Bill C-5

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

Public Safety

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, he is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts. Bill C-5, which he just mentioned, maintained a mandatory minimum penalty for auto theft. That is what the Conservatives apparently want to repeal. Bill C-75, which he just mentioned, actually enhanced the maximum penalty for auto theft, moving it from 18 months to two years less a day. That apparently is what they want to repeal.

This problem cannot be fixed by suggesting redundant changes that already exist in the Criminal Code. We fix this problem by being the adults in the room, convening people and coming up with a complex solution to a complex problem.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals continue to hold meetings, criminals are going to continue to steal cars. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal soft-on-crime policies, our police forces are powerless to stop car thieves. Liberal Bill C-5 allows house arrest for these criminals and Bill C-75 allows repeat offenders to be released on bail just hours after they were arrested.

The Prime Minister has caused this crisis and he is not worth the cost. When will he reverse the soft-on-crime policies that have caused this auto theft crisis?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Prime Minister that he is responsible for the ports, the RCMP, the CBSA and our Criminal Code.

Canadians are paying $1 billion more in insurance premiums because of skyrocketing auto theft claims. The Prime Minister has caused this auto theft crisis with bills like Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which allow criminals to be on the streets the same day.

Will the government reverse its policies and replace them with our common-sense plan of jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, he talks about boots on the ground, but the government he was part of, that he is taking credit for now, actually cut thousands of jobs, of boots on the ground, at the Canada Border Services Agency. We have continued to step up to support Canadians.

They like to mention Bill C-5. It is a bill that kept mandatory minimum penalties for car thefts on the books. They mention Bill C-75, which is a bill that raised maximum penalties on car theft. We are going to continue to invest in fighting money laundering and organized crime, and we hope that the Conservatives change their mind and vote with us to crack down on organized crime.

Opposition Motion—Auto theft

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a couple of headlines that dominated the radio and the online and social media news in my home community this past weekend. They really underscore the debate we are having today. The first is “Gun-wielding men forcefully entered Dundas home, stole two luxury cars: Hamilton police”. The second is “High-end vehicles stolen in ‘targeted’ home invasion in Hamilton, Ont.”. Those are just a couple. Twenty years ago, I lived on the street where this particular crime took place on Friday night. It is a few houses down from where I used to live. It was shocking to hear that this was taking place. My grandparents lived on that same street when I grew up.

I talked to one of the neighbours yesterday, and people on Hopkins Court now live in fear. There were other vehicles at the targeted residence that the thieves did not get on Friday night, and the residents are now fearful the thieves will be back because they were a target. This is, as my colleagues have mentioned, a sophisticated gang operation that is taking place; it is an organized crime operation. That is the crux of the problem. They will be back because federal enforcement and federal prevention actions are woefully inadequate.

Less than 24 hours later, I received a text from my neighbour on an unrelated incident, but one of similar concern. There was a vehicle prowling around his workshop building and garage. It had to go around a steel barrier, through the grass and across a hill in order to get there. Alarmed by what he was seeing take place in the early hours of Sunday morning, my neighbour followed the vehicle and was able to get part of the licence plate number and report it to Hamilton Police Service.

These are just two recent incidents that are not isolated at all but are part of an epidemic.

I have talked to a number of constituents who have been victims of vehicle theft. One couple was able to trace their vehicle that was stolen from their driveway in Waterdown to Montreal. This was the second vehicle stolen from the couple's driveway. Waterdown is a bedroom community in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. The couple actually walked by the person they believe was the criminal responsible on the street of Montreal near the port. Eerily, the individual gave them a knowing glance. These are incidents we are hearing about. The couple also heard that as part of this organized crime network, groups are paid thousands of dollars per night just to scope out vehicles in driveways and locations that will be targeted in the coming nights. Just to spot vehicles, they are getting thousands of dollars. We are talking about millions of dollars in criminal activity.

Truck and auto thefts are in not just my community; they are across the GTA. There have been a number of local headlines about this across Niagara, Waterloo Region, southern Ontario and, in fact, across the country. We know that local law enforcement is hamstrung because it needs the federal government to act. The Criminal Code, the RCMP, CBSA and certainly federal ports are all matters of federation jurisdiction. In order to puts the brakes on auto theft by organized crime, we need the federal government to act.

At the transport committee, which I am privileged to sit on, there was a Conservative motion put forward today to look specifically at what is going on at the port of Montreal. Unfortunately, it was voted down by the Liberals and the NDP, the cover-up coalition working together. They do not have any interest in getting to the bottom of this.

It is costing all of us, even those people fortunate enough not to have had a vehicle stolen, because we know there has been $1.2 billion in insurance payouts for stolen vehicles; this is causing an increase in insurance premiums, up 25% in some cases in Ontario. These are brazen acts of theft and violence, and they are affecting people in our communities. In 2022 alone there were a staggering 9,600 motor vehicles stolen from the GTA. This leaves families traumatized and financially burdened. The impact goes far beyond the immediate victims; it undermines the fabric of our society. It is eroding the trust and confidence in our institutions and is contributing to a pervasive sense of insecurity.

The repercussions are felt not only in the emotional toll exacted on individuals and families but also in the economic consequences borne by our communities as a whole. One of the most concerning aspects of this crisis is the failure of federal ports to stem the tide of stolen vehicles leaving our shores. These cars and trucks, pilfered from the streets of the GTHA, are effortlessly smuggled into containers, loaded onto trains and illegally shipped out of the country, primarily via the port of Montreal. Ironically, that port is in the backyard of the Minister of Transport.

