THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 5, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to consider 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: Good afternoon, senators. I’m Mobina Jaffer, a senator from British Columbia. I’ll now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan. Welcome.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, senator from Alberta. I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good afternoon. Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table. Thank you for your cooperation.
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.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome Cassandra Richards, Lawyer, Criminal Lawyers’ Association; Jennifer Steeves, Director, Industry and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association; and Charles Bernard, Lead Economist, Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. Thank you. I know you gave up a lot time for us, and we really appreciate it.
We look forward to your presentations. You have five minutes each. We’ll start with the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.
Cassandra Richards, Lawyer, Criminal Lawyers’ Association: Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the CLA, to speak with you today. Our organization represents nearly 2,000 criminal lawyers across Canada. More importantly, our members represent individuals charged and convicted of motor vehicle crimes on a daily basis.
Auto theft in Canada is clearly a pressing issue. However, the CLA has concerns that some legislative changes proposed by Bill C-69 will not reduce these crimes nor make our communities safer.
First, the CLA is concerned with enacting redundant and duplicative provisions in the Criminal Code. Bill C-69 seeks to introduce additional criminal offences targeted at auto theft crime. One example is stealing a motor vehicle when violence is used, threatened or attempted. This type of criminal activity is already captured by another offence in the Criminal Code, namely robbery. A person who assaults the driver to steal their car commits a robbery.
The CLA’s position is that creating a new offence that is already captured by an existing offence in the Criminal Code does not assist in combatting auto theft crimes.
Unfortunately, there are numerous detrimental consequences that can result from enacting duplicative provisions. Many of the new offences add redundancy and complexity to the criminal process. It makes charging a jury more complicated. It makes the task of navigating a court system as a self-represented litigant even more daunting. It is an impediment to access to justice, and efficiency in our already overburdened court system.
Moreover, individuals will come before the court with more charges, not because they are alleged to have committed more crimes but because police can charge for overlapping and duplicative offences. This can prejudice an accused person. It places them in a more difficult situation for bail and plea negotiations. It can put unnecessary pressure and complexity on accused persons when fewer and existing charges would suffice and more accurately capture their culpability. Our prosecutors and courts already have tools in the Criminal Code to deal with auto theft crimes. The duplicative provisions are not necessary.
Furthermore, the CLA has concerns about the proposed additional aggravating factor in sentencing. This addition would require a court to find as statutorily aggravating evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of the offence.
I have two main points I’d like to address on this issue. First, in our view, the English and French versions are not coherent and do not have the same meanings. The English version uses the word “involved,” which the CLA views as much broader than the French version, which loosely translates to “cause a young person to take part in.”
Second, the CLA views this section as overly broad, particularly given the choice of the word “involved.” Involving a young person in the commission of an offence can capture a wide array of actions. Take, for example, a very common scenario in our courts. Three individuals have been stopped by police in a stolen vehicle. Two of the individuals are 17, a few months shy of 18. The other individual is 18. They are all friends and attend the same school. If the 18-year-old pleads guilty or is found guilty of an auto theft offence, a court would find it statutorily aggravating that the two younger individuals were in the car. However, the 18-year-old did not pressure his friends. All three were approached by someone in their neighbourhood. They were offered some quick money to steal a car.
The word “involved” is too broad. The intention underlying this proposed aggravating factor is to stop mature adults, ringleaders, from preying on young persons. However, it will also impact the 18-year-old in the all-too-common scenario I have just described.
The CLA submits that more narrow language is required. The provision could use terminology such as “cause the young person to be involved.” The provision could also require a sentencing judge to consider the level and means by which the adult involved the young person.
In conclusion, the CLA cautions against attempts to over-legislate our way out of the auto theft crisis. The Criminal Code is but one often limited and reactionary tool. Thank you again for the opportunity to make these submissions today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Richards. We’ll go to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association.
Jennifer Steeves, Director, Industry and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your study of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024. We congratulate the government on bringing together stakeholders as part of the development of the National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft and the early progress that has been achieved. Important funding announcements targeted to the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, to expand capacity to detect and search containers with stolen vehicles and to police forces to strengthen their capacity to deal with international organized crime are also positive steps forward to address this issue, but more is needed.
Auto manufacturers are deeply concerned about the rise in car theft in Canada. The industry is actively working with stakeholders, including federal, provincial and municipal governments, insurance, and law enforcement to understand challenges and to find solutions to deter vehicle theft.
