Transport Committee on Feb. 1st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

I had a speakers list before. I don't know if it's the same group of people who want to be on the speakers list.

I see the hand of Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Muys, did you want to speak to this as well?

Okay. There's Mr. Bittle, too.

We'll start with Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Strahl is proposing a motion to examine the problem of vehicle thefts and the lack of effort and inspections by the Canada Border Services Agency to address the issue. We are all concerned about that.

It's no coincidence that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has undertaken a study to bring to light what isn't being done or, at least, what needs to be done to remedy the situation.

Everyone is concerned by the growing number of vehicles being stolen and the realization that the agency seems to have a certain tolerance or laissez-faire attitude towards the issue. The agency seems to be throwing up its hands because it doesn't think it can do anything. We can't accept that attitude. If we want to make clear that we condemn what's going on, I'm perfectly okay with moving forward on this.

However, it feels as though we may be duplicating the work that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is going to do. It has a mandate to get to the bottom of the issue. I think we should let the committee do its work properly, and we should focus on the work we have to do, as per our agenda.

I was hoping that we would make progress on our report on the relationship between McKinsey and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I'm still hopeful that we can do it today, so I urge my fellow committee members to deal with this as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Muys.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I'd like to speak in support of this motion.

We're talking not just about the CBSA and public safety but about a federal port. We know that the port of Montreal is a conduit for.... There are 5,800 containers in the port of Montreal and less than 1% are scanned.

I actually did an Order Paper question on this prior to Christmas, and the answer came back with exactly that: that less than 1% are scanned. They didn't specify how many automobiles they thought were being exported—stolen vehicles. They didn't know what that number was. The number they were able to retrieve, and that has been static year over year, was somewhere between 1,000 and 1,100.

Of the 105,000-plus vehicles that are stolen—a lot of that is happening now in the GTA and in southern Ontario—less than 1% are being retrieved at the Port of Montreal.

We know from those who have put Apple AirTags on their vehicles and traced them to the port.... In fact, I spoke with a constituent in the fall who was able to track the second vehicle that was stolen from their driveway to the port of Montreal.

That is a federal port, and that is a federal responsibility, as is the CBSA. In fact, in my own community this past weekend, there were two cars stolen at gunpoint. That's a very violent crime. In fact, there was another vehicle that was not stolen at that particular...that was targeted by a very sophisticated organized crime ring. It caused a lot of headlines. The local police are reporting that their hands are tied because this is something that's going on and being exported through a federal port.

I spoke to one of the neighbours, and this community is living in fear. In fact, it's a street that I lived on 20 years ago, so this is quite alarming, but it's not an isolated example. This is on top of.... It's a daily occurrence now, and it's often in the media locally—in Hamilton, in the greater Toronto area, in Niagara, in Kitchener-Waterloo and throughout southwestern Ontario. This is a problem, and I think we should bring in, as the motion calls for, CBSA officials and others to answer for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

Mr. Bittle.

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

Thank you so much.

I sit on the public safety committee, and this is on the agenda for that committee.

Unfortunately, what we're seeing here is that the Conservatives will delay. They talk a good game in terms of an important issue of public safety, which this is. I don't think there's anyone here at this table who believes that this isn't fundamentally important. However, even though there's a study at public safety, we're seeing Conservatives filibuster day after day. We can't get to that study. Here, what do we have? We're taking a headline, and I'm sure it's true, but the Conservatives don't want to have a study. They don't want to look into evidence. They just want to make a statement to bring a concurrence motion in the House of Commons to delay debate, to further the crippling of the House. This is what this is being used for—not for anything productive, not to get to the bottom of things, not to make a reasonable suggestion. This is all this motion is to do.

Even at this committee they're furious about the Infrastructure Bank, and have to find a way to filibuster to get to a report, which is something they want to do. Even their filibusters are conflicting in terms of where they find themselves.

You can see right through this. Again, I appreciate that this is a very fundamental concern for our constituents across the country, but they're not calling for a study. They're just accepting at face value a line from a newspaper report, which again may be true, but they don't want to get to the bottom of it. They don't want to look into things. They just want to have a concurrence debate in the House of Commons to delay legislation that is fundamentally important to Canadians. Again, they don't want to get to the bottom of it.

Really, what they should do is ask their Conservative colleagues on public safety to stop filibustering Bill C-26, so that we can actually get to a study on public safety and speak to not just the CBSA, but to the RCMP, to police chiefs in the greater Toronto area, to port officials.