In December I asked the CBSA, via an Order Paper question, how many vehicles it had intercepted at the port of Montreal. Despite the exponential rise in auto thefts that we have seen, over 300% in the GTA since the Liberal government took office in 2015, the number of vehicles intercepted at the port of Montreal remains stagnant, year over year, at somewhere between 1,000 and 1,100. We know that 105,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in a year. We are talking about fewer than 1% being retrieved.

We know that the technology exists, through X-ray scanners, to scan more of the containers and actually track the vehicles down. However, there is just one scanner right now at the port of Montreal, and it does not work half of the time. That is insufficient.

As my colleague mentioned, there are African countries begging the Government of Canada to take action on this issue. The action is not being taken, and that is cause for concern. Like so many things in Canada, this is something that should not be happening. It should not be this way.

Even when Canadians resort to practical measures like putting Apple AirTags in their vehicles, recovery is far from guaranteed. Railway agents often refuse to inspect cargo already en route to the ports, and there are inadequate resources at the ports for inspection; therefore there is a highway facilitating this.

The root cause is the soft-on-crime approach by the Liberal-NDP government, with bills like Bill C-75 and BIll C-5 that have emboldened criminals to be repeat offenders. They are often released on bail within hours of arrest and go on to commit further crimes. Even after being convicted, these individuals are often granted house arrest, which is really insufficient.

We say, “Enough is enough.” Common-sense Conservatives are committed to really hitting the brakes on car theft and restoring the sense of security to our communities. The Leader of the Opposition has put forward a common-sense plan that includes a number of measures, such as mandatory prison sentences, ending house arrest for convicted car thieves, tougher sentencing for those crimes that are gang-related and have an organized crime element, and, of course, jail, not bail for repeat offenders and repeat violent offenders, as we saw in the examples I brought up from my community this past weekend.

In addition to that, we need to address what is happening at the ports. We need more CBSA officers. Right now there are only five at the port of Montreal. We need to cut the waste on consultants at CBSA and invest in enforcement at the ports. We also need to have more scanners that could actually address the issue.

There is some urgency now. Violent crime is up across the country. What the Liberal government has proposed is a summit: more convening and fewer results.

Common-sense Conservatives have a plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Indeed, we are going to stop crime. We are going to slam the brakes on auto theft. We will restore law and order. We will bring home safer streets to Canadians from coast to coast.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook.

I am pleased to rise today on this very important debate. Canadians may wonder what Canada's top exports and fastest-growing exports are. They might think about oil and gas, minerals or aerospace parts. However, they would be surprised to learn that one of Canada's fastest-growing exports over the past few years has been stolen vehicles. Actually, this has been over the past eight years, under the Liberal government. This ongoing surge in auto thefts is a direct consequence of a weak justice system, the absence of proper law enforcement and a border so porous that the number of vehicles getting through reached over 100,000 vehicles in 2022 alone. In other words, it is a legacy of the current Liberal government.

I am proud to rise to speak to this issue and to put forward a common-sense Conservative plan to deal with these auto thefts, because that is what the hard-working people in Sturgeon River—Parkland and across this country deserve. They deserve a real plan that would provide tangible results, put these repeat offenders behind bars, and keep our vehicles in our driveways and off container ships going abroad.

This is not just an issue of young kids taking a vehicle out for a joyride or stealing a vehicle just to make a few bucks. Our country is facing an industrial-level organized crime problem. Let us go over some of the key facts. As we speak, on average, a vehicle is stolen every six minutes in Canada; therefore, in the time that we have been debating here today, dozens of Canadians have had their vehicles stolen from their driveways and places of work.

The trend is clear: In 2018, the insurance industry paid out $400 million in stolen vehicle claims, and since then, this number has grown drastically. In 2021, it reached $700 million in claims; in 2022, which is the latest year we have the insurance statistics for, the insurance industry paid out an unprecedented $1.2 billion in claims on stolen vehicles. After eight years of the current government's soft-on-crime agenda, car thefts have tripled in Toronto and doubled in Montreal. While big cities have seen the largest increases in recent years, this wave of crime is affecting all Canadians across the country, including those living in western Canada and rural Canada, where vehicles being stolen from farms is a common story that I hear.

F-350s are vehicles that are often stolen. In fact, over the Christmas break, I woke up at seven o'clock in the morning, when people were getting up, getting dressed and getting ready to go to work. I looked out the window, and I saw an F-350 parked outside my house. There were people in hoodies trying to steal it. Kids were getting up and getting ready to go to school at that time in some of our rural communities, and there were people still out and trying to steal those cars. It is shocking and unacceptable.

This is not just a temporary crime wave. This is a sophisticated, industrial-level organized crime operation that requires our immediate attention. This is not a new issue; we faced it before, in the early 1990s. Car thefts inspired many Hollywood-level movies, such as The Fast and the Furious and Gone in 60 Seconds. However, with better technologies, better law enforcement and tougher sentences, we saw a significant decline in the number of auto thefts.

