Debates of May 2nd, 2024

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the real challenge for many Conservatives might be the back and forth going on in their own heads. For me personally, the individuals I listen to are provincial premiers and my caucus colleagues from Atlantic Canada. Contrast that to the extreme right that many Conservatives and, in particular, the leader of the Conservative Party listen to.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty tough to follow the production we just saw from the member for Winnipeg North. He is something else. We will just leave it at that.

I am a member of the natural resources committee, and I think it is really important that we talk about the process by which we have arrived here today.

There were two bills that were sent to our committee: Bill C-49 first, and then Bill C-50. What is important here is this. For a number of years, across multiple parliamentary sessions, Conservatives have been warning the government about its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and over time the Liberals kept denying it and saying it was not unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court comes along and in a reference case ruling says that the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 from a previous parliament, is largely unconstitutional.

It is important to note and make mention here that in the history of Canada no government has ever ignored a reference ruling from the Supreme Court. As we have this debate here today, I think it is extremely important that we start out with that particular point. I think if we were to ask my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when he gives his speech after me, because I will be splitting my time with him, he might even agree that for a very long time the government has ignored this particular point.

The government needs to take this opportunity at report stage to be absolutely clear about the date and time when it will fix the Impact Assessment Act, because a big part of the issue around Bill C-49 is that it contains no less than 35 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. It is as if the Liberal government has a desire to pass unconstitutional legislation and regulations. We have seen that with its plastics ban, which was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Conservatives also warned that it would be a problem.

When we are tasked with passing a piece of legislation that is required for Atlantic Canada to be able to develop its offshore wind resources, we need to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that is abundantly clear and would create all the absolute certainty that is needed in Atlantic Canada.

Of course, there is a consultation process that needs to go on. At committee, all we heard from witnesses, one after the other, was that they were not consulted. This is particularly true of people who are in the fishing industry, which as we know is the absolute staple industry of Atlantic Canada.

That is an important place where we need to start. I hope that at some point here we will get some clarity and certainty from government members about when that will happen. We gave them many opportunities at committee to tell us when, yet we never got an answer from them.

I want to go back to the fishing organizations that spoke at great length to us at committee.

I will start off by quoting Katie Power from FFAW-Unifor, who stated:

To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable.

FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding.

This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued.

I have another quote, from Ruth Inniss from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, who stated:

The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry.

I have more quotes that I would like to read, but I realize I am near the end of my time for today. I will finish with one quote, quickly. Ms. Inniss added:

Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.

Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

moved that Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank a lot of people who were involved in the creation of this piece of legislation. The member for Fundy Royal did a lot of work in the background, and I appreciate his guidance and effort in this. He has been a great shadow minister and a great friend. It is something that he spent a lot of time on, and of course there is the staff and the people within the OLO who helped us out to get the bill exactly the way we wanted it.

This is a piece of legislation that I think all members in the House can actually get behind. They can go back to their ridings and tell their constituents that we are doing something when it comes to auto theft. We are actually going to do something that is going reduce the number of auto thefts and put the people who are committing auto theft in jail, where they belong, instead of back out on the street, where they are committing more and more thefts every day.

What I am proposing is basically a very simple process, which is three years for a third offence, especially when it is tied to a criminal element like an organized gang or organized crime. Why do I say three years at three and not right off the bat? First of all, we do not want to go after that 16- or 17-year-old who just did something stupid one night, stole the neighbour's car and went for a joyride. That is not who we are after in this situation. They made a stupid mistake. They should be scared, they should be dealt with and made scared, but we do not want to create a situation that they regret for the rest of their lives.

However, by the time people do their third offence, they consciously know what they are doing. They are actually involved in and part of an organized crime ring or a gang and are doing something because they know that this is what their career and their choices are going to be. Therefore, we need to actually put a dent in it when it comes to dealing with these people, which is what we are doing in this situation. We are saying that on a person's third offence, if they are convicted and if they are tied to organized crime, they are going to do at least three years and up to 10 years. There is a lot of leeway for the judge to do a proper process, apply the law and get the thieves behind bars so that they do not reoffend.

We met with police chiefs and some police units. I remember talking to a police unit out in Vancouver, and I want to thank them for their guidance and help in moving forward with this bill. One of the frustrations they had was the fact that people are committing crimes over and over again. They would arrest them, and then they would be released. They could not get the prosecution or the judges to actually put these people behind bars.

In the riding of Prince Albert, when we do our rural crime watch meetings, we fill the hall relatively quickly. When we talk about rural crime and theft, auto theft definitely comes up in those conversations. In those meetings, we have members of the police force, the city police and the RCMP. We have defence lawyers and prosecutors. It is amazing that we have everybody but the judges sitting there listening, talking to constituents and hearing the concerns they have in regard to rural crime, theft and auto theft.

One of the things they always say, and what the police were saying at the last meeting we had up at Crystal Lake, was that they kind of know who these people are, because it is the same ones doing it over and over again. I remember a police officer from Prince Albert saying that they know where to look when catalytic converters are disappearing, because it is the same guy stealing catalytic converters from cars all the time. They know him, but what frustrates them is that they know it, they arrest the person, they have all the evidence to put him behind bars, but they do not get the conviction. That is the frustration that I think a lot of Canadians are facing in their communities.

