Justice Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Is there no actual evaluation or examination of container contents leaving the country?

[Richard Dubin]

Exactly. The current situation with the Canada Border Services Agency is that they feel they lack the jurisdiction to investigate, identify, and seize stolen vehicles at Canadian ports meant for export, and therefore they do not get involved at this point at Canadian ports to stop these stolen vehicles from leaving Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

So there's knowledge that these vehicles are leaving the country--

[Richard Dubin]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

--through a container, but nobody has the authority or the will or both to deal with it.

[Mark Yakabuski]

No one has the supposed authority. We have been discussing this item vigorously, as you can imagine, with Canada Border Services Agency and with the Minister of Public Security, who I know is doing his best to look into this matter to try to bring some order to it. But it is absolutely vital, in the interests of the security of Canada, the security of our ports, and for attacking the problem of auto theft, that there be some enforcement at our ports of containers that are illegally shipping stolen goods from Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It makes sense to me that something could be done.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate the testimony I've heard here today.

I get the feeling from your presentation that the major thrust of this is to tackle the gang-oriented or the organized crime element of this. This bill will not discriminate against organized crime in any way, shape, or form, any differently than it would against somebody who, for whatever reason, wants to steal cars.

While I am certainly supportive of this, I'm curious. I asked this question of the sponsor of the bill earlier today. It would seem to me that if you want to strike at the heart of the criminal element or the organized crime element, you need to do more than take out the pawns that are out on the battlefield. This bill will certainly take out some of the pawns on the battlefield. But the question I have for you is, what other changes, what other additions, what other complementary legislation, what amendments to perhaps this legislation, would you like to see? In your testimony you said clearly that you want it in its current form.

There isn't anything in the Criminal Code that deals with possession of it. There's nothing that deals specifically with the example where you commit a break and enter or if you even have tools in your car that suggest you're about to commit a break and enter. Are there any provisions in the Criminal Code that you would like to see changed, such as having the tools to perform these kinds of activities in a chop shop, these kinds of things, where we can actually get at the organization or maybe get a little closer to the root?

[Mark Yakabuski]

Thank you very much. I think that is a very, very good question.

Politics, as you would know better than I, is partly the art of the possible. You have to be able to start somewhere and attack what is a very large problem that has, frankly, been going on for a long period of time. We are of the belief that this change to the Criminal Code will be of real benefit in allowing, essentially, the penalities associated with auto theft for repeat offenders to be substantially higher than they are currently. I believe that will send a very potent message to people who are inclined to steal cars in this country. They're going to think twice.

By making it an indictable offence after the third offence, I think what we really have in our sights are people who are repeatedly stealing cars. And if they're repeatedly stealing cars, there is an increasing likelihood that they are doing it in concert with some kind of organized crime. So I believe it will be effective in that respect.

As I've said in response to some other questions, there are other things that could be done and that need to be done in order to attack auto theft. We have identified, for example, VIN tampering. Tampering with a vehicle identification number is something that should perhaps be recognized as an indictable offence, because that is something that organized crime does, day in and day out, to steal the value from Canadians. That could be an addition that you would want to look at or that the government may wish to address in its own right, and we would be quite prepared to work either with this committee or with anyone else in the government to bring that about.

Some parallel amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act may also be necessary in order to reinforce the fact that, unfortunately, youths who get caught up in auto theft often become chronic criminals. That's not a destiny that I think anyone wants them to enjoy, and maybe we can do something on that front as well.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you for that.

If you take a look at the definition of motor vehicle in the Criminal Code, it doesn't include something like an RV trailer. I know, as do you as insurers or people who are responsible for those, there certainly is a business of stealing holiday trailers, recreational vehicles, anything that's not self-propelled. If you take a look at the definition of a motor vehicle, a motorboat would be a motor vehicle, as would a Sea-Doo, anything that's not associated with any rail use, but it doesn't include trailers or anything to that effect.

From that perspective, is that something you would like to see in this as well? I know there is a business in that area as well.

[Richard Dubin]

The main concern we had was private passenger vehicles, for the purposes of this bill, because when you consider 159,000 vehicles stolen in Canada, the majority of thefts involving organized crime are primarily of the private passenger, light truck type of vehicles. That's where organized crime is spending most of their time. But that's not to say they're not involved in all other types of organized crime, such as theft of trailers, and so on. They're also associated in so many other areas, as you know—in drugs, weapons, etc.—but we were concentrating on motor vehicle theft because that's where most of the export takes place.

The other area that could be considered and isn't in this bill is that there is a fair bit of theft of very expensive land-moving equipment--Caterpillars, construction equipment, things like that. That's an area that could be considered, but it's not the volume.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I think that would meet the definition of a motor vehicle, as long as it's self-propelled.

[Richard Dubin]

Right. That's just another area that organized crime gets involved in, but that wasn't the main thrust of what we were supporting in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Haywood, you have some comment.

[Ken Haywood]

Mr. Hanger, you asked about the vehicles being shipped overseas. We have a registrar of imported vehicles, called RIV. We do not have the same thing for vehicles going overseas.

