Debates of April 17th, 2024

Pandemic Day Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 64th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.

I ask that the House give its consent so that I may move concurrence in the 64th report now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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)

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would have unanimous consent for a motion to have a brief period for the presentation of petitions before going to Private Members' Business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

Protection Against Extortion Act

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

moved that Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, crime is wreaking havoc in our neighbourhoods and communities right across this country. We see extraordinary crime statistics in almost every single category. We continue hearing about incidents that are committed by the same repeat offenders. They get arrested, get released and commit more crimes, and the cycle repeats.

This is a result of the last nine years of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. After nine years under the Prime Minister, our nation faces a full-blown crisis that demands urgent action. Each day, Canadians wake up to the news of more gun violence, gang shootings, extortion, auto thefts, robberies and arson. That was not the case nine years ago.

What happened nine years ago? Canadians got a new Prime Minister, a Prime Minister whose soft-on-crime policies unleashed chaos in our once peaceful towns and suburbs, a Prime Minister who made Canada a safe haven for organized crime and gangs, a Prime Minister who makes life easier for criminals, not Canadians, with his broken catch-and-release bail system.

According to the Liberal government's own news release, auto theft in Toronto has skyrocketed by an alarming 300% since 2015. In just nine years, there has been a terrifying increase in extortion across the country. In fact, the rate of extortion was five times higher in 2022 than a decade prior. In 2022, the rate of police-reported extortion increased for the third consecutive year. Extortion has skyrocketed in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, where it has risen 263%, 284% and 386%, respectively, since 2015. These numbers are extremely alarming. In the GTA alone, extortion has increased by 155% since 2015 and, in Vancouver, by 228%.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that, behind every number and every statistic, there is a real family, a business owner who fears for their safety and their family's well-being. Canadian's lives and their livelihoods are at stake. There are examples of terrified families right across the country. I met one such family in the GTA, who ran a very successful business. They worked hard to get where they are today, but earlier this year they started receiving extortion threats. Soon after that, their house was shot at. The family had to stay separately in different hotels. They wore bullet-proof vests to go outside, and they had to purchase a bullet-proof vehicle as part of a long list of security measures. That was all because they ran a successful business.

I also want to tell colleagues about Mr. Buta Singh Gill. He moved to Edmonton from Punjab, where he was a trained lawyer. Like many new Canadians, he worked in a meat processing plant when he got to Edmonton, and then he went on to drive a bus for the Edmonton transit system. Then he followed up on his dream to become an entrepreneur. He started building homes, first with single-family homes and then multi-family homes. Eventually, he started building apartments for Canadians to live in. He also gave back to the community. In fact, he and his family were heavily involved in revitalizing one of the gurdwaras in Edmonton.

His family also received extortion threats. His family home was shot at. Houses that he had under construction were burned down. He and his family also had to take extraordinary security measures, which would obviously be extremely expensive for any family or business to undertake, but Buta would not let thugs slow him down.

Last week, Mr. Buta Singh Gill, a prominent Edmonton businessman, a family man who had just welcomed his first grandkids, twins, and a community leader, was murdered in broad daylight at one of his construction sites. It seems the murder had nothing to do with the extortion letters. Regardless, he is another tragic victim of violent crime in our country.

I went to his home and met with his family. His sister-in-law and brother said they cannot believe that this is happening in Canada and that they moved to Canada for a better life for their family, a safer life for their family. They are right that this is not the Canada they moved to. Things have been very different in the last nine years.

Mayors in British Columbia and Ontario have written to the Prime Minister's top government officials asking them to take concrete action to combat extortion in their once-peaceful communities. Despite this, we continue to see the government's complete inaction.

Extortion is a federal problem. The Criminal Code that allows these criminals to openly operate freely is federal. The RCMP, which is responsible for catching these criminals, is also federal, yet our neighbourhoods are grappling with the reality of the Prime Minister's indifference to their suffering. Law enforcement continues to catch and release the same individuals, who terrorize our communities and continue to commit crimes, because of soft-on-crime Liberal policies.

Of course, it is not just extortion. Auto theft continues to rise across Canada. Statistics Canada paints a grim picture, with auto theft up by 190% in Moncton, 122% in the Ottawa-Gatineau area, over 100% in Montreal and 62% in Winnipeg. These staggering statistics underscore the urgent need for action to address this growing threat to our communities.

In 2022, the insurance industry spent over $1 billion on car theft. Where does that extra $1 billion come from? It comes from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. They pay the cost of auto theft crime. With insurance premiums skyrocketing, some Canadian drivers are facing a staggering 25% increase in premiums this year alone. Again, the responsibility to combat auto theft lies squarely with the federal government. In fact, all primary prevention tools, such as the Criminal Code, the RCMP, the CBSA and our port systems, are at the Prime Minister's disposal.

Liberal catch-and-release, soft-on-crime policies, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, have allowed crime to thrive in our country. Liberal Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and those who commit acts of violence. It allows criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences at home, in the same communities they have terrorized.

