Debates of Feb. 6th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am going. I was not invited, but I will go anyway and share my common-sense ideas. I hope that, after eight years, they will learn, because I was part of the government that managed to reduce auto theft by 50% while reducing the cost of bureaucracy at the Canada Border Services Agency.

The Bloc voted in favour of Bill C-5, which allows sentences to be served at home, thereby enabling more crime. They voted in favour of Bill C-75, which allows for the automatic release of repeat car thieves. The Bloc also supports wasting money going after sport shooters and hunters, which takes money away from our border forces.

The Bloc supports all public safety policies. It makes no sense. Only the Conservative Party makes sense for Quebeckers.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the NDP, I think, are quite well-known for trying to work with all parties to get things done, and we did try to work with the Conservative Party on this motion.

Why did the Conservatives vote against our amendments, for example, requiring auto manufacturers to improve security features in the cars they sell, and secondly, to put in place tough, new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member voted against her constituents by supporting the Prime Minister's ban on law-abiding, licensed, trained and tested firearms owners. She voted with her party to attack first nations hunters and other legitimate, law-abiding firearms owners, instead of going after the real criminals. She, like the Prime Minister, would take money away from border security and use it to harass licensed, law-abiding firearms owners in her own riding.

That is the shameful record of the NDP. Only the common-sense Conservatives will respect and honour our hunters, our anglers and our sport shooters and go after real criminals.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

There have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 49 to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion.

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to our opposition motion and a very serious subject. Auto theft is a problem that is happening right now, and I do not know whether my colleagues are aware of this, but Canada has the highest rate of auto theft in the world. We are the number one exporter of stolen vehicles. Is that something we want to see? No, not at all.

It is important to understand that auto theft is a big deal. It has gone up by 34% in Canada since this Prime Minister and his government came to power. Even worse, it has gone up by 300% in Toronto. In Montreal and the Ottawa-Gatineau region, it has gone up by more than 100%. It is up by 120% in New Brunswick and 122% overall in Ontario. One of the reasons we are seeing these numbers is that inflation has driven up the price of cars. Compared to last year, cars are worth 20% more. They are very attractive items. Nowadays, we are no longer talking about cars that were worth $15,000 or $20,000 back in the day. They now cost $45,000 on average. The most desirable cars are in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. This means someone can steal a car and resell it for more than $100,000, even as much as $120,000, abroad. It is a very attractive market for organized crime and thieves.

This is causing stress. People are stressed right now. When they wake up in the morning or go to the grocery store, they wonder whether their car will be where they left it. Things cannot go on like this. Theft has a financial impact too. Last year, insurance companies paid out $1 billion to settle claims by the owners of stolen cars. What comes next? All car owners end up paying more for insurance. Insurance companies have to cover their losses, so they raise premiums. Once again, in addition to inflation and rising rates everywhere, insurance premiums go up because auto theft is out of control.

The solutions for controlling auto theft are not limitless. Some things are easy to do. The government is not being called out for nothing. Before I rose to speak, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition. For the past two days, he has been proposing concrete solutions to the problem. I would like to talk about the first two. First, there was Bill C‑5, which was enacted. We criticized it from the start. We made every possible and impossible representation to say that it does not work. Here is a concrete example: People are convicted, but instead of going to prison like they should, they get to stay at home. What do we think these people are doing? They think nothing of it; they are criminals. They unapologetically go out and commit more crimes.

The other issue with Bill C-5 was minimum sentences. The government stood up and the justice minister said that the Conservatives were wrong. No, we are not wrong. Auto theft currently carries a six-month sentence. What we are saying, and we are not going too far, is that if the same person has stolen three cars and has been charged with three thefts, they should get a minimum of three years in jail. I think this is just common sense. When we talk about common sense, this is a perfect example. People are looking at this and wondering whether it is normal for a criminal to continue stealing with impunity, with no penalty other than to be sent home to watch Netflix. We said before that there was a problem with Bill C-5, and we are seeing it now. We are calling on the government to fix it and rework what was done with Bill C-5.