Manufacturers are continually innovating and improving anti‑theft measures to strengthen vehicle security for their customers. Examples include passive ignition immobilization with encryption systems, active warnings in the event of unauthorized vehicle entry or movement, parts marking, hidden VIN markings, stolen vehicle location services, software updates, and software lockdowns to prevent programming of extra keys and fobs.
But manufacturers alone cannot reduce auto theft rates in Canada. Effective solutions to the theft crisis depend on correctly diagnosing the source of the problem. Vehicle theft rates have grown faster in Canada than in the United States since 2021. This is despite stronger regulatory requirements for Canadian vehicles in the form of mandatory engine immobilizers and the fitment of the same technologies in new vehicles in both countries.
Sophisticated transnational organized crime groups have targeted Canada where the risk of prosecution is low and the financial reward is high.
To successfully combat vehicle theft, we have called for stronger efforts to combat organized crime groups and close the export market for stolen vehicles. The measures included in Bill C-69 to combat auto theft are a step in the right direction.
Specifically, amendments to the Criminal Code and the Radiocommunication Act will ensure there are real consequences for vehicle thieves and make it more difficult to acquire and use vehicle theft devices. However, these measures alone will not end the vehicle theft crisis. Additional action is needed, including the following:
One, funding for law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies require more resources to tackle vehicle theft. Expanded authorities for local law enforcement to access intermodal facilities based on stolen vehicle intelligence would also help stem the movement of stolen vehicles domestically.
Secondly, resources for the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA. Investments into personnel, container imaging machines and remote vehicle identification number, or VIN, verification technologies would help stem the flow of stolen vehicle exports. The recent recovery of 598 stolen vehicles at the Port of Montreal underscores the vulnerabilities at Canada’s ports.
Third, policy coordination. Auto manufacturers are being asked to increase vehicle security while simultaneously being regulated by “right to repair” legislation to provide full access to the data stored and transmitted by vehicles beyond what is needed for repairs. This works directly against the efforts of auto manufacturers to keep vehicle systems secure.
Finally, no solution is completely without ongoing collaboration between auto manufacturers, governments and law enforcement agencies. We are committed to continued engagement and thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I look forward to any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Steeves.
We will now go on to Mr. Bernard. You have five minutes.
Charles Bernard, Lead Economist, Canadian Automobile Dealers Association: Good afternoon, senators. My name is Charles Bernard and I am the lead economist for the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, or CADA. I wanted to thank you for inviting me here today to speak on Bill C-69 and the issues affecting our industry.
I’m here on behalf of 3,500 of our independently owned and franchised auto dealerships. These dealerships and their customers have witnessed first-hand the devastating impacts of auto theft.
Customers are becoming increasingly worried about their car being stolen and justifiably so. Violent home invasions have become more recurrent with car keys being stolen right out from under them and their vehicle driven away. Some of our dealership employees have experienced traumatic events and can testify to the brutal impacts of auto theft and the underlying crime organizations.
Équité Association estimated that in Canada over the last two years a car is stolen approximately every five minutes. This is obviously unacceptable and why CADA has been involved from the get-go as a solution provider to this nationwide issue. The impacts of auto thefts are directly felt by consumers and the common day driver. According to new data released by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, auto theft insurance claims for replacing stolen vehicles skyrocketed to a record-breaking $1.5 billion in 2023.
In a period of severe financial pressure, the auto theft crisis has also had an immediate negative effect on the costs of owning a vehicle and has jacked up insurance premiums for a large segment of Canadians.
While I have just outlined a pretty grim picture, I am here today with optimism after the recent efforts by our elected officials to tackle auto theft. It is also important for me personally to recognize how both the government and opposition parties have removed themselves from partisanship to agree on the central role of organized crime in this crisis and on some of the measures required to stop these criminals.
This is truly positive and well aligned with what CADA has been advocating for, which notably includes, as mentioned, more resources for Canada Border Services Agency to prevent the export of stolen vehicles, Criminal Code amendments to impose harsher sentencing for auto theft and enhanced security at Port of Montreal and other strategic locations to increase the ability to intercept stolen vehicles.
This trend toward more action is a great sign, but more work needs to be done. We were pleased to see our advocacy work reflected in the Government of Canada’s Bill C-69, which dedicates $28 million to strengthen CBSA’s capacity to detect and search containers for stolen vehicles. We need to make sure that this money is put to work like ensuring proper protocols and a higher search rate with better technology for stolen vehicles in shipping containers.