According to a recent report published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, violent crime is only getting worse and Canada's violent crime severity index is at its highest level since 2007. This means that the overall severity of crime has risen significantly in Canada.

To put things in perspective, under the previous Conservative government, the violent crime severity index decreased by almost 25%. Under the Liberal government, it has increased by 30%. According to Statistics Canada, the rate of firearms-related violent crime in 2022 was at the highest level ever recorded. This is a 9% increase from 2021 alone. Because of Liberal catch-and-release policies, criminals who get caught are able to walk away and are back on our streets terrorizing our neighbourhoods, sometimes within hours. Just talk to local police officers and they will say that. In addition, an increasing number of criminal cases are being stayed or withdrawn thanks to the Liberal justice minister, who has simply failed to appoint enough judges.

What does the government have to say to the victims of these crimes or to our hard-working police officers, who are sick and tired of catching the same criminals over and over again? Not surprisingly, Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. After eight years of Liberal catch-and-release policies letting crime and chaos run rampant on our streets, only 46% of Canadians still have confidence in our justice system.

For Conservatives, combatting crime is a top priority. What we want to tell Canadians today is that they do not have to live like this. Conservatives have a common-sense plan to protect our businesses and neighbourhoods, with common-sense legislation that would prioritize the safety of Canadians.

My private member's bill, the protection against extortion act, Bill C-381, is a common-sense bill that addresses extortion and those who terrorize our communities with demands for protection. First and foremost, this bill would undo the serious damage caused by the government's reckless crime policies, such as Bill C-5. Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. On top of this, the government also brought in catch-and-release bail policies in Bill C-75, which make it easier for extortionists to get back onto our streets.

Bill C-381 would establish a mandatory prison sentence of three years for a criminal conviction of extortion. In addition, we would bring in a mandatory five-year prison sentence for any criminal convicted of extortion who is acting on behalf of a gang or organized crime. This mean that not only would the criminals who carry out these crimes go to prison, but also that prosecutors and police would have another tool to go after the ringleaders of these organized crimes.

We would restore mandatory four-year prison sentences for the offence of extortion with a firearm. We would make arson an aggravating factor. Finally, we would reverse the damage done by Bill C-75 and restore jail, not bail, for repeat offenders. Conservative Bill C-381 would ensure that extortion crime means mandatory jail time. It would go after the criminals, their gang leaders and anyone who participates in threatening our community members with arson or violence.

With Bill C-381, common-sense Conservatives would send a clear message to criminals and their organized criminal bosses that, if they do the crime, they will do the time. My colleagues and I will not tolerate the exploitation of our citizens for financial gain, and we will not allow organized crime rings to terrorize our communities.

Canadians deserve safe streets and secure communities. They deserve a government that will listen to them and take their safety concerns seriously. It is our duty to deliver on this fundamental promise. Common-sense Conservatives would fix the damage and the chaos that the government's nine years in power has created. We would ensure that the extortionists who scare and intimidate our neighbours will stay longer in jail. We would go after the leaders of these organized crime rings to make sure they get shut down once and for all.

Extortion has no place in Canada. Conservatives would bring home safe streets for all Canadians. Let us bring it home.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods for bringing this bill forward.

When it comes to extortion, B.C. is one of the provinces he mentioned. In fact, all orders of government, irrespective of their political stripe, and all police forces in Canada have to come together to find a smart and tough solution to deal with these situations.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree that we, as one party irrespective of political stripe, all orders of government and all police forces have to come together to find a smart and tough solution to deal with this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to say that we all need to come together to find a solution, but the fact is that the member is part of the government that brought in Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which make it easier for violent criminals to get back out onto the streets and terrorize the same communities they come from. If we talked to police officers right across the country, they would tell us they are arresting criminals in the morning who are being released later that day.

The member and the government had the power to keep criminals in jail. They chose their ideological ways and soft-on-crime policies and are allowing these criminals back onto the streets. Only Conservatives would put criminals behind bars with jail, not bail.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have Conservatives bringing forward a bill that calls for imposing mandatory minimum penalties. I am wondering what evidence they have, in describing this as a tool, that mandatory minimums actually works as a deterrent because, as a former criminal justice instructor, I can cite stacks of information that show that mandatory minimums have absolutely no deterrent effect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, since the government has been in power, over the last nine years, and the NDP member and the NDP-Liberal government have brought in these soft-on-crime policies, crime has gone up. Every statistic across the country on violent crime has gone up.

We have made a commitment to Canadians that we would put these criminals behind bars. A repeat, violent offender who is behind bars cannot commit crimes again because they are in jail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and commend my colleague, a deputy leader of the Conservative Party, for his leadership on prioritizing victims, not offenders, but victims.

I am wondering if the member can share how the scales need to be tipped back to ensure that it is victims and their rights that are protected at a time when we see crime running rampant on the streets of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we have to take the side of victims right across the country.

