Mr. Speaker, it is not about the current speaker, but I wanted to catch it early so that I did not cut him off and I hope he will be given the chance to begin anew.

I missed the debate earlier, but I have been in this chamber before when the question of T-shirt wearing was raised and I want to press that again. I understand that you said there was an agreement that had been struck that if a member came in here wearing a T-shirt under a jacket, it is permissible. I have not heard of this before, and I would ask you to report back to this chamber when in fact that agreement was made or perhaps you can do it now. I find that a breach of the chamber's rules.

Dress Code—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I will read this again, because this has happened on a number of occasions. I think I erred this last time when I allowed the hon. minister to speak.

We either are going to allow T-shirts or not allow T-shirts. I would say that they are not allowed, and so I am going to make a bit of a ruling on the fly here.

There is no rule for women's attire, except we might say that the Standing Orders do not prescribe a dress code for members participating in debate. However, Speakers have ruled that all members desiring to be recognized to speak at any point during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business attire. The added point to that is when people speak to S.O. 31s especially and want to wear their team's shirts, that has been permissible on a number of occasions in this chamber.

I just want folks to be more judicious in their attire in the House. Falling short of prescribing what that attire should be, slogans on T-shirts should not be acceptable in the House of Commons.

Dress Code—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I appreciate that and I appreciate the intervention by my Conservative colleague.

I just want to be clear, because we have rules. A male who is not wearing tie should not be recognized. We have had rules where, let us say there was a hockey tournament and a team wins, members wear their jersey. However, we do not have a rule where someone, just because they are supporting a team or an issue, gets to come in and wear it. We have a very narrow window.

I just want to make sure that those are terms under which someone could wear something that is not business attire. It is in that specific instance that perhaps Regina has won or, God help us, the Toronto Argonauts finally win, on that day we give them that one moment. Other than that, we have to have respect for the Chamber.

Dress Code—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Maybe it would be permissible or a good idea for PROC to look at attire in the House, just to make sure that we are all being judicious in following the rules as set forth within our Standing Orders.

I will let the parliamentary secretary restart after the hon. member stands on a question of privilege.

The hon. House leader for the official opposition.

Alleged Misleading Comments by the Prime MinisterPrivilegeGovernment Orders

February 6th, 2024 / 12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about a very serious matter: the misleading comments of the Prime Minister concerning the invitation of Yaroslav Hunka, a former soldier of the Waffen-SS military unit in World War II, to attend events with the President of Ukraine during his recent visit to Canada.

As we all recall, last September this chamber was the epicentre of a grave international embarrassment for Canada when this individual, a former SS soldier, was recognized and given a standing ovation during President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's address to our Parliament. This gave Vladimir Putin a major propaganda coup and caused significant pain for Jewish Canadians and all victims persecuted in World War II.

The government, and the Prime Minister in particular, were at great pains to distance themselves from any connection to this individual, claiming that they had absolutely nothing to do with his invitation and subsequent recognition. Lo and behold, Global Affairs Canada recently released, through access to information, a copy of an email sent to Yaroslav Hunka inviting him to a reception with President Zelenskyy, which was reported on yesterday afternoon by The Globe and Mail and, subsequently, other media outlets.

Here is the kicker: It was the Prime Minister's invitation.

On Monday, September 19, 2023, some four days before the President's address to Parliament, an email account called "RSVP Official Events/Événements officiels RSVP" sent an email with the subject line, “INVITATION FROM THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA — SEPTEMBER 22, 2023”. The body of the email begins, “Dear Yaroslav Hunka, The Right Honourable...Prime Minister of Canada, is pleased to invite you to a special event.”

As members may recall, until the visit was formally announced a few days later, there was a lot of coded language being used, like in the case of this "special event", but the point remains, that the Prime Minister invited this former SS soldier to attend an event honouring the President of Ukraine. Of course, members will recall that the Prime Minister and his government were under sustained questioning in the House in the week following the visit about just how such a colossal mistake, with international reverberations, could take place.