I believe when resources are applied properly, results tend to follow. The 600 recovered vehicles in the Port of Montreal underline how the port is at risk but also that when work and resources are applied properly, there are results. Ensuring harsher penalties for auto theft criminals and organized crime was another crucial part of our advocacy work. That’s why we were pleased to see some of the government opposition parties put forward strong and effective Criminal Code amendments.
We welcome the additional offences drafted for motor vehicle theft when violence is used, threatened or attempted, as well as for criminal organizations. Additionally, we applaud the government for filling the legislative gap and creating a criminal offence for possessing and distributing an electronic device used for theft.
To limit auto theft and protect Canadians, tougher sentences for repeat offenders and organized crime are essential, which is why CADA also appreciated the official opposition’s recent proposals, which allow for real, tangible solutions like harsher penalties for repeat offenders, repealing house arrests for criminals convicted of a serious offence and making organized crime an aggravating factor during sentencing, are all necessary steps to truly address this crisis.
Finally, our members have a role to play in fostering a safe environment for customers, whether it’s by protecting assets —
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. Can you slow down a bit?
Mr. Bernard: Yes, sure, I understand. No problem.
Our members have a role to play, whether it’s by protecting assets or serving as educators on best anti-theft practices when engaging with these customers. However, CADA is increasingly worried that the new fiscal approach on taxation of capital gains might disincentivize our members to invest in their dealerships. I know people in this room would agree Canadians deserve to purchase their vehicles in locations that are safe, sustainable and, most importantly, geared for the transition to electric vehicles. To accomplish that, heavy amounts of dealership investments are needed but there are legitimate reasons to believe this measure will have the opposite effect.
With that said, CADA recognizes the great work done here within the Government of Canada and opposition parties, all the work they’ve dedicated to this and we encourage them to do more as CADA wants to be a resource and provider of insight for this. Thank you for having me and I look forward to answering your questions, both in French and English. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bernard.
We’ll now go on to questions. I have a question for you, Ms. Richards. You said that there are some words that are different in French and some in English. Have you identified all in your work or just a few?
Ms. Richards: Thank you for the question. I haven’t identified all the words for all the provisions. What certainly stood out to the Criminal Lawyers’ Association was the difference in wording in the aggravating factor as being proposed on sentencing. And really, it’s the wording in French —
[Translation]
In French, it says, “a amené une personne âgée de moins de dix-huit ans à prendre part.”
[English]
Whereas, in French we’re talking about involving a young person in the commission of the offence.
The Chair: May I quickly ask — sorry, I’m putting more work on you — if there are others, kindly send them to the clerk and we will look at them. Thank you very much for pointing that out. It’s really important.
Ms. Richards: Absolutely.
The Chair: I have a question for you. In your view, what are the implications of a new aggravating factor for the offenders who solicit persons under the age of 18 in the commission of a motor vehicle offence? Does it signal to the courts a need to impose harsher sentences? Are there any unintended consequences you see from a legal standpoint, perhaps where a minor is involved? Thank you. Sorry, it’s a long question.
Ms. Richards: That’s okay. Thank you for the question.
First and foremost, what we have to understand is that this aggravating factor is not only going to apply to auto theft crimes. It will apply to any crime whatsoever if someone pleads guilty or is found guilty.
For example, a parent goes to the store with their unknowing child and steals food. According to this legislation, that child is now involved in the commission of the offence because, according to the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the word “involved” is too broad. What we now have is someone coming before the court who stole food with an unknowing child and it will be statutorily aggravating that the child was present.
First and foremost, it applies to all criminal offences, should it be enacted. In terms of what’s happening now in our courts, our courts are already considering — not because of statute or the Criminal Code — whether a young person is involved in an offence. It’s already seen as aggravating. So to the extent that judges already take that into consideration, it depends on the circumstances. But I think from the Criminal Lawyers’ Association’s perspective, it’s important to recognize this is not just for auto theft crimes. It will apply to all crimes, and particularly given the broad language used, it has the potential to implicate behaviours and actions that were not intended through this provision.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Richards. We will go on to other questions.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Ms. Richards, for your comments there. Were you meaning all criminal offences dealing with theft or does it actually apply to all Criminal Code offences, period?