I will give some interesting stats around this, just to show how bad it has gotten. I will look at 2015 to 2022. Auto thefts are up 35% across Canada, 120% in New Brunswick, 190% in Moncton, 59% in Quebec, 105% in Montreal, 122% in Ontario, 122% in the Ottawa-Gatineau region, 216% in the greater Toronto area and 62% in Winnipeg. If we look at 2021 to 2023 across western Canada, Atlantic Canada and the prairie provinces, the numbers are up substantially, too. This is something going on right across Canada.

Now, when we talk to people in the sector, they blame the Port of Montreal as being the place where the cars that have been stolen are put in containers and then shipped out to northern Africa, the Middle East and other lucrative markets. They talk about the fact that it has really created an impact in regard to the cost it has had on individuals. In Ontario alone, auto theft has added $130 a year to insurance costs. There was over $1.2 billion in payouts in 2022 alone. That is a substantial amount of money, and that is a substantial amount of pain. It is impacting people at home. For the mother who has her vehicle stolen, how is she supposed to take her kids to day care or go grocery shopping? For the guy who wants to go to work, how is that supposed to happen when his vehicle has been stolen?

We have also heard about, and maybe this is something the committee wants to talk about a little more, the violence that is attached to auto theft when there is a home invasion to get the keys or there is a carjacking on the street. Maybe there should be even more attached to this type of legislation that would penalize these folks when they do that type of conduct while stealing a car.

There is lots to talk about regarding individuals. Everybody has a story. There is a car stolen roughly every five minutes. Everybody in this chamber, whether they are sitting in here today or not, knows somebody or has had a car stolen in the last few years. I could refer to the Minister of Justice, who had his car stolen. He is a really great guy, but he must have been frustrated when he came outside, realized his car was not there, and he needed to get to his next meeting. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness also had his car stolen.

This is happening to people right across the board. It is happening at home. It is happening at work. It is happening in a variety of different areas. It is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

In doing this, we would take repeat offenders and put them behind bars. We would actually save a lot of people a lot of money over time in a reduction in insurance costs. We would make it safer for people through not having these offenders on the street.

Again, when they are stealing a car, there can be a high-speed chase when police are pursuing them. We saw the results of high-speed chases this week in Ontario when some innocent people were killed on the highway because of a high-speed chase. It was not necessarily a vehicle theft, but there probably was one in the background.

This matter is very important for the people in the riding of Prince Albert. When we look at auto theft in Prince Albert and Saskatchewan, it is not like in Ontario. In the Ontario theft, the vehicle is being taken and shipped through Montreal on to markets. In Saskatchewan, there is a combination of older vehicles, of vehicles that are being taken for parts. Having said that, even the Port of Vancouver is saying that, if there is a clampdown at the port of Montreal, it would start to see some cars flowing out of Atlantic Canada and eastern Canada into the port of Vancouver. That is also a problem that has to be addressed.

We have talked about having the scanners, the tools and instruments put in, as well the border guards, and having the resources in place to inspect these containers, making sure we are clamping down on these individuals and taking away any ability for them to gain profit from the theft of vehicles.

There are lots of things that need to be done. I know the government had its focus group. It had a big summit on auto theft. There were some ideas in that summit. This is one of the ideas to come out of that summit that could actually be acted on right now. This is a chance for the government to show some activity. It is a chance for all members of Parliament, through a private member's bill, to participate, and to go back to their constituents to say, “We are clamping down on auto theft. We are going to do something that will actually make a difference.”

I suspect every party in the House is going to be supportive of this piece of legislation. It is a very simple bill. I look forward to questions members may have. I look forward to seeing this get to committee. If there are any other good ideas that members may want to attach to it, I would be very open to those ideas as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very complicated issue with jurisdictions and different actions from different organizations. I do not use the word “organizations” lightly.

I am interested in what the member has to say. From 2006 to 2008, we had huge numbers of automobile thefts. We were virtually double, on a per capita base, any other province in the country. What ended up happening is that Manitoba Public Insurance, MPI, came out with promotional material. The province worked with Ottawa. We were successful in being able to bring the numbers down.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how the legislation would encourage and support that sense of co-operation. It is not just governments.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member has some good ideas. This, alone, would not do it. We need a combination of approaches. We need to look at different types of measures to deal with auto theft, theft in general and rural crime.

This bill would be one piece of that puzzle. At least with the guys who are committing a third offence, we would know that we were getting those people off the streets and this would not be reoccurring. If we can do that, it would make a dent in the numbers being reported for auto theft. I think it will make a huge difference.

That does not mean we should not keep doing other things. In the summit a few months ago, there were some other ideas of what we could do together, such as vehicle immobilization and new security techniques. Those are all good ideas, and working together, we could bring the numbers down even more.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his bill.

I think this is an issue that deserves careful consideration. However, I get the impression that the bill, as it stands, will not solve all the problems. Would my colleague be willing to make amendments and perhaps even discuss it in a little more depth, particularly with respect to the issue of exports?