There were questions like those asked by the Leader of the Opposition on the first occasion the Prime Minister appeared in the House after the scandalous events, such as, “did the Prime Minister's national security, intelligence or diplomatic officials vet the names of the people the Prime Minister allowed within mere feet of President Zelenskyy?”; and “the Prime Minister has just said that he allowed the president of a war-torn country, who is perhaps the biggest target of false propaganda and potential assassinations, to be surrounded by hundreds of people who had not been vetted for their security background, the potential risks they present or, in this case, the massive diplomatic disasters they could have brought to the event. Is the Prime Minister really saying he did absolutely nothing to protect the Ukrainian president from all those many risks?”

Repeatedly, we were assured that the blame lay exclusively at the then-Speaker's feet, as if the address to Parliament was the only opportunity for this former SS soldier to come near President Zelenskyy. For example, the Prime Minister told the House on September 27, 2023, “The Leader of the Opposition knows that not one parliamentarian was aware”, and, later, “no parliamentarian knew the name or the identity of the person he welcomed to this House and recognized”.

Now we know, that this is just not so. The Prime Minister invited this individual, by name, to an event with President Zelenskyy. The Prime Minister also said that day, “the Speaker of this House of Commons invited an individual without apparently doing that Google search, but it is not up to the government of the day to oversee or to have a veto power over those who the Speaker or, indeed, members of official parties choose to invite into this House.”

Who does the Prime Minister blame for not doing “that Google search” for his own personal invitation?

Before the Liberals jump up and claim that these are two separate events, two separate guest lists and whatnot, let me quote an interview the former Speaker, the honourable member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, gave to CTV Northern Ontario two weeks ago, explaining the central role the Prime Minister's Office plays in guest invitations for major international events held on Parliament Hill, like President Zelenskyy's wartime address, stating, “normally it goes to the Prime Minister's Office and they go through it with a fine-tooth comb” and then the invitation goes out from protocol. “So who invited him? That's up for grabs....”

Besides the fact that there was no sign of a comb, fine-tooth or otherwise, to be found, yesterday afternoon's revelations add new context to the last words in that quotation: "who invited him? That's up for grabs".

According to news reports at the time, it is understood that this individual's son approached the then Speaker's constituency office about securing an invitation to the Ottawa address. Knowing on the Monday of the week of the visit that there was a personal invitation from the Prime Minister to attend the Toronto event, it is not hard to picture this invitation becoming part of the discussion in the North Bay constituency office.

One can put themselves in the shoes of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. One is told about the individual's connection to Ukraine and is shown an invitation in the Prime Minister's name, the name of the leader of the party whose label one is elected under. Is one really going to sit there and think they better second-guess the judgment of the PMO, the PCO and the diplomatic protocol office? I sincerely doubt it.

As the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming said, “So who invited him? That's up for grabs”. That statement makes a whole lot more sense in light of yesterday's Globe report.

I would respectfully submit it is now obvious that the Prime Minister invited Yaroslav Hunka to meet the President of Ukraine, and the then Speaker took it on good faith and, in turn, authorized his own invitation. At the very least, it shows us that the protocol office itself, in the Prime Minister's Office, had the name of this individual on its guest list.

Whatever happened between the Speaker's office and the Prime Minister's Office in terms of the invitation, we now know that this individual, this former SS member, was already on the protocol list. He was already on the list of people to be invited.

On September 27, the Prime Minister told the House, “we apologized today on behalf of all parliamentarians. For the past few days, we have been saying how sorry we are about the mistake made by the Speaker of the House of Commons.” The only mistake, Mr. Speaker, was that your predecessor put blind trust in the fact that an invitation was issued by the Prime Minister.

I am aware the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has agreed to conduct some form of a study on the matter; although, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not seem to consider the matter important given that no hearings have yet to take place some five months later.

However, these revelations and the obvious concern that the Prime Minister appears to have misled the House are of a whole new dimension, one which engages the privileges of the House and rises, in my respectful submission, to a contempt of Parliament.

Page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes that cases of privilege have involved “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House or one of its committees by a Minister or by a Member”.

It is a well-established principle that to make out a prima facie case of privilege in relation to a claim of misleading the House, three elements must be established.