Ms. Richards: It would apply to all Criminal Code offences. Don’t quote me on the exact section of the code, but under 7(18) of the code it’s our provisions on sentencing. Therefore, there are other statutorily aggravating factors that are already listed, such as that the offence was linked to a criminal organization or was done for the benefit of a criminal organization. But given the placement of where it is in the code, it would apply to all offences that come before the code.
Senator Batters: Thank you. That’s a very important point. This whole discussion that you’ve brought to us today really illustrates the perils of having these types of sections in a budget implementation act. It’s several hundred pages. The government has chosen to put this Criminal Code auto theft provisions into a several-hundred-page BIA, and it’s very difficult to properly study and even more difficult to amend, actually, even when — a situation that seems to exist here — it’s actually needed to improve faulty drafting language.
I will also now ask a couple of my questions to Mr. Bernard of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.
Mr. Bernard, Detective Inspector Wade of the Ontario Provincial Police stated that electronic devices enabling vehicle theft can be easily purchased online and delivered quickly. What responsibility do automobile retailers have to inform their customers about those types vulnerabilities and how to better protect themselves?
Mr. Bernard: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. That underlines one of the key roles that dealerships have had in this crisis and we will keep on engaging with the education aspect. That’s not only from what they’re hearing from their relationship with the manufacturer who might have more information on how these devices work and what part of the vehicle is targeted, but also by collaboration and sharing information with the police services. Dealerships, for most of the crisis, have acted as information centres, and the best dealerships that have had the most success in sharing that information are people who have been involved and researching it and engaging in discussions with partners.
Retailers also have a role to manage anxieties of the customers because even if there’s technology, we might, for whatever reason, ban a certain type of technology. Thieves are incredibly smart and have access to information to a level which, in the past, they did not. Yes, part of it is informing what technology and devices there are, but it is also about what they can do themselves to protect their vehicle and to manage the stress that comes with it.
It might sound weird to say, but there’s a need to be thorough in the way you engage and make sure you follow up with them. Are they using the devices properly? Are they putting in place the recommendations that the dealers have done? Follow through is needed.
Senator Batters: Senator Carignan, my Conservative colleague on this committee, recently noticed a class-action lawsuit against car manufacturers in Quebec that are due to security flaws in electronic key systems. What conversations has your association had with vehicle manufacturers to make sure those flaws are addressed and to improve vehicle security?
Mr. Bernard: I’ll start answering and maybe Ms. Steeves will jump in after. Dealers have a close relationship, whether it’s the dealer councils, which is the dealers themselves; or associations, like us, that engage with the manufacturer. The class-action lawsuit is more related to the manufacturers. Once again, there is a role for information. They are getting their insights from the consumers. Some of the frustration was expressed to the dealers before the class-action lawsuit. Our emphasis has been on clear communication with both the manufacturers and the consumers to make sure that trust is being built between the consumers and the dealerships and that they are not necessarily a mouthpiece for the manufacturers and vice versa. To ensure that their questions, concerns and the information that they want is shared with the manufacturers, the CADA has monthly meetings with the manufacturers.
I don’t know the specifics of the class-action lawsuit itself, but that’s what the dealer’s role has been in the past, namely, more a link to information and good communication. Sometimes it may be not enough, but that’s their role. They need to have even more in the future.
Senator Batters: Thank you. Ms. Steeves, do you have something brief to add? Then I’ll need to go on to a second round of questioning.
Ms. Steeves: Quickly, I can’t comment on the Quebec class action specifically, but there is a proposal around the communications piece and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, is launching a consultation on that as well. I think work is under way. It will take a collective effort on the theft piece. There are a lot of components to it.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I thank our witnesses for being here today. As always, we really appreciate it. My question is for Ms. Steeves.
[English]
In your remarks, you stated that Canada has become the favoured place to steal a car. Organized crime has targeted it, as you said, because they saw that maybe the sentences were not harsh enough compared to those in the U.S. Do you have numbers to compare the situation of how many cars are stolen in the U.S. versus in Canada in proportion to the total number of cars or the population?
Ms. Steeves: Data is available on that. I wouldn’t want to quote the numbers, but we can pull that and provide something to you as a follow-up.
Senator Dalphond: Okay. Are you aware of the variations in the U.S. about the legislation? There is no Criminal Code. The individual states make criminal laws. It’s not federal criminal law. I assume that some states are much harder than other states. I won’t mention the name of states in case I make a mistake or I offend anybody, but some states are more lenient on offenders; others have three strikes and you’re out and you have to stay for life in jail — or they used to but it was revoked.
