Randy Hoback

[Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act, May 2nd, 2024]

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.

[Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act, May 2nd, 2024]

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.

[Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act, May 2nd, 2024]

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.

[Weldon Playground Project, April 17th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a respected example of indigenous reconciliation in the town of Weldon, Saskatchewan.

On Saturday, residents came together to participate in a pancake breakfast to raise money for a playground to commemorate the life of Wes Petterson. Wes was a former resident and victim of the mass stabbing on and around James Smith Cree Nation in September 2022.

The Weldon playground project was created in February to raise $150,000 for a new playground in Wes's memory. On Saturday, James Smith Cree Nation's Chief Kirby Constant, Chief Calvin Sanderson and Councillor Adam Whitehead presented the fundraising committee with a cheque for $116,000 to help build this playground.

During the breakfast, James Smith Cree Nation also gifted the town a painting by local indigenous artists. I must say that the room was filled with tears of joy.

May Wes's memory live on through the community playground built for the residents of Weldon and the surrounding area, as well as their families. To the James Smith Cree Nation, I thank them for their generosity and contribution to this project.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I remember when this first came up. Quebec had done the right thing. It changed its process. It changed the process it used to collect fees from logging within the province to comply with U.S. requirements. It relied on the federal government to negotiate on its behalf, whereas the Irvings, out of New Brunswick, said they were not going to trust the government and would do their own negotiation. The result was that the people who had relied on the federal government paid a tariff of around 21% or 23%, or somewhere within that range, and for the Irvings it was around 3% to 5%.

Would the member like to explain how he feels and how Quebec forestry producers must feel knowing the government let them down so badly? The proof is in the difference in the tariffs between what the Irvings paid and what other producers had to pay.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, the reality is we had 10 years of bankability in the forestry sector under the Harper government. Right now, there is $8 billion tied up with the U.S. government. A lot of that belongs to first nations. That money could have been used in first nations.

The Prime Minister has not shown up. Does he care? He does not care. I am trying to get that point across to people here in Canada. If we had a Prime Minister who actually cared, this deal could have been done in 2016 or 2017. He does not care. The reality is that Canadians pay for it. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the fact that the member took the initiative to show up in Washington and to work on behalf of all Canadians, including those from Quebec.

In fact, the forestry workers in Quebec should be the most upset with regard to this file. They made the changes to their system to meet the requirements that the U.S. set, yet the government has not been able to take the sacrifices and the changes they made in Quebec and to sell it across the line. What happened? They still pay a tariff. It still comes back to president to prime minister and prime minister to president.

If the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about, if he does not have the political will or does not have the initiative to support Quebec forestry workers, I will guarantee one thing: prime minister Poilievre would.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I give the member credit for being here tonight. I appreciate her being here and showing interest in the industry, even though it is not in her riding.

Twice in the current Liberal government's history, it came close to negotiating a deal. Both times, it required the Prime Minister to step up and get it across the finish line. He had a chance in 2021, and he did not do it. He had a chance in 2017, when it was down to disputes over the amount of wood over quota and lack of supply in the U.S. that Canada could fulfill. Ambassador MacNaughton almost got it done. If the Prime Minister had paid attention, it probably would have been done. That is the problem. When it was done in 2006, President Bush, Jr., and Prime Minister Harper sat in a room, negotiated and got it done, president to prime minister, prime minister to president.

In reality, it does not matter what one does for the team Canada approach with regard to this file; it comes back to those two people having the political will to do it. The Prime Minister has not shown that political will.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I rise today to speak to the softwood lumber dispute between the United States and Canada, and the over $8 billion in tariffs that the Americans have collected from Canadian businesses.

As adviser to the leader of the official opposition on Canada-U.S. relations, I wish to give my unique perspective on what I have learned in Washington and on the challenges that the Liberal government has created in reaching a negotiated deal.

This situation is one of the Prime Minister's own doing, and it is reflective of his lack of care for the forestry sector as a whole and for the thousands of Canadians who are impacted.