Firstly, it must be proven that the statement was misleading. Knowing what we know now from the Global Affairs Canada access to information release, we can see it was misleading. There is no doubt that members of Parliament, of all opposition parties, were trying to find out exactly what interaction, what role, was under the purview of the PMO or the Prime Minister for inviting this individual.

There were multiple questions coming from many different angles, and the government always gave the same explanation that it had absolutely no knowledge of this individual's background and that it had nothing to do with his invitation. We now know, through this access to information release, that is false and, therefore, misleading.

Secondly, it must be established that the member making the statement knew it to be misleading. The invitation that was released is in the name of the Prime Minister. To claim he had no knowledge of this individual is now absurd.

Thirdly, the misleading statement must have been offered with the intention to mislead the House. The House was engulfed in a massive international scandal, one which saw our own Speaker resign, falling on his sword for the Prime Minister, so there is little doubt that the Prime Minister was eager to deflect his own role and responsibility and to lay the blame elsewhere.

Of course, before the Prime Minister might stand up and assert that he was blindsided by his own officials' denials, let me quote Bosc and Gagnon at page 116:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and, thus, a prima facie breach of privilege. For example, on December 6, 1978, in finding that a prima facie contempt of the House existed, Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official, by deliberately misleading a Minister, had impeded the Member in the performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the House itself.

No matter how one cuts it, the House was misled. Its privileges were breached, and action should be taken immediately.

Should the Speaker agree with me that the Prime Minister's words amount to a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Alleged Misleading Comments by the Prime MinisterPrivilegeGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I want to thank the hon. member for the information. We will take that under advisement and come back to the House as soon as is practical.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I started by acknowledging that crimes of the nature we have been talking about today affect all our communities. As much as we banter back and forth, I would not want to take anything away from the impact it has on victims. I wanted to amplify that point because I truly believe that all of us have a right to feel safe and comfortable in the communities where we live.

As the justice critic, when I served in the Manitoba legislature, as well as during a number of years here in Ottawa, I have always recognized the importance of the issue of safety and crime. As legislators, we need to do what we can to keep our communities safe. Quite frankly, I am very proud of initiatives the Liberal government has taken over the last number of years to do just that: to keep the communities we live in safe. That does not mean the issues are resolved. I am not saying that at all. I think we have work to do. We will continue to look at ways to make our communities healthier and safer.

Looking at today's opposition day motion, I see that it is very much a politically motivated issue brought forward by the Conservative Party. The message it is trying to give Canadians is that it is collectively tough on crime.

I want to deal with that, because that is not the reality we have seen. Specifically, we are talking about automobile theft. The discussions, thus far, from the Conservative benches have been focused on Canada's border control, car theft and how vehicles are exported outside of Canada. It is interesting that one member who stood up actually criticized the government. That really stuck with me. The member said something to the effect that we need to support and to provide more money to the CBSA, Canada's border control agency.

It is amazing that while the Conservatives were in government, they actually cut Canada's border control agents. At one time, we had close to 15,000 border controls. I have the actual number of full-time equivalents: 14,833. They were cut to 13,774 full-time equivalents. Those were well over 1,000 jobs cut by the former government and the former prime minister. The current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the cabinet of that former prime minister. That was a substantial cut, and now they are saying we need to have more. That was one comment.

The Conservatives talk about it being in the motion. We talk about increasing sentences from six months to three years. That six months is in regard to someone getting caught stealing a car on a third occasion. The current law states that it is a minimum of six months. The Conservatives say that it is not tough enough and that they believe it should be three years. Again, who do members think put in the six months? It was Stephen Harper.

Are Conservatives saying today that Stephen Harper messed up on that policy directive, and that Stephen Harper messed up on the cutbacks on the border controls? What the member did not reference, but I will, are the hundreds of millions of dollars cut also by Stephen Harper.

Is the Conservative Party now saying that, too, was a mistake? Let us keep in mind that it is easy for the Conservatives to concede that Stephen Harper made a mess of things and made problems a lot worse with cutbacks, and that might have contributed to the increases we are seeing. I would remind Conservatives that they might want to throw Stephen Harper under the bus, but their current leader was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, and they need to be reminded of that.

