Debates of Feb. 6th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

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

He is heckling and trying to shout me down, Madam Speaker.

I debated the ideas and questioned the stances he took with respect to policy. I did not question his education in terms of his qualifications as a lawyer or a prosecutor. I personally abide by the rules of professional conduct in the province of Ontario, and I am sure it is very similar in B.C., to not attack other lawyers on the basis of their qualifications. I hope that he will abide by the same thing.

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

It is well noted. I remind the hon. member that although he did say “in jest”, it is not quite the appropriate comment to make.

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

Madam Speaker, if only people in this place would look in the mirror when they make comments like that. It is unfortunate.

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

Did the hon. member understand what I said?

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

Madam Speaker, I did understand and, with respect, I will move on, because I have fairly strong feelings on this.

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

I asked the hon. member to first realize that to question someone else's education is not something we do. The member did say that it was in jest, but it is still on the record. I would advise the hon. member to just retract what he said.

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

Madam Speaker, so be it.

I look at section 333.1, and I see here a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in jail after three convictions, so again the Liberals will do cartwheels over this and claim they have a mandatory minimum, that Conservatives do not realize they have a mandatory minimum and that Conservatives love mandatory minimums. It is a minimum of six months in jail when proceeded by indictment. With all due respect to members, like the member for St. Catharines, I ask how often that will be invoked. How often does somebody obtain the maximum sentence when anybody proceeds by summary or by indictment?

Let us reflect on what the hon. minister said yesterday, “First, mandatory minimums for auto theft for repeat offences already exist in the Criminal Code, so he is not changing something that already exists. Second, an aggravating factor for an auto theft that occurs with organized crime is already on the books too, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code”.

I can tell members that I have never once, in working in the justice system for years, actually seen that provision employed. There is a reason organized crime is so successful. It is because it is organized. People do not wake up and say, “I was caught for auto theft. You are right. There was a gang helping me out. Forget safety of my family. Forget my safety. Forget safety of my friends. An organized crime gang was taking these vehicles, shipping them across the Atlantic, changing the VINs, and I am prepared to admit that.”

The reason organized crime is successful is because those things do not happen. The hon. minister or the member for St. Catharines might do cartwheels about this and say this is wonderful and that they are cracking down on organized crime. That fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. How easy is it to prove the presence of organized crime beyond a reasonable doubt? I would love to note that section and, by that, research it to see how many times it has been successful when it comes to auto theft. Anecdotally, I have never seen it.

Here is another quote:

...the Leader of the Opposition purports to be tough on crime. Who do I listen to about crime measures? Police officers. What do they tell me? They tell me that this is not an individual crime; this is backed by people who are organized criminals. How do we deal with that? We get tough on money laundering.

The government has had eight years, and in those eight years Canada has become a money-laundering haven. Again, they are going to convene. They are going to figure this out. They are going to have more meetings. The time for meetings has come and gone, and with respect to the hon. minister, somebody whom I do respect and whom I have had constructive discussions with, he must be talking to different police officers. The police officers I am talking to are not happy about the current state of affairs when it comes to their ability to have people detained, to have serious people with serious criminality processed for breaches and to have the law reflect meaningful consequences.

We are at a point now where the law, despite this six-month mandatory minimum, really needs to reflect a serious consequence, and that is why I am proud to support an opposition motion to make it a three-year mandatory minimum—

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

For questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, just a few days ago this was not even an issue for the leader of the Conservative Party. It is only because there is a summit that now he has been made aware of the issue, and now he wants to advocate. In his last words, the member is saying that what he wants to do is make a change. If someone gets caught three times stealing a vehicle, then they are going to have go to prison for six months, and they want to extend that to three years. It was Stephen Harper who actually put in the six months. That is hard to believe. The hypocrisy just kind of oozes out of the cup.

Members opposite have been saying they want to see more money invested. They cut hundreds of millions of dollars. They say they want more staff. They cut over a thousand staff. Does the member not recognize the reality that the Conservatives were a disaster and did not contribute then, nor today, to the actual debate of the issue?