Is there a study showing that there is a correlation in some states where more cars are stolen than in others?
Ms. Steeves: Yes. I can look into that for you. With organized crime, they are doing the calculation on where there is risk and where there is reward. Where they feel there will be fewer penalties, they will take the greater risk because it’s a lucrative business for them. They are gaining a lot of funds through this. It’s sophisticated and they are doing those assessments.
Senator Dalphond: I understand you don’t have any studies on a per-state basis, but I assume the location where you steal the car — that is, whether it is close to a harbour or not — is an important factor too. I suppose that stealing a car in Montana is less effective than stealing one in Toronto and driving it to Montreal. Do we have a study that shows the correlation between harsh sentences and stealing cars, or locations or networks? It seems to involve more sophisticated things than just looking at whether we are harsher on sentencing. I think it is more nuanced than that.
Ms. Steeves: Yes, I think sentencing is a key component, but, to your point on the ports, if there isn’t the resources or the capacity to go through containers, they quickly identify that. They will expose that vulnerability.
Senator Dalphond: That makes me think that the problem is not harsh sentencing but having enforcement. You can have the toughest laws in the world for car theft but if you don’t check what is going on in the cargo that is leaving your port, you won’t be very effective.
Ms. Steeves: Absolutely. There is a combination of factors. Funding and the capacity at the ports to examine cargo closer is an important piece because organized crime will expose that. As well, there is the sentencing part. There needs to be several components to an overall strategy to combat theft.
Senator Simons: My question is for Ms. Richards. Ever since the testimony that we heard last week, when it was explained to us how many of these steps along the supply chain of these cars are crimes being committed by young people, I have been worrying about the knock-on effect of increasing the severity of sentences for people who, if they are not still young offenders being charged as adults, have recently turned 18 or 19 years old.
Does the CLA have anything to say about the unforeseen consequences of giving people who are so young such a serious criminal record at a time when we still like to think that people might be open to rehabilitation? We will be saddling very young offenders — even if they are not technically young offenders — with significant criminal records. Are you worried about what that might mean for clients and for the correction system down the road?
Ms. Richards: Thank you for the question. The CLA doesn’t necessarily believe that imposing harsher sentences will necessarily lead to a safer community. The reality is that if you put someone in jail for six months for their first crime at 18 years old, they are spending six months in jail with individuals who are older and might have more entrenched criminal activity. This remains an important time of socialization, growth and development of a person at 18 years old.
Another consideration is where are these individuals going? Where are they serving their jail sentences? For many of these crimes, if they don’t involve violence — or if it’s lower-scale violence — they will be serving their time in a provincial institution that does not offer a lot of rehabilitation or any type of counselling or programming to ensure that the person will come out better and be able to contribute more meaningfully to our society.
The CLA’s view is that harsher jail sentences won’t necessarily lead to our safer communities. In fact, it makes it much more difficult for an individual to come back, gain employment in a lawful way and contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Senator Simons: I suppose the methodology implies that once you capture the little minnows, you lean on them hard until they flip and give you the big sharks. But that could mean a lot of pressure being put on the people who are the youngest and the dumbest, perhaps, in the supply chain as opposed to getting the big fish at the end.
Ms. Richards: It presumes that they have knowledge to share. The reality is that many of these people are approached by someone in their neighbourhood or a family member.
Senator Simons: “Pay you $100.”
Ms. Richards: Many of these people come from very marginalized or racialized communities. They just think, “I’ll make $200. It will be some easy money.” They don’t know the person behind all of this, so cracking down on these young people, in the CLA’s view, isn’t necessarily going to lead to getting the ring leaders or decreasing auto theft crime.
Senator Simons: Whether the Artful Dodger turns on Fagin is a different question.
Does the CLA have a view on the scope or meaning of “ . . . commits a theft for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization”?
Ms. Richards: I would ask if I could kindly provide our position on that in writing to you.
Senator Simons: Send it to the committee, yes.
Ms. Richards: Absolutely.
Just briefly, there is a significant amount of jurisprudence that defines what a “criminal organization” means, and it’s not always very clear cut. It will depend upon the case before the court.
But I’m certainly happy to provide that position in writing.
Senator Simons: Sure. Thank you very much.