Then there is Bill C-75, which was implemented by the Liberals and has led to people being arrested and released in the same day. At times, it happens that someone is arrested in the morning, their case is processed and, after a few hours, they are released and continue to commit crimes. It is a vicious cycle. We do not want to exaggerate; we know that very few people are doing that. However, here is a really incredible statistic. In Vancouver, 40 criminals were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is 150 times each. It is the same 40 people. There is a small number of them, but they commit a lot of crimes. Basically, what we want to do is prevent these individuals from being released again and again and from committing crimes over and over. The repercussions of Bill C-75 are being felt everywhere.

The same thing applies to the auto theft market. These people know that there are not really any consequences under the laws that have been put in place by the Liberals. They will get arrested, go to the station to deal with a little charge and then they will be back on the street. It does not bother them. It is as though they are not afraid, they have no fear. They know they will be able to carry on doing whatever they feel like doing.

Let us talk about the technical aspect. Take, for example, the Port of Montreal. There are only five border agents to inspect the some 580,000 containers that leave the port each year, and they only have one scanner. I had the opportunity to visit the facilities there, and I saw that this big arch-shaped scanner does not always work and it is not really effective. Sooner or later, the port is going to need effective state-of-the-art equipment to get the job done right.

I want to come back to our Liberal friends. What have they being doing in the meantime, over the past several years? The Prime Minister wasted $15 million on management consultants for the CBSA. That was useless. He also spent $54 million on the failed ArriveCAN app, and the RCMP is even investigating that contract. What is more, the Liberals did not spend the $117 million that was approved by Parliament.

It is much like the support for Ukraine. Our colleagues like to talk to us about Ukraine. What is being done with the $406 million we voted on and was announced with great fanfare to buy anti-aircraft systems for Ukraine? Absolutely nothing has been done about it in a year. What is happening with the 83,000 decommissioned air-to-surface missiles that are warehoused in Manitoba? As Conservatives, we said they need to be given to Ukraine. Ukraine sent a letter asking for them. We said we needed to send them. This is war, it is urgent, but, no, they are asleep across the way. That is another file.

The fact is that the Liberals are good at making accusations, but today we are here to work on things that are happening here, in Canada, things for which immediate action is needed and expected.

What we are asking for is not complicated. As I said earlier, there is the legislation stemming from Bill C‑5. There is a way to fix at least that part of that law, which actually covers many types of crimes. I introduced Bill C‑325, which would fix the problems in that law. Obviously, it was not accepted by the Liberals or the NDP. I thank my friends in the Bloc Québécois who understood me and supported me on this.

What we are asking for today has to do specifically with auto theft. There is a way to amend the law to deter crime. First, we need to actually incarcerate criminals. More importantly, we need to discourage those who are considering becoming car thieves. Those are some of the things that we need to do. People will see that and think to themselves that it is better not to get involved in auto theft. I was saying earlier that the vehicles are worth tens of thousands of dollars. Auto theft benefits organized crime and those on the other side of the ocean who buy the vehicles, but the thieves themselves are not paid very well, even though they are the ones who are taking all the risks. If we were to target them, to make young people understand that it is not a good idea to enter a life of crime because they will end up in prison, then that would be more effective than what is currently being done.

The Conservatives get it. The Liberals did not do it, but when we take power, we are going to remove the right to house arrest. There will be no more Netflix sentences.

We are going to create a new aggravating circumstance when the offence of motor vehicle theft is committed for the benefit of organized crime. This is important, because we must stop encouraging organized crime, and that starts with tackling the root cause.

We will repeal the arrest and release rules in Bill C-75 to ensure that repeat offenders are jailed and not released on bail.

We will fire the useless management consultants at CBSA and take that money to properly equip federal ports. We will invest in state-of-the-art X-ray equipment to enable rapid scanning of containers at our major ports in Vancouver, Montreal, Prince Rupert and Halifax.

