THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 30, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:47 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 29, 30, 35, 36, 43 and 44 of Part 4, and in Subdivisions B and C of Division 34 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, to begin, I sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by the scheduling and subsequent cancellation of today’s clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15. Your steering committee initially aimed to make the most of the available time of today’s meeting to advance our work on Bill S-15; however, after further consultation, we realized that it would be more prudent to stay the course and resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15 once the pre-study of Bill C-69 is complete.
Senators, I know that it inconvenienced you. You worked on this, and I apologize for changing the times again. I appreciate your cooperation and understanding. Thank you, senators.
[Translation]
Good morning, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
[English]
I am Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves starting with the vice-chair.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf Division in Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier Division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario, the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Senators, before we begin, I would ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback. This will make it easier for everybody working and also for the interpreters. I appreciate your cooperation.
As you know, senators, we are meeting to continue our study of the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 29, 30, 35, 36, 43 and 44 of Part 4, and in Subdivisions B and C of Division 34 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
We are pleased to welcome witnesses today to speak on Division 35 of the bill regarding proposed measures to the Criminal Code to create new motor vehicle theft offences. With us is Scott Wade, Detective Inspector, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police.
Mr. Wade, I am very appreciative that you are here, especially when you were in Saskatchewan and had to come and that you made yourself available immediately. It means a lot to us. Thank you for your presence here.
Also present by video conference from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are Philip Heard, Member, Law Amendments Committee, and Simon Authier, Member, Law Amendments Committee.
Welcome and thank you for joining us.
We will start with you, Detective Inspector Wade. You have five minutes.
Scott Wade, Detective Inspector, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police: Thank you very much.
Good morning, bonjour.
My name is Scott Wade, and I am a Detective Inspector with the Ontario Provincial Police assigned to the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, where I coordinate the provincial auto theft strategy, which includes the Provincial Auto Theft and Towing Team.
We have seen a dramatic increase in the value of used vehicles in this post-COVID-19 economy. Organized crime networks have taken the opportunity to exploit the global supply and demand for vehicles and vehicle parts, using profits from these thefts to finance other criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking and international terrorism.
Organized crime groups travel inter-provincially to major metropolitan regions, using spotters to identify vehicles, thieves to steal them and runners to transport the vehicles to the points of export. Many offenders have previous convictions for serious offences and use violent carjackings and home invasions to acquire the targeted vehicles. We know that these vehicles are often placed in sea containers and find their way to the Port of Montreal and ports in Western Canada and Eastern Canada for furtherance to Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Once on our Ontario roadways, these stolen vehicles are recklessly driven, threatening public and officer safety. When arrests are effected, the accused is often in possession of drugs, weapons — including firearms — and technological devices, such as reprogrammed key fobs used to facilitate the theft of vehicles. The problem is very complicated and far from a victimless property crime.
In the Ontario Provincial Police, or OPP, we continue to work with our municipal, provincial and federal policing partners to ensure that these offenders do not go undetected. This includes intelligence sharing and active enforcement measures.
In Ontario, the Ministry of the Attorney General has dedicated Crown attorneys and support staff for the Major Auto Theft Prosecution Response Team, and we continue to work closely with them to ensure investigative excellence.
Collectively and collaboratively, we are responding to the national crisis of public and officer safety by disrupting the transnational criminal market being controlled by organized criminal networks. By working in tandem with the insurance industry, auto manufacturers and all levels of government to develop long-term solutions aimed at drastically reducing the number of vehicles being stolen, we are seeing incredible results.
The OPP continues to work with our federal, Quebec and Ontario policing partners at the Port of Montreal as part of Project Vector, recovering stolen vehicles prior to illegal export.
We continue to expand on the success of Project Volcano, which resulted in the arrest of 34 accused in the city of Montréal. This project showed that car thieves could not come to Ontario and steal our vehicles and avoid court repercussions.
Working with INTERPOL has resulted in the identification of hundreds of stolen vehicles from Ontario and Canada, and partnerships with Équité Association are facilitating the repatriation of stolen cars back to our country. Intelligence gathered from all of these enforcement actions and partnerships are fuelling Project Emission, an OPP intelligence strategy to counter the auto theft crisis.
We prioritize the need for safety within our communities and for our officers. In this light, we recognize the level of violence associated with these organized crime-directed vehicle thefts.
We agree with the statements contained in the National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft. Our collective enforcement actions do focus on disrupting, dismantling and prosecuting the organized criminal groups behind auto theft.
As with all of our investigations, we engage a system of continuous review to ensure we are adapting to ever-changing organized crime techniques as they work to advance their criminal endeavours.
Thank you and meegwetch.
The Chair: Deputy Inspector Wade, do you have any research on what you were saying regarding how it helps with organized crime and other things?
Mr. Wade: We have enforcement action and results from investigations and enforcement to back up those statements, yes.
The Chair: Are you able to provide that to the committee?
Mr. Wade: Certainly. I could provide that in a written form following this meeting, and I can certainly answer any questions regarding that.
The Chair: If you can kindly forward it to the clerk. That would be very helpful. Thank you.