Montreal's police force is asking for stiffer penalties, for one, as my colleague proposed. However, it is also asking that we add exporting stolen vehicles to the Criminal Code. I am not certain whether we could do that with this bill. I do not know whether that would be admissible or not.

I am hoping my colleague can expand on that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am always open to good ideas that would make this legislation stronger and reduce auto theft, so if the member has some ideas that would make this bill stronger, the committee would be a good place to bring those ideas forward. If it involves making some amendments to make it a stronger piece of legislation that would have more impact on auto theft, I think we would be in favour of that, and I definitely would be in favour of that. I look forward to working with the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's sincerity on the issues, and I appreciate his openness for ideas. There is no doubt about it that this is an important issue. The member did say this was across Canada, but there is an exception.

As members are well aware, British Columbia, under the B.C. NDP government, has actually seen, year after year, a decrease in the number of auto thefts. The police with the integrated crime units have been particularly good at breaking down gangs that have tried to come into British Columbia from elsewhere in Canada. We have a bait car program, which has been very successful in making sure that criminals are actually caught.

As my colleague is listening, I would like to add both the fact that the auto manufacturers need to upgrade their technologies to make sure that auto theft is headed off and the fact that 12 years ago there were cuts to CBSA. The Liberal government has never restored the number of positions that we need to ensure that these stolen automobiles are actually caught before they are exported. Would the member agree that what the B.C. government has implemented, including the bait car program and integrated crime prevention, are the kinds of ideas that we also need to incorporate to make sure that we can drive down auto theft rates elsewhere in Canada?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is whether they can do it in this piece of legislation or it is part of other things that they do to bring down total crime. That is why we went out to Vancouver and talked to the police union. We listened to it. There are some good ideas out there about more of a holistic package to reduce auto theft. One thing we were told was that, if we were going to do just a quick piece of legislation that we thought we could get through the House, let us put the guys who are repeat offenders behind bars. That is why this is such a critical piece of legislation.

The number of thefts is going down in British Columbia, as the member said, and they have had some good results with some of the provincial legislation and provincial programs. Maybe some of those ideas should be brought across Canada. Maybe they should be brought up in committee and talked about in committee as these are things that we should be talking about right across Canada. If they are under provincial jurisdiction, it would be up to the provinces to take them on. However, if they are under federal jurisdiction, we should see what options we have.

If the true goal is to reduce auto thefts, which is what my goal is here, and the members bring forward ideas to do that, we should have an intelligent and mature conversation about that and see how we can do it together.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such a timely bill. What I am hearing about in my community is the concern about escalation. Some people think that this is really a victimless crime. However, in Toronto, it is getting so violent that police are even saying to just put the keys on the dashboard and let it go. Why is it so important that we have a deterrent and that the House move forward as quickly as possible with passing this bill?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to thank the member for his hard work. He comes from a great automotive town, and I know he takes this issue very seriously. The carjacking joint task force revealed that 25 car thieves have been released on bail. That revolving door, the task force said, is creating more chaos and allowing more cars to be stolen all the time.

The insurance industry pays out $1.2 billion every year in insurance costs for auto theft. That translates to $130 per person in insurance fees. These are substantial numbers, especially at a time when people do not have a lot of extra cash. Therefore, this would be not only a way to get some of these thieves behind bars, but also, if we can start bringing down those insurance costs, a way to leave some cash in people's pockets to spend somewhere else.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the pressing concern of motor vehicle theft, which significantly impacts Canadians across the country. Motor vehicle theft remains a persistent and troubling problem across the country and across my region of Durham. It is one of the top issues affecting thousands of Canadians each year.

The Government of Canada is deeply concerned with this issue. It is imperative that the government takes action to respond to motor vehicle theft, and I am proud to say that our government is proposing effective solutions that would actually crack down on auto theft, as opposed to the Conservatives, who are trotting out the same failed policies we know, and, frankly, they know, will not work.

Why is that? Mandatory minimum penalties do not work to deter crime. There are many studies that have demonstrated, time and time again, that when criminals go out to commit a crime, they do not think about the consequences of their actions or the penalties they may get, and they do not plan to get caught.

We know that one of the main drivers of auto theft is organized crime, and we are seeking to target the actual problem. This is why our government announced in budget 2024 its intention to move forward with amending the Criminal Code to provide additional tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to address auto theft, which are contained in the recently tabled budget implementation act. This includes new criminal offences related to auto theft involving the use of violence or links to organized crime, possession or distribution of an electronic or digital device for the purposes of committing auto theft, and laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization, as well as new aggravating factors at sentencing if an offender involved a young person in committing an offence under the Criminal Code. This is in addition to the effort on the part of all tiers of government, industry partners and law enforcement agencies to collaborate to address this issue in a coherent and effective manner.