With respect, this is not the effort that I would expect for a party that says this is a crisis. This is making a statement and delaying debate in the House of Commons, which will produce no recommendations. It's sad actually, if the Conservatives actually believe this is a serious issue and their response is to filibuster in the committee that's seized of the matter, and to have a throwaway motion in this committee so they can delay debate in the House of Commons, not get any evidence, not listen to the experts, because they have all the answers—not the RCMP, not CBSA, not local police chiefs. They have all the answers on this, and it's disappointing to see.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

I have Mr. Lewis followed by Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Lewis.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, was I on the list at some point?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We had started a new list, and I asked for those who wanted to be put on the new list. I will add your name, Mr. Bachrach.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Strahl had his hand up right away, Mrs. Gallant. You are right after Mr. Strahl, followed by Mr. Bachrach.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I'm sorry to go ahead of everybody else, but I'm honoured to do it.

I have about six things I'm going to chat about here, but it will not be long. This is not a filibuster, but this is really important stuff.

Number one, as chair of the Conservative auto caucus, I have heard this over and over from global automakers, from our manufacturers, and you would think that a company that builds new vehicles to sell would be somewhat excited that vehicles are leaving Canada in droves. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They said they completely need action on this, and they need it really quickly.

I recently—I say recently, last summer—visited the port of Vancouver on two or three various occasions and was right on the shop floor of the port, if you will. I said to the folks who were driving me around, “What are those eight or 10 shipping containers doing in the middle of a parking lot next to a very small building?” They said those containers were the ones that are to be inspected by the CBSA. I said, “You honestly are kidding me, right? Is there radioactive material in there, or is there something that is illegal that you're aware of?” They said no, that those were the ones they took out of the tens of thousands of containers that I was looking at on the port site. It blew my mind.

I realized that the port of Vancouver is not the avenue, not the highway, for the majority of vehicles that are going overseas. I understand that, but I use that as a factual example that when we have so many containers going out of this country, and we don't give our CBSA officers the proper tools and/or the resources, being people, to look at these, then obviously, that only makes sense.

I live next to the busiest international border crossing in North America, the Ambassador Bridge, soon to be the Gordie Howe International Bridge. I would have thought that the majority of this conversation would have been around those bridges, but I do know when I cross the bridge quite often, when you go over top of the Ambassador Bridge on the right-hand side, you will see an X-ray location. Many of these transport vehicles go underneath the mobile X-ray. It's a transport truck that runs alongside a transport truck with a great big arm that X-rays it. They find things right down to such anomalies as cocaine and marijuana, and all the illegal ones that are being exported and imported into Canada.

I have a hard time believing that if they can find something so minute as these drugs, they can't see, with an X-ray machine, a vehicle or three in a shipping container. This goes to my point of why would we not do this study when we realize that folks in Toronto, Montreal, Brampton, down in the Hamilton region, are being so affected by vehicle theft. It's not only the ones who have their vehicles stolen; it's everybody else. One billion dollars is what the insurance companies say the rest of us are going to have to pick up the tab for.

I know, with my children and my wife and my vehicle just how expensive insurance is, so I think at the very least we should be studying this.

Recently I stopped into a constituent's place and had a chat with them on a completely unrelated topic. I asked if they were heading anywhere down south for the wintertime. It was a husband and wife. They said, “Yes, but I have to tell you something, Chris, that's kind of interesting. We have stayed at the same hotel for a number of years in the Toronto area right next to the airport.” The gentleman has a Dodge 1500 pickup truck. The hotel has a private parking next door. He called up the hotel and asked, “As in the past, if I pay an extra couple of dollars and I stay there for two weeks, then will I not have to pay for parking across the street at the Park and Fly?” They said, “Yes, you're absolutely correct. However, we don't have pickup trucks here anymore. We will not store pickup trucks, because the truth of the matter is in two weeks when you come home it will likely have been stolen.”

If that's where we are now, if that's where Canada has come to, then at the very least we must study this at committee. I don't see why we wouldn't study this at committee.

We are, by the way, the transport committee. I am in full support of this motion, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the committee allowing time for me to speak to this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much.

I just wanted to respond briefly to some things that were said. I've heard from both the Bloc and the Liberals. One said we shouldn't study this more in depth because public safety is already dealing with it and another said that a motion expressing concern isn't a fulsome study. I think we're hearing both ways. We're planning to do either too much work or not enough work.

What this motion does is recognize that there is work happening at the public safety committee. It also recognizes the importance of the transport committee weighing in because of the involvement of federal ports. The port of Montreal is the major highway for stolen vehicles. They are stolen in the GTA, the greater Montreal area and all over southern Ontario, put on railcars and shipped to the port of Montreal, where they are exported by organized crime. The idea that the transport committee shouldn't have anything to say about that....

I do have another motion for another time that does call for a more comprehensive study on the port component of this. However, today we're asking simply to take note, raise our concern and report that to the House.

The fact is that 1% of containers going through the port of Montreal are inspected due to a lack of resources. I think we can do this in a way that is respectful of the time in this committee and simply express our concern with that. That's what we're asking for.