I continue to meet with so many victims who are just lost for words. What can they do to protect their families? Many of them are new Canadians who came to this country expecting a better future, and they feel that they cannot do anything. Many are having their vehicles stolen, and there is nothing they can do. There are those who have been involved in violence, and there is nothing they can do. They actually see the same person who committed those crimes back out on the streets.

Canadians feel helpless. Canadians need help. Canadians need a government that will stand up for them and protect them, and Conservatives would do that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act.

As we all know, extortion is increasingly impacting Canadian communities. We recognize and acknowledge that extortion is a very serious crime that can impact multiple facets of a person's life. Bill C-381 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that the sponsor believes will combat extortion by reinstating a mandatory minimum penalty. I will focus my remarks today on the proposed amendments related to the penalty regime and sentencing.

As it currently stands, we have a robust criminal law framework to address the crime of extortion. The offence of extortion is covered under section 346 of the Criminal Code, and it is a straight indictable offence that carries significant penalties. These penalties are intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. If an individual is convicted of extortion, they will be subject to the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. I want to emphasize this: The maximum penalty for extortion is life imprisonment.

Bill C-381 also proposes to direct courts to consider, as an aggravating factor, if that offender, in committing the offence of extortion, also committed arson. We recognize that arson is a serious crime that poses a danger to a community and the public, and there is unquestionable intent to cause damage to property. While there is no doubt that the combination of extortion and arson is damaging and dangerous, I question whether this change would have any meaningful effect.

It seems to me that, if there is evidence that someone committed arson and extortion, then a prosecutor would seek convictions for both. If they do, then the proposed aggravating factor becomes meaningless. Moreover, treating an element of an offence for which an offender was convicted as aggravating at sentencing was found to be an error in principle in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Lacasse in 2015.

Arson can have devastating impacts to individuals and businesses. As with cases of extortion, the seriousness of the offence of arson is reflected in the current criminal framework to address crimes of this nature. Individuals convicted of arson are subject to maximum terms of imprisonment ranging from five years to life, depending on the circumstances.

Along with the offences contained in the Criminal Code, the sentencing regime addresses the seriousness of extortion and arson as it relates to organized crime. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out aggravating factors that a sentencing judge must take into consideration when crafting an appropriate sentence. One of the codified aggravating factors is evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. Given that extortion crimes often imply a level of sophistication that suggest the workings of criminal enterprise, this factor gives sentencing judges the ability to impose penalties that fall on the higher end of the spectrum in cases where organized crime is involved.

A court must also consider the victim's extortion when crafting an appropriate sentence. The sentencing regime sets out that it would be particularly aggravating if an offence has a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, such as their financial situation.

I would also note that Bill C-381 proposes enacting more mandatory minimum penalties. We have had ample evidence over the years that MMPs do not work. I do not want members to take my word for it, either. They can listen to Ben Perrin, legal adviser to former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. He has stated that “[mandatory minimum penalties] are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.”

Mr. Perrin goes on to say, “If history is any judge, [the Leader of the Opposition's mandatory minimum penalties] may not be worth the paper they're printed on. What's worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the existential challenges facing the criminal justice system.” Mr. Perrin also said that the Leader of the Opposition's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.”

Again, these are not my words. Those are the words of the former legal adviser to Stephen Harper. This is the man who advised Stephen Harper on justice policy, who has now seen the problems caused by reckless Conservative Party criminal justice policy.

Our government believes in evidence-based policy, and we know this is simply not that. The Leader of the Opposition likes to throw around such phrases as “stop the crime”, but he has no real plan to do that. As we often see from him, it is just a series of slogans.

On this side, we actually believe in policies that will reduce crime. We also know that mandatory minimum penalties have a disproportionate effect on Black and indigenous people in the justice system.

Data from Correctional Service of Canada shows that the disproportionate impact of MMPs on indigenous peoples and Black Canadians has also been reported in admissions to federal correctional institutions. Specifically, of all admissions to federal custody between 2007-08 and 2016-17, 39% of Black offenders and 20% of indigenous offenders were admitted for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. Here, the proportion for indigenous offenders increased from 14% in the same year, 2007-08, to 26% in 2016-17.

The proposal brought forward by the hon. member is unlikely to result in higher sentences being imposed, given the serious penalties already associated with arson and extortion and the corresponding aggravating factors I referenced earlier.

Our existing legal framework provides judges with the tools and discretion needed to tailor sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence by the offender. While there is no doubt that extortion is a serious crime, our current legal framework is such that extortion is being addressed in a way that reflects its severity and harmful effects.