Together, we have the power to combat motor vehicle theft and create safer communities for all Canadians. The Canada Border Services Agency will play a pivotal role by disrupting criminal activity before it even reaches our borders. With increased investment of $28 million, it is ramping up efforts to intercept stolen vehicles and crack down on criminal networks. The RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, coordinates intelligence sharing among police forces across the nation, ensuring a unified front against auto theft. Leveraging the border integrity program, it is fortifying our borders to combat inbound and outbound threats, standing vigilant against organized crime at every port of entry.

Transport Canada is leading the charge in modernizing vehicle safety standards, incorporating cutting-edge technology to deter theft. It is conducting targeted security assessments of port facilities to identify vulnerabilities and implement robust security measures. Lastly, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is collaborating with industry partners to develop innovative solutions to safeguard vehicles and aid in recovery efforts. This includes changes to the Radiocommunication Act through the budget implementation act to ban devices which are used to steal cars.

I will now touch on the flaws with the Conservative Party's approach, which relies on failed policies that we know do not deter crime and contribute to the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our justice system.

Bill C-379 proposes to increase the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for a third or subsequent motor vehicle theft from six months to three years. We know that mandatory minimum penalties restrict a court's ability to consider the unique circumstances of a case. We also know, and really, the Conservatives know, that they do not work. The Conservatives believe in slogan-based policy, not actual solutions, and they are misleading Canadians when they propose this as a solution.

We also know that mandatory minimum penalties can be vulnerable to Charter challenges. We should not forget that judges, in appropriate circumstances, are also able to impose lengthy prison sentences. I am concerned that the measures in Bill C-379 risk disproportionately penalizing vulnerable individuals, and I do not believe they would effectively address the root causes of motor vehicle theft.

Ensuring that people in Canada feel safe in their communities is a top priority. Canada has a robust criminal law framework to address auto theft at various stages of the crime, as well as its links to organized crime. This is why the Minister of Justice made a commitment to examine potential amendments to the Criminal Code to further strengthen the legal framework related to auto theft, including by reviewing existing offences and penalties. The result is that the proposals in the budget implementation act would be effective at combatting organized crime and auto theft, whereas this legislation would likely have the opposite effect.

This is why on top of the amendments to the Criminal Code on auto theft, we are also bringing forward further measures that would combat money laundering, which helps support organized crime. This is part of a holistic effort to actually address the causes of crime and, in particular, organized crime.

We believe in addressing the root causes of crime, not using known failed policies and deceiving Canadians that we are solving the problem. We know criminal organizations are using young people to commit crimes. The solution is not to drive those youths further into a life of crime by locking them up and throwing away the key, as the Conservatives propose, but to go after those who are using those youths, which is what we propose.

As I wrap up, I want to quote a former Harper legal adviser Ben Perrin on the Leader of the Opposition's reckless plan, which would not actually address crime. He stated the Conservative leader's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” He went on to say, “If history is any judge, mandatory minimum penalties may not be worth the paper they're printed on.” He also stated that MMPs “are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.”

We know various other Conservative and right-wing politicians have regretted their positions on mandatory minimum penalties, including Newt Gingrich. It is really a shame Conservatives cannot see evidence that even Republicans can see and start to propose smart and effective criminal law policy, rather than the same tired, failed policies they have tried for years.

This is why our side has brought forward a responsible and effective plan, and we look forward to the support from the opposition on our plan to effectively combat auto theft.

In the collective effort to fight auto theft, it is important to send a clear message to criminals that their days of preying on our communities are numbered. We must be strong together and be united in our resolve to safeguard our communities, to defend our borders and to uphold the safety and the security of everyone who calls Canada home.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you again. It has been a little while since I have spoken here. It is the end of the day, so there is only a small audience. I prefer to speak at 10:15 a.m. or 12:30 p.m., when there are a few people around. Right now, there is no one. However, I have colleagues who are on their way. They are coming to support me.

Vehicle theft is a serious crisis. It is a scourge, an important issue. I commend the initiative of my Conservative Party colleagues for introducing a bill to try to resolve this crisis. We are not convinced that Bill C‑379 is the answer to this crisis. There will certainly be a way to improve what is before us. In any case, we definitely need to address that. I will have the opportunity to talk about that and provide some figures. Of course we need to tackle this problem, this crisis. In fact, our position right now could be “neither yes nor no, quite the contrary”.

We think there is a way to work on this in committee. We are just not sure that tougher sentencing is the way to go. I also have to say that I think auto theft is at least partly related to the post-pandemic situation we are in. Inflation is skyrocketing, there is a housing crisis and seniors are struggling. Seniors may not be feeling the pain of auto theft as much, but people are having a hard time making ends meet right now, and crime may appeal to some people. In short, I think the causes of auto theft are fairly easy to identify.

In a way, Bill C‑379 is an answer to that. It is not a final answer, but it is an answer to the problem of auto theft, particularly in Montreal. It is important to talk about Montreal because Montreal is a hub. It has a port from which cars can be shipped in containers to Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South America. That makes Montreal important. We do not really know why, but we think fewer cars are being shipped out of Vancouver, British Columbia. Regardless, a significant number of cars pass through the port of Montreal.

