address that. I will have the opportunity to talk about that and provide some figures. Of course we need to tackle this problem, this crisis. In fact, our position right now could be “neither yes nor no, quite the contrary”.

We think there is a way to work on this in committee. We are just not sure that tougher sentencing is the way to go. I also have to say that I think auto theft is at least partly related to the post-pandemic situation we are in. Inflation is skyrocketing, there is a housing crisis and seniors are struggling. Seniors may not be feeling the pain of auto theft as much, but people are having a hard time making ends meet right now, and crime may appeal to some people. In short, I think the causes of auto theft are fairly easy to identify.

In a way, Bill C‑379 is an answer to that. It is not a final answer, but it is an answer to the problem of auto theft, particularly in Montreal. It is important to talk about Montreal because Montreal is a hub. It has a port from which cars can be shipped in containers to Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South America. That makes Montreal important. We do not really know why, but we think fewer cars are being shipped out of Vancouver, British Columbia. Regardless, a significant number of cars pass through the port of Montreal.

The COVID‑19 pandemic caused major disruptions in global supply chains, resulting in a shortage of the essential microchips used in automobile production. This situation increased the demand for used cars and their price, prompting criminal gangs to specialize in vehicle theft and exports. The thieves use sophisticated methods. For example, they use relays to amplify the signal of smart keys inside homes. In fact, it happened to me.

My car was not stolen, but I was robbed three times. They stole from my car, but did not steal my car. They got away with lots of things, including my wallet and credit cards, but they left my car in front of the house. I should have noticed a lot sooner: they were stealing the signal through the window. It is a very effective system. The first time it happened to me, I was amazed that such a thing was even possible. Then I switched things up a little by keeping my keys in a different spot in the house. In short, they do that and they steal cars.

Once stolen, cars are often temporarily stored in discreet locations to avoid detection, then exported abroad using fraudulent serial numbers to fool the authorities. Despite how easy it is to detect the fraudulent use of serial numbers, the CBSA apparently does not conduct systematic checks. It is not clear why, but that does not happen. Car manufacturers do not seem too concerned about car theft either, as insurance companies cover replacement costs. They are not overly bothered by it; it is not a major concern for them. However, insurance premiums have risen considerably as a result of increasing car theft. That is a problem.

There has been an alarming increase in the number of car thefts in Montreal in recent years, from 6,500 in 2021 to 12,000 in 2023. There was talk of a post-pandemic crisis attracting young people to crime. That is certainly part of it, as is the microprocessor issue, which was mentioned earlier. In Canada, approximately 500 vehicles are stolen every day, and that helps fund gangs who use part of the proceeds to buy illegal firearms, among other things.

The Longueuil police service is facing a series of growing security challenges, including a spike in auto theft and property crime. This is happening in Longueuil, in my community. A lot of cars are being stolen from the parking lot at the Promenades Saint-Bruno shopping centre. In Longueuil alone, auto theft has increased at an alarming rate. In 2022 and 2023, 3,000 vehicles were stolen in the greater Longueuil area. That is huge. Longueuil is not that big. It is the fifth-largest city in Quebec. That is a much higher average than in previous years. This trend can be explained in part by the precarious economic situation facing some families, as I mentioned earlier.

Bill C-379 does not adequately respond to the main demand of the Montreal police service, which is that sections be added to the Criminal Code specifically to address the exportation of stolen vehicles. Nevertheless, this bill is an important step in the fight against auto theft and its repercussions. Despite the large number of containers that leave the port of Montreal every year, only a fraction of them are searched. That is a problem. Roughly 700,000 containers are shipped annually, which is a huge number, but checks are limited because of legal constraints. This is a major problem.

According to the Montreal Port Authority, the law does not allow employees or the port authority to open a container unless someone's life is in danger or there is a serious environmental hazard. According to the port's director of communications, by the time the containers arrive at the port, it is already too late to do anything. This creates an opportunity for criminals to export stolen vehicles undetected, which contributes to the growing problem of auto theft in Montreal and beyond.

Containers remain sealed unless law enforcement intervenes for specific reasons. They need a warrant to open a sealed container, which also requires probable cause. Police forces have access to the port and can intervene, but they do not patrol there, since the Montreal Port Authority already has its own security. The police are somewhat stuck. There is a territorial dispute, in a way. Customs is responsible for controlling goods destined for export and can open them, but the lack of personnel makes it really difficult. There are five agents who inspect containers in Montreal, which is not very many. I said earlier that there were 700,000 containers and there are five agents. Obviously, that poses a problem.

Anyone can rent a container by simply filling in an online form to declare it to the shipping company. They can make changes to that form up to 48 hours after shipment, so it is easy enough to cover their tracks once the goods are on their way to Europe or anywhere else in the world. This gives rise to all kinds of crooked dealings. Criminals fill in these forms using numbered companies.