I was actually pulling up the statistics on this, and it is very interesting. From 2004 to 2015, the number of auto thefts reported to police in Canada went down by 61%. What happened between 2004 and 2015? We had a tough-on-crime Conservative government that put forward tangible measures to get tough on repeat offenders who were stealing vehicles, with mandatory minimum sentences and with investments in law enforcement to crack down on crime. That is a record I am very proud of.

It is not a record that the current government can say it replicates; during the time that it has been in power, we have seen a tripling of stolen vehicles from Toronto, a doubling from Montreal and an overall 34% increase in the country. The trend was broken by the Liberal government, and this is directly due to its policies.

It has become relatively easy to smuggle a vehicle out of the country after it has been stolen. The dedicated men and women of the CBSA are doing their very best, but they are facing a capacity problem, with an estimated five CBSA agents at the port of Montreal.

About a year ago, CBSA union officials came to the public safety committee. They talked about some of the measures they have in place so that people can report auto thefts and suspicious activities at the port. It is the 21st century. Do members know what measures the government has at the ports so that people can report when they see suspicious threats? It has a hotline telephone on the wall, so if people see something, they can call somebody to deal with it. It is 2024. We need new and better technologies to ensure that we have the tools we need to stop these containers with our vehicles from leaving our ports.

Once these stolen vehicles leave Canada, they are destined for markets far away, in Africa and the Middle East. As a result of our weak enforcement, Canada is becoming what some industry experts are calling a “donor country” for stolen vehicles. Usually, it is a good thing to be a donor, but not when we are talking about stolen vehicles. The revenue generated from this trade is being used to finance drug trafficking, illegal arms trafficking, human trafficking and even terrorism.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Italian authorities intercepted a vessel with 251 stolen Canadian vehicles on it; they were bound for sale in the Middle East. Cars with Canadian licence plates have been a common sight on the streets of Accra, the capital of Ghana. In fact, the flood of Canadians' stolen vehicles entering that country has led the Ghanaian government to beg the Canadian government to do more to prevent our vehicles from leaving our country, because this is affecting its domestic market. This is not just a Canadian issue; it is becoming an international issue. It is an embarrassment for our country.

It is not only a crime problem but also an economic problem, with $1.2 billion in insurance payouts made. Do members think the insurance companies are just going to eat that cost? That means Canadian families are paying an estimated $500 in increased premiums. The reports coming out of MNP talk about how many Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque or are less than $200 away from insolvency. Who can afford $500 more for insurance premiums just to pay for the vehicle people are taking to work? It is not just the case for the people who are driving a Toyota Highlander, a Lexus or the other vehicles that are often being stolen; everyone is paying for it. The costs are being distributed to everyone, no matter what vehicle they have. This is unacceptable.

We know what the problem is. The government talks about having a summit, but the problem has been clear for years: We have a government with soft-on-crime policies that have unleashed a torrent of repeat violent offenders on our streets. Members might ask why I am calling them violent offenders. I saw a left-wing commentator online on what is now X, formerly known as Twitter, asking why we are putting people in jail for victimless crimes. This is not a victimless crime. In the few stories that I have seen where people have been stopped in stolen vehicles, do members know what charges most often accompanied the stolen vehicle charge? They were weapons, firearms and drug possession charges.

There was a heroic job done by RCMP officers just west of Stony Plain a few days ago. A stolen vehicle went through town with five people in it. They deployed a tire device to pop the tires. When they stopped the vehicle, they found methamphetamine, cocaine and loaded weapons. Two of the five people charged were released the very same day. This is unacceptable. These people do not carry guns because they are going out hunting or carry drugs just because; they are carrying these things because they intend to sell them or because they intend to commit violence if they are confronted.

Since 2015, the crisis has come to a point where Canadians will no longer accept inaction from the Liberal government. They will no longer accept bills such as Bill C-5, allowing house arrest for the people who are committing these crimes. Canadians will no longer accept a government that lets repeat offenders back on the streets over and over again, with bail, not jail, to victimize our families.

I know that, under our Conservative government, we will bring in mandatory minimum sentences. We will provide the resources to law enforcement to get these criminals behind bars and disrupt organized crime. This will keep the criminals from sending our stolen vehicles abroad and using that money to finance the terrorism and firearms trafficking being used to commit violence on our streets or the drugs that are victimizing families and addicts who need treatment. We will not accept this. That is our common-sense plan, and we are going to do it.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that auto theft is a scourge and needs to be addressed.

I would like my colleague to comment on the rhetoric, the reasoning behind today's Conservative motion. They claim that the explosion in auto theft is because of the Liberal government. They say it is because of Bill C‑5, even though that bill did not receive royal assent until late 2022. They also say it is because sentences are too lenient, but these sentences, which were added to the Criminal Code in 2010, were the result of Bill S‑9. That bill was introduced by the Conservative Party, the government at the time. If the penalties are too lenient, the Conservative Party only has itself to blame.

I wonder what exactly my colleague is proposing. We know there will be a national summit this Thursday. There was talk of giving more resources to the Canada Border Services Agency and giving existing police forces the means they need to take action. In his opinion, what more should the government be doing to counter this scourge?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, in reality, as members know, we take the issue of auto theft very seriously. I want to start by saying that the NDP, unlike the two other parties, essentially has a five-point plan. I will be moving that amendment at the end of my speech, so that the Conservatives could incorporate elements that would actually make a difference in combatting auto theft. It is something that has impacted many Canadians across the country; my neighbourhood is no exception to that. The reality is that we see those numbers rising, and the Liberals have not done anything to combat auto theft.