A total of 24 scanners will be purchased. Canada's four largest ports have a combined total of 12 terminals that handle container shipping. All of these terminals allow for goods to be transported by truck and rail, and each requires its own scanner and operator. The total cost for the 24 scanners is $55 million, with an ongoing service agreement of $300,000 per scanner, or $7.2 million per year.

Let us talk about spending. Two days ago, our leader presented very clear proposals. He demonstrated how a Conservative government might make “investments”, as the Liberals like to say. Well, it takes money to do that. We have solutions for finding wasteful spending. We will be able to recover that money and invest it in immediate needs to ensure the safety of Canadians and put an end to auto theft and the too-easy shipping of stolen cars to the rest of the world.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I had a meeting recently in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay with CBSA officers and I was shocked to learn that in 2011-12, the party opposite cut almost 1,100 jobs. That would be like the mayor of Saint John cutting hundreds of jobs out of the police force and then wondering why crime went up. The Conservatives were also going to cut another 400 jobs if they had been re-elected in 2015. As of 2022-23, we have restored every single job cut by the Conservatives and have added an additional 884, getting more boots on the ground to protect our borders.

I am wondering if the member opposite could explain the reason for the cuts and if he understands that those cuts resulted in the situation we have today.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see that is the question of the day and I will answer it with a question.

Why, under the Conservative government, did auto theft go down by 50%? Why were there no problems at the border? Why did we not need resources from the Border Services Agency to go to Roxham Road, for example, after the Prime Minister's famous tweet that invited everyone to enter Canada?

The Liberals created these situations by relaxing the Criminal Code, by showing criminals how easy it was to do whatever they wanted and by inviting people to enter Canada by Roxham Road. Obviously that required a lot more resources.

What we are asking is for is a return to common sense. It is common sense to go back to a solid Criminal Code that will not tempt people to become criminals because they know they will end up in prison. Common sense will also lead to lower crime rates, which means there will be enough resources.

For now, we have to fix the problem that has been created by eight years of this government.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of the motion. We spoke out against rising auto theft at the port of Montreal before the Conservatives.

We think they are taking liberties with the logic underpinning today's motion. They are taking shortcuts that distort reality. For example, claiming that Bill C‑5 is responsible for the increase in auto theft since 2015 is clearly false, because the bill came into force at the end of 2022, and 2022 was a record year for auto theft.

They say they do not agree with the six-month minimum sentence for a third offence, but they are the ones who brought it in with section 333.1, which was added to Bill S‑9 in 2010 under the Conservative government.

We do agree that the Port of Montreal and the Canada Border Services Agency do not have the resources to really check containers and do their job.

I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, the Bloc Québécois members initially voted in favour of Bill C-5, but then realized that it was creating problems. They changed their minds and supported my bill, Bill C-325, and I thank them once again.

As far as resources are concerned, the Leader of the Opposition made our case in Montreal this morning. I was with him. We went to the port of Montreal to make a clear, costed announcement that really showed how we could invest properly in equipping the ports and the Canada Border Services Agency. One part of the announcement was about purchasing equipment to scan containers, while at the same time, saving money by eliminating wasteful spending on consultants and things like ArriveCAN. Basically, all these kinds of expenses are completely useless.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems, upon observation of the Conservative Party these days, that it is guided in its policy by two principles: one, it has to rhyme, which is why we see the words “axe” and “tax” and “bail” and “jail”, and, two, it has to fit on a bumper sticker. This is a fundamentally unserious way of dealing with a very serious issue, and I will give a clear example. My colleague asked a question of the Leader of the Opposition and instead of answering her directly, he switched tactics and attacked her because this is an unserious party.

New Democrats put forward a very reasonable amendment to this motion and I wonder why the Conservatives do not think we should have a requirement that manufacturers improve the security on the vehicles they manufacture and why we should not have measures in place to crack down on organized crime and money laundering that is key to auto theft. Why will the Conservatives not agree to that very reasonable amendment to their motion?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, quite honestly, I do not know what my colleague is talking about. I am not familiar with the amendment. I do not want to give him an empty answer or say something stupid. If I had an answer, I would give it to him, but I do not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Kenora, Indigenous Affairs.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I will take this opportunity to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

We are discussing an important matter today. It is interesting the Conservatives have decided to bring up in this way, through an opposition motion, rather than putting serious and constructive measures on the table whether at committee or in other places. Be that as it may, we are discussing it.

