Justice Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Scheer, thanks for coming forward with this private member's bill and for your work on it. And congratulations on getting to this point, because not many people do with private member's bills.

A couple of things you said made an impression on me, and I'd just like you to expand on them a bit.

I hadn't thought before about the issue of theft over $5,000. I have a good number of constituents whose vehicles are probably not worth $5,000, so, in a sense, the way they would be treated under the current law would be different from how someone who might be wealthier and have a more expensive vehicle that's worth $6,000 or $60,000 would be.

I'm wondering if you could expand a bit on how the impact of the new charge in your bill, for a theft of a motor vehicle, would provide some equity to the system. As you've said, the impact is probably even greater on a lower-income family that has maybe one car. Could you expand a bit on that?

Also, this figure you cited is absolutely staggering. Was it $600 million a year?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

It was $600 million.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

This figure of $600 million a year.... For people who think theft of a motor vehicle, as long as their motor vehicle wasn't stolen, doesn't impact on them.... What you're suggesting is that in a way we're all victims of motor vehicle theft. Every one of us who owns and insures a motor vehicle is, in a way, a victim right now of people who are preying on individuals and stealing their vehicles.

Could you expand a bit on those two points you raised?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

You're absolutely right to phrase it that way, that we are all victims. When you deal with things like theft of a motor vehicle, where it's mandatory to carry insurance in every province, then we all bear the costs of theft. I think Monsieur Petit was bringing that up as well, that we can't just look at someone who gets assaulted and say it's too bad for him, I wasn't assaulted, I wasn't affected by that crime. In matters like this, property crimes do affect a much larger percentage of the population. Arson affects all homeowners who pay house insurance premiums, things like that.

On the issue of the different types of theft over $5,000 or under $5,000, I want to thank you for this because it allows me to bring up a different kind of offence that's related to motor vehicle theft. A lot of times, higher-end cars, the luxury vehicles, will be stolen for export. But there is a significant amount of evidence compiled by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Insurance Bureau of Canada about the issue of stealing a motor vehicle to commit another crime. In this case it would be something like a pickup truck to break into someone's home or a fast car to take someone away from the scene of a crime, whether they're robbing a store or committing an assault or something like that.

What this provision would allow, too, with the tougher penalties but the separate offence, would be that if the police weren't able to catch the thief or might not be able to prove this particular offender went on to commit the break and enter or the vandalism or whatever, if they could get them on the theft of a motor vehicle, that gives them something they can catch them on.

Just further on the point, you could have someone even more dependent on a car worth less than $5,000 than on a car worth over $20,000. In my riding I would be willing to venture that almost half my constituents probably own vehicles worth less than $5,000. You take a minivan used for taking kids to appointments, to school. It might be seven, eight, nine, or ten years old. Those tend to depreciate to the point where, if they were assessed, the family might only get $4,500 from the insurance provider. But they are no less dependent on that vehicle than someone who has a brand-new $25,000 car. I believe the impact on the family is the same.

I would go further to argue that the families who rely on less expensive vehicles probably only have one or two. Families who are able to afford some higher-end ones might have more options: it might not be their family's only vehicle, or they might have extra coverage on their insurance to allow for rental cars. So I would venture to say that the impact of theft of a vehicle that's worth less than $5,000 could be more disruptive than even on some of the higher-end luxury vehicles. Obviously, I don't have hard data to back that up, but I think it's an excellent point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Mills.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Scheer.

When I look at mandatory minimums and at the question of judges needing guidelines, I think back to something I was involved with in the justice area. A lady had two daughters, five and six years old, and a judge made the decision to force them to visit their pedophile father in jail.

That has always been a major factor in how I think of the justice system. As a result of it, I had 84 other people from across the country in whose cases judges had made the same decision to force children to visit a father who had sexually attacked them. The judge said, “Parliament has not given us guidance, and that's why I had to make that decision.”

I think this is somewhat the same, in that a judge might say, “Really, Parliament hasn't given us clear guidelines.” I guess I see this bill as being clear guidelines: when a third-time offender commits the same crime, they have a definite guideline, in terms of a mandatory minimum.