I note that the most current figures show an auto theft rate of 271 per 100,000 Canadians. That is 271 thefts for a population of 100,000 people. We do not want to go back to the days of the Harper regime, when the numbers were almost twice that. There were 487 thefts per 100,000, or 443 in some years. The five worst years, in terms of auto thefts over the last 15 years, were under the Harper regime. Therefore, the Conservatives need to learn a lesson from their very bad record in terms of the rate of auto theft that existed under the Harper Conservatives. How the Conservatives responded is illustrative of how important it is for the NDP voice in the House, as adults in the room, to actually bring forward very thoughtful policy.

The reality is that the Harper regime cut $600 million from RCMP funding. Why would that even make sense when, as I mentioned, there was a high crime rate? Why would the Conservatives cut and slash to that extent? It does not make sense. However, it is not just that; it is that over 1,000 CBSA border officers were cut as well. Therefore, the Conservatives gutted the CBSA services at a time when, as we know, the crime syndicates were increasingly international in nature.

There were cuts to the RCMP and cuts to the CBSA, but the most egregious cuts were to a program that ran across the country. It had a remarkable impact in British Columbia, and I worked very closely with it; that is the B.C. crime prevention centre, which invests in and works with local law enforcement to cut crime. We know that a dollar spent on crime prevention actually saves six dollars in policing costs, in court costs and in prison costs. Therefore, it is a remarkably effective investment. If the government invests in crime prevention in the country, it ends up achieving a lower crime rate, having fewer victims and, ultimately, saving money on policing, on prisons and on court costs.

What did the Harper regime do? Conservatives have never stood in this House and explained why they did this, but they slashed crime prevention funding to the point where centres such as the B.C. crime prevention centre had to close. None of this makes any sense at all.

If we go back to how Conservatives act now as opposed to how they acted when the Harper regime was in place, we see that we have to take action. For most of the years under Harper, the auto theft rate was higher than it is now. The Liberals have not taken action, and the NDP is pressing in this House of Commons that we adopt the five points we have raised. I hope to add them to the motion, if the Conservatives agree to act.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to provide additional supports for the RCMP, for CBSA and for FINTRAC, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. The reality is that FINTRAC plays a role in cutting down the financial transactions that, internationally, allow the crime syndicates to prosper. What did Conservatives do? In December 2023, they proposed and voted to cut the CBSA by $23 million. CBSA is already underfunded. As I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives cut 1,100 positions when they were in government. What possible reason could Conservatives give for slashing the budget for CBSA?

There is more. In vote 76, they also voted to gut FINTRAC, which has the primary responsibility to actually track and catch those who are using the flow of money internationally to foster crime. Conservatives voted to cut that.

Perhaps the most egregious votes were votes 103, 104 and 105. Conservatives voted to cut over $100 million from the RCMP. Conservatives would say that is a lot less than when we were in government and slashed $600 million.

However, the reality is that, given their actions in December, their motion today shows huge hypocrisy, a contradiction that is difficult for any Conservative to defend. That is why they are choosing not to debate this in the House today. They are choosing not to respond to why they gutted the RCMP, CBSA and crime prevention programs, as well as why, over the last 15 years, they had the five worst years for auto theft. The Conservatives have not explained that or why they voted to cut FINTRAC, CBSA and the RCMP.

Let us see what the Conservatives do in the House on the issue of crimes that affect all Canadians, from New Westminster—Burnaby to Montreal and Saguenay. We know that there is an international crime ring that makes money by stealing vehicles. The Conservatives' answer at the time, when they were in power, was to make significant cuts to the RCMP's budget, reduce the services of the Canada Border Services Agency and apply budget cuts to every program intended to prevent crime. That is what the Conservatives do. Right now, they are talking about common sense, but their actions in the past made no sense at all. There is very clear evidence that we cannot rely on the Conservatives. They do exactly the opposite of what they themselves are proposing in this motion.

To conclude, this is serious business. The Liberals have not acted as they should have. The Conservatives are contradicting themselves because they made budget cuts to all essential services aimed at preventing auto theft across Canada.

As is our practice in the NDP caucus, as adults in the room, we are actually going to propose something that would mean real action to counter auto theft and take out the parts of the Conservative motion that are disinformation. I hope they agree to the following amendment.

I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “changes the Liberal government made in their soft on crime Bill C-5 that allows for car stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of jail” with the words “cuts made to crime-prevention programs and to frontline border officers made by the previous Conservative government”, and adding the following after paragraph (c): “(d) require auto manufacturers to improve security features in the cars they sell”, and “(e) put in place tough new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts.”

This is actually a five-point plan that would make a difference in auto thefts. We certainly hope that the Conservatives accept this amendment, which would fight auto theft in Canada.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was just saying that this man, Jacques Lamontagne, is a seasoned professional and he said the following:

There are more legal consequences to crossing the border with four kilos of cocaine than with stolen vehicles. Both crimes pay big dividends [to criminal groups and] the criminal underworld. Young thugs run less of a risk if they steal a Jeep Wrangler than if they sell narcotics on the street....There's not much of a deterrent if people know that they'll probably be let off for a first [offence] or, at worst, serve four to six months for car theft compared to a sentence lasting years for selling illicit substances.