I agree with the fact that car theft is an issue in this country. It needs to be taken very seriously, and we are acting in that vein. I will mention a little later the national summit that is upcoming. This is a very good way and a example of co-operation that meets the moment in the regard.

What we also see is a need for us to listen to Canadians and understand where they are coming from on this issue. There is a natural connection, a very logical understanding, that says government has a fundamental responsibility to be there for people and to protect them against many things, and that includes securing their property. When theft happens, there is a violation of that trust.

Anytime that takes place in our communities, and I have talked to constituents who have unfortunately experienced this, governments have to answer. It is not only the federal government that has to answer but all levels of government have to come together. I hope to see more of that in the coming days, months and beyond as we talk more about this issue.

We rely at the federal level on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It works to counter organized crimes. It works with international and domestic partners in this, of course. If it is the police of jurisdiction where car theft takes place, and we know the RCMP does have this role through different parts of the country, it is the police force on the ground, investigating those thefts. Fundamentally, it plays, and this is something not terribly understood by the wider public, a key role in information sharing, gathering that vital data with respect to auto theft and sharing it with local police so investigations can take place and that outcomes to theft can benefit the victim of crime.

We have the CBSA that works at our border to do many things. In respect to auto theft, it intercepts shipments that may contain stolen cars. That is fundamental work. I thank the RCMP, the CBSA and their public servants for carrying it out.

Where I find difficulty, and I alluded to this in the opening remarks I made but will repeat it here, is in the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. They are well within their right to raise an opposition motion of this kind, but they do so with a record. When they were in government, they made enormous cuts the member for Saint John—Rothesay brought up just now, that devastated the CBSA, cuts we are still feeling the effects of. A thousand public servants were cut from the CBSA.

What the Conservatives have made clear is they would introduce further cuts. In fact, if elected again they made clear they want to cut another 400 jobs. They want to go back to the failed promise of theirs in the lead-up to the 2015 election that would have seen 400 public servants leave the CBSA. I am not sure how that makes the country more safe. Everybody has a role to play here. Every level of government has a role to play. At the federal level we do rely on the CBSA, and when cuts take place obviously the country is less safe. That is why it was so important for the federal government to restore those jobs that were lost.

Conservatives want to introduce other cuts as well. Members will indulge me here for a moment, but it is not out of place for me to say that in keeping with their approach to rushing to a balanced budget, it is important to ask them what else they would cut. They want to cut the CBSA. They want to cut funding to the RCMP, no doubt. There are pensions, employment insurance and funding for dental care and child care. All of this comes together and is part of an unfortunate pattern that puts austerity at the very heart of the Conservative agenda.

We have to be non-partisan on these issues. I certainly believe that and will continue to believe that, but I think I can be forgiven for saying in this debate there is a place for us to look at the record of the Conservative Party members when they were in government to understand the sincerity of their current approach and the sincerity they have, or do not have, frankly, when dealing with this very important issue, an issue every member of Parliament is affected by because their constituents are affected by it. I will not stand here and say I have not heard about this issue in my community. Of course I have, and that is why the government's approach to convene an effort at co-operation, and the summit is an example of that, is quite important.

I mentioned the RCMP already, but I think I will repeat it, because along with discussions of auto theft comes, at the federal level, certainly a natural focus on the CBSA, but also the RCMP. However, the Conservatives cut funding for the RCMP and they never like to own up to that. I think it is very important to understand that the party across the way, the party that has presented this opposition motion, the party that so often wraps itself in the flag and a discourse of law and order, in fact acted counter to law and order, and therefore counter to the needs, interests and concerns of Canadians.