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

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk hypocrisy, let us talk about today versus 2014. People were not afraid as they are today to walk down the street. People were not afraid that their vehicle would not be there to the same degree in 2014 as they are today. People were not worried that their domestic abuser or the person who hit them, the person who sold drugs, was going to be released on bail and then be back a mere half an hour or two hours later. They were not afraid.

So, the member can pontificate all he wants about how wonderful things are. We have never had it so good under these Liberals, he will tell us. I invite the member to Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo officially right here, right now. Let us take a walk down the streets and talk to people about the points he just made.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, thefts did increase in 2023. However, contrary to what the Conservatives may say, Bill C‑5 did not abolish minimum sentences for car theft; not at all. The Conservatives can claim all they want that it is not enough, but there is a major problem with their statement. It was the Conservatives who added section 333.1 with Bill S‑9 in 2010. The accusations and attacks need to stop. We need to act quickly.

What does my colleague think? We have to deal with this car theft situation. Sooner or later, it could be mine or his that gets stolen. We need to act quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, mandatory minimums do change with time. I will remind the House that it was not long ago that Internet luring, a defence I believe should have life imprisonment, was at five years. The hon. member for Abbotsford had to petition to get it to 10 years, and then under the Harper government it went to 14 years. I believe there was no mandatory minimum before the Harper government imposed it.

However, times change. Right now, auto theft, as the hon. member mentioned, is up substantially. She asked whether we have to address this quickly. We do have to address this quickly, because it is not working. We want to look at this issue as a whole. People say that it was like this eight years ago, but car theft was not like this eight years ago, and changing times require changing measures, and they require changing minimums.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives are always focused on tough-on-crime approaches and they are calling it common sense, but I think it is nonsense, and I will tell members why.

We know that recidivism rates for people who are incarcerated are higher than 80%. It costs over $225,000 a year to incarcerate one woman in a federal penitentiary. It costs well over $125,000 to incarcerate one male. I am wondering why the Conservatives want to waste all this money on solutions that we know do not work instead of investing those multimillions to billions of dollars into dealing with the root causes of crime.

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing my colleague's comments, and I would agree with her that we do have to address the causes of crime. However, where I would part company is when she said that Conservatives were tough on crime. I do not know if that is the characterization I would use, but rather we are tough on certain crimes.

Something our leader has emphasized is the idea of recovery. What does recovery do? It addresses substance abuse, which is often at the root cause of crime. So, the two are not mutually exclusive. I would suggest that we can address serious crime and also address recovery, because when we address serious crime and that which it is impacting—

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

We must resume debate.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick.

After eight years of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime policies, we see crime, chaos, drugs and disorder rampaging through our streets. In our major cities, the spike in car theft since 2015 is extreme, increasing by 300% in Toronto. The Liberal government's dangerous catch-and-release policies have unleashed crime and chaos in our communities. The Prime Minister's reckless Bill C-5 allows for house arrest of these criminals, even those with long rap sheets. This means that they just walk out onto the streets and continue committing more crimes.

Increasing crime has been very troubling in the riding of King—Vaughan. I have to acknowledge Joe from @notonjoeswatch, a large social media page based in the city of Vaughan. He produces a page informing constituents of where the crimes are proceeding.

Over the past year, in Vaughan, which I represent, break and enters have increased by 45%, vehicle thefts by 30%, assaults by 13.8%, sexual violations by 11% and robberies by 10%. These are scary statistics, which are causing many in my riding and across the country to live in fear. I have heard many scary stories from my riding and around Canada. People are getting their doors kicked in, their houses robbed and their cars stolen. Crime is up and people are scared.

Recently I toured a neighbourhood in Kleinburg. They had to hire a security service company to protect their homes and cars, to the cost of $5,000 per household, which totals in excess of $200,000 a year, not included in their property taxes. How ridiculous is that? We need to ensure that we can protect our citizens based on the security of what we now feel is weak.

The Leader of the Opposition, who, by the way, for those who are not aware, will be our next prime minister, will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

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

Order. It being 5:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

[Chair read text of motion to the House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

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

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

Message from the Senate

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

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

This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.