The COVID‑19 pandemic caused major disruptions in global supply chains, resulting in a shortage of the essential microchips used in automobile production. This situation increased the demand for used cars and their price, prompting criminal gangs to specialize in vehicle theft and exports. The thieves use sophisticated methods. For example, they use relays to amplify the signal of smart keys inside homes. In fact, it happened to me.

My car was not stolen, but I was robbed three times. They stole from my car, but did not steal my car. They got away with lots of things, including my wallet and credit cards, but they left my car in front of the house. I should have noticed a lot sooner: they were stealing the signal through the window. It is a very effective system. The first time it happened to me, I was amazed that such a thing was even possible. Then I switched things up a little by keeping my keys in a different spot in the house. In short, they do that and they steal cars.

Once stolen, cars are often temporarily stored in discreet locations to avoid detection, then exported abroad using fraudulent serial numbers to fool the authorities. Despite how easy it is to detect the fraudulent use of serial numbers, the CBSA apparently does not conduct systematic checks. It is not clear why, but that does not happen. Car manufacturers do not seem too concerned about car theft either, as insurance companies cover replacement costs. They are not overly bothered by it; it is not a major concern for them. However, insurance premiums have risen considerably as a result of increasing car theft. That is a problem.

There has been an alarming increase in the number of car thefts in Montreal in recent years, from 6,500 in 2021 to 12,000 in 2023. There was talk of a post-pandemic crisis attracting young people to crime. That is certainly part of it, as is the microprocessor issue, which was mentioned earlier. In Canada, approximately 500 vehicles are stolen every day, and that helps fund gangs who use part of the proceeds to buy illegal firearms, among other things.

The Longueuil police service is facing a series of growing security challenges, including a spike in auto theft and property crime. This is happening in Longueuil, in my community. A lot of cars are being stolen from the parking lot at the Promenades Saint-Bruno shopping centre. In Longueuil alone, auto theft has increased at an alarming rate. In 2022 and 2023, 3,000 vehicles were stolen in the greater Longueuil area. That is huge. Longueuil is not that big. It is the fifth-largest city in Quebec. That is a much higher average than in previous years. This trend can be explained in part by the precarious economic situation facing some families, as I mentioned earlier.

Bill C-379 does not adequately respond to the main demand of the Montreal police service, which is that sections be added to the Criminal Code specifically to address the exportation of stolen vehicles. Nevertheless, this bill is an important step in the fight against auto theft and its repercussions. Despite the large number of containers that leave the port of Montreal every year, only a fraction of them are searched. That is a problem. Roughly 700,000 containers are shipped annually, which is a huge number, but checks are limited because of legal constraints. This is a major problem.

According to the Montreal Port Authority, the law does not allow employees or the port authority to open a container unless someone's life is in danger or there is a serious environmental hazard. According to the port's director of communications, by the time the containers arrive at the port, it is already too late to do anything. This creates an opportunity for criminals to export stolen vehicles undetected, which contributes to the growing problem of auto theft in Montreal and beyond.

Containers remain sealed unless law enforcement intervenes for specific reasons. They need a warrant to open a sealed container, which also requires probable cause. Police forces have access to the port and can intervene, but they do not patrol there, since the Montreal Port Authority already has its own security. The police are somewhat stuck. There is a territorial dispute, in a way. Customs is responsible for controlling goods destined for export and can open them, but the lack of personnel makes it really difficult. There are five agents who inspect containers in Montreal, which is not very many. I said earlier that there were 700,000 containers and there are five agents. Obviously, that poses a problem.

Anyone can rent a container by simply filling in an online form to declare it to the shipping company. They can make changes to that form up to 48 hours after shipment, so it is easy enough to cover their tracks once the goods are on their way to Europe or anywhere else in the world. This gives rise to all kinds of crooked dealings. Criminals fill in these forms using numbered companies.

In 2023, a total of 779,111 containers left the port of Montreal compared to 871,000 in 2022. The Journal de Montréal reported that only five CBSA officers were tasked with inspecting the containers. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, only 1% of all containers that leave the port of Montreal are searched. It is easy to see where that can lead.

In fall 2015, an Auditor General's report stated that export control at the border is ineffective and that only one in five high-risk containers was inspected by the CBSA. That means that the government has been aware of this problem for a long time but has not fixed it. Now it is blowing up in our faces.

There are more legal consequences to crossing the border with four kilos of cocaine than with stolen vehicles. That is intense. Both crimes pay big dividends to criminal groups. Young thugs run less of a risk if they steal a Jeep Wrangler than if they sell narcotics on the street.

Organized crime's takeover of the auto theft market is changing the dynamic. Money from auto theft is funding other criminal activities, such as firearms trafficking or human trafficking. Thieves currently face four to six months in prison for stealing a vehicle. Obviously, this is also a problem that needs to be addressed.

I am almost out of time. As I said, the Bloc Québécois is not sure that this bill is an effective response to this serious problem, which is a major scourge in Montreal and across Canada. We do, however, think that the bill should be studied in committee so that we can discuss it and find truly effective solutions to this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince Albert for bringing this forward. I know that he is very sincere, having worked in Parliament with him for a number of years on this issue.