When this Liberal government came into office in 2015, it supported the CBSA and restored those jobs that were lost, as I said, and supported the work of the RCMP, and will continue to do so. The police play a vital role in our communities where the RCMP is the police of jurisdiction. Obviously, that has even more impact with respect to what we can say at the federal level about the importance of the organization. However, it is also important to recognize, as I said before, the need to summon together different parties: the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments, the RCMP, the CBSA and the private sector, of course, which is also fundamental, because the private sector does have a role to play in all of this.

I heard my colleague across the way in the NDP raise a good question about the obligations that could exist on the part of the auto companies to help in all of this. I think it is a question that is quite relevant. I did not hear my colleague opposite in the Conservative Party actually answer the question, but it does merit further consideration: What further role can the private sector play in this? It is not just about government responding. In fact, if we are going to see a meaningful and effective outcome in all of this, the private sector will have to be front and centre not only in discussions but certainly in the action to follow.

In closing, I very much hope that we do see action come out of what is a pan-Canadian approach. This is the summit that will be taking place in just a few days. I know that there is great interest in this right across the country. I saw the federal government combined with the provincial government in Ontario move ahead with the summit, or to certainly announce it, and what do we see? We see a serious discussion materializing at the federal, provincial and municipal levels following this development, and I will be watching as will other MPs.

We have more work to do, but I look forward to this evolving and taking part wherever I can to help the government and therefore Canadians and my constituents in responding to this critical issue at this time.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, and I commend him for the fact that he did not read a speech that may or not have been prepared by someone else.

After eight years of this Liberal government, we have crime that is essentially, for all intents and purposes, out of control. What we have seen from this government is a lack of leadership, and here is why. We are always, as a country, responding to problems, and here we have another time that this government is responding. However, there has been zero proactivity when it comes to crime or when it comes to people on bail. We wait until bad things happen and then we react. On auto theft, we wait until bad things happen and then we react. Here we are again with a summit after auto theft is up over 34%. Is this just not emblematic of a government that is tired after eight years and has lost the plot?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I will say to my hon. colleague that I did prepare the speech myself. I am not sure if his notes came from the opposition leader's office, but I did see that he spoke off the cuff and therefore I am going to make the assumption, I will be charitable, that he came up with the question, and as a former prosecutor, I certainly hope that he did.

In fact, to go back to that, the member was a prosecutor and certainly would have seen the effects of the Conservative Party's cuts with respect to the CBSA and the RCMP, and also the many social cuts that it made, such as cuts to various programs that youth relied on. I think that is relevant in the discussion too.

I will repeat that it is a party that wraps itself in the flag, wraps itself in a discourse of law and order, but does not present any serious solution to what is admittedly a serious issue, a serious problem in this country, and is not to be taken seriously at all.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, we have a situation where one party is pointing fingers at the other, and then that party just points fingers back. One says it has a better solution, and the other says the opposite. Eventually, everyone points fingers at our party.

That said, prevention is always a good thing. Have mistakes been made in the past? Yes, mistakes may have been made in the past when prevention measures were eliminated. We know that these prevention measures were eliminated. We know that these are good measures, including adding more CBSA officers. That is a good preventive measure.

Why not implement that right away, without waiting for the results of another meeting of discussions and consultations? We are aware of possible solutions. We can move forward. Why not go ahead and follow some of the same approaches that have worked in the past?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, our colleague is wondering why we need to have a meeting now and why the government is taking this approach. It is interesting to hear a Bloc member say that, because the Bloc is always talking in the House about the importance of co-operation between the federal, provincial—Quebec in particular—and municipal governments throughout Canada. In this case, however, she is saying that we need to take immediate action.

It does not make sense. I think that we have to engage all levels that are involved in the issue in order to come to a solution.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on an issue that was brought up by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He was talking about being proactive versus reactive.

My issue is that most of this motion deals with the Criminal Code, which is fundamentally a very reactive piece of legislation, in that it is brought to bear after the fact. I have a greater interest in being more proactive in heading off the problem before it becomes too large an issue.