I will return to Mr. Lamontagne's use of the term “young thugs”. The phenomenon is fairly widespread. Crime gangs often use young people who often have no criminal record and are sometimes minors. They are asked to steal cars or transport illegal guns because the punishment for first offences is rarely harsh. It is a kind of strategy that these people use. I am not saying that the thieves should not go to prison, but I think that we need to focus primarily on going after these criminal gangs and their leaders.

Where the Conservative Party goes wrong is in assuming that this entire crisis was created by the Prime Minister himself and by lax policies, like Bill C-5, as the Conservatives are claiming.

The motion specifically calls on the government to "immediately reverse changes the Liberal government made in their soft on crime Bill C-5 that allows for car stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of jail.” Reading the motion, it is clear that the Conservatives are trying to link the increase in auto theft since 2015 to Bill C-5. As my colleague mentioned earlier, Bill C-5 received royal assent at the very end of 2022. I have no idea how the Conservatives came to the conclusion that Bill C-5 is to blame, since auto theft has been increasing since 2015. I do not think there is one simple explanation. The Conservatives are trying to find simple solutions to complicated problems. They say that this Prime Minister has been in office since 2015, so he is responsible for all of society's problems. Again, I am not defending the Prime Minister, but at some point, members have to put forward serious arguments.

Contrary to Conservative claims, Bill C‑5 did not do away with minimum sentences for auto theft. Subsection 333.1(1) of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum sentence of six months in the case of a third offence. The Conservatives may well say that is not enough, but there is one major problem with their assertion. Are they aware that subsection 333.1(1) was added to the Criminal Code by the Conservatives themselves in 2010 via Bill S‑9? If they now find that that is not enough, they have only themselves to blame.

In this motion, the Conservatives also say that Bill C‑5 allowed for conditional sentences for auto theft. These are also known as house arrest, or what the Conservative leader likes to call Netflix sentences. It is true that the Liberals repealed subparagraph 742.1(f)(vii), which prevented conditional sentencing for auto theft. However, the other paragraphs in section 742.1 set out conditions for conditional sentencing: The court must be convinced that there is no risk to society, and the term of imprisonment must be less than two years. The judge may also impose any conditions they deem necessary. In other words, there is nothing preventing a judge from saying no to a conditional sentence. A judge should be able to exercise judgment. The Conservatives are assuming judges are not capable of doing that.

A conditional sentence cannot be imposed for a sentence of two years or more, so it is not an option in the most serious cases, because the maximum sentence is actually 10 years.

The Conservatives are also forgetting that there is always a bail hearing to determine whether an offender can be released while awaiting trial. Unless there are aggravating factors, it is rare for a person to remain in jail while awaiting trial for auto theft. In other words, the Conservatives' claim that criminals are being caught and and then immediately released because of Bill C‑5 is unfounded, because that was happening long before Bill C‑5 came into force.

Once again, it is up to the judge to decide whether an offender should be kept in jail while awaiting trial and what conditions the offender must meet, especially since, as I mentioned earlier, criminals often use minors because they are handed lesser sentences.

I agree with the Conservatives about one thing in every case. Part of the problem is that Ottawa has done absolutely nothing to control auto theft. Under the current conditions, even life in prison will not act as a deterrent, because the federal government is doing absolutely nothing to monitor the port of Montreal, where criminals can easily ship stolen vehicles overseas. I will come back to that later.

However, I want to close by talking about the second part of the Conservative motion, which seeks to “strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure repeat car stealing criminals remain in jail”.

Once again, it was the Conservatives who created a specific offence for auto theft, with their Bill S‑9 and section 333.1 in 2010. If they believe that sentences are not long enough, they have only themselves to blame.

The Conservative leader proposed that a third offence be punishable by three years in prison instead of the six months set out in the Criminal Code. The current six-month sentence in the Criminal Code was a Conservative initiative. What the Conservative Party is proposing today are changes to measures it put in place when it was in power.

The Conservative leader is also talking about eliminating house arrest, or conditional sentences, for thieves. As I said, a sentence of two years or more already cannot be served at home. That said, Bill C-5 did allow judges to impose house arrest if they deemed it appropriate, but not automatically, as the Conservatives like to claim. However, the bill did not make any changes to release pending trial.

Let us make one thing clear: The Bloc Québécois is entirely open to revising the Criminal Code to deal with auto theft. That is what the Montreal police department wants as well. This time, they believe that new sections should be added concerning the export of stolen vehicles and that there should be stricter penalties for ring leaders. I think that might be a good solution. I imagine that will come out in the discussions at the national summit on Thursday.

The last proposal in the Conservative motion concerns the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the export of stolen vehicles. It asks that the CBSA be provided with the resources it needs to prevent auto theft in Canada. I could not agree more with this proposal.

I spoke about this a few months ago. I think that the CBSA, which is under federal jurisdiction, needs to do more. Some people say that it does not have the resources it needs to do more right now, that it is short on labour and funds. They need to figure out what the problem is. Clearly, the CBSA is not doing enough right now.

I spoke about auto theft and how thieves steal vehicles; that is the first step. The second step is exporting the vehicles. Like auto theft, shipping the vehicles out of the country is practically risk free. Clearly, for criminal gangs, it means higher costs and more organization, but it seems to be going well when you look at what is happening at the port of Montreal. That is because it is a sieve.