I will get into some reasons a little later on as to why I do not think this bill is the response that is needed, but I want to start off by talking about British Columbia and the British Columbia difference. We have been talking a lot about car thefts. Why is it that in British Columbia there has been an opposite result from what we are seeing in other parts of the country?

I would like to thank the integrated crime prevention services for their work, the New Westminster Police, the Burnaby RCMP and a wide variety of law enforcement from across the Lower Mainland and British Columbia who worked very carefully with the B.C. NDP government to ensure the rapid increase we have seen in so many parts of the country is not reflected in B.C. Gangs have attempted to come to British Columbia and have been pushed back and arrested. That is fundamentally important.

The bait car program, the fact that we have integrated law enforcement on this issue and the anti-gang strategy that the British Columbia government has been a very strong proponent of have all made a difference. We need to make sure that we continue to act to ensure that we are not subjected to the same rise in auto thefts in British Columbia that we have seen elsewhere in the country.

I want to come back to the rest of the country. Particularly in provinces with a Conservative government, we have seen a rapid increase in the number of auto thefts. This is very unfortunate. Having bait car programs and integrated law enforcement can help make a difference, but the federal government has a responsibility. Where I think the federal government can play a role is in providing supports so that the provinces do the right thing, as British Columbia has done. I think we will see the new Manitoba NDP government take similar types of action to help bring down the crime rate.

The reality is that we need to ensure we have an anti-gang strategy, and that includes ensuring that money laundering is not present. As members know, the NDP has long been an advocate of a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry that ensures criminals cannot hide behind numbered companies. This is something I brought forward under the Harper government and was rejected by the Conservatives at the time. The Liberals have moved very slowly on this, but it is absolutely essential.

Law enforcement knows about this and so do so many Canadians. Having a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry would ensure that people cannot hide behind numbered companies. An anti-gang strategy and ensuring criminals cannot launder money are absolutely fundamentally important. Canada is known as the snow-washing capital of the world because there have been successive Conservative and Liberal governments that have not taken action on this. An NDP government would make sure that we no longer have criminals hiding behind numbered companies.

I also want to talk about the importance of having the auto industry and auto manufacturers take action to ensure there are new measures to improve security features in automobiles. This made a big difference about 10 years ago. There was an evolution in technology 12 years ago, and we started to see the high rates of auto theft come down. There needs to be a similar requirement that auto manufacturers improve security features. That would make a fundamental difference.

We also need to ensure that we are funding programs that prevent youth from reoffending. This is where the funding cuts to Canadian crime prevention centres, including the B.C. crime prevention centre, are so regrettable. This happened under the Harper government. The Liberal government did not restore that funding. It is critical to have crime prevention programs in place to ensure that we can crack down on crime before it occurs. Part of that is funding programs for youth at risk to ensure that they are not subject to the kind of recruitment that, sadly, we are seeing in eastern Canada right now and on the Prairies.

There was a very regrettable decision by the Harper government to slash CBSA officials. We lost over 1,200 positions. This was over a dozen years ago and we are still bearing the consequences of this. When we talk to people in port authorities across the country, this is something that continues to be a problem. We do not have border enforcement in place, because of the cuts that occurred under the Conservatives and have been continued by the Liberals, to ensure that, if an automobile is stolen, it cannot be exported. This is a fundamental issue that has to be dealt with by the current government; it cannot be ignored.

We need all these measures that I am talking about: comprehensive crime prevention, an anti-gang strategy, and ensuring that criminals can no longer hide behind numbered companies and money launder through a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. We need to ensure that CBSA is staffed up so that the border agents who work so hard on our behalf have the resources to do the job they are supposed to do and that successive federal governments have not let them do because of chronic underfunding. We need to force auto manufacturers to actually put security measures into place. Often, we are talking about an automobile that costs $50,000 or $60,000 that is protected by a relatively cheap security system of a couple hundred bucks. This is not an appropriate way of ensuring that we can bring down the level of auto theft. All of these measures are really important.

I wanted to come back to the member for Prince Albert and his bill. Again, I do not, in any way, question his sincerity; it is quite the contrary. I know he is somebody who upholds the principle of effective representation. However, he has presented a bill that really does one thing: It re-establishes mandatory minimums. The reality is that, as we have seen and when speaking with Crown prosecutors we get this sense, if what we are trying to do is to have a comprehensive strategy to crack down on criminal gangs, then we need to make sure we get the gang leaders.

The way to ensure that is to be able to talk to the lower levels in the criminal organizations. The way to ensure that co-operation is not through mandatory minimums. There is nothing to deal with. The mandatory minimums mean that the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement are tied in terms of getting the co-operation that is so vital to getting to the leadership of these gangs. That is what we need to see right across the country, and mandatory minimums stop that. It is actually counterproductive in terms of how we can crack down on the auto theft that, outside of British Columbia, is becoming epidemic.

We will not be supporting the bill at second reading, though I thank the member for bringing this forward. I believe this is an important debate. The NDP believes in the kind of comprehensive strategy that we have seen work in British Columbia. Though auto theft is still high, it is lower than in the rest of the country. That is because of the comprehensive approach of integrated law enforcement, ensuring an anti-gang strategy, ensuring that we are moving to crack down on money laundering and ensuring that we are staffing up CBSA officials, so we can stop the exports of stolen automobiles at the border points that we are simply under-resourcing right now.