Let us think about it. This issue has been taking place for quite a while. The so-called “tough on crime” Leader of the Conservative Party, tougher than Stephen Harper was on crime, is tougher than when he was in cabinet. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time, last week, where we actually have the Leader of the Conservative Party giving it attention. Why is that?

We announced that we are going to have a summit on the auto theft issue. The Liberal government has been working on it for a while now, unlike the Conservatives; it was not even on their radar screen until we announced the summit. Then, the Conservatives started saying that it would fit in nicely with their “tough on crime” bumper stickers, so they brought up the issue. Did they not study it? Did they not realize they are likely part of the problem?

I was the justice critic in the Province of Manitoba, and this is a quote from a StatsCan report dealing with car theft in Manitoba then, which states:

However, the province's 2007 rate remained the highest in the country...for the 11th straight year and was 24% higher than a decade ago.

In 2007, Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it continued to be a problem for years after that. If we look at it 10 years prior, there was not a Conservative government.

The point is that this issue takes more than one level of government to address it. That is the reason we have the minister responsible for public safety saying that we are going to have a summit. The Conservatives are howling, “just a summit”. They just discovered the issue, and we already said we are going to have a summit. We are bringing experts in. There is going to be dialogue, and things are going to be brought to the table. We are not only taking budgetary measures in the amount of tens of millions to look into how we can get at organized crime and organized gangs but also looking at legislative measures and possibly regulations that could be changed.

We want to take a holistic approach in dealing with this issue. Unlike the Conservatives, who like to talk tough on crime, we believe that actions speak louder than words. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and to get the level of expertise to the table so that we will be in a better position to work with provinces and law enforcement agencies. As a national government, we would be in a position to see if we could do something legislatively or could do something through regulations, and perhaps there are other pockets where we could invest more to support this issue.

That is ultimately what the Liberal government is doing. We are taking a progressive, holistic approach to make sure that the issue is dealt with, unlike Stephen Harper and the born-again Conservative right wing.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really think the member for Winnipeg North will have lots of time to practise his Stephen Harper lines when he is in opposition.

We should not be fooled by the member's speech; the facts are what they are. Car theft is up 300%. Over 4,200 vehicles have been stolen in York Region. Canadians will not be fooled either. The NDP-Liberal government has spent 40% more on the federal public service for worse outcomes. If he went out and spoke with Canadians, he would tell them that their outcomes are worse. Mr. Speaker, is your life 40% better in terms of outcomes than it was?

Could the member comment on the spending for worse results for Canadians?

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, because of time restrictions, I was not able to continue to give my explanation about the Manitoba case. I can tell the member opposite that, at this point in time, Manitoba had the highest number of cars being stolen in any given year, more than the province of Ontario. I am not talking about per capita but the raw number of cars being stolen.

Ultimately, what had the most positive impact was when law enforcement, the Province of Manitoba and Ottawa, to a certain degree, came together and tried to deal with the issue. At least today, Ottawa is recognizing that we need to bring people together in order to deal with this issue.

Organized crime is more than just automobile theft. We recognize the importance of the issue. We are doing something, as opposed to the Conservatives, who heard we were having a summit and then decided it was an important issue.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives come forward today saying that one car stolen should equal a year in jail. That is not a policy. That is straight out of the books from a Texas governor, who failed in their policies in Texas.

We know the Conservatives cut 1,100 jobs at the Canada Border Services Agency, in terms of officers on the front line. According to Mark Weber, the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, “We estimate that we need between 2,000 and 3,000 additional officers on the front line.” He also cited that, with the amount of money they spent on the ArriveCAN app, the scandal taking place right now, they could have hired 500 border agents.

When is the government going to step it up when it comes to hiring officers at the border? Will it listen to the NDP proposal to require auto manufacturers to improve security features in the cars they sell? A memo we put forward today was shot down by the Conservatives, but this seems to be a common-sense solution to help stop car theft.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member referred to the well over 1,000 cuts in terms of Canada border control service officers. Not only have we, as a government, restored every one of those cuts, but we can add on another 800.