There has been $8 billion in tariffs collected as a direct result of the Liberal government's failure to prioritize Canadian workers, indigenous communities and our natural resource sector. It did not need to be like that. There is a desire on both sides of the border to resolve this matter, as Americans and Canadians recognize the importance of the industry. There is no excuse for not reaching a negotiated deal.

Over the last 42 years, Canada and the United States have reached agreements on softwood lumber. The most recent agreement, softwood lumber agreement five, was in place from 2006 to 2016.

SLA 5 was in place because the former Conservative government understood the importance of the forestry sector to Canada. We understood that the forestry sector was mutually beneficial to both Canada and the United States. When we went to Washington, we made sure that we worked collaboratively with our American partners to reach an agreement.

The Liberal government has done the exact opposite. It has completely ignored the situation and has refused to address the dispute at the highest levels of government. When the agreement expired in 2016, the Liberal government should have made it a priority to negotiate a resolution with the Americans, but instead, it delayed and looked the other way.

As the years passed, the hon. ministers of international trade blamed the American government, claiming there was no desire to resolve the dispute in Washington. I wish to contest that point. Over the years, American legislators, associations and companies have publicly made it quite clear that they want the softwood lumber dispute resolved, and for good reasons.

The United States does not produce enough lumber for its own needs. In a letter dated May 17, 2021, addressed to the United States Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, over 90 members of both parties in the House of Representatives urged the U.S. federal government to resolve the matter with the Government of Canada, saying, “We now call upon you to represent American interests on this critical issue by pursuing a balanced agreement with Canada. We, as Members of Congress, stand ready to discuss this issue and potential solutions with you.”

Additionally, on May 12, 2021, members of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations wrote to the Secretary of Commerce and USTR Tai, saying, “We write to urge you to take action to resolve the longstanding trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada on softwood lumber” and also saying, “These imports are vital to support the ongoing housing boom”.

It has not been American denial. It has been the Liberal government's refusal to acknowledge the issue at the highest levels of government and to advocate effectively for a solution to the softwood dispute.

Most interestingly is that the Standing Committee on International Trade published a report in November 2023 analyzing the problem and the possible remedies. During those hearings, Government of Canada officials noted that the minister of international trade raised the issue of the current dispute directly with President Biden. She raised the issue.

According to officials at Global Affairs Canada, the Prime Minister also emphasized the harm of American tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber producers and employees, yet in the report, recommendation 4 states, “achieving an agreement with the United States regarding trade in softwood lumber products ultimately will occur only through direct head-of-government negotiation”, and it also says, “the...softwood lumber dispute should be made a high-level priority in dealings with the U.S.”

They had the President of the United States in Ottawa last March, yet again, the Liberal government failed to advocate for Canadian jobs and Canadian interests adequately.

This report, the timeline and the situation we currently find ourselves in demonstrate that the Prime Minister has routinely failed to resolve the dispute and has failed to make the interests of Canadian workers a priority when dealing with the United States.

The previous Conservative government successfully negotiated a deal, yet the Prime Minister has failed to provide the attention this dispute so desperately requires over the last five years.

Why has he continued to fail to negotiate a deal if these Canadian jobs are so important to the Prime Minister? Why does the Liberal Government not give the issue the attention it desperately needs?

The softwood lumber dispute will not resolve itself overnight. It requires actual leadership to get it done. We, as Conservatives, know that we can get it done. We also know that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 8th, 2024]

With regard to government funding for initiatives to alleviate homelessness, broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) how much has been spent by the government, in total and broken down by province or territory and by major metropolitan area for each department or agency that provides such funding; (b) what are the details of all funding provided, including the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) location of the recipient, (iv) amount of funding, (v) type of funding, (vi) program under which the funding was provided, (vii) purpose of the funding or project description; (c) how much has the government spent to administer programs aimed at reducing homelessness; (d) how many homeless people, including all forms of homelessness, were there in Canada, broken down by province or territory and major metropolitan area; and (e) for each number in (d), (i) what is the yearly change in terms of both numbers and percentages, (ii) what is the total change over the past five years in terms of both numbers and percentages?