We will now go to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Simon Authier, Member, Law Amendments, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today on Part 4 of Bill C-69 on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP. We would like to focus on Subdivision C of Division 34, as well as Divisions 35, 36 and 44.
Vehicle theft has been on the rise in Canada and is a key priority for police leaders. Organized crime groups are exploiting security gaps to export stolen vehicles and are using the funds to finance their various criminal enterprises.
The CACP strongly supports Division 35, which proposes to make it an offence to possess or distribute an electronic device suitable for committing theft of a motor vehicle.
We also support Division 36, which proposes to prohibit the manufacture, import, distribution, lease, offer for sale, sale or possession of technologies to intercept, make use of or divulge any radiocommunication. While removing tools from criminals is important, this bill is not explicit with provisions that support the access and use of technology by the police to disable, track and recover stolen vehicles. We invite this committee to consider adding such a provision in this bill.
When it comes to auto theft, the police and the public are very concerned about the increased levels of violence associated with these offences. Reckless offenders, many of whom have previous convictions or are out on bail for similar crimes, are committing violent carjackings and home invasions to gain access to certain sought-after vehicles.
The CACP has been calling for stronger minimum sentences for repeat offenders and the creation of new offences related to acts of violence perpetrated while committing other criminal offences.
In December 2023, the CACP commended the federal government for passing Bill C-48 on bail reform. This was an acknowledgement of the urgent need to keep violent and repeat offenders, who pose the greatest threat to public and officer safety, from being released into the community while they await trial.
We are pleased to see that Division 35 proposes more serious penalties in subsections 333.1(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code for motor vehicle thefts when violence is used, threatened or attempted, or when these acts are committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization.
The CACP is also pleased to see that this bill not only acknowledges the critical role of organized crime in the auto theft market but also how these organizations prey on persons under the age of 18 years of age to commit offences. These vulnerable young people are often hired as spotters, thieves or runners. We commend the federal government for proposing the addition of statutory aggravating factors regarding the exploitation of youth by organized crime and hope that it will result in disrupting the operations of organized crime enterprises.
The lucrative illicit transnational market of stolen Canadian vehicles is being controlled by organized criminal networks, the profits from which often finance other criminal activities ranging from drug trafficking, arms dealing, human smuggling and international terrorism.
This is why the CACP supports Subdivision (c) of Division 34, which proposes to provide for an order requiring a financial service to keep an account open or active so as to assist in the investigation of a criminal offence and for a production order to require the production of documents or data on predetermined dates. These provisions are important because they will provide law enforcement with additional tools to gather intelligence and evidence during investigations related to money laundering and terrorism.
Philip Heard, Member, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Regarding Division 44 relating to supervised consumption sites, the CACP continues to advocate for a multifaceted health-centred response that includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery and reintegration, as well as efforts to reduce the toxic illicit drug supply.
The CACP supports a spectrum of principles, policies and practices that do not exist in isolation from one another. Supervised consumption sites are just one of the critical elements of a health-centred approach, along with safe supply and diversion programs. Division 44 proposes to make regulations respecting authorizations for supervised consumption and drug checking services in order to remove it from the application of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The CACP wants to ensure that supervised consumption sites remain an option for communities. It is essential that legislation support efforts to divert those with substance use disorders to health and social services.
Overall, the CACP supports the provisions included in Part 4 of Bill C-69, which address key issues related to auto theft, organized crime and the opioid crisis. We believe the proposed legislative amendments will enhance the safety and security of Canadians and police officers but that additional and explicit provisions are required to support police operations. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. I am going to ask you the same question that I asked Inspector Wade: Do you have any research or proof of what you have been explaining?
Mr. Heard: Yes, I believe we can supply the clerk with information at a very high level. The intelligence that we have been sharing with other police organizations across Canada estimates that, currently, organized auto theft is the third most valuable source of income for organized crime groups.
The Chair: That would be very useful. Thank you. We will now go on to hear from the vice-chair of the committee, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much to all of you for being here. Inspector Wade, I appreciate you having to fly here from Saskatchewan because I am from Saskatchewan and I know the flight connections are often quite difficult. There are not many flights available, so thank you.
I’ll start with you. On Monday, the Peel Regional Police announced the results of Project Odyssey, revealing that 14 out of the 26 people they arrested had already been out on bail for auto theft charges, and eight of the people that they just arrested have been released this week, even though this just happened.
What impact does that have on police resources and public safety? Do you think that the current federal government’s legislation and policies, like those introduced in Bill C-75 on the bail restraint principle, worsens the problem?
I note that in your opening remarks you were speaking about how these types of issues are not simply a nuisance in crime anymore, they have a major impact on public safety now, too.
Mr. Wade: That’s a very good question. Project Odyssey was an excellent example of a collaborative police investigation with excellent results and impact on organized crime and auto theft in the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA, across Ontario and, potentially, Canada.
Yes, the percentage of accused out on bail currently for similar offences is something we are seeing across the spectrum. We’re seeing it in our Provincial Carjacking Joint Task Force, we’re seeing it in our own auto theft investigations. It is certainly an area of concern for us, and one that we’re looking at and covering.