Ms. Richards: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Richards, that would be very generous of you. May I please ask that you provide this written statement as soon as possible, because we’re finishing the study tomorrow. I’m not asking you to do it by tomorrow but as soon as you can, please. Thank you.
Ms. Richards: Understood. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Ms. Richards might be aware that the Criminal Lawyers’ Association has made previous submissions around the fact that longer, more punitive sentences don’t actually increase effectiveness at all. So you might be able to just pull from some of those old to briefs that were sent.
My first question is for you, Ms. Steeves. One of the issues being raised with our office and many others is that there is the technology and the capacity for car manufacturers now to increase and improve the technology to prevent much of the car theft that is happening. Why would we pass this kind of approach that is not likely to be effective to fundamentally change things, except, as my colleagues have already pointed out, to potentially end up with poorer, racialized, predominantly young kids in custody? Instead, why wouldn’t we insist that car manufacturers implement the technology that could address this issue?
Ms. Steeves: The manufacturers are very committed to customers and customer safety. There are ongoing technology advancements to harden vehicles against theft. There are a lot of different ways they are going about it. Companies are working with government and law enforcement on an ongoing basis to report theft.
Again, it comes back to the need for a multifaceted approach to combat theft when it comes to very sophisticated organized crime. One piece of that is that it’s essential that manufacturers continue working on technologies, and that is ongoing. As well, the capacity for the CBSA to monitor exports out of key ports, where vehicles with being exported from, is important. Law enforcement and the CBSA needs the capacity to undertake that work.
The risk-reward for organized crime — there needs to be appropriate penalties for those who are stealing vehicles.
Senator Pate: There already are those penalties.
Law enforcement organizations like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have attributed the significant fall in auto thefts after 2007 to a regulation passed by Transport Canada mandating car makers to equip cars with antitheft engine immobilizers. Why aren’t you advocating for regulations mandating newer, more sophisticated antitheft devices?
More than one individual who has contacted me has suggested that it’s not in your interests, because you certainly get more auto sales if more cars are stolen. I suggest that’s a little cynical, even for someone like me to suggest.
But what kinds of evidence do you have? Do you have materials that you could provide to us showing what investments have been made? What new and advanced immobilizers — where are the investments that your members are making in these types of approaches, given the previous successes?
Ms. Steeves: The manufacturers are looking at a lot of different technologies. I don’t have the investment numbers; it would be related to the competitive interest of the company sharing that information. There are concerted efforts to harden vehicles against theft; it’s ongoing. Very close work is happening with Transport Canada and law enforcement agencies to come up with systems that will thwart organized crime.
Again, organized crime is very sophisticated. They have been able to figure out systems and find vulnerabilities, but it’s really something that is ongoing. It’s challenging.
Senator Pate: Have you done any investigations into organized crime infiltrating manufacturers?
Ms. Steeves: How so?
Senator Pate: In terms of being part of the process of the so-called competitive process. You aren’t able to disclose that, but have you done investigations into that kind of infiltration? Certainly, in many contexts internationally, that’s been shown to be part of the issue.
Ms. Steeves: I’m not aware of anything, but I can certainly circle back.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association. Here’s something I’m curious about. Canada isn’t the only one in the world. Isn’t auto theft a problem in the United States, Europe or Japan? Is it happening more here? The technology is the same. If I rent a car in the United States or Europe, isn’t it pretty much all the same technology, such as magnetic keys used to start the car?
Is this a problem in other countries, or is it mainly in Canada? If so, why? If not, why not?
[English]
Ms. Steeves: It is something that is happening in other countries. In the U.S., thefts have been increasing. I think the government has made some preliminary steps that are making progress, such as the Port of Montreal, for example. So you’ll see organized crime shift to other areas where there are more vulnerabilities.
It’s a broad problem, and I think organized crime will look at where they can get the vehicles stolen and out of the country. So wherever there is —
Senator Carignan: But that’s worse here in Canada than in the United States?
Ms. Steeves: It has been, yes.
Senator Carignan: Why?
Ms. Steeves: Comparatively, the sentencing has been lighter. The capacity of the ports are different in terms of monitoring outgoing containers.
They look for weak spots. There have been perceived advantages to theft efforts here versus some other jurisdictions.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: They go after manufacturers faster in the United States than we do here.
Outside Canada, are there lawsuits against manufacturers because of inadequate security or the fact that it’s too easy to capture the signal from a magnetic key, which makes that a manufacturing defect? Is that a security factor? They put locks on the doors, but if just anyone can open the lock, that’s not very effective. Have there been lawsuits outside Canada against manufacturers?