I think we should really look at that. Judges today I think are asking for those kinds of guidelines.

But my real question is this. When I talk to the police in my community, they tell me over and over again: “We're getting really tired of dealing with the same offenders. We pick them up, we take them into court, they get a minor sentence, or because something wasn't quite right, away they go again. Three weeks later, the same person is before the judge, and again there's some reason why they get off. It happens over and over again.”

Do you think this will help the police in doing their job of getting that second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-, tenth-time offender? Is this going to do the job for them in terms of car theft?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I certainly believe this will be a big step towards doing that.

I've heard the same types of commentary. I've gone on ride-alongs with the Regina Police Service, and they will tell you the person they're on their way to pick up or the person whose home we just went into is a guy they've seen 12 times this year already for various types of offences, and especially for stealing vehicles. As I mentioned, it is a phenomenon in which people are doing it for a living—stealing them to deliver to organized crime or to commit other crimes. They steal an awful lot of them, they get caught an awful lot of times, and they get put right back out on the street, where the police are rearresting the same people. That's a large underlying theme that I've heard from police, not just on auto theft but on a lot of things.

On the providing of guidelines to the courts, I couldn't agree with you more. We've all read stories. For example—this has to do with young offenders—there was a murder, I believe in Winnipeg, by a young offender who killed someone with a pool ball in a sock and was sentenced to one day in jail. The sentencing judge said, “There's no provision in the Criminal Code for general deterrence with young offenders, so I can't take into account what kind of message this sends to the community at large, because Parliament hasn't put that into the Criminal Code.”

The justice minister has, I believe, tabled legislation to address that point, but you're right, in a lot of different areas of the Criminal Code, judges have been asking for the guidelines, for direction from Parliament. As you mentioned, there are some situations where there tend to be some sentences handed out that a lot of Canadians scratch their heads at. If we can provide clear parameters to sentencing judges, we would go a long way toward ameliorating that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Mills.

You may have one quick question, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I certainly appreciate your being here, Mr. Scheer.

The bill is great, a great first step. I have a couple of questions.

My overall feeling is that it deals with the act of somebody stealing a car, but it doesn't deal specifically with the thing that's probably easier to prove, which is the possession of stolen property and the possession of a stolen motor vehicle or its parts. I'm wondering what you foresee this bill doing in terms of that, because I think it is an easier one to prove and would certainly include a lot more people of the organized crime element, rather than people who are simply asked to go out to do one-time thefts to pay off or settle a debt, or whatever the case may be.

I'd like to get your comment on why you didn't deal with possession of stolen motor vehicles.

The other question is, in determining subsequent offences, if you go back to any court, they have to prove theft of over $5,000 or under $5,000. Everything has to be laid out and itemized and given a price value to determine the right sentence. Certainly, in all of those court proceedings or court documents on previous offences, we would be able to determine whether somebody had previously stolen a motor vehicle. The way I read this, somebody who has stolen ten cars up to today, if this were to become law tomorrow, could then steal three cars again before they were charged with the maximum offence here.

Did I read or interpret that correctly?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Let me address your first point first.

I received some correspondence on the wording of the bill, and as I mentioned to Mr. Lee, there may be some technical changes that need to be made for greater clarity. One of the suggestions I got from an RCMP officer was to include wording for possession of a vehicle that is stolen, because often it is easier to prove than that somebody was actually the one who stole it.

Of course, I'm open to discussion on that kind of stuff, and I would certainly encourage committee members to consider it and, if there are discussions around amendments, to have a discussion about whether or not including a provision for being in possession of the vehicle could be included in this wording.

I'll have to be honest. I don't know how this would be interpreted in the case of somebody who had stolen a car ten previous times when this is enacted. Do they get three more before they start facing mandatory minimums? I don't know. I can say that if somebody does have ten previous convictions for this kind of theft, these are just minimums, and the judges are obviously free. Even if it is a first offence under this proposed change to the Criminal Code, the sentencing judge could look and say that there are ten previous convictions. This doesn't tie their hands on going over and above what's in here.