We do utilize bail enforcement teams to follow up with these investigations and subjects that are arrested in carjacking and auto theft investigations. That’s one of the tactics we are using. We have some research that shows the percentages are in line with Peel across Ontario, especially with the carjacking task force.
With the bail reform and some of the issues associated with that, obviously, there is an impact. If there is a deterrent and criminals are held in custody, that is a deterrent factor for accused. If they are repeat offenders, while they are in custody either for sentences or on bail, they are not committing more offences. I think it is multifaceted.
Senator Batters: Thank you for bringing up the carjacking because that, of course, potentially involves some violence and some real risk to public safety.
Inspector Wade, the measures proposed in section 35 of Bill C-69, the Budget Implementation Act, introduces new offences relating to the possession and distribution of electronic devices used to commit vehicle thefts. Do you think those measures will be sufficient to deter criminals from using those technologies? Can you also provide us with a concrete example of how electronic devices are used to committee vehicle thefts, and how these legislative measures could make a difference in this?
Mr. Wade: Yes. With the devices and the legislation proposed for the devices currently, it’s not illegal to possess tools that are used for auto theft. Adding this legislation will provide us with tools to conduct enforcement and also provide a deterrent for people who are currently selling them.
Right now, you can purchase them on Amazon. You can have them at your door in one or two days. These are not coming from overseas. They are local in Canada at warehouses. There have been some discussions offline with retailers — I don’t want to single out any retailer — about providing them. Currently, because they are not illegal, they are selling them. People can have these devices in their hands within days and can utilize the internet to learn how to use them and then use them to capture signals.
Senator Batters: Could you give us some examples of exactly what types of devices you’re talking about?
Mr. Wade: There are several ways to conduct a sophisticated electronic theft of a vehicle, one being intercepting the cars On-Board Diagnostics, or OBD, system. Basically, you have to find a point of infiltration on the vehicle — it’s sometimes in the bumper, sometimes in the front quarter panel — and then these are able to plug into basically the brain of the computer of a vehicle. We love our convenience in vehicles, how they start automatically and how I can adjust the temperature from my house, but that provides an avenue for organized crime to steal your vehicle because it’s just another way to get into the brain of the vehicle.
Another way that they do that is by intercepting either a passive or an active signal from the key fob. When your key fob is sitting in your pocket, it is emitting a passive signal. They can use these devices to capture that signal and replicate it. Then the car thinks the thief has your key fob, but they don’t, they have an electronic device that mimics that. The other thing they can do is steal the active fob. As you’re leaving your vehicle, they see that high-end vehicle and they capture that signal as you’re locking your car.
Those are just some of the ways. Organized crime, sadly, is ingenious, and they will pivot and develop new ways to steal. Some of our conveniences that we enjoy provide an avenue for theft and organized crime.
Senator Batters: Thanks so much.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to the members of the panel. It’s very interesting.
I have two sets of questions. The first one is about the participants in the organized crime. You said it’s the third source of income for organized crime, so this is part of their core business now.
You say they use spotters, thieves and runners. Do you have the profile of those people they use by class, or are they the same people? Are they all youth? Do you have profiles of what kinds of groups they belong to? Are they part of specific groups that you can easily identify in order to understand exactly the backbone of the system?
Mr. Wade: Great question. I want to summarize kind of the way these cars are stolen with a spotter. Spotters are typically — when I say a profile, we are commonly seeing people between the ages of 15 to 22, predominantly. It’s around 30% to 35% — I would have to confirm these stats — are youth or are young offenders by the definition, but I consider 19- and 20-year-old youth, as well, not just by the legal definition.
A lot of times, these spotters are paid $50 to $100 just to identify a vehicle in a laneway or a street for a theft. They are targeting a vehicle that they have been directed to gather information on, then they provide it to a mid-level organized crime manager that will then task a theft group to go and conduct the theft. Sometimes, the spotters are the same as the thieves, but often they are not. Some of them are just unsophisticated “go out and find the cars” and then a thief or a theft group will go and obtain the vehicles.
Then they are brought to a location and runners will then transport the vehicle to many cooling off locations, such as warehouses, sometimes directly to Montréal or directly to an organized crime location.
Then, if they are shipped overseas, there are layers involved there. There are global shippers and freighters. Some of them are directly involved in organized crime, and some are, I would say, somewhat unsuspecting business victims in it.
The profit, as that vehicle moves up the chain, becomes higher and higher. At the end of a theft, a $50,000 vehicle in the province of Ontario could be worth up to $100,000 overseas. The profit is massive, basically.
Senator Dalphond: You referred to one-third being youth in among the spotters; they are very young, like 15. Those who are involved in the thefts, are they also mainly young people?
Mr. Wade: They are very similar demographics, right up to the runners. It is when you get to the global shippers, the freighters and the coordinators, they are often older. They are where you start to get into the sophistication of organized crime.
Senator Dalphond: The thieves and the runners, I guess they must have a driver’s licence?