As a government, we have provided supports from a budget perspective; we continue to look at ways to enhance and try to improve the system, whether through the budgetary measures that we just cited or legislative measures, in terms of working with provinces on the bail reform legislation we ultimately passed.

The Government of Canada is committed to making our communities healthier and safer. We are taking the measures that are necessary and are prepared to work with other levels of government and stakeholders to do just that.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary about the logic behind mandatory minimums, which have been proven, on empirical evidence, not to hold the logic one would hope. They actually tend to work against reducing crime.

One reason for this is that increasing the mandatory minimum would drive people toward cutting deals and plea bargains, instead of actually dealing with matters or giving judges the discretion to increase the sentencing where they think it is appropriate.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, given the complexities of the pros and cons of minimum sentencing, in certain situations, I believe that having minimal sentences can be an effective tool for our judicial system.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

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 theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue of auto theft, having worked for the public auto insurer in B.C., but there are statistics that show, in fact, that auto thefts in B.C. are down quite substantially from where they were five years ago. I wonder whether the member could reflect on what might be the cause, because the same laws are in effect. If one believes it is “catch and release”, that has been in effect there too for quite a long time, even in the Stephen Harper days.

What is different in B.C. and maybe in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and in fact worse, than in all other jurisdictions?

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Mr. Speaker, looking at the statistics, there are increases or decreases in different jurisdictions. One can cherry-pick certain jurisdictions and say, “This jurisdiction is seeing a lower rate; therefore our government's policies must be successful.”

However, when we look at the aggregate across the country, there has been a 34% increase. This increase has been most stark in provinces like Ontario and Quebec. Why is that? It is because the port of Montreal has become such a conduit for getting stolen vehicles abroad. It is because of the current government, which has a responsibility for the ports and a responsibility to protect our borders, that we have seen the port of Montreal become such a conduit for stolen vehicles. That is why we are seeing a commensurate increase in Ontario and Quebec.

However, it is not just an Ontario and Quebec issue. In Alberta, vehicles have been stolen for many years. F-350s are being re-vinned and sent down to the United States. They are being sent to chop shops. This is a cross-Canada issue, and we cannot neglect any part of the country with our response.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is very familiar with this file. He said that criminal groups are using this money to fund other criminal activities, including terrorism. Earlier I was talking about human trafficking and illegal arms trafficking.

He says that the Conservative Party has a plan for auto theft and that it involves harsher sentences. However, what is his party's plan to go after the heads of these big criminal networks?

Obviously we think of the car thieves, those who commit the crime in the here and now. Often they are people who do not have a criminal record. Some are even minors. We have seen people under 18 committing these crimes in Toronto and bringing the cars to Montreal.

Yes, I think it is important to increase certain sentences, but it is also important to go after the heads of these criminal groups. What is his party's plan for that?

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I much appreciate being with my hon. colleague on the public safety committee on this issue. I found, actually, quite the opposite: oftentimes the people caught with stolen vehicles do have very lengthy criminal records. In fact some of them are even out on bail and are supposed to be on house arrest when they are conducting these crimes. They are repeat offenders.

I do appreciate what the member is talking about. How do we go after the big guys? These criminal organizations are very sophisticated. They use multiple middlemen to prevent the big players from being hit. We obviously have to go after some of the big players, but we also have to remove their frontline soldiers from the streets, which makes it harder for them to recruit new people to come out to commit the crimes.

We also have to stop the vehicles from leaving the ports in the first place. If we make it more difficult, because it is very easy today to get these vehicles out of Canada, it is going to discourage criminals from engaging in this activity. It is is going to discourage them from bringing their immense resources to bear on getting vehicles out of Canada. We need to be tough on the border. We need to get the people who are committing the crimes off the street so we can protect our communities.

Opposition Motion—Auto theftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would ask specifically whether the hon. member could comment on what seems to be the rapid increase in not being able to effectively catch vehicles in the process of being stolen. I know there have been high-profile cases. I have heard that it has been the case in Alberta as well that somebody will put an air tag in the vehicle and be able to follow it, yet law enforcement does not seem to either have the resources or be able to get the vehicle before it is shipped overseas.