We need to focus on serious policies rather than empty slogans and policies we know will not work. I encourage all hon. members to work together on policy that will combat crime rather than failed policies and slogans.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I have sat in the House since 2015, and there is a recurring debate between the Liberal and NDP vision of opposing mandatory minimum sentences and the Conservative vision of applying this policy to as many offences as possible. I think we need to reflect on the issue, which is no small matter, but we also need to find ways to be effective, to adopt legal rules, legislation and regulations that are in line with the values of the society in which we live.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed, in principle, to systematically adding minimum sentences to the Criminal Code. Prison time is often essential, and our courts do not hesitate to use it to punish numerous offences. However, there are other penalties, other solutions besides prison, that exist and that deserve to be considered.

It is certainly not a question of being more tolerant when an offence is committed. On the contrary, we believe that the values we hold must be reflected in the laws we adopt and that these laws must be enforced and complied with by all. When our rules are broken, a fair and consistent consequence must follow. However, we must never forget to be imaginative when we think about how our justice system should be structured. Might I suggest that we be daring? We are here to legislate.

The Bloc Québécois believes that our justice system must help build a functional society that effectively brings together a safe, equitable and fair system for everyone. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place laws and regulations that ensure that all people can walk the streets freely and safely.

What a great success it will be if we manage to stamp out crime one day. I am too old to believe in unicorns, flying horses and other magical creatures, but I will never stop working to make our society better. That is why we believe that when people break our laws and must be sentenced, we must always strive to rehabilitate them wherever possible. Rehabilitation is not a magic pill; it is an objective.

Our job as members of this legislature is to find ways to punish those who should be punished, prevent them from doing harm and, if possible, get them back on the right track. Last year on January 13, the 13 provincial and territorial premiers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to remind him of his duties in this regard. They called for a reverse onus on bail for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. Obviously, we need to take that into account and be vigilant.

The question remains: How do we take effective action? The Supreme Court of Canada struck down many of the mandatory minimum sentences passed by a previous Parliament. The situation had to be fixed. Many minimum sentences were abolished. However, our Conservative Party colleagues keep demanding at every opportunity that we reinstate these minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. I could let this behaviour bother me, given that, as I said at the outset, the Bloc Québécois is not a big fan of mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, I choose to take it as a call to work, an invitation to examine the issue of how to enforce our laws and impose the most appropriate penalties on offenders.

In committee, I proposed an alternative to minimum sentences, something that would reconcile the neo-liberal or “liberal-democrat” vision, that is, the vision of the Liberal Party and the NDP, with the position at the other extreme, in other words, the position of our colleagues in the Conservative Party.

Why not include a provision that would allow courts to depart from the mandatory minimum sentences when exceptional circumstances allow? We would then have the minimum sentences some people want so badly, but we would also have a safety measure, a safety valve, that would allow a judge hearing a case to determine, in certain circumstances, that the mandatory minimum sentence is inappropriate. By justifying the exceptional circumstances, courts could waive the mandatory minimum sentences. Is this the best solution? Probably not. There could be others. However, it is one solution, and I think it deserves to be considered.

There is another possibility. Why not consider adjusting the sentences to include a transitional period during which the inmate could be released, but required to wear an electronic tracking device? For example, for a one-year sentence, the person could spend a year, a year and a half or two years behind bars. The period could be discussed. Then the inmate could be released, go to work, carry on with their social and family activities, resume a “normal” life, or as normal a life as possible, but under constant surveillance.

How could this individual get away with resuming their criminal activities under that sort of surveillance? What criminal organization would want to use the services of such a compromised individual? According to the statistics, when a member of any criminal organization is sentenced to three, four, five or 10 years of prison, that person is almost automatically taken back as soon as they are released. They are told that they have served their time and can come back to work. For example, they may be asked to go get three Mercedes from Westmount and two Ladas from another neighbourhood.

However, if the individual were wearing an electronic monitoring device when they were released, I am not convinced that the most powerful criminal organizations would want to use that individual's services. That is another option, a second alternative. Once again, is it the best option? Maybe it is or maybe it is not, but it is worth considering.

As I was saying, I am going to consider our Conservative colleagues' invitation to address the issue of minimum sentencing as an invitation and opportunity to think about and work on improving the Criminal Code.

The Bloc Québécois is therefore willing to send Bill C-381 to committee and work on bringing it into line with the values of safety and security, justice and appropriate consequences for wrongdoing, while seeking to create a better society in the short or medium term, in other words, a society made up of law-abiding people and, when necessary, people who have been rehabilitated.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start tonight by stating something that is particularly obvious to most people, which is that “tough on crime” is a slogan and not a policy that contributes to keeping communities safe. Dealing effectively with crime requires a laser focus on the reality before us. Exaggerating crime statistics to promote fear brings us no closer to solutions; in fact, it often leads us to counterproductive measures.

As such, I would ask everyone to beware of those who cite percentages when we are talking about crimes. It is an easy way to distort the situation we are facing, and the most basic example of that is that two is, of course, 100% greater than one. I am not in any way saying we do not have a problem with extortion. We clearly do, but to combat it, we must understand what is actually going on with extortion in this country.