We know that people do not just wake up one day and decide to steal a car. There are a lot of different circumstances and a lot of provisions in the Criminal Code that allow judges to mete out the appropriate sentence based on the individual crime.

What could the government be doing more of, proactively, to prevent the crime from happening in the first place rather than relying solely on a reactive element like the Criminal Code?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, because he always offers constructive ideas and has something important to say every time he speaks.

I know that he has spoken in the past about the importance of making sure that we are investing in youth programs as a preventative measure. I think that has a place in this conversation but I also take very seriously the idea that criminals should be punished for the crimes that they commit. Therefore, I follow with great interest what the summit will produce on that score. The government did move ahead with legislation that did advance that. I want to see more on that.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I only hope that I can speak half as well as the other Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. That is my goal. It is aspirational. It is a very high bar, but I will do my best.

We all know auto theft is impacting more and more Canadians. In doing so, it is undermining public confidence and feelings of safety. A serious conversation is best needed to address this issue, as we owe it to our constituents to ensure we propose a meaningful impact for solutions in this area.

That is why I was disappointed yesterday to see unserious proposals coming from the Leader of the Opposition. His alleged reforms would be to do things that are already being done and would have no practical effect. We know that criminal law is not always the best solution here. We are focused on improving enforcement and working with manufacturers to increase security for vehicles. This Thursday, we are bringing together federal, provincial and municipal governments, law enforcement and industry to discuss how we can combat auto theft.

The Conservatives, and I think the Bloc just momentarily, are saying these are empty gestures, but it is an understanding of the complexity of this issue. The Conservatives think that, magically, we will change the Criminal Code, and this will disappear. They have even said they would repeal some of the provisions we have brought forward, which I believe have been to actually increase sentencing for auto theft, which again shows how unserious and slogan-based the Conservative Party is.

However, we are bringing together all people at the table. The face of auto theft varies from place to place in Canada, and what we know about auto theft is different from what it may have been 30 or even 10 years ago. According to available data, Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are the jurisdictions most impacted by auto theft, but the circumstances facing these jurisdictions differ. For instance, Alberta vehicles are being stolen for parts or resale domestically after having their vehicle identification numbers, or VINs, replaced. In Ontario and Quebec, we know that certain cars are targeted for theft so that they can be shipped to overseas markets in Africa or the Middle East. This activity is mining the pockets of transnational organized crime.

Make no mistake; transnational organized crime activity is big business. I was astounded to read about the scale. Even in data reported by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime from 2009, it was estimated that $870 billion, annually, was being generated by transnational organized crime. We can all imagine that number is much larger today. That number is staggering and far exceeds the GDP of most countries around the world.

We need to think about what that means. Money in the hands of organized crime, including money generated by auto theft, can be used to facilitate other criminal activity, like drug trafficking, people trafficking and migrant smuggling. Therefore, in the fall economic statement we proposed a number of measures to combat money laundering in Canada. Those measures would target organized crime in Canada and, in turn, would have an effect in combatting auto theft.

However, the Conservatives are opposing legislation, slowing it down at every turn. Even in the committee I sit on, the committee on public safety, the Conservatives are filibustering legislation to deal with cybercrime and cyber-activity to prevent us from getting to a study on auto theft. They talk a good game. Again, it is slogans. They get angry and pound the table, but when it comes to actually doing something and listening to experts, Conservatives are nowhere to be found. They are even filibustering legislation that I think they support, and the odd time we get to hear from a witness, cyber-activity is funding these same types of criminals.

Again, when it comes down to taking action on crime and protecting Canadians, it is crickets from the Conservative caucus. Maybe “crickets” is not the proper word, since there are lengthy filibusters, but I think the analogy still holds.

It is truly unfortunate to see all this legislation being slowed down. It is unfortunate to see the Conservatives voting against funding the police. We know, when they were in power, that they cut the RCMP, and they cut 1,000 officers from CBSA, and we are struggling to get back at it. It takes years. It takes time. The Leader of the Opposition the other day boasted about more cuts coming and that they can do more with less. I do not think that is what Canadians want to hear, that the Conservative Party is going to, once again, like it historically has done, cut police.