Around 700,000 containers leave the port of Montreal every year. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, only 1% of all containers are searched. According to the Montreal Port Authority, or MPA, the law does not allow employees or the port authority to open a container unless a person's life is in danger or there is a serious environmental hazard. According to the port's director of communications, when the containers arrive at the port, it is already too late to do anything. The containers remain sealed unless law enforcement intervenes for a specific reason. They need a warrant to open them, so they need reasonable grounds.

Police forces have access to the port and can intervene. However, they do not patrol there because the MPA already has its own security guards. The MPA does not intervene because the police can do it and the police do not intervene because the MPA has its own security guards, so that is just great.

As for customs, the CBSA is responsible for controlling goods for export. CBSA agents can open containers. However, in October, we learned from the Journal de Montréal that there are only five border agents to inspect the containers in Montreal, which makes the task practically impossible. Yes, the CBSA is responsible for overseeing exports, but its mandate is more focused on imports. It also needs to look at what is coming into the country. That is understandable. Do changes need to be made to the CBSA's mandate to ensure that exports are better monitored? I think that is something we need to think about.

Another reason why it is easy to export stolen cars is that anyone can rent a container by filling out a simple online declaration form for the shipping company. We could do it without any problem, just as a small business could. Anyone can change their form up to 48 hours after shipping, so that obviously makes it possible for thieves to cover their tracks once the goods are already on their way to Europe, the Middle East or Africa.

Finally, criminals use numbered companies to fill out those forms. They often use the same or similar serial numbers to defraud the CBSA on their export declaration form.

It should be easy for the Canada Border Services Agency to spot, easy to see that a vehicle serial number comes up repeatedly. At least, Le Journal de Montréal was able to do just that and identify the issue using a simple Excel document. However, for some unknown reason, it seems too difficult for the CBSA.

As early as the fall of 2015, an Auditor General's report stated that export control at the border is ineffective and that only one in five high-risk containers was inspected. Now, we are being told that there are almost no inspections and that, even when there is a concern that there may be high-risk contents, only one container in five is searched and checked. It is easy to understand why there are a huge number of stolen vehicles passing through the port of Montreal without anyone noticing.

I asked the customs union to come testify before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C‑21. The union told us that a lot of illegal or stolen material is shipped in containers that travel in and out of Canada not only by water, but also by train, and that the agency performs almost no inspections. At the time, the government dismissed the criticism out of hand, saying that it did not consider this information important.

What Le Journal de Montréal's investigative bureau reported, in a nutshell, is that only five officers at the Port of Montreal conduct searches. They rely on a temperamental cargo scanner that is constantly breaking down. The agency refuses to second an investigator to a special stolen vehicle export squad. The same serial numbers come up again and again. Critical information is not being forwarded to port services or police in a timely manner, and the agency apparently omits to report high-risk containers to its partners.

We see that many organizations are involved, but, despite that, nothing is getting done.

I would be very pleased to answer my colleagues' questions and I hope the summit being held next week will contribute to finding solutions to address this scourge.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois just has a tendency to support the Liberal Prime Minister.

The Bloc Québécois voted for the Liberal law arising from Bill C-75, which allows car thieves to be released on bail the same day they are arrested. The thieves are arrested, but the next day, they are free to start stealing again.

The Bloc Québécois also voted for Bill C-5, which allows car thieves to serve their sentence at home, watching Netflix in the comfort of their living room.

The Bloc Québécois does not want a solution that will stop criminals and stop auto theft. They proved it when they voted with the government for Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois agrees there is a serious auto theft problem. However, this is not the only problem right now.

There is an argument behind the Conservative motion, but it lacks a certain intellectual rigour. For example, it says the law arising from Bill C-5 is largely responsible for the surge in auto thefts, yet Bill C‑5 only received royal assent on November 17, 2022.

I would like my colleague to explain how Bill C‑5 can be the reason auto thefts have surged since 2015 when Bill C‑5 was not even in force at the time.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister whose name we cannot say anymore, the trust is gone. Unfortunately, the trust is broken. We saw this in the most recent incident. The Globe and Mail is reporting that the Prime Minister provided disinformation, at the very least, to the House concerning his office's knowledge of the presence of a Nazi who was honoured here. Each of my colleagues was asked to applaud this Nazi on the recommendation of the former Speaker of the House of Commons.

For weeks, the Prime Minister denied any knowledge of this situation. He denied his office had been involved. However, we learned this week that not only did the Prime Minister's Office know, but that the PMO itself invited this Nazi to a reception. This was a personal invitation from the PMO. For this reason, when the time comes to talk about crime, to stop the crime and find solutions, every word from this Prime Minister must now be taken with a grain of salt, unfortunately.

It is unfortunate because, after eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians no longer trust him or his announcements, like the summit on auto theft he announced. For the eight years this Prime Minister has been in power, he had the tools at his disposal. For eight years, he has had the power to act, yet the only solution he can think of is to call everyone together so he can share the blame with them instead of taking responsibility for his actions, just as he refused to do when he himself invited a former Nazi to a reception hosted by the Prime Minister and attended by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

A Conservative government will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and, above all, stop the crime. That brings us to today's motion. Auto theft is a serious issue across the country, mainly in big cities, but also in rural areas. I will talk about this in my speech.