I recognize that some people don't want to address this issue or don't want the transport committee...which is responsible for ports and for railways, which are a key component of how these vehicles are moved once they are stolen. They aren't being driven to the port of Montreal. These are using federally regulated assets to move the proceeds of crime.

I think that the idea that the transport committee doesn't have a role to play and that we shouldn't be pronouncing on this is absurd. This simply calls for us to report our concern and call on the government to address the resource shortages that are happening. It's a very simple motion that will allow us to express our concern with what is happening at the port of Montreal. I think this is the best way we can do that right away to say that we've heard the reports.... I don't think anyone is disputing that the port of Montreal is a key transportation hub for stolen vehicles. I haven't heard anyone dispute that.

We can bring forward our concern, note it to the government and indicate that we, as a committee, believe that there are inadequate resources for CBSA at the port of Montreal. We express that concern and then it's up to the government to respond. It's up to the government to note that concern and have a formal response.

I think we're doing our job as members of Parliament. We're doing our job as members of this committee to express concern when things like the ports and the railways are being used to funnel stolen vehicles out of the country to the benefit of organized crime.

Pronouncing on that by way of this motion is the best way to do that. I don't see any reason why anyone would vote against that unless they don't believe there are resource shortages, don't believe that CBSA has a role to play in this, or don't believe that our ports and our railways are an important part of this that needs to be addressed.

Conservatives believe that we need to address the issue of the port of Montreal being that conduit for organized crime to get the vehicles that they steal in this country out of the country. If we're not going to address that as a committee, we would be failing in our duty to Canadians. Let's vote in favour of this, express our concern to the House and move on with it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Mrs. Gallant, thank you for your patience.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I shouldn't have been surprised, but talk about the accusation in the mirror of Mr. Bittle's accusing us of filibustering. If ever there was an example of filibustering, it was his response to this motion.

One thing I learned very early on here is to never assign motive. There are many reasons—

Are you interrupting again, Mr. Bittle?

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

Again?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The fact that we're doing this just to get a concurrence motion in the House speaks to the sheer and utter arrogance and the insensitivity to the people who have had their car stolen. Not everybody can turn around and buy a new car. This causes real hardship, and there are very few rentals available to get somebody through that period. For businesses, it impacts productivity, with which Canada has a real problem.

With all of that being said, ports are federal infrastructure. There is infrastructure available whereby the sea cans can go through an arch, and as they go through, it's not just X-ray, but they can detect the contents by material. It could scan for radioactivity, drugs and human smuggling. I think everyone on this committee would agree that human smuggling is far more important, but equally important is the theft of cars. For that reason, I believe that this motion should pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gallant.

Next I have Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly don't dispute the importance of this topic nor the importance of the motion in front of us. There are a number of different things going on. There is going to be a debate in the House on this topic. I think it's a topic that does concern a lot of people, particularly in central Canada and around the port of Montreal in particular but the port of Vancouver as well.

My concern is that this committee has other business that we want to get to. Folks will remember from the last meeting that I'm particularly interested in the Conservative study on the Lake Erie connector, which I hope we can get to after we deal with our study on the rights of people living with disabilities who are trying to travel by air in Canada and are facing barriers. Those are also important topics to a lot of Canadians.

If, at every meeting, we have additional concurrence motions that take up the committee's time, we're not going to be able to get to those topics.

In terms of importance, I'm not going to argue which one is relatively more or less important than another, other than to say that this committee can do some good work together. It has in the past, and I'm hoping we can continue to do that as long as we sit here at this table together.

In the interest of trying to get us through this and towards a consensus, because I do believe that we've heard that everyone around the table is concerned about this issue of auto theft, I would propose an amendment to change the wording of the last sentence to read, “the committee expresses its concern with these reports and calls on the government to immediately address these resource shortages, as the CBSA falls under the federal government's mandate.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I don't know if the clerk would like that in writing.

[The Clerk]

Yes, if you don't mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We have an amendment proposed by Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, we'll suspend for two minutes while you get that to the clerk, and we'll make sure it's distributed to all members, Madam Clerk.

This meeting is suspended until we are able to get that information from Mr. Bachrach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

The change is quite small, colleagues. Unless it's a request of the committee, I don't think we need it to be distributed in both official languages. It's essentially just the addition of one word and the removal of four words.

In English, in the second paragraph, it would state that the committee “expresses its concern” instead of “report to the House its concern”.

In French, it would read “Le Comité exprime des inquiétudes”, instead of “Le Comité fasse part à la Chambre des inquiétudes”.

It would be five words in French, and four words in English.

We'll get debate started on the amendment proposed by Mr. Bachrach.

Does anyone want to speak to that?

Mr. Strahl.