We need to ensure that automobile manufactures have a responsibility to improve the security features of the vehicles we spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy. These are all actions that can make a huge difference in bringing down the auto theft rates, which are far too high in the rest of Canada. We need to bring them down to what we are seeing in B.C. All these measures taken together have had a noticeable impact and have stopped it. We will continue to work hard to make sure that they are maintained to stop the chronic rise in auto theft we are seeing in the rest of the country.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Prince Albert for what is a fantastic and timely bill, one that is focused on the real issue of auto theft and on the criminals who are conducting auto theft throughout our country.

I listened to the Liberal and NDP speeches very intently, hoping to hear some measure of common sense. If it were not such a serious issue, it would be laughable. They seem to suggest that everything is good the way it is and that they have the answer—

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

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a falsehood, and the member should withdraw it.

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

I did not hear what was said there, so I will ask the hon. member for Fundy Royal to rephrase that last one. I am not quite sure what was said.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal has the floor.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the truth hurts. The hon. member who just protested was proclaiming that he has all the answers and that, in British Columbia, auto theft is not an issue. Did colleagues know that in Victoria, British Columbia, an individual was arrested for auto theft? He was let out on April 21. On April 22, he was arrested for auto theft and let out again. Then, on April 23, he was arrested for breaking into a house in Victoria to steal an automobile. In three days, he had three arrests and was out on bail. The facts run contrary to the suggestion that the Liberals and the NDP have all the answers.

There has been a 216% increase in charges in Toronto from 2015, when the Liberals took government, to today. There have been increases of 190% in Moncton, New Brunswick; 122% in Ottawa; and 105% in Montreal. Toronto has seen a 300% increase in vehicles stolen. In the last few years, the automobile that is used to transport the Minister of Justice of this country has been stolen not once or twice, but three times. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness has had his vehicle stolen. The minister for the CRA had their vehicle stolen, and it is still not recovered.

For colleagues to suggest that everything is okay and that we do not need a bill such as the one that the member for Prince Albert has proposed is completely wrong. Canadians are listening. They understand that auto theft is an issue across the country, in every province, whether one lives in an urban centre or a rural community. As well, crime is an issue. Since the Liberal government took power in 2015, just nine years ago, violent crime is up 39%; homicides are up 43%, for the highest rate in 30 years; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%. I already gave some of the statistics on the subject matter of this bill, which is auto theft.

We are not going to turn to the failed policies of the NDP and the Liberals for the answers. We need common sense, and this is a common-sense piece of legislation. Let us talk about what it would do. The members opposite falsely claimed that it introduces a new mandatory minimum penalty. It does not. There is a six-month mandatory penalty in the Criminal Code for the third offence of stealing an automobile. Most Canadians would agree with this: It would increase the mandatory penalty to three years if someone is arrested, charged, convicted and then commits an offence again; they are arrested, charged and convicted, with the full benefit of the charter, and then there is a third offence.

The police tell us the number of Canadians stealing vehicles is not large. Quite the contrary, a small number of criminals are stealing a lot of vehicles. If those individuals are taken off the street, then they will no longer do so. That is why the police in Victoria laid blame for the out-of-control incident that happened there and said it is the fault of the Liberal government; it is the fault of Bill C-75, legislation that allows for catch-and-release. I mentioned this incident earlier, where an individual was arrested three times in three days for stealing automobiles.

The police do their job. They investigate; they catch the criminal. They have done a fantastic job, but the Liberal justice system has been letting those people back out onto the streets. That is no way to keep Canadians safe or to have a justice system.

We had a victim of crime at our justice committee who said that, in Canada, we do not have a justice system anymore; we have a legal system. That is how Canadians are feeling and why they are looking for answers. That is why the member for Prince Albert has put forward this tremendous piece of legislation. As I mentioned, on a third offence, an individual would receive a mandatory penalty of jail time for stealing a motor vehicle. It would remove the eligibility for house arrest if someone is convicted of a motor vehicle theft by way of indictment. That would be a more serious case of motor vehicle theft.

Who in the world would think it is a good idea that, when a serious criminal steals automobiles, is caught by the police, and is charged and convicted in our system, a judge should be able to sentence them to serve their sentence in their own home in the community where they stole the vehicle? No one would think that is fair.

However, that is a direct result of the Liberals' bill, Bill C-5, which allows for house arrest for such issues as arson, theft over $5,000, motor vehicle theft and sexual assault. These are all serious offences that people should get serious jail time for.

The member for Prince Albert has rightly said that is wrong. If one is a serious auto thief, one should serve time not in the comfort of one's own home and one's own community, not where one could revictimize members of the community, but in jail.

Finally, as has been mentioned, organized crime is increasingly active in motor vehicle theft in Canada. We hear the cases where individuals' vehicles are stolen and show up in the Middle East, across the ocean. That is organized crime. This legislation would create an aggravating factor in sentencing if the offence of motor vehicle theft is committed for the benefit of organized crime.

