Justice Committee on June 8th, 2009

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

My question is for you, sir.

[Richard Dubin]

Yes, section 353--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Unfortunately, because of my advanced years, I cannot see your name. Mr. Zechner, you were concerned about the scope of paragraph 353.1(3). I would like to know specifically what kind of amendment you want.

[Frank Zechner]

Oui. Our preferred amendment would be to just delete the exception and leave proposed subsections 353.1(1) and 353.1(2) in place, as well as the rest of Bill C-26.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You seem to feel that it is unlikely that a mechanic, or someone working in a garage, would do that during regular maintenance. We did not think to ask why the minister included this provision. Does the idea of someone removing a vehicle identification number lawfully seem unlikely and far-fetched to you?

[George Kleinsteiber]

Sir, I can tell you that in 32 years in policing, I have never yet seen anyone who has a lawful reason or a legitimate reason for removing it while doing an oil change or repair work. Subsection 354(2) is what we have always referred to as the presumption section. And it does refer in proposed subsection 353.1(1) to a “lawful excuse”.

What you're now doing, by putting in proposed subsection 353.1(3), is giving the criminal element a new reason for or a new way of giving excuses for obliterating numbers.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I do not think so, because here is the wording: “[...] during regular maintenance or any repair or other work done on the vehicle for a legitimate purpose [...]”. No judge could consider organized crime a legitimate purpose. No court of law would consider the wording ambiguous. Perhaps it is not relevant. I did not think to ask the minister when he came before the committee. When we do the clause-by-clause study on Wednesday, we can ask the question, but, as far as I am concerned, the term “legitimate purpose” protects us against the scenario you are foreseeing.

[Frank Zechner]

The legitimate purpose is a valid point, but we are also concerned about the onus. Certainly the obligation on the part of the crown in criminal offences is to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a doubt as to whether there is a functional or alteration purpose, we are concerned that this might be widened. As soon as they cast any doubt as to whether it's legitimate, our reading is that it is a possible defence and is liable to get them off.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Quickly, Mr. Chair, if the parliamentary secretary has an idea of the answer, and is able to tell us why paragraph 353.1(3) was written, I have no objection to his using a part of my time to give us the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'm sure he has taken note of your request.

Mr. Comartin, you have five minutes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Ms. Barr-Telford, and perhaps Mr. Sutherland, do we have any indication that the rate of auto theft in Manitoba continues to decline at the same rate it did in 2007, after they introduced the compulsory implementation of immobilizers for insurance purposes and registration purposes?

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

What I can tell you is that the rate in Manitoba gradually climbed until about 2004, and then declined in two of the past three years, including that 10% drop in 2007. We have not yet released more recent data that speaks to 2008. That will be coming out in July.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Could I ask, Mr. Chair, when that comes out in July, if you could forward it to the committee and if the clerk could circulate it?

Those are the only questions I have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Rathgeber, you have five minutes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for your excellent presentations.

To the Insurance Bureau, I have a couple of questions. You've estimated the cost to auto insurance at $542 million. We've often heard the number of $1 billion batted about. In the next paragraph of your presentation, you indicate that when we include police, health care, and courts, “the cost of auto theft climbs to well over $1 billion”. I'm having trouble understanding what the health care costs of auto theft are. I was wondering if you might be able to help me out on that.

[Richard Dubin]

Yes. A lot of the health care costs that we're talking about there are emergency response units, ambulances going to the scene, and medical treatment at the hospital for immediate emergency treatment. That's part of what we're looking at for the significant costs that build into it.

[Dennis Prouse]

If I may, I'll give one example, a real-life example that happened last week in Toronto. There was a stolen SUV. I believe Mr. Norlock referred to it last week. It crashed through a light standard, knocked out a power supply, and then crashed into a TTC bus shelter. Four people were injured, two of them very seriously. So not only did you see tremendous expenses in the health care system in dealing with these poor injured people, but, to put aside the human cost, now you have the TTC paying for a new transit shelter and you have the power authority paying for a new light standard. The costs go on and on.