Last month, media reports identified 74 active investigations of extortion in three provinces. What do all these investigations have in common? All the extortion cases targeted South Asian businesses. Whether they were restaurants, laundries, bakeries or convenience stores, they were all owned by members of the South Asian community. All these cases used the same methods: letters, phone calls and social media messages threatening arson, drive-by shootings and even kidnapping if protection money is not paid. All the included messages threatened bullets, rather than future messages, if the police were contacted.

Clearly, there is no coincidence here. This is organized crime at work, targeting the South Asian community.

There were incidents last November in White Rock and Abbotsford of threatening letters that gave a month to pay up. In December, shots were fired into at least one home in White Rock, while there were two shootings at homes in Abbotsford and one case of arson.

In Ontario, Peel Regional Police opened 29 investigations in November and, as in B.C., Peel Regional Police reported several shootings in which multiple shots were fired at homes and businesses. There were 34 identical incidents in Edmonton.

Some arrests have been made, including two in Surrey, seven in Edmonton and five in the Peel region. The RCMP has created a task force, which it calls the RCMP national coordination and support team, to share information and coordinate efforts to combat what is clearly a targeting of the South Asian community by organized crime.

Delivering resources to those local police forces and the RCMP, so they can share information and coordinate their efforts, is key to combatting extortion.

In February, in the midst of these instances in Surrey, the Conservative leader delivered a speech where he laid out the three things proposed in the bill before us: imposing a mandatory minimum of three years for extortion and four years if using a firearm, as well as adding arson as an aggravating circumstance. He called these additional tools for police to use.

Here is the problem with this proposal and the reason the NDP will be voting against Bill C-381: The evidence is clear that mandatory minimums are not effective as a deterrent. As a tool, mandatory minimums do not deter people from committing crime. No criminals sit around at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see what possible penalty they face, before deciding whether to commit a crime. What they do evaluate is how certain they are to be caught and prosecuted, so devoting resources to enforcement and prosecution are the keys to deterring offences such as extortion, which are clearly premeditated and planned.

There is another problem with this, of course, and that is the unintended consequences. The member for Kingston and the Islands clearly identified that mandatory minimums disproportionately impact those most marginalized in society: the poorest in our society, indigenous people and racialized people. However, there is a second unintended consequence that is often missed, and I know about this from my experience as a police board member and from teaching criminal justice.

If we have a mandatory minimum, then the prosecutor cannot really plea bargain.

That is important in extortion, because the people who most often get arrested in extortion investigations are the ones who do the drive-by or throw the firebomb. These are most often young men who have been pressed into service by gangs. If we want to get at the organizers, the people who hired them, in effect, to carry out these crimes, we have to be able to use plea bargaining. However, with a mandatory minimum, where they know they are sure to go to prison, we have no way of getting at the people who actually organize these crimes.

As such, it is an unintended consequence of mandatory minimums that obstructs the investigation and prosecution of crimes such as extortion.

I will not go on at great length here, because we have had to make these arguments many times. It is clear that mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime. It is clear what works, and that is the devotion of resources to enforcement and to prosecution. We have to understand that although the Conservatives like to situate us in some great, huge crime wave that is sweeping the country, extortion is a particularly focused campaign by organized crime to target the South Asian community in this country, and we have to respond appropriately.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today before this House to address a grave concern that has escalated into a crisis under the watch of the NDP-Liberal government. Extortion, a severe crime threatening the safety and security of Canadians, has surged alarmingly, particularly in Alberta. We have seen a staggering 283% increase in reported cases after eight years of the current government. This epidemic of crime has sown fear across our communities, demanding a robust response that the current policies fail to provide.

In recent years, our nation has witnessed a troubling escalation in extortion rates, driven by inadequate responses and lenient policies from the government. Its approach to crime, especially to serious offences like extortion, has been characterized by a disturbing leniency that has allowed criminals to thrive. Notably, the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for extortion-related offences under Liberal Bill C-5 has directly contributed to this increase, emboldening offenders with the knowledge that consequences will be minimal.

The impact in Alberta has been particularly severe. Families and business owners face daily threats, and entire communities live in heightened anxiety. A glaring example of the government's failure to protect its citizens occurred recently in Edmonton, where a criminal network targeted the South Asian community. Home builders and construction business owners were extorted for large ransoms via threats communicated through digital platforms like WhatsApp. When their demands were not met, the criminals resorted to arson, destroying properties and livelihoods. This case is not isolated but is indicative of a broader pattern enabled by the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies.

This surge in extortion is mirrored nationally, with Canada's overall extortion incidents having increased fivefold over the past decade. These numbers are damning evidence of the failure of the NDP-Liberal coalition's approach. Its soft-on-crime stance has not only undermined the effectiveness of our police forces but also eroded the trust between the Canadian public and the justice system. The promise of safety and security, a fundamental responsibility of any government, has been forsaken, leaving Canadians to bear the consequences. The consequences of the government's policies extend beyond the immediate victims of extortion. They ripple across the economy, deter investment and stifle the growth of communities, particularly those most vulnerable to such crimes.