I'm meeting with CBSA later this afternoon. If you wish, I can give you what he tells me, the reason they're not doing it, and forward it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I would like that information. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Bagnell is next.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Thank you for coming. It's great to have people on the ground who work in the field.

I come from the Yukon, so you know where this question is coming from.

In Canada, do you find there are more thefts because a lot of us have to turn our cars on early--it was minus 40 this weekend in the Yukon--and go in the house and leave it running? Does it make it even a bigger problem in Canada?

[Richard Dubin]

I can address that.

It is a very large concern that we have here. In York Region alone, where I live, Chief Armand La Barge has his hands full with warm-ups, which lead organized crime to target these high-end vehicles for the clear purpose of stealing them quickly and exporting them across the country. In these situations immobilizers are ineffective. People leave the cars running, and the key, which basically sends the signal to the engine and tells it to start, is in the ignition and the owner isn't there. A significant amount of that takes place during the wintertime.

[Mark Yakabuski]

I could add that we work with police forces across Canada in a program that's called “Lock It or Lose It”, which reminds people that unless they lock their vehicles, they are subjecting themselves to the possibility of theft, and they need to prevent that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My other area of questioning is related to the mandatory minimums. Of course, you probably notice we have a difference of opinion on this point in committee.

Generally, most of the witnesses who came before us as experts working with criminals and victims on the ground said they don't work, that in fact they could increase crime. By putting it in this way, we could actually be increasing auto thefts in Canada, which none of the opposition parties, at least, would want, and we also have a majority of the votes on the committee.

What we want is for the judge to have access to stiff penalties, but when you get these repeat offenders, people who are incorrigible, or people who don't undergo the treatment, we're lobbying to have more treatment in the prisons. Obviously that would be a much better way of stopping them. When they come out, they don't reoffend--but everyone comes out, and if you have someone in there for longer than they should be through a mandatory minimum and they learn how to be a better car thief, that's no help.

If the bill had to go through basically as it is, with steep penalties--and they're high-end penalties, so the judge can put them away for a long time--but there wasn't a minimum for those cases in which there are other and better ways of stopping the person from stealing more cars, would that compromise at least be better than nothing?

[Mark Yakabuski]

I would say that if every judge in this country were willing to take a training session to learn more directly the devastation related to automobile theft in this country, you might have a point.

The reality is that our courts are treating this crime largely as a victimless transgression. In response to that, we have--working with police, with crown prosecutors, and with others--clearly come to the view that after a certain point in time this ought to become an indictable offence.

[Richard Dubin]

Can I add something to that?

First, with minimum mandatory sentences, particularly for the serious reoffenders of three or more times, it's pretty tough to steal cars when you're held in custody.

Second, just for the sake of information, we investigated and interviewed a professional car thief here in Canada, in Quebec. This individual was a pro and had been doing it for 30 years. He told us that he started when he was a youth, and because the justice system was so lenient and he hardly ever got any serious jail time and was making $300,000 a year, he decided to continue in this line of business and had done so for 30 years. So a strong deterrent such as a strong minimum mandatory for that type of criminal is really necessary in order to send a strong message out to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Dubin.

Mr. Moore is next.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for appearing.

Certainly, I think if all of us were to talk to our constituents and ask them if sending a deterring message to those who would be repeat offenders would have an impact on crime, most people would suggest that the answer would be yes. It's completely counterintuitive to think otherwise, for some of the reasons you mentioned. We've heard over and over that because of a lax system, people have been encouraged to stay in a life of crime. Obviously the inference is that if the system were a little tougher on those early offences, then perhaps they would have taken a different path. So thank you for your testimony in that regard.

Mr. Scheer sponsored the bill. He mentioned, and I think you also mentioned in your submission, the $600 million a year, and that would be just in insurance costs, right? There are all the other costs.

I mentioned to Mr. Scheer that the way I see it, it makes all of us who own cars and pay insurance victims of auto theft in a way, because we're all paying for the auto theft. I wonder if you can expand a bit on what, in your industry, this $600 million a year means to consumers, and perhaps on some of the other associated costs, which aren't included in that figure, when it comes to combatting auto theft.

[Mark Yakabuski]

The $600 million is simply the cost of the 159,000 vehicles that were stolen last year times a certain average price for a vehicle. As I said, Canadians are needlessly paying an extra premium in the car insurance they pay in order to account for the fact that we allow 160,000 cars to be stolen in this country. If we took a more vigorous approach to reducing the number of vehicles that are stolen, those savings would be passed on in reduced auto insurance premiums. Our goal, frankly, is to be able to stand before this committee and say, “You know what, Mr. Chairman? Canadians aren't paying a premium anymore because we've finally taken auto theft seriously.”

The reality is that there are all kinds of other costs. The irony, as I mentioned in my remarks, is that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars additionally in our health care system, in our court system, in policing resources. Why? Because we basically have a catch-and-release policy, so we just redo the work over again, and we're not getting at the problem. I would much sooner have those public resources directed in a more effective way to maybe deal with some of the social, health, and economic problems that some of these car thieves may be facing. I think that would be a much more effective use of resources than simply having a roller coaster and a revolving door in our justice system.