In Quebec alone, 10,595 auto thefts were reported in 2022. This figure comes from the Groupement des assureurs automobiles, an auto insurance group that represents virtually all Quebec insurance companies.

That is a 37% increase between 2021 and 2022 and a 138% increase since 2016, or since this Liberal government came to power. It amounts to an average of 29 vehicles stolen per day. In 2022, auto theft cost insurers $372 million, up $130 million in one year alone.

People are going to wonder why their car insurance costs are going up. It is simple: Insurance companies have to pay for all these stolen vehicles. Why are more of them not being recovered? Why can the police not stop auto theft?

I will share a couple of quick stories. I have friends in the Quebec City area whose vehicle was stolen. They have cameras set up at home. There was a nice vehicle on the property. This happened in broad daylight. The footage clearly shows the thief going up to the vehicle with a forged key, getting in and just driving off. Minutes later, my friend called the police. The police told him that his vehicle was probably already on its way to the port of Montreal and that, if it was already there, unfortunately, they would not be able to get into the port of Montreal to seize it. The police suggested he call his insurer.

No search is launched and no investigation is opened to find the guilty party. The police tell the owner to call their insurance company, and the thieves get off scot-free. The same thing happened in the Sherbrooke region, and I think similar accounts are cropping up across the country. The port of Montreal has become a hub for exporting stolen vehicles to other countries, wherever they can be sold. I saw a news report on that very topic this week. It was so odd. It reported that vehicles are turning up in a country not far from Saudi Arabia, I forget which one, and they still have Quebec flag stickers on their windows or other Quebec-related markings.

No one even bothers to clean them. Why should they? All this happens in broad daylight. This Prime Minister's federal government is doing absolutely nothing to stop auto theft. Vehicles are being stolen with impunity, considering that the federal government, which could and should have acted, is responsible for 95% of all the laws and procedures needed to stop these thefts. The Prime Minister has chosen to do nothing, other than holding a summit to talk about the problem instead of taking action.

Why is this happening? It is happening because of the government's choices. The government amended certain laws. One particular example is Bill C‑5, which permits house arrest instead of jail time for car thieves. Because of these bills, repeat offenders do not go to jail. They can serve their sentences at home, watching Netflix, which is why we call them “Netflix sentences”.

What is happening, as a result? There are no longer any consequences for thieves. Apparently, based on the information being provided and shared by police officers, thieves are simply no longer afraid of facing justice. It is so lucrative to sell these luxury vehicles abroad and the risk of getting caught is so low compared to the potential gains that they would rather carry on. Organized crime is involved. Meanwhile, people are watching as their vehicles are shipped off to countries all over the world, and the government does nothing.

After eight years of inaction by this Prime Minister, it is time to act. That is why a Conservative government will take action. It will immediately reverse the changes made by the Liberal government in its soft-on-crime Bill C‑5, which allows car thieves to be placed under house arrest rather than going to jail. That bill was supported by the Bloc Québécois.

A Conservative government will strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure that repeat car thieves are kept behind bars. We will provide the CBSA and port officials with the resources they need to stop stolen cars from leaving the country.

Specifically, we will increase mandatory sentences from six months to three years for a third car theft offence. Three car thefts will mean three years in prison. There will be far fewer thieves on the street if we do things right. We will get rid of the Netflix sentences and create a new specific aggravating factor when the offence is committed for the benefit of organized crime.

Furthermore, just this morning, the leader of the Conservative Party was at the port of Montreal to announce other very important measures that the government could have implemented. Instead of holding a summit, it could have taken action. However, once again it chose to give car thieves free rein and keep car owners in Montreal and in the regions living in fear of having their cars stolen at any time.

Today we announced we are going to fire the useless management consultants at the CBSA and use that money to fix our federal ports. We are going to invest in state-of-the-art X-ray scanners that can be used to quickly scan containers at the four federal ports of Montreal, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Halifax. We are going to hire a special team of customs officers to use the scanners and intercept stolen cars so they do not leave the country. We are going to hire 75 CBSA officers to secure our federal ports.

We will do all that while adhering to our policy of saving one dollar for every dollar spent, particularly by saving money on the infamous ArriveCAN app, which cost $54 million. If they had invested that $54 million in customs rather than in an app that does not work, we would not be in this situation today. That sums up this Prime Minister's record over the past eight years.

Public Safety

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois voted for the Liberal legislation that came out of Bill C‑75, which allows car thieves to be released on bail the same day they are arrested. The Bloc Québécois voted for the legislation that came out of Bill C‑5, which allows car thieves to serve their sentence at home. These laws have resulted in a 100% increase in car theft in Montreal and a 300% increase in Toronto.

Will the government reverse its policies and replace them with a common-sense policy to put an end to this problem?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, crime is up nearly 40% across the country. The Liberals removed jail time for car theft in Bill C-5, and since then, car theft is up 300% in Toronto and 34% overall in Canada.

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the crime. Every six minutes, a car is stolen. Insurance rates have risen as much as 50% at a time when Canadians can least afford it.

Common-sense Conservatives will bring back jail, not bail, for criminals. Will the Liberals?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you for your answer.

This ties into these amendments, because we have to look at other countries and how they handle their commissions. That's why we had witnesses from the U.K. as well as from North Carolina.

The U.K. Criminal Cases Review Commission website, under “Our powers and practices”, says:

Our legal powers mean that we can often identify important evidence that would be impossible for others to find.