In 2023, a total of 779,111 containers left the port of Montreal compared to 871,000 in 2022. The Journal de Montréal reported that only five CBSA officers were tasked with inspecting the containers. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, only 1% of all containers that leave the port of Montreal are searched. It is easy to see where that can lead.

In fall 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 by the CBSA. That means that the government has been aware of this problem for a long time but has not fixed it. Now it is blowing up in our faces.

There are more legal consequences to crossing the border with four kilos of cocaine than with stolen vehicles. That is intense. Both crimes pay big dividends to criminal groups. Young thugs run less of a risk if they steal a Jeep Wrangler than if they sell narcotics on the street.

Organized crime's takeover of the auto theft market is changing the dynamic. Money from auto theft is funding other criminal activities, such as firearms trafficking or human trafficking. Thieves currently face four to six months in prison for stealing a vehicle. Obviously, this is also a problem that needs to be addressed.

I am almost out of time. As I said, the Bloc Québécois is not sure that this bill is an effective response to this serious problem, which is a major scourge in Montreal and across Canada. We do, however, think that the bill should be studied in committee so that we can discuss it and find truly effective solutions to this problem.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the pressing concern of motor vehicle theft, which significantly impacts Canadians across the country. Motor vehicle theft remains a persistent and troubling problem across the country and across my region of Durham. It is one of the top issues affecting thousands of Canadians each year.

The Government of Canada is deeply concerned with this issue. It is imperative that the government takes action to respond to motor vehicle theft, and I am proud to say that our government is proposing effective solutions that would actually crack down on auto theft, as opposed to the Conservatives, who are trotting out the same failed policies we know, and, frankly, they know, will not work.

Why is that? Mandatory minimum penalties do not work to deter crime. There are many studies that have demonstrated, time and time again, that when criminals go out to commit a crime, they do not think about the consequences of their actions or the penalties they may get, and they do not plan to get caught.

We know that one of the main drivers of auto theft is organized crime, and we are seeking to target the actual problem. This is why our government announced in budget 2024 its intention to move forward with amending the Criminal Code to provide additional tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to address auto theft, which are contained in the recently tabled budget implementation act. This includes new criminal offences related to auto theft involving the use of violence or links to organized crime, possession or distribution of an electronic or digital device for the purposes of committing auto theft, and laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization, as well as new aggravating factors at sentencing if an offender involved a young person in committing an offence under the Criminal Code. This is in addition to the effort on the part of all tiers of government, industry partners and law enforcement agencies to collaborate to address this issue in a coherent and effective manner.

Together, we have the power to combat motor vehicle theft and create safer communities for all Canadians. The Canada Border Services Agency will play a pivotal role by disrupting criminal activity before it even reaches our borders. With increased investment of $28 million, it is ramping up efforts to intercept stolen vehicles and crack down on criminal networks. The RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, coordinates intelligence sharing among police forces across the nation, ensuring a unified front against auto theft. Leveraging the border integrity program, it is fortifying our borders to combat inbound and outbound threats, standing vigilant against organized crime at every port of entry.

Transport Canada is leading the charge in modernizing vehicle safety standards, incorporating cutting-edge technology to deter theft. It is conducting targeted security assessments of port facilities to identify vulnerabilities and implement robust security measures. Lastly, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is collaborating with industry partners to develop innovative solutions to safeguard vehicles and aid in recovery efforts. This includes changes to the Radiocommunication Act through the budget implementation act to ban devices which are used to steal cars.

I will now touch on the flaws with the Conservative Party's approach, which relies on failed policies that we know do not deter crime and contribute to the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our justice system.

Bill C-379 proposes to increase the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for a third or subsequent motor vehicle theft from six months to three years. We know that mandatory minimum penalties restrict a court's ability to consider the unique circumstances of a case. We also know, and really, the Conservatives know, that they do not work. The Conservatives believe in slogan-based policy, not actual solutions, and they are misleading Canadians when they propose this as a solution.

We also know that mandatory minimum penalties can be vulnerable to Charter challenges. We should not forget that judges, in appropriate circumstances, are also able to impose lengthy prison sentences. I am concerned that the measures in Bill C-379 risk disproportionately penalizing vulnerable individuals, and I do not believe they would effectively address the root causes of motor vehicle theft.

Ensuring that people in Canada feel safe in their communities is a top priority. Canada has a robust criminal law framework to address auto theft at various stages of the crime, as well as its links to organized crime. This is why the Minister of Justice made a commitment to examine potential amendments to the Criminal Code to further strengthen the legal framework related to auto theft, including by reviewing existing offences and penalties. The result is that the proposals in the budget implementation act would be effective at combatting organized crime and auto theft, whereas this legislation would likely have the opposite effect.