Mr. Wade: In some cases. In a lot of cases, they don’t, because they have already been charged or convicted of dangerous driving, evading police and whatnot.
Senator Dalphond: You said you have been very successful simply by coordinating all the police in Quebec and Ontario, and the RCMP. So will these provisions assist you to be even more successful, or can you manage without them?
Mr. Wade: No, I believe they are essential to continue our progress. We have made great strides. A few years ago, auto theft was not at the forefront; there were other organized crime priorities. However, with the rapid rise in value of thefts and the danger to the public and police officers, police have pivoted.
We collaborate better than we have in years on auto theft, but that’s just the start. We are starting. We have a lot of projects and investigations that are doing well, but the provisions of the bill in the division we’re discussing will be essential to our continued progress.
Senator Dalphond: Do I have time left?
The Chair: I will put you on a second round.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses who are before us.
I have a few questions for you, Mr. Wade. Thank you for your testimony. It is quite educational to know the different layers involved in auto theft.
I have two questions. One relates to the profile of the youth involvement. You mentioned runners and spotters, and that there is a certain profile in terms of age. Further to that profile, what I have heard in previous testimony is that those youths are often from marginalized populations. Could you comment on that?
My second question relates to the electronic devices themselves. Is it the case that some of these devices can be used for lawful purposes but also for unlawful purposes? How is that managed? How is that determined with respect to that line? How does that proceed with respect to charges, for example?
Please provide some responses to those questions. I would appreciate it.
Mr. Wade: Certainly. I’ll start with the first question in regard to marginalized communities.
I don’t have the stats or research to talk about that, but one of the concerns is the use of youth by organized crime to conduct these crimes. They are revictimizing youth who are often marginalized. In terms of specific stats or research, I’m sorry; I can’t provide that. However, yes, we are very much seeing them taking advantage of people involved in street crime and street gang because of the lucrative nature of auto theft. When I talk about what a runner, spotter and thief get, the money is lucrative.
I don’t know if that answers your question in totality.
Senator Prosper: In part, yes.
Mr. Wade: As much as I can at this moment.
As far as the devices go, some of the devices are multiuse, you are right. Some of them have a very specific use in auto theft. Maybe my friends can speak on that from their work with legal changes to laws and all that. In some cases, we will have to prove the intent for use in that way. Some of the devices that we’re talking about have one use, and that is to conduct auto theft.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Chair: I will ask a supplementary. You said you know how much a spotter gets and different thieves get. Can you share that with us?
Mr. Wade: I will put that on my list. It is based on intelligence gatherings and discussions with people involved in organized crime, as well as through investigations. I’ll provide that for you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: This is for Inspector Wade.
I would like to ask a few questions around Division 35 amendments to the Criminal Code. I’ll try to keep them brief. I would like to get three or four questions in. So please aim for short answers.
How will these amendments enhance interagency cooperation concerning organized crime? More precisely, will the new legislative amendments facilitate better coordination between local, provincial and federal law enforcement agencies? Will they complement the National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft?
Mr. Wade: The short answer would be “yes.” They are going to supplement and greatly assist our coordination that we have right now, and they do align with most of the recommendations from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the national strategy.
Senator Klyne: That’s good to hear.
What role do you foresee for auto manufacturers’ technology in regard to being able to disable or disrupt these electronic devices?
Mr. Wade: They have to take a strong role. Some of the auto makers have been very proactive in seeking out information from police. Then, we provide the information from our investigations to them so they can improve that.
As far as the actual shutoff, there is a need for that discussion, and around safety and implementation.
Senator Klyne: This last question is a two-part question: Are there any additional legislative changes or resources that you believe are necessary to further enhance the fight against motor vehicle theft and organized crime, and did you have any advance consultation with the representatives of government who drafted the amendments?
Mr. Wade: I believe I did. I spoke at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, or SECU, meetings and brought up a lot of these recommendations. We provided these recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety. There has been ongoing consultation. Sorry, I forget the other part of the question.
Senator Klyne: Do you foresee any additional legislation required?
Mr. Wade: We had originally discussed the idea of minimum sentencing requirements, and I don’t see that in the bill. I believe there is an area for discussion there to at least start that discussion.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming and testifying. We always get insight into the world in which you function. We get the top of the wave, so to speak.
I have a general question. Detective Inspector Wade, you referred to some other initiatives that might be attractive in a legislative framework. My question generally is this: From your respective perspectives, are the three of you supportive of the amendments and legislation that appears in this portion of the budget implementation bill?
Mr. Wade: I represent the OPP, and we are supportive of the amendments in the bill.
Senator Cotter: Thanks.
Mr. Heard: On behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Law Amendments Committee, I can say we are supportive of the amendments and believe they will be helpful in combatting auto theft and organized crime.
Mr. Authier: I echo the sentiments of my colleagues.
Senator Cotter: That’s all. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I drive a dented 2014 Honda, which I use a metal key to open. I am probably not going to be the target of these kinds of rings. I also live in Edmonton, and we are a long way from a seaport. But we have a Senate colleague who was recently the victim of a home invasion theft for his high-end specialized Mercedes vehicle. The people who came into his home were young, he said, very young.