In Alberta, where the extortion rate has skyrocketed, we see a clear correlation between rising crime and a faltering community confidence. This erosion of security is the direct result of policies that prioritize criminal leniency over effective public safety. In the face of rising extortion threats and the palpable failure of the current government, the Conservative deputy leader and hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods has taken decisive action by introducing a common-sense bill, Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. This legislation marks a critical shift towards restoring the rule of law and providing substantial deterrence against the crime of extortion.

Bill C-381 is carefully crafted to address the complexities of extortion crimes, ensuring that penalties are both appropriate and effective. The legislation proposes to re-establish mandatory minimum sentences, which were unwisely removed by the Liberals, weakening our justice system's ability to deter serious criminal activity. Under this new law, anyone found guilty of extortion would face a minimum of three years in prison. This firm stance is essential to communicate that extortion will not be tolerated and the justice system stands ready to impose significant consequences.

The bill specifically addresses the escalated risks involved when firearms are used in extortion. By restoring a mandatory four-year penalty for extortion involving firearms, this bill aims to counteract the increased danger to victims and to send a strong message to criminals about the seriousness of using deadly weapons in the commission of crimes. Additionally, the legislation targets the organized crime networks that often orchestrate these extortion schemes.

Recognizing the sophisticated nature of these criminal enterprises, the bill sets a mandatory five-year sentence for any act of extortion carried out for the benefit of, or in association with, a criminal organization. This provision is particularly crucial as it strikes at the heart of organized crime, aiming to dismantle the groups that profit from extortion activities.

This bill also introduces arson as a recognized aggravating factor in extortion cases. This is a significant addition, reflecting the severe impact that arson has on victims and communities. It is often used as a tool for intimidation or retaliation. Enhancing penalties for extortion cases involving arson acknowledges the profound trauma and the destruction associated with such acts and bolsters the law’s response to them.

The introduction of Bill C-381 comes at a critical time, when the need to fortify our legal framework against extortion has never been more urgent. The recent rise in extortion cases, especially those involving severe tactics like arson and the use of firearms, underscores the need for legislation that can effectively respond to and curb these crimes.

By implementing these targeted measures, this legislation not only aims to deter individuals and groups involved in extortion, but also to restore public confidence in the justice system’s ability to protect them and to ensure their safety.

The differences between Conservative and Liberal approaches to addressing crime are stark. While the current NDP-Liberal coalition has favoured a soft approach that has seen penalties reduced and serious offenders quickly returned to the streets, Conservatives advocate for robust measures that prioritize the safety of all Canadians. Our approach is to enforce laws that deter criminals effectively and that provide real protection to our communities.

As we stand here today, faced with a significant rise in violent crimes and extortion, we must choose action over inaction. The protection against extortion act is not just another piece of legislation; it is a real solution for those who have been living in fear of criminals. This bill would restore necessary and effective penalties for extortion, particularly addressing the use of firearms, the involvement of organized crime and the destructive act of arson. We can no longer stand by as our communities suffer.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-381. It is time to send a clear message that we are committed to the safety and the security of our citizens. By passing this bill, we would demonstrate that we stand for justice and for security, and we stand for the peace of mind that every Canadian deserves.

Let us take decisive action today. Let us pass this bill and ensure that our streets are safe again. It is not just our duty; it is our responsibility to bring home safe streets for every Canadian, restoring trust in the justice system that protects, that deters and that delivers real justice.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this crucial issue. Let us work together to make Canada a place where safety and security are not just ideals, but also realities.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to add a few comments to this discussion tonight, which is a very important discussion. When we talk about community safety, safety for all Canadians, it is critically important that we all participate and that we ensure that we have given it our full attention.

On Bill C-381, I am going to read out what it is, so that anybody who is watching will get a better feeling and understanding.

Bill C-381 would amend the offence of extortion to create a mandatory minimum penalty of four years where a firearm other than a restricted or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence, and a minimum sentencing of three years in any other case of extortion. There is already a mandatory minimum for when a restricted or prohibited firearm is used and the offence is committed in association with organized crime.

This bill, from my hon. colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods, would repeal the requirement that extortion committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization be committed with a firearm, meaning that MMPs of five and seven years would apply to any case involving organized crime. This bill would add an aggravating factor at sentencing when the person convicted of extortion also committed arson.

It is an important bill and one that I am very confident my colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods thought about very carefully before presenting it as his private member's bill. Clearly his community, in particular, is the subject of a lot of extortion, according to what we read in the newspapers and so on. I think that the bill reflects his frustration and concern with our justice system overall, which many of us feel. It does not always play out the way we would like it to on a variety of different cases.

I do not think it deters anyone, but I know that it certainly makes the member who put this forward as his private member's bill very interested in trying to find the solution to an ongoing problem.