That might help to answer your point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Scheer, I know you have to find your way over to the chair, and seeing that there are no other questions for you, you are certainly free to leave for the Speaker's chair.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I want to thank you all for your time. I understand this committee is very busy, and I understand the honour it is to have a bill get to this point, so I very much thank you for your time and consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

We'll suspend now for one minute and call the next set of witnesses forward. Witnesses, would you like to take your places at the end of the table?

I will advise committee members that food is now being served at the far end of the room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call this meeting back to order.

I would like to acknowledge the witnesses at the table. We have Mr. Mark Yakabuski, president and chief executive officer of the Insurance Bureau of Canada; Mr. Richard Dubin, vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada; and Mr. Ken Haywood, from Auto Theft Canada. Welcome, gentlemen.

I will call upon Mr. Yakabuski to begin.

[Mark Yakabuski, President and Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Bureau of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As president and chief executive officer of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, it is my great opportunity to be able to address this committee. With me today is Rick Dubin, our vice-president for investigations, who leads our industry's fight against auto theft here in Canada.

I'm mindful of the time limits we have, so I will get right to the point.

Insurance Bureau of Canada is the national trade association representing Canada's home, car and business insurers. Quite simply, we applaud Bill C-343 , are fully supportive of it, and ask that all members of Parliament approve it in its current form to make it the law of the land.

Mr. Chairman, I could end there, but given that you've so graciously allowed us ten minutes, I'll take a bit more time to tell you why this bill is as good as I think it is.

Home, car, and business insurers often serve the role in our society of being the canary in the coal mine, and by this I mean that we are on the front lines of dealing with the social and economic costs related to disturbing developments long before most other parties take notice, whether it be the rise of more frequent severe weather claims as a result of climate changes, the increasing cost of litigation that makes business and voluntary groups vulnerable to vexatious lawsuits, or the incidence of staged automobile accidents by those who prefer to abuse the insurance system. Insurers have already been grappling with the damages caused by these costly events for some period of time, and so it is with auto theft.

For a number of years we have seen not only the costs associated with auto theft rise, but the increasing implication of organized criminal activity in the stealing of automobiles across this country. Because the current penalties associated with it are so lenient and the profits are so great, auto theft has become a major focus of criminal organizations in Canada. Organized crime steals vehicles, chops them up to sell parts of specious quality, uses the vehicle identification number to change the identity of another stolen car then sold to an unsuspecting consumer, and, on top of that, exports thousands of vehicles through Canada's ports each year to Africa, eastern Europe, and the Middle East, where they can fetch a much higher price than they can at home.

In 2006, a total of 159,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada. The cost to auto insurance policyholders was approximately $600 million, as the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle reminded you this morning. Honest Canadian drivers paid on average about $40 of their auto insurance premium last year to finance the costs incurred by car thieves.

A further $600 million was spent in total by police, the health care system, and our courts to deal with the problems associated with auto theft. Ironically, so many of our resources are being spent precisely because car thieves repeatedly come in and out of the justice system. Under the current Criminal Code provisions, jail time is almost never handed out to a car thief. Indeed, our courts are in the practice of applying a catch-and-release approach to repeat offenders, treating auto theft as a largely victimless transgression.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that auto theft is far from a victimless transgression. Last year we witnessed the deaths of two teenagers in a taxi, struck by a stolen vehicle in Ontario, and just recently a York Regional Police officer was killed trying to stop the theft of an airbag from another vehicle. In 2004 it was the death of Theresa McEvoy in Nova Scotia at the hands of a repeat auto theft offender that prompted citizen outrage. Indeed, an earlier study by the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft concluded that 81 people were killed in Canada due to auto theft between 1999 and 2001 alone.

Premier Doer of Manitoba certainly understood the pressing need to address auto theft when he led a delegation to Ottawa earlier this year to talk about criminal justice issues. He even brought with him a victim of auto theft--a gentleman who had been hit by a stolen vehicle--in order to underline his plea for action.