I have two questions arising from his experience. He was frustrated because he had an electronic tracker on the car and knew where it was, and when he called the police he felt frustrated that they made no effort to rescue his car. I am guessing it would be fair to say that very few large metropolitan police agencies would have the resources or the capacity to get your car back for you, even if you know where it is on the GPS. Once the car is stolen, how often are you able to arrest the guy who stole the car?
Mr. Wade: I know that is an important question. I think I spoke with your colleague in the halls earlier.
Senator Simons: He’s a bit hot about this.
Mr. Wade: Yes. As far as enforcement goes, I can tell you that if the police received information about where a vehicle is, we will do everything we can to locate the vehicle. We are actually working right now on a working group that has a national strategy and a protocol to locate stolen vehicles and track stolen vehicles. What we’re trying to do is formalize the police response. If this happens in Sarnia, Ontario, or in Toronto or Quebec, every police officer knows who they can contact for assistance and for tracking that vehicle. As part of that strategy, we’re working with the ports and CBSA on advanced tracking, as well as car manufacturers and private companies that employ tracking strategies or devices.
It is very much at the forefront of what we’re developing and strategies to combat that. I will say that we don’t recover all the vehicles. A lot of vehicles are making it out of the port, but with the work that is being done, the improvement has happened. It is huge.
Senator Simons: I wanted to ask all of you. Enhanced sentencing is only effective if you have someone in hand to sentence. If many of the actual people who are doing the thievery are young offenders for whom these sentencing changes won’t apply, how valuable and practical are these changes to actually mitigating the problem?
Mr. Heard: I believe there are two aspects to the response. In terms of policing, obviously, understanding the magnitude of the problem, the impact that it has on our community, including the case that you have highlighted of the honourable senator. Having a more coordinated, robust police response that Detective Inspector Wade has highlighted is the first aspect.
In terms of all of the calls that police face on a daily basis, all of the members of the public that are waiting for service, there is always a prioritization that occurs. Having these crimes elevated in severity means that they will be moved up the list in terms of ensuring a more prompt police response, which ensures service to the community and also increases our opportunity to apprehend offenders and bring them to justice.
Senator Simons: I had a question, if I may, about something in Division 34 that I am hoping the chiefs of police may be able to answer. A question was raised yesterday by Senator Batters at the end of our meeting yesterday about keeping accounts open. The language in the BIA is peculiar, it says “accounts” but doesn’t specify what kinds of accounts. Are they banking accounts? Are they personal social media accounts? This isn’t a question for all of you, but any of you can answer. What do you think about these new rules for keeping accounts open and how do you perceive that they might be useful for crime investigation?
Mr. Heard: I thought it was open to interpretation as well when I read the language in the bill. My understanding is that the generalization of “accounts” could apply both to financial institutions as well as social media. In both cases, I can say that, practically, police investigations can be thwarted when accounts are closed, whether that is social media or banking, in terms of us being able to identify that those accounts exist, that they are potential sources of evidence and for us seeking the requisite judicial authorizations to gather information.
Lengthening that time period would be helpful. My personal reading of the bill is that it would apply to both streams, but obviously, I appreciate that there might be some ambiguity there.
Senator Simons: There are all kinds of accounts. We use that word to describe many different things. Are you happy with the purposeful vagueness of the language, or would you prefer to see it more clearly defined?
Mr. Heard: I appreciate your point. I think it could be more clearly defined. My members’ loyalty card at my local grocery store probably doesn’t need to be kept open for 60 days, but I definitely think that the two more valuable uses of accounts, from a police perspective and enforcement, are banking accounts and social media online platforms. They would be the most helpful, practically, I believe.
Senator Simons: Perfect. Thank you all very much.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You spoke earlier about the issue of minimum sentences being discussed, but that seems to have been set aside. Do you know why?
[English]
Mr. Wade: I’m sorry, I was able to hear about “mandatory minimum sentences,” but I didn’t catch —
Senator Carignan: I heard that it was discussed with the group, and it seems that this part of this improvement was put to the side for a future discussion. Do you know why it was not in the bill?
Mr. Wade: I apologize, I don’t know why it wasn’t. We discussed it. It’s been in some of our recommendations from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, or OACP, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, and it has been discussed, but I don’t know why.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Okay.
It seems that key defects are at play. I know there’s currently a class action lawsuit against car manufacturers, in Quebec at least. Have you had any discussions with car manufacturers to get them to rectify the situation? It’s a safety issue. If I have a number of accidents because the brakes don’t work, it could become a criminal offence, up to a certain point. It’s a safety issue. Many cars are stolen because key codes are captured. This seems to be a security issue. Have you had any discussions with car manufacturers to get them to rectify the situation?
[English]
Mr. Wade: I’m glad you asked that. We have been engaged with automakers about solutions and sharing our information. When we conduct an investigation and recover a stolen vehicle, any information we have about how that vehicle was stolen, what was used or what possible flaw in the system could be corrected, we provide that through our partners with Équité to the automakers of Canada. So we do share that information with them. I know they make attempts to correct the loopholes.