These are the kinds of ancillary costs that are dealt with on an auto theft and that need to be taken into account. Those costs are, again, the same as the costs borne by insurers. So whether you're paying for it through your insurance policy or whether you're paying for it through your tax dollars, we all pay for auto theft. That's the message we're trying to get across.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I've heard Mr. Murphy ask the question about immobilizers. I want to include alarms in that question. Do policyholders get some sort of discount or premium reduction if they either employ immobilizers or have alarms?

[Richard Dubin]

It's a decision that's made by each independent insurer, but generally speaking, most insurers do provide a discount when they know that an approved electronic immobilizer is installed. As you know from Transport Canada, there are two types. There's the national standard of Canada, and then there is the European standard.

If they have either one of those, they are able to go to the insurer and ask for a discount. It is most often, I would say, that the insurers see the national standard of Canada so far, because it falls within what we call CLEAR, the Canadian loss experience automobile rating system, and that will give them, in most cases, a discount.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

We've heard a lot of statistics today, both from the bureau and from Statistics Canada. Do we have any statistics on, or is there an appreciable difference in, the incidence of stolen vehicles when the owner has either an immobilizer or some sort of alarm system? Does anybody measure that? Do we know?

[Richard Dubin]

We don't have anything specific measuring that, but we do feel it has played in a significant reduction between 2006 and 2007, that 9% reduction. Sure, there are some other things, such as police units concentrating on those who are repeat offenders and putting pressure on them, checking whether they're following their curfews, conditional sentences, house arrest, and things like that, but we do feel--and the police in Toronto, as well as other police forces, have mentioned it to us--that the immobilizers do make it more difficult.

For those who are using the vehicles for transportation theft—I don't like to use the term joy riding because there is no joy in it when people get killed and injured—who are using it for that purpose, those are the ones that it's really deterring. It isn't deterring the organized professional car thief.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

If I could follow up on that particular question, in British Columbia some of the jurisdictions are using the bait car program, including Abbotsford and Surrey, and they've had some success in reducing auto theft. But I'm assuming that even the bait car program doesn't address the issue of organized crime. It's focused more on the recreational car thief. Is that correct?

[Richard Dubin]

I would say that the bait car program is one of many steps taken to try to make it more difficult to steal cars and, obviously, to catch those involved. But as you know, in B.C., the car thieves are very clever, and as they see a certain area with bait cars, they do have a tendency to move around.

I would say the bottom line is that organized crime in Canada, when it comes to auto theft, has increased. We do base it on the continued decline of those vehicles.

So they are very aware of the movement of the bait cars, but again, it has had an effect. You've had to spread bait cars at a great expense in several areas throughout B.C. in order to make the program effective, and it has had some very positive effects in the province.

[Dennis Prouse]

I should add, Mr. Chairman, that when we've spoken to legislators, we haven't spoken about immobilizers that much, the reason being that sometimes people have the impression there's a technical solution to this, that if we applied technology or immobilizers, somehow they would solve the whole problem. We support immobilizers when we speak on our website and give brochures to consumers; in our communications with consumers, we are very, very enthusiastic about immobilizers.

It is just that immobilizers are only one part of the solution, and there needs to be a legislative solution. So in speaking to parliamentarians, we've been a little heavy on the legislative side and little lighter on the technology side, because there needed to be that emphasis. We didn't want to leave people with the impression that there was a technological solution to auto theft purely, because there isn't. There needs to be legislative action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I want to thank all of our witnesses, including the one in Winnipeg, for coming before us today.

We will take note of the concerns regarding proposed subsection 353.1(3).

At the same time, as we still have an in camera meeting after this, could you leave the room as quickly as possible? Thank you to all of you.

We'll suspend for a couple of moments.

[Proceedings continue in camera]