Extortion is illegal in Canada today. Perpetrators need to be apprehended and punished, without question. There is a mandatory minimum penalty of seven years for a repeat extortion with a firearm. These penalties show just how seriously the Criminal Code takes this behaviour of extortion. We do not want to see extortion happening in Canada and we do not intend to tolerate it.

Serious crimes will always deserve very serious punishments. That said, it has been proven time and time again that overly harsh mandatory minimum penalties on first-time offenders do not deter crimes. I wish it did, but clearly the evidence is that it does not. I have been here quite a few years and was here when the previous Conservative government introduced mandatory minimums. I remember when we had that discussion and debate at committee and in the House. I was always a bit on another platform because I thought that if that is going to work, then way to go; that is what we need to have.

Over the years, we have seen, unfortunately, that it does not work. It does not work the way the Conservative Party, when it introduced it, thought it would. It has played out very differently. The previous legal adviser to former prime minister Stephen Harper has recently admitted that the harsh approach to criminal justice is ineffective. To quote him, he has said that the mandatory minimums “are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.”

Again, I go back to the fact that when it was introduced, I was very supportive. I thought it was going to be an answer to try to deter some of the crime, but it did not work that way. We ended up having people without the flexibility to be able to look for alternative sentencing opportunities to truly prevent recidivism from happening. We have seen that it is ineffective at reducing crime, and that it actually increases recidivism.

We have often been told that, once someone goes to jail, it does not matter what amount of time they spend there, repeat offenders are what follows so many times. It does not necessarily help.

I think people know my history. I have pretty strong feelings when it comes to guns. I had a first cousin who was a police officer who was shot to death. I signed petitions for the death penalty in those days. That was then and I have learned a lot since then.

On the fact that I was able to get I do not know how many thousands of signatures calling for the death penalty, a lot of that was because I was hurting and in pain as a result of having that terrible thing happen to my cousin and the killing of this young, 32-year-old police officer with three young children.

I have always taken a very strong stance when it comes to the justice issue, and I want to see our justice system stronger and better and more effective. Is this particular bill that has been put forward going to help with that? I do not think so, but that is what committees are for, which is to have further discussions and talk about the pros and cons of all of it. Any time we look at ways in which we can reduce recidivism and crime in our country, it is a good thing to do.

I will go back to Mr. Perrin, the previous legal adviser to Prime Minister Harper, who said, “If history is any judge, [the current Conservative leader's] MMPs may not be worth the paper they're printed on. What's worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the existential challenges facing the criminal justice system.”

As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned previously, there needs to be meaningful innovation, ideas for different ways of handling things. We have not been awfully successful so far in finding ways to deter serious crime. We know we have organized crime happening in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal when it comes to the stealing of vehicles, which are being shipped out through Montreal primarily. They arrested, I think, 19 people involved in that particular part of it. Thank God we have police officers who spend the hours they do out there on the streets, trying to ensure our cities can stay safe.

We are all looking for answers, but we need to be able to provide judges with the flexibility to make a decision on what they want to do. There are serious offenders out there who need to be dealt with appropriately. Plea bargains are not the way to go with most of these cases. With any of these things, especially if we are talking about extortion, we want to make sure offenders are dealt with. Right now, the Criminal Code calls for very serious penalties on that aspect, so we want to do whatever we can.

If the bill goes to committee, it will give us an opportunity to talk more about how MMPs do not appear to work, but are there other opportunities? What else can be done? Maybe this is a way we can really send a very strong message that Canada is not going to tolerate extortion happening to any community. In this case, as was referred to earlier, it was the South Asian community being subjected to extortion.

We have an obligation to stand up and push against that and to protect communities that are being intimidated, belittled and threatened. Members of those communities come to Canada to start a new life and to be able to have a successful business, and they should not have to worry about being extorted.

This has happened in other communities, not just the South Asian community. There are a variety of communities that are being extorted, and I have heard of it happening within the Italian community some time ago.

We need to have strong penalties. Extortion needs to have, and it does have, a very strong policy right now in the Criminal Code. We want to see that continue. This will be discussed at the committee if it gets to the committee level, and in further discussions it would be very interesting to hear whether there are any new ideas and ways in which we can make our Criminal Code even stronger than it currently is today.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I also appreciate the member who brought this forward. I know there is concern in his community with respect to the rise in certain types of crime.

If we look to the United States and the extensive use of mandatory minimum penalties there, I was wondering if the Conservative members could show me which state in the United States is actually succeeding with these types of criminal justice policies.

It is not something that works. It is something committees have studied time and time again, and they have shown it does not work. Even though it is well intentioned, policy-wise it will not work.

I see my time is up for today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member will have plenty of time when the opportunity comes back up.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons passed Bill C-234. Normally, that is not a remarkable statement, but it bears repeating for comprehension. The House of Commons, made up of 338 elected members of Parliament to democratically legislate the laws of Canada, passed Bill C-234. That bill was a private member's bill to remove the carbon tax from farmers so that the thousands of dollars in unrebated carbon taxes that every farmer pays will no longer have to be built into the price of food.