I’m not aware of the class-action suit, but when we talk about engaging with automakers with auto shutoffs and advanced forms of that technology, that’s where the discussion has to happen about safety. It has to be done safely. We can’t stop a vehicle on a fast speed highway, but to be able to slow down a vehicle during a police chase or police apprehension pursuit would be very helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Do you have any statistics on the methods used by thieves? For example, we could say that 35% of thefts are carried out using key code capture. I don’t think car thieves break the glass and touch the wires any more; they’re more subtle. Do you have any statistics on the modus operandi used?
[English]
Mr. Wade: As far as the statistics on how the vehicles are stolen, I don’t have those stats with me. I can’t reply immediately, but I will engage our partners with Équité that we use for that information, and I can provide that in a written form to the clerk.
What I can say is that it constantly evolves. You speak about breaking windows and getting into cars that way, and it still does happen. For one of the methods of theft, they need access to the cabin of the vehicle, so sometimes they will drill a small hole in the window. The methods of stealing are unique to the vehicle and to its vulnerability.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Young people are being used to commit car thefts. That’s a fact. It seems to me that we’re hearing more and more about thieves who have accidents and we realize that they’re young people. I don’t want to generalize, but it seems to be a way of doing things: Young people are used to avoid conviction. Is that what you’re seeing with vehicle thefts? Do they use people under the age of 18 to make sure they don’t get harsher sentences? Is that part of organized crime’s modus operandi?
[English]
Mr. Wade: I believe that it is a tactic they are employing where they want to utilize youth to conduct the thefts and continue their crimes, for a number of reasons. Police aren’t aware of them. We know the operators that operate in the mid-level of organized crime in conducting these thefts. We don’t know those at the low end. This is an intelligence gap for us because they are young and new to the crimes. Also, I think there is a recognition that their punishments won’t be as harsh and they won’t be held in custody.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Clement: Thank you to all three witnesses for your work and for your careers as well. Much appreciated.
I have a question about communication with the Canadian public. When I was Mayor of Cornwall, I sat on the Cornwall Police Services Board. The Cornwall Police Service was careful about staying in constant contact with the community around issues that were going on.
I’m wondering if any of you could comment on how your organizations are going to communicate about these amendments. You said to Senator Cotter that you approve them, but are they reassuring to you? What would you add in terms of public safety? Because, as Senator Simons has indicated, the Canadian public is frustrated and upset. Is this helpful? What more do you think we should be talking about to reassure communities?
Mr. Wade: Currently, we’re developing our provincial auto theft strategy. One of the pillars of our strategy is education, media and delivering information to the public. When there is either a substantial investigative result or if there are changes in the environment that we want to let the public know about, we use the media for that. We have a media strategy as one of our provincial strategies.
We talk about, as a national strategy, aligning our messages, such as for the national protocol for tracking stolen vehicles. We talk about how to deliver that information to the public so that they know what we’re doing, but also to provide them with the information of what you do when you have a car theft and what our response will be.
We have that in our plans. I do not believe we have incorporated the new bill information into a media plan or discussion, but that will certainly be incorporated as it comes out.
Senator Clement: Thank you. Anything else?
Mr. Heard: I’m happy to echo Detective Inspector Wade’s comments.
I appreciate your comment that it’s vitally important for us, as police leaders, to have a robust public communications strategy to educate the public about this novel crime type that has emerged over the last few years, as well as to reassure them that coordinated action is happening. There was great media coverage around the national summit that was held in February, as well as the National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft that has been developed. Obviously, the legislative amendments would be the enaction of all this work that has been done collectively — police leadership, government and industry leaders all coming together to try to combat this novel crime type.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Pate: My question is for both of you but, in particular, for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Your association recently attributed the decrease in auto thefts post-2007 to Transport Canada’s mandate that carmakers equip cars with anti-theft engine immobilizers and recommended that regulated advancements in anti-theft technology be pursued in order to address the ongoing problem of car theft.
Many of us, including me, have concerns that these measures will result in the easiest to catch being swept up into the system and not necessarily — as you have identified, Detective Inspector Wade — those who are most involved, most benefitting from these crimes.
I’m curious what your response is to the fact that those measures are not in this division and that, in fact, the reality that carmakers could address this issue upfront has not been part of the decision making. Instead, we’re looking at a criminal law amendment.
Could CACP elaborate on your position?
Mr. Wade, is there a position from OPP about where we should be going with these kinds of commercial enterprises?
Mr. Heard: I believe that the decrease in auto theft was due to the advancement in technology that occurred. The move toward keyless entry and push-to-start technology greatly helped to reduce auto theft across the country.
Especially in 2022-23, with the emergence of organized crime leveraging these workarounds and leveraging technology for nefarious purposes to defeat the security mechanisms, we’ve seen a rise in organized and technologically driven auto theft. There is an organized crime component to it.