With the involvement of organized crime so pervasive in the business of auto theft today and the profits so lucrative, you will perhaps not be surprised to hear that Canadian and American intelligence authorities suspect that auto theft is a possible means by which terrorist groups are financing themselves. Indeed, Canada is an attractive place in this regard. Our per capita auto theft rate eclipsed that of the United States in the mid-1990s and now stands at 26% higher than our neighbours to the south.

Mr. Chairman, you can understand why more and more citizens and governments in this country are asking for action to deal with auto theft. Fortunately, your committee has Bill C-343 before it. This bill addresses the auto theft reoffender involved in organized crime, which engages in this dangerous activity for profit. It recognizes auto theft as a separate and serious offence under the Criminal Code, a vital step in recognizing the often violent nature of this crime. While it proposes mandatory minimum sentences, it does so only for the third offence.

I have to tell you, as an aside, that I was talking to someone over the weekend and I explained what our proposition was in support of C-343. They said, “You mean you're only going to propose minimum mandatory sentences after the third offence?” I said, “Yes, that's how reasonable the bill is.”

Indeed, this is a reasonable step to deal with the reality of repeat offenders.

Mr. Chairman, Canadians have the right to feel safe in their own communities. On that we can all agree. The growth of auto theft, however, and its increasingly violent nature, are compromising their safety. The growing presence of organized crime in auto theft is an even more troubling development and further threatens the safety and security of Canadians.

Canadians count on their parliamentarians to take action on issues that matter to them and to stay on top of changes in the world that have an impact on their lives. When money laundering by organized crime became a problem, Parliament acted. When issues surrounding privacy and identity theft became a concern for Canadians, parliamentarians took action again.

Now that the nature of auto theft has changed and is threatening the safety and security of Canadians, parliamentarians, I'm proud to say, are again taking action, and that action is before you in the form of Bill C-343.

On behalf of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, our member companies, and the millions of policyholders we serve, I urge you to vote in favour of this bill and to send it to the House of Commons for its third reading and approval.

Mr. Dubin and I would be happy to take your questions after this presentation.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Yakabuski.

Mr. Haywood, please.

We'll take questions after Mr. Haywood's presentation.

[Ken Haywood, Founder, Auto Theft Canada]

Thank you very much. Thanks for inviting me here.

What am I doing here? My name is Ken Haywood. I was in the automobile business for a long time. Since I retired from the automobile business, I've been trying to do something about auto theft.

In 2005 I attended the IAATI, International Association of Auto Theft Investigators, training conference in New Orleans, just prior to Hurricane Katrina. Following that I attended a two-day session with NCRAT, the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft, for which I prepared a position paper for presentation to a forum on auto theft made by Barry Ward, the president of NCRAT. Also in 2005, I attended a CCMTA, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, auto theft session, followed by a session with North American Export Committee members.

Why am I telling you this? Because when I heard about this bill, Bill C-343, coming up, I thought I would use my resources and get the person who I felt was most informed about this, and that's Sergeant Tim Shields of IMPACT.

We've talked about the number of vehicles stolen. You're going to get this coming around to you. It shows the diversity of this. We've said that the material cost of auto theft is in the neighbourhood of $1 billion per year. The number of fatalities due to the theft of autos is hard to determine, but figures range from 20 to 40 per year. How does one put a dollar figure to that equation in auto theft? The cost of a death caused by stolen autos cannot be calculated.

Transport Canada considered the fatalities due to auto theft of significant meaning when they decided to make it mandatory that all new vehicles have immobilizers installed as of September 1, 2007. I believe that Bill C-343 is a start to reducing auto theft, as was Transport Canada's immobilizer ruling.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, with the support of Project 6116 and the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft, calls upon the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, to enact legislation creating a separate offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to theft of a motor vehicle.

I heard from Staff Sergeant Jim Peebles of the Edmonton Police Service auto theft unit that their chief supports Bill C-343. I understand that other parties will be forwarding their expressions to the clerk.

The reason I chose Tim Shields is because he just finished a video called Stolen Lives, the story of how drugs and car thefts steal people's lives. We're going to try to get that out to members of the committee. In the meantime, I asked Tim, who spent I think four or five years in Surrey, and who has a knowledge of drugs....