We can also interview new witnesses and re-interview the original ones. If necessary, we can arrange for new expert evidence such as psychological reports and DNA testing.

We look into all cases thoroughly, independently, and objectively but the legal rules that govern the work of the Commission means that we can only refer a case if we find that there is a “real possibility”

—and this gets to the crux of my point—

that an appeal court would quash the conviction or, in the case of an appeal against sentence, change the sentence in question.

That real possibility already puts our system.... The test that's being proposed in Bill C-40 is that a miscarriage or justice may have occurred. “May have occurred” is an incredibly low bar.

Of course a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in a case, but we have to aspire to something more than the absolute floor. To suggest that someone can avail themselves of a commission, a new commission.... I'm hoping nobody in this room would want to create a parallel justice system or clog up our courts with cases that shouldn't be before them, cases that have already been dealt with. If you've been convicted of a crime and you've appealed your sentence, or not, and you have a chance to have that sentence overturned, why wouldn't you take it?

I should mention that even with this higher threshold in the United Kingdom, when this commission was opened up, they saw a rush of individuals who sought to have their convictions overturned. They have set a standard. We brought them forward as witnesses, but our standard is far lower. The effect of amendments NDP-1 and LIB-1 would be to further lower the threshold whereby someone could avail themselves of this commission.

They say the following:

We can only refer a case if we find that there is a “real possibility” that an appeal court would quash the conviction or, in the case of an appeal against sentence, change the sentence in question.

The CCRC is a prescribed body under the legislation dealing with the making of public interest disclosures (whistleblowing). This means that, quite apart from our statutory responsibility to deal with the applications we receive, we are the body to which individuals can report concerns of actual or potential miscarriages of justice.

What it takes to refer a case for appeal is new information plus a real possibility. Neither of those things is a requirement under the existing Bill C-40, let alone if we were to adopt amendment NDP-1 or LIB-1. Neither new information nor a real possibility is a requirement that would bar someone from availing themselves of this commission, using up the commission's time and perhaps clogging up the justice system when the commission doesn't even have to believe that there is a real possibility that a miscarriage of justice has occurred or that there's a real possibility of an appeal court overturning a conviction.

It's a two-part test, as we've heard. It introduces what I think is a very reasonable test: One, is there a real possibility that a miscarriage of justice occurred? If you accept that, two, is there a real possibility that an appeal court would change the sentence? What they're trying to do there is ensure they're dealing with cases that, based on the evidence before them, number one, they believe involved a miscarriage of justice, and number two, based on the evidence they have, that there's a real possibility of an appeal court overturning a conviction or not offering a conviction when there has already been one.

They go on to say, “We must be able to show the appeal court” some “new” information—again, that's not a requirement of BillC-40—“that was not used at the time of the conviction, or first appeal, and that might have changed the outcome of the case if the jury had known about it.” They say that it will not be of any use to simply apply “to the CCRC...saying the jury” got it “wrong” when they chose “to believe the prosecution case instead of the defence, unless there is “convincing new information to support that idea.”

I want to narrow in on that: It will not be of any use to simply apply to the CCRC saying that the jury got it wrong when they chose to believe the prosecution case instead of the defence. That's how our system works. Unlike what was in place for some of the wrongful convictions that are most famous in this country, we now have the Charter of Rights. We now have an improved legal aid system. We have a justice system that affords incredible rights to those who have been charged.

We've heard testimony on other pieces of legislation, like Bill C-5 and others. The fallout on Bill C-75 said that there are individuals who are being let out who should be in jail, or there are people who are not getting convictions who should get convictions. We've heard from victims saying that we don't have a justice system—we have a legal system. The cards are often stacked against victims in this country, and that's what's lost in some of this debate.

I have to refer back to the U.K. system. Their commission is one that we've chosen to take a strong look at. Simply saying, “I didn't get a fair shake” or “I don't agree”, or “The jury got it wrong”, or “The judge got it wrong and I'm actually innocent”, is not good enough to avail yourself of the commission.

What they go on to say is that for them:

To refer a case for appeal, we must think the new information is convincing enough that it raises a ‘real possibility’ that the appeal court will overturn the conviction. If we refer a sentence for appeal [we must be convinced that there's] a ‘real possibility’ that the court will reduce the sentence.

This goes to something that Mr. Caputo raised about changes in sentencing guidelines for individuals who were convicted of an offence in the past that would not be the same level of offence now. They can, in the U.K., avail themselves of a reduction in their sentence, but the commission has to be convinced that there's a real possibility the court will reduce the sentence.

Madam Chair, they go on to say, “Most people apply to the [commission] because of convictions or sentences they have received in a Crown Court.” They go on to reiterate that standard of, first, “new information”, and, second, “a 'real possibility'”.

I go back to the bill, Bill C-40, that was presented to us by Minister Virani.

Number one, does Bill C-40 say there has to be a real possibility that a wrongful conviction occurred, or a miscarriage? No. Bill C-40 says that it “may have occurred”. Even under our current legislation, which the minister currently exercises control over, there's a higher standard than “may have occurred”. Of course, it would be impossible to have a lower standard than “may have occurred”, so one thing I took some comfort in with Bill C-40 when it was originally presented is that there was this requirement that an individual would have at least availed themselves of an appeal.

Madam Chair, there's a tremendous amount of noise on the other side there.