The name of auto theft has inexplicably changed across Canada. Historically, during my police career, it was essentially a property crime — people joyriding, stealing a vehicle to commit other property offences — whereas now we see that over one sixth of all stolen vehicles are never recovered. Quite often, they are exported to other countries, which Inspector Wade has highlighted.
I appreciate your comments. Definitely, both responses are required. The amendments increase the severity and the criminal penalties for organized crime, which is helpful from a law enforcement perspective. Of course, more could be done in working with industry to try to combat auto theft even further, not simply relying upon criminal sanctions.
Mr. Wade: Those are excellent comments. Thank you, Inspector Heard. I agree with everything you said.
I will add to that by saying that what we’re seeing is the evolution of the auto theft crisis across Canada. As cars become more difficult to steal, organized crime groups will pivot. What we’re seeing right now in the GTA is the evolution into violent auto theft — break-ins to homes, carjackings at streets and break and enters, or B&Es. We are prepared for that pivot. When we see it, that’s an indication that we’re having an impact.
With the bill amendments highlighting organized crime involvement, violence and the use of youth in these crimes, it’s hitting the next level of auto theft. As my friend said, 20 years ago, we viewed it as a property crime. We don’t anymore. It’s not, and we can’t do that. That’s how I see these amendments helping to deal with the evolution of organized crime.
Senator Pate: The reason I’m pushing on this point is because, of course, much of the work I have done has been in and around the prisons. We see that it’s mostly the easiest to catch who ends up there, and mostly racialized and poor youth, quite frankly, or young adults, as you identified.
Too often, in my experience in working with police, they are often not given the resources to do the more complex investigations that are required to go after organized crime and international linkages.
Is that still an issue or is that something that is being addressed? I think of as related to car theft, the fact that we have names in the Pandora and Panama Papers, yet there have been no prosecutions of those individuals, when we know they are committing fraud and tax evasion. I’m not convinced that these measures will result in our actually getting the kingpins, if you will.
Mr. Wade: That’s a good point. We talk about a whole-of-society approach. We can’t look at it from any one angle. Of course, we need front-line enforcement, we need social acts and we need to look at what is starting this problem, looking upstream. I can tell you, with our provincial Organized Crime Towing and Auto Theft team, our strategy — our number one mandate is the organized crime groups responsible and behind auto theft. I think I can comment for my partners from the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario that we do focus on the organized crime aspect. We don’t want to round up 30 car thieves. We want to get who is at the root of it and — restrict their financial gains, you know, use money laundering, use financial investigations as part of our tools, and that’s really what we’re looking at, high-end conspiracy, organized crime investigations and charges.
There is a lot of success in that area. Project Odyssey was mentioned earlier, by Peel; Project Fairfield from the OPP; and Project Vector. It is really looking at it not from a recovery, but from an organized time standpoint. Project Emissions, I mean. I could expand, but I hope I answered your question.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s it?
Senator Pate: I don’t know if the CACP wants to add anything.
Mr. Authier: Maybe I could add as well, in terms of the tools provided, this bill also adds the new offence for money laundering which provides a new option for police to go after the higher-ups in the organization, and the tool that is also provided to keep accounts open so we can gather the intelligence and the evidence to prosecute those offences which sometimes is what is missing at the moment. It’s hard to get the higher-up individual because we cannot gather all the evidence.
Those are two tools, from the CACP’s perspective, that we strongly support because they will provide help for the police to investigate the higher-ups in the organization.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Welcome, Senator Forest. We’re glad to have you with us.
Senator Forest: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Authier, who is a member of the Law Amendments Committee.
The police need a warrant to search a sealed container. What’s more, to obtain one in due form, they need reasonable grounds to believe that the law is being broken. Would it not be appropriate to relax the burden of proof requirements for obtaining this warrant in order to facilitate inspection, especially of containers?
[English]
Mr. Authier: The question is related to whether the standard for getting the production order or the account kept open under these provisions should be relaxed from a judicial point?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: You need a warrant, for example, to search a container. Shouldn’t the requirements for obtaining this warrant be relaxed to facilitate the work of police authorities?
[English]
Mr. Authier: From the police point of view, probably we would welcome relaxing of those rules, but I’m conscious that there are constitutional rights for individuals, so we need to balance the needs for police investigation with the public right to privacy. I believe at this point there is a good balance in having the judge and a third party reviewing those principles. It’s probably adequate, and there is, depending on the provision — currently, it’s on reasonable grounds to believe or reasonable grounds to suspect that will assist an investigation.
Maybe my colleague will have more to say, but I do not believe that at this point we are seeking to ask for a relaxing of those rules.
Mr. Heard: I’m happy to add. Practically, the way that we address this in terms of having suspicion as opposed to reasonable grounds or having grounds to apply for a warrant is through enhanced and better collaboration with our partners at the Canadian Border Services Agency, or CBSA, who have much broader powers to search and inspect goods, whether at rail yards or at ports. That increased intelligence sharing and coordination, which are pillars of the National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft, are what is really important.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Still on the subject of containers, is it correct that shipping companies, which transport huge quantities of containers and are often used to distribute stolen vehicles, have no responsibility for what they transport as cargo?