That is not what Canadians want to hear when there is a situation that needs to be addressed, but that is what the Conservatives are offering. They will change the Criminal Code in the hopes that it will do something, and cut frontline policing. They have voted against it at every turn. They are showing us what they are going to do by voting against it.

It is also interesting at the public safety committee to hear Conservative members beat the drum on American-style criminal law. That is a great thing for them to bring forward, but when I ask, time after time, if they could point me to a place that has enacted those types of laws in the United States that have made those communities safer. It is great for them to tell their constituents that they are going to bring these things in, but we can see the laboratory down south. We can look across the border and see that it has not worked. Again, it is empty rhetoric that is not going to do anything.

Our government is committed to the work of public safety. As I mentioned, this Thursday, ministers responsible from across Canada, will join federal counterparts and leaders of law enforcement to consider the impacts of auto theft here in Canada and to identify the ways to work together. The federal government is showing leadership in this space by convening this urgent meeting. As the Minister of Public Safety said, “Collaboration is the key to identifying solutions.”

The Bloc and the Conservatives can disagree and say that we should take action without listening to the experts and without understanding the complexity of crime. There is a place for the federal government. It needs to be there. However, there needs to be a place for the provinces, which oversee policing, and it is the same for municipalities; they need to work together. We are there.

We made a big announcement with the premier of the Province of Ontario, in terms of money to help curb guns and gangs and to go after organized crime. Again, the federal government is taking action. What does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It votes against that money, and that is truly shocking.

I have said before that the sole component of the Conservative Party environmental plan is recycling slogans. It really is in full gear when Conservatives talk about criminal justice, but there is nothing to back it up. It is just empty words. When it comes time to answer questions, they are nowhere to be found. They are a completely unserious party on this particular issue.

I would like to note that we already have an extremely robust criminal law framework to address auto theft. This legal framework includes specific offences that target auto theft and related activity. It includes things like tampering with vehicle identification numbers, possessing items used to break into a vehicle or using computer systems to intercept car fob signals in order to steal a vehicle. In fact, the Liberal government, in 2019, raised the maximum penalty on summary conviction for theft of motor vehicles to two years. The previous government had it at 18 months, I believe.

Would members like to know what legislation the government did this with? It was Bill C-75, the very legislation the Conservative Party leader is proposing to repeal. I am surprised he wants to lower penalties for those who steal motor vehicles. Again, it is empty slogans. His plans are unserious. The Conservative Party is unserious when it comes to public safety.

The Criminal Code prohibits possession of stolen cars for the purpose illegally exporting them. Sentencing courts have the ability to impose significant penalties in cases where organized crime is involved. Sentencing courts must impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offences and the responsibility of the offender. Sentencing courts cannot impose conditional sentences for auto theft when prosecuted on indictment or committed for organized crime. Again, this flies in the face of the empty promises from the Leader of the Opposition. Serious criminals cannot and should not get house arrest. This is what the law says.

Again, we hear some heckling that it is incorrect, but that is the fact. That is in the legislation that they, with their slogans, say they are going to repeal to actually make it easier for criminals to get away with it. Conservatives want to lower sentences, and they are laughing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is laughing while he is heckling. He thinks this is a funny joke, which is what he just said. It is truly a disappointing and unserious party, the Conservative Party of Canada.

We are going to get action done. We are taking action on this file.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of members from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I will say this much. Sometimes, people say really funny things, and my colleague just said something very funny. Perhaps it was because the speech was just not that compelling.

At the end of the day, the member has spoken all about what they have done about auto theft. I will remind him that Bill C-75 did not just raise the sentence, as though he is saying that we are targeting auto theft. It was actually two years less a day that it raised it on summary conviction. It raised every summary conviction to two years less a day. The Liberal government can say that it is targeting this time after time.

There is an epidemic here, and I want to know this: Will the member admit, fundamentally, what police and citizens across the country are telling us, that there is a problem?