He wrote me this:

I recently completed producing the documentary film Stolen Lives which examines the addiction of auto theft, and the tragedies in human loss that result. After interviewing dozens of car thieves and being involved in about 100 auto theft investigations in BC, I have learned the following:

1. The number of deaths resulting from stolen car crashes is much higher than reported. In British Columbia alone in 2005, 15 people were killed in stolen car related crashes. I obtained this number by manually reviewing every RCMP news release for the year.

2. Over 90% of auto thefts in BC do not involve organized crime groups. These vehicles are being stolen to help drug addicts commit other crimes or for joy riding.

3. Auto theft is an addiction. Many prolific offenders describe their addiction to auto theft as being even more powerful than their addiction to crystal meth or crack cocaine.The only way to stop this addiction is a long-jail term where treatment can be obtained.

4. Prolific offenders will do anything, including running innocent people down, in order to avoid arrest. They are usually prohibited drivers, high on crack cocaine, and they are behind the wheel of a 4000 pound speeding bullet. Auto theft poses a very real threat to public safety. Auto theft is a violent crime.

5. The charge of “theft of motor vehicle” is very difficult to prove. If an offender is arrested behind the wheel of a car that was stolen one day previously, he can only be charged with possession of stolen property. The charge of theft cannot be proven. If the wording of the proposed bill C-343 is used, the offender could not be charged with theft of a motor vehicle. Can the wording of the bill be changed to include “theft or possession of a stolen motor vehicle”?

I highly recommend that all committee members watch the 34-minute documentary Stolen Lives. This video highlights all the points that were just made. The auto theft issue is not just about stolen cars, it is about stolen lives.

I applaud the work that you are doing and I thank you for your efforts in making Canadians safer by moving forward with this bill.

Sergeant Tim Shields is now with the Kelowna RCMP. He is the executive director of Stolen Lives.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Haywood.

We will go to questions.

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming before the committee and making your presentation.

Auto theft is an important issue. I can share some experiences I've had in my constituency. Many people have written to me about this bill, and many constituents talk to me about this issue when I do town hall sessions. This issue is very much in the mind of many people in my constituency who have been directly impacted or know of someone who has been impacted by auto theft. So I'm glad we're discussing this and that we're looking at the private member's bill, Bill C-343.

I have a quick question. First and foremost, Mr. Haywood, you mentioned vehicle immobilizers in your remarks. I want to understand how effective this is in terms of dealing with auto theft. Do you have statistical data on how this has helped combat auto theft?

[Ken Haywood]

Transport Canada has made it mandatory, as of September 1 of this year, that all new vehicles will be equipped with immobilizers.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Is that all vehicles or is that in certain vehicle lines?

[Ken Haywood]

It's pretty well for all vehicles. The reason they did that is because they felt that the theft of vehicles warranted immobilizers.

Manitoba has their own immobilizer program. Anybody in Winnipeg who has a risk vehicle has to have an immobilizer before they get their insurance or registration.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Yakabuski, you mentioned there is roughly $600 million associated with auto theft. On a per premium level, it's $40 per consumer, approximately. How effective are these immobilizers at addressing that cost?

[Mark Yakabuski]

I want to first tell you that the Insurance Bureau of Canada was very, very influential in convincing Transport Canada to have an immobilizer standard implemented in Canada. We believe these instruments are quite helpful in preventing auto theft, but they're one instrument among many things.

As I said, we have to understand that auto theft is not a matter of petty crime anymore. There is a very significant element that includes organized crime. An immobilizer is not going to prevent you from putting a car on a flatbed and taking that car away. While it is a very important technique that we have armed ourselves with, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada was influential in developing the standard, we need other protections to make sure we get at the violent crime that auto theft often is.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

You mentioned the social impact of auto theft in your remarks. You also indicated there is the economic impact to the consumer as well, so you must have economic models that looked at the immobilizer. If this particular bill was enacted, how would that factor in terms of cost? Have you calculated how this would prevent or reduce auto theft? Is there some economic calculation of that as well? Aside from the social implications, have you calculated or factored in specifically what this bill would do to help insurance premiums?