[English]
Mr. Authier: That’s a very good question. I believe you’re correct that they sign their liability away, so they are not liable for what they transport. People who are actually responsible — the people who shipped are not the ones that are responsible for what is in the containers.
There is probably someone better placed than me that looks at the liability side of transportation. Unfortunately, I don’t have the act with me on hand, but I believe you’re correct.
Mr. Wade: I could add a comment to that, if I have time. Very quickly, it was one of our recommendations from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police that there be a discussion around increased accountability for shipping companies. So, right now, they can change a bill of lading 72 hours after it has departed our country and then change the details of shipping. That’s an issue. That’s a problem.
As well, unless they are held financially liable, oftentimes that’s where you promote that accountability. So they are in the discussions, and we have had independent discussions between police and our non-police partners in the shipping industry, and they have been stepping up, and there is more work that can be done. But it’s a very good point.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: Quick question for our panel. These electronic devices, are they banned in the U.S.?
Mr. Wade: Maybe my friends can comment. I don’t know. I apologize. I can look into that and get back to you and find out some legislation in the United States, if you’d like. Maybe my partners have some information on that.
Senator Dalphond: You say they are in a warehouse at some of the main providers here in Canada, but if we make it illegal — but if it’s easy to buy on the other side of the border, it might still remain an option for those who want to have access to these devices.
Are you aware, Mr. Heard or Mr. Authier?
Mr. Heard: No, it’s a very good question. I know that, as Inspector Wade commented, these devices are available online, but specifically how they are regulated and controlled in the United States is a very good question, and it is something we’ll have to research and get back to you.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is about subsection 333.1(1) on minimum sentences. The provision sets a minimum sentence of six months for vehicle theft on the third offence. However, for theft committed with the use of violence and for new offences, which are much more serious offences, there is no minimum sentence. It’s difficult for me to see what reason you have been given for there to be a minimum sentence for simple car theft after a third offence, but no minimum sentence for the more serious offences of car theft with the use of violence, theft committed for organized crime, and so on. How do you explain this? I’m having trouble understanding it.
[English]
Mr. Wade: I can comment quickly, and I’m sure my partners with CACP will have something to say about that.
The mandatory minimum sentencing for a third offence, that would be a serial committer of auto theft, so nonviolent. With the violent offences, obviously there is a wider sentencing range that can be applied. I believe there is a discussion surrounding minimum sentencing for violent auto theft as well. It’s not being discussed right now in the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: On the other hand, you were given no justification for that. That’s what you think, but no justification has been provided to you for not imposing a minimum sentence in these situations, as well.
[English]
Mr. Wade: I’m sorry. I don’t know why it’s not being discussed. There is a place for discussion, and maybe that’s in the further review. These bills are introduced, and there is always constant review. Constant review is a good way to move forward.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am putting the question to the other witnesses. Were you given any justification for imposing a minimum sentence for simple car theft after a third offence, but no minimum sentence for theft committed with the use of violence or for a criminal organization?
[English]
Mr. Authier: I’m not personally aware if there has been a justification for not including a minimum sentence for a third or subsequent offences. What I could say is that despite the fact that there is no minimum sentence, that doesn’t mean that an offender with a third offence for a violent crime is not going to receive a harsher sentence. Most likely, I will hope the prosecutor would ask for more than that minimum of six months on a third violent offence. The fact that this offence now carries a maximum sentence of 14 years will suggest to a judge that it be taken more seriously; therefore, the penalty should be more serious than the first offence.
But the CACP is advocating for stronger minimum sentences for repeated violent offences. It’s something that we would welcome, but at the same time, I know the signal that the offence of 14 years instead of 10 years does give an indication to the court that those are more serious offences. It gives some tools for the prosecutor to argue that point.
It would be a good amendment to see some minimum sentences included in that section as well.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Thank you very much, Detective Inspector Wade. There was a time when it was a sufficient deterrent to etch the auto glass in a high-end vehicle. They would just walk away from that. Similarly, to a lesser extent, just seeing the club locked into the steering wheel was enough. What can you offer for today’s car owners?
Mr. Wade: That’s a great question. With advanced technology, there needs to be an advanced response. So the etching of the glass was a less advanced tech reason to prevent theft.
There are tracking devices right now; you can put seven different tracking devices in your car. The thieves can’t find them, because they are difficult to find. Those are very effective, because you can’t just find one device — an Apple AirTag — and just throw it away. There are multiple devices hidden around. That’s one way.
The thing with technology is that the minute we implement a technological prevention, the bad guys are already working on a solution to it. That doesn’t mean we stop; we continue, we advance, we develop and then we pivot and respond.
Senator Klyne: Is there a web page I can go to?
Mr. Wade: There is. I just don’t want to advertise for a specific company. There are lots out there. It’s my place here to advertise, but you can find them with a web search.
The Chair: Detective inspector, thank you so much for making the trek from Saskatchewan. Some of us do it every week, but it was still very good of you to come, because you’re from Ontario.
To Mr. Heard and Mr. Authier, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
(The committee adjourned.)