During a crisis of food affordability and food inflation, this is a common-sense way to do something immediate and concrete to help farmers produce affordable food for Canadians. The elected members of Parliament passed this bill over the objection of the governing Liberals. It was sent to the Senate where the same legislative process takes place, but during this process and at the clear and obvious behest of the Prime Minister and his government, the Senate gutted the bill by removing heating fuels for barns from the bill. They wanted to kill the bill altogether, but the government's extraordinary lobbying efforts succeeded in gutting the bill by ensuring that the carbon tax still applies to heating buildings like barns. This adds an enormous cost to the production of food, particularly the cost of eggs, chicken, pork and dairy.

Axing the tax on food production would be a simple way to address inflation on food, which continues to rise even faster than the general rate of inflation, and along with the staggering cost of rent and mortgage payments, it puts the greatest pressure on the most vulnerable Canadians, people whose entire family budgets cannot cover the cost of food and shelter.

I asked the government, after a desperate weekend of panic-stricken phone calls, which resulted in the Senate gutting the bill, if the Prime Minister would listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families who want to heat their homes. I mentioned first nations in my question because first nations are challenging the federal government's authority to impose the carbon tax on them. I mentioned farmers, who are price takers and who only have so much room to pass on higher costs without simply having to shut down production, and consumers who have to pay more for food. The response was an insipid mix of unrelated nonsense talking points.

Since that time, the government House leader has pathetically and falsely tried to blame the Conservatives for the failure of Bill C-234 passing in the House again, ignoring the entire reason, or pretending not to know why, the bill is back here in this place. It is here because the government's senators are doing the bidding of the Prime Minister who appointed them and are gutting the bill.

The Conservative deputy whip offered a motion to pass the bill by unanimous consent in its original form, but the Liberals refused to do that, so I will ask them again: Will they respect the will of this elected House? Will they recognize the roles that the Prime Minister and his ministers played in begging and bullying senators into rejecting a bill passed by the elected members of this chamber? Will they realize, as an overwhelming number of Canadians, including most provincial and territorial premiers have, that the carbon tax is punishing people who just want to eat, to heat and to transport themselves? Do they not see that when a basic input like energy is made more expensive, the output is reduced, which leads to higher prices? If they will not axe the carbon tax altogether, will they at least agree to axe the tax on farmers so that they can bring down the price of groceries?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge that putting a price on pollution is at the centre of our government's plan to fight climate change and to curb its devastating effects on our communities and our economy.

The negative impacts of climate change are very real. The public will not soon forget the destructive force of last year's forest fires that scorched much of Canada and choked our communities, which were cloaked in thick smoke.

It would be irresponsible of us to stand idly by instead of proposing solutions to deal with our rapidly changing climate. Standing still is unacceptable. We must act. Our efforts are not just to benefit our generation, they are to protect future generations of Canadians, our children and their children.

Our government is taking necessary steps that will have effective, concrete impacts, and a vital part of this plan is Canada's price on pollution. Pollution has a cost. It has a cost for Canadians, for communities, for our health and for our economy. Applying a price on carbon pollution is widely recognized as one of the most efficient ways to reduce emissions and to fight the devastating effects of climate change.

Our mechanism also ensures that the price on pollution stays affordable for Canadians. We sometimes hear, especially in the House, that putting a price on pollution costs Canadians too much. I can assure the House that this statement is completely false. In fact, in provinces where the federal pollution pricing system applies, people get back the lion's share of the revenues, and low-income earners benefit the most.

This means that our system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families while encouraging choices that will help Canada lower its emissions. Our price on pollution ensures that eight out of 10 households in these provinces are receiving more money back through quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay. Thanks to our government's pollution price mechanism, a family of four living in one of these provinces can receive up to $1,800. As people can see, with our plan, we are not only fighting climate change, but we are also returning money to Canadians.

The government does not keep any direct proceeds from federal pollution pricing. Instead, the government returns the money collected to households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. International experts agree that our pollution pricing mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change.

With this approach, we are sending a clear message: Pollution has a price. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages reduction across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. To achieve this, we need to maintain the price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. Removing pollution pricing, as the opposition has called for, would eliminate its powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to change their behaviours and pollute less.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the response is that the Liberals will continue to tax farmers, to apply an input tax on farmers to increase their costs, which inflates and increases the cost of food. They will give some rebates to some households, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly stated do not cover the cost of the carbon tax to those households, particularly when we include all the higher costs people incur. It is not just the carbon tax they see on their heating bill and at the pump but also the general inflation of all the goods that it is applied to.

The farmer does not get the rebate to cover these costs. They are either going to cut production, which will raise the price of food, or pass the cost on and make the food more expensive. The Liberals should just axe the tax. If they cannot do it for everything, they can at least do it for farmers.