This is why on top of the amendments to the Criminal Code on auto theft, we are also bringing forward further measures that would combat money laundering, which helps support organized crime. This is part of a holistic effort to actually address the causes of crime and, in particular, organized crime.

We believe in addressing the root causes of crime, not using known failed policies and deceiving Canadians that we are solving the problem. We know criminal organizations are using young people to commit crimes. The solution is not to drive those youths further into a life of crime by locking them up and throwing away the key, as the Conservatives propose, but to go after those who are using those youths, which is what we propose.

As I wrap up, I want to quote a former Harper legal adviser Ben Perrin on the Leader of the Opposition's reckless plan, which would not actually address crime. He stated the Conservative leader's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” He went on to say, “If history is any judge, mandatory minimum penalties may not be worth the paper they're printed on.” He also stated that MMPs “are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.”

We know various other Conservative and right-wing politicians have regretted their positions on mandatory minimum penalties, including Newt Gingrich. It is really a shame Conservatives cannot see evidence that even Republicans can see and start to propose smart and effective criminal law policy, rather than the same tired, failed policies they have tried for years.

This is why our side has brought forward a responsible and effective plan, and we look forward to the support from the opposition on our plan to effectively combat auto theft.

In the collective effort to fight auto theft, it is important to send a clear message to criminals that their days of preying on our communities are numbered. We must be strong together and be united in our resolve to safeguard our communities, to defend our borders and to uphold the safety and the security of everyone who calls Canada home.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

moved that Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank a lot of people who were involved in the creation of this piece of legislation. The member for Fundy Royal did a lot of work in the background, and I appreciate his guidance and effort in this. He has been a great shadow minister and a great friend. It is something that he spent a lot of time on, and of course there is the staff and the people within the OLO who helped us out to get the bill exactly the way we wanted it.

This is a piece of legislation that I think all members in the House can actually get behind. They can go back to their ridings and tell their constituents that we are doing something when it comes to auto theft. We are actually going to do something that is going reduce the number of auto thefts and put the people who are committing auto theft in jail, where they belong, instead of back out on the street, where they are committing more and more thefts every day.

What I am proposing is basically a very simple process, which is three years for a third offence, especially when it is tied to a criminal element like an organized gang or organized crime. Why do I say three years at three and not right off the bat? First of all, we do not want to go after that 16- or 17-year-old who just did something stupid one night, stole the neighbour's car and went for a joyride. That is not who we are after in this situation. They made a stupid mistake. They should be scared, they should be dealt with and made scared, but we do not want to create a situation that they regret for the rest of their lives.

However, by the time people do their third offence, they consciously know what they are doing. They are actually involved in and part of an organized crime ring or a gang and are doing something because they know that this is what their career and their choices are going to be. Therefore, we need to actually put a dent in it when it comes to dealing with these people, which is what we are doing in this situation. We are saying that on a person's third offence, if they are convicted and if they are tied to organized crime, they are going to do at least three years and up to 10 years. There is a lot of leeway for the judge to do a proper process, apply the law and get the thieves behind bars so that they do not reoffend.

We met with police chiefs and some police units. I remember talking to a police unit out in Vancouver, and I want to thank them for their guidance and help in moving forward with this bill. One of the frustrations they had was the fact that people are committing crimes over and over again. They would arrest them, and then they would be released. They could not get the prosecution or the judges to actually put these people behind bars.

In the riding of Prince Albert, when we do our rural crime watch meetings, we fill the hall relatively quickly. When we talk about rural crime and theft, auto theft definitely comes up in those conversations. In those meetings, we have members of the police force, the city police and the RCMP. We have defence lawyers and prosecutors. It is amazing that we have everybody but the judges sitting there listening, talking to constituents and hearing the concerns they have in regard to rural crime, theft and auto theft.

One of the things they always say, and what the police were saying at the last meeting we had up at Crystal Lake, was that they kind of know who these people are, because it is the same ones doing it over and over again. I remember a police officer from Prince Albert saying that they know where to look when catalytic converters are disappearing, because it is the same guy stealing catalytic converters from cars all the time. They know him, but what frustrates them is that they know it, they arrest the person, they have all the evidence to put him behind bars, but they do not get the conviction. That is the frustration that I think a lot of Canadians are facing in their communities.

I will give some interesting stats around this, just to show how bad it has gotten. I will look at 2015 to 2022. Auto thefts are up 35% across Canada, 120% in New Brunswick, 190% in Moncton, 59% in Quebec, 105% in Montreal, 122% in Ontario, 122% in the Ottawa-Gatineau region, 216% in the greater Toronto area and 62% in Winnipeg. If we look at 2021 to 2023 across western Canada, Atlantic Canada and the prairie provinces, the numbers are up substantially, too. This is something going on right across Canada.