We all increasingly have examples of the victimization from motor vehicle theft. In fact, two out of five Canadians have either had their vehicle stolen or know somebody who has had their vehicle stolen. As a matter of fact, every member of Parliament knows at least one person who has had their vehicle stolen. We know the Minister of Justice has had his stolen three times. There is absolutely no doubt that this is an epidemic in Canada.

In my home province of New Brunswick, there was a situation where someone stole a motor vehicle. The police did their job and arrested him. He was brought before a judge in Saint John, and because of the Liberal legislation, Bill C-75, the judge had to let him out. How was he going to get back home? Of course, he stole a motor vehicle in Saint John and drove it home.

These are the kinds of things happening across the country, and only one party seems to be serious about doing something about it. We hear a lot of victim blaming. We hear that people should pay more money and have more expensive theft deterrents. We even hear from police that we should probably keep our keys right at the entrance of our home rather than inside so we do not end up in a conflict with car thieves in our home.

That is not a Canada any of us wants. We want a Canada where people are safe and the Canada where people used to leave their doors unlocked. We are a long way from that now. We need a Canada where we take crime seriously, where we have a true justice system and where Canadians do not go to bed wondering if their car is going to be in the driveway in the morning.

I commend the member for Prince Albert on a fantastic private member's bill, and I am happy to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those who were around an hour ago, I was trying to draw a comparison about who the leader of the Conservative Party was listening to. I do not want them to get overly sensitive this time around, but I am going to try this.

Prime ministers have what they call legal advisers, who are there to provide advice. Stephen Harper had a legal adviser, and his name was Ben Perrin. I am sure many members of the Conservative Party recall Ben Perrin. After all, he was the legal adviser.

I want to tell the House what the legal adviser to Stephen Harper had to say. According to Ben Perrin, “MMPs are a grave policy failure”, meaning they do not work. He also called them “cheap politics.” That is what he had to say about the type of legislation that is being proposed.

Can members imagine the Conservatives playing cheap politics on the issue of crime? I can. Actually, they are developing their crime bumper stickers now. They have been doing it for the last few months.

Ben Perrin further said that the leader of the Conservative Party's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” This is not me or the Liberals saying this; this is the former legal adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

It raises the question of who the Conservative Party is actually listening to today, but in an attempt to keep more order in the chamber, I will not tell members who it is. Suffice it to say, there is a far right element.

Let me try to enlighten some members. It was not that long ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, that we actually had record-high numbers of automobile thefts in the province of Manitoba. It was a very serious issue. I was actually an MLA at the time. I had raised the issue, and we found that, on a per capita basis, no province even came close to Manitoba in terms of automobile thefts. In fact, we could double the number of automobiles that were being stolen in the province of Manitoba and, on a per capita basis, we still had more than any other jurisdiction.

We found that the best way to resolve the issue was to work with the different stakeholders. That meant the province at the time brought in MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance, and it worked with the federal government; we were very successful at dramatically decreasing automobile thefts. We are talking about thousands of vehicles.

I put it in that fashion because I ask myself what the government is doing. We are not waiting for provinces; we are actually taking a very proactive approach, in terms of having a summit, taking a look at all the different stakeholders and hearing what they have to say. We will find that there have been actions by the government to deal with this very important issue. There were pre-budget initiatives, and even things within the budget, that support law enforcement agencies, non-profits and the provincial governments, in terms of trying to deal with this issue.

We have to take a look at it. It is not necessarily from an individual, per se; even though it is an individual in the vehicle, it is often crime gang-related. That was the case in Winnipeg. We found out that it was like a gang initiation. They had to steal a certain number of vehicles, and we had serious issues with gang problems at the time. That was helping drive up the automobile theft in the province of Manitoba. It was relatively unique.

In Ontario, the number of stolen vehicles being exported through ports is a very serious concern. We are actually investing in Canada border control. I contrast that with what the previous government did, which was to make cuts in that area. I know some people might question that, but that is the reality, and we know that. We have been hearing that for years now.

At the end of the day, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars allocated through this particular budget, the very same budget that the Conservatives are committed to voting against. On the one hand, the Conservatives would bring in a policy that the former prime minister's legal adviser said would not work, and on the other hand, they are voting against budgetary measures to support reducing the number of automobiles being stolen.

I appreciate the fact that there are stakeholders out there who also need to step up, including the automobile industry. Given modern-day technology, there is a lot more that can be done to incorporate anti-theft protection into the make-up of the vehicle itself.

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

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.

The House resumed from April 10 consideration of a motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, standing in the name of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

National Defence

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I will let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River, an incredible representative for the many people in the CAF who live in her riding.

We are here today to debate the motion that we unanimously passed at the Standing Committee on National Defence about the incredibly out-of-touch decision to raise rents for on-base housing in the midst of a recruitment and retention crisis. As the New Democratic Party's spokesperson for National Defence, I have been fighting every day to support the women and men in the Canadian Forces and their families, as they face—

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

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the understanding of the parties that the Bloc would be starting the discussion.