Now, when we talk to people in the sector, they blame the Port of Montreal as being the place where the cars that have been stolen are put in containers and then shipped out to northern Africa, the Middle East and other lucrative markets. They talk about the fact that it has really created an impact in regard to the cost it has had on individuals. In Ontario alone, auto theft has added $130 a year to insurance costs. There was over $1.2 billion in payouts in 2022 alone. That is a substantial amount of money, and that is a substantial amount of pain. It is impacting people at home. For the mother who has her vehicle stolen, how is she supposed to take her kids to day care or go grocery shopping? For the guy who wants to go to work, how is that supposed to happen when his vehicle has been stolen?

We have also heard about, and maybe this is something the committee wants to talk about a little more, the violence that is attached to auto theft when there is a home invasion to get the keys or there is a carjacking on the street. Maybe there should be even more attached to this type of legislation that would penalize these folks when they do that type of conduct while stealing a car.

There is lots to talk about regarding individuals. Everybody has a story. There is a car stolen roughly every five minutes. Everybody in this chamber, whether they are sitting in here today or not, knows somebody or has had a car stolen in the last few years. I could refer to the Minister of Justice, who had his car stolen. He is a really great guy, but he must have been frustrated when he came outside, realized his car was not there, and he needed to get to his next meeting. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness also had his car stolen.

This is happening to people right across the board. It is happening at home. It is happening at work. It is happening in a variety of different areas. It is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

In doing this, we would take repeat offenders and put them behind bars. We would actually save a lot of people a lot of money over time in a reduction in insurance costs. We would make it safer for people through not having these offenders on the street.

Again, when they are stealing a car, there can be a high-speed chase when police are pursuing them. We saw the results of high-speed chases this week in Ontario when some innocent people were killed on the highway because of a high-speed chase. It was not necessarily a vehicle theft, but there probably was one in the background.

This matter is very important for the people in the riding of Prince Albert. When we look at auto theft in Prince Albert and Saskatchewan, it is not like in Ontario. In the Ontario theft, the vehicle is being taken and shipped through Montreal on to markets. In Saskatchewan, there is a combination of older vehicles, of vehicles that are being taken for parts. Having said that, even the Port of Vancouver is saying that, if there is a clampdown at the port of Montreal, it would start to see some cars flowing out of Atlantic Canada and eastern Canada into the port of Vancouver. That is also a problem that has to be addressed.

We have talked about having the scanners, the tools and instruments put in, as well the border guards, and having the resources in place to inspect these containers, making sure we are clamping down on these individuals and taking away any ability for them to gain profit from the theft of vehicles.

There are lots of things that need to be done. I know the government had its focus group. It had a big summit on auto theft. There were some ideas in that summit. This is one of the ideas to come out of that summit that could actually be acted on right now. This is a chance for the government to show some activity. It is a chance for all members of Parliament, through a private member's bill, to participate, and to go back to their constituents to say, “We are clamping down on auto theft. We are going to do something that will actually make a difference.”

I suspect every party in the House is going to be supportive of this piece of legislation. It is a very simple bill. I look forward to questions members may have. I look forward to seeing this get to committee. If there are any other good ideas that members may want to attach to it, I would be very open to those ideas as well.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that, Commissioner.

To follow up on that, you also stated, “We want to stop the revolving door of people coming back out on our streets and doing it again.... We want to have them locked up, we want to have them in jail.”

Conservatives currently have a private member's bill, Bill C-379, which would create a mandatory minimum of three years in jail for those who have stolen a motor vehicle three times. Just this past week, we had a deputy chief from Toronto and a deputy chief from Peel, and they both agreed that this would be a good deterrent if it passed.

Do you feel that Bill C-379 would be a good deterrent to help with car theft and the revolving door issue?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to ask my first question of both chiefs who are here virtually.

Recently my Conservative colleague MP Hoback introduced Bill C-379, which would implement tougher penalties for repeat car thieves across Canada by bringing in a mandatory minimum of three years in jail for those who have stolen a motor vehicle three times.

Do you think this legislation, if implemented, would assist your officers in putting and keeping repeat car thieves behind bars?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft).

Madam Speaker, I think that people in my constituency and right across Canada are going to be very happy with this motion. This is something the Conservatives are going to take action on.

Today, I introduce my bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code for motor vehicle theft. My bill would toughen the penalties for repeat car thieves who are acting on behalf of organized crime. While Liberals attend photo ops and meetings, Conservatives are going to take action on this issue and show results for our constituents. I look forward to support on this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)