[English]
Ms. Steeves: Not that I’m aware of. The technology piece is something the manufacturers are continually working on to try to harden their vehicles. Again, organized crime is savvy and they will look at technologies and find ways to overcome. It is a constant process.
Senator Carignan: They are organized.
Ms. Steeves: Exactly, and they’re well funded.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
Senator Batters: To the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association: I want to delve deeper into this issue of what manufacturers are doing and what sort of advanced security technologies you think they should recommend, or you would recommend to them, to prevent these types of thefts that are going on with these electronic devices becoming very commonplace. I am also wondering if you have any data or statistics on the prevalence of vehicle thefts using electronic methods like key signal capture.
Ms. Steeves: Regarding the data on key signal capture, I don’t have anything I can quote right now, but I will look and see if there is anything available.
Senator Batters: Thank you. As you heard, we’ll need it fairly quickly, if you could get that to us in the next day or so, please.
The Chair: Please send it to the clerk, who will distribute it.
Ms. Steeves: Thank you. I will do so and I’ll get back to the clerk.
Senator Batters: What about the other types of technologies?
Ms. Steeves: The companies are making those investments and the engineers are working on new technologies. There are some examples, which I gave in my opening remarks. We don’t have a list of technologies to share because we clearly don’t want organized crime to learn where manufacturers are looking at making changes and hardening the vehicles.
Senator Batters: Can you give us broad categories?
Ms. Steeves: I would go back to what I shared in my notes, the passive ignition immobilization with encryption software updates, those kinds of things.
Senator Batters: Encryption, you said.
Ms. Steeves: Passive ignition immobilization with encryption systems, active warnings in the event of unauthorized vehicle entry movement, parts marking, hidden VIN markings, stolen vehicle location services, software updates and software lockdowns to prevent programming of extra keys or fobs.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I have a question in response to your comments. Is there scientific data showing that Canada is now the auto theft capital of the world? I see value in drawing a comparison with the countries that were named. I really appreciated Senator Carignan’s question.
I definitely understand wanting to tackle organized crime. I have no problem with that, but not if the idea is to make laws clearer only to make them harsher. These are little fish. These are kids who might end up in jail. It will cost taxpayers dearly. Do you think we’ll just end up filling prisons instead of dealing with technology and all the technological keys and systems in our new cars? I would rather go after that than fill up jails.
[English]
Ms. Steeves: Thank you for the question. To combat this, there needs to be a collective and multifaceted effort. Criminals will look at where they think they can get away with the least penalty. There needs to be a balance where they feel enough pressure that there would be consequences for the theft.
Law enforcement and CBSA also need the funding and resources to have the capacity to help to identify vehicles that are headed out of the country. I think that policy coordination is really important. There are a lot of different components to working on this, for certain.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Mr. Bernard: I can send documents to the committee later, but I have data on the difference in rising auto theft rates between the United States and Canada. The data comes from the U.S. Federal Insurance Office. From 2021 to 2022, theft in the United States rose by 7%, which is similar to other G7 countries, such as Europe and the United Kingdom, but it went up 21% in Canada over that same time period. I think your comments are important; we do need a more holistic approach to this issue. Economists like that term, but I think there aren’t enough disincentives to prevent people from doing this. It may be because prison terms are longer. I think there’s been a precedent set in Canada that makes the auto theft process feasible and, often, successful.
I think the process has room for improvement on both sides. What will make a difference? Fear of jail time? More resources and creative solutions at ports so CBSA can catch these people? If they’re more likely to get caught, we might see some changes.
The auto theft crisis isn’t necessarily unique to Canada, but it is more acute, and that’s what worries us. There was a great comment earlier about the situation in the United States. For example, someone had talked to the Port of Montreal reps who said that, both historically and traditionally — maybe because of more resources, but I’m not sure — the United States monitors everything going into and out of a port, but Canada pays more attention to what’s coming in than what’s going out. It’s a different approach.
Baltimore is one of the biggest ports on the Eastern Seaboard. That’s in the Virginia and Maryland area, where there’s lots of crime, but where exports haven’t risen as much. That may be because of stronger disincentives for theft. It’s a combination of all those factors that may lead to a positive solution. I’ll share the numbers with you if I may. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much for coming; it always informs us of things that we don’t know a great deal about but are in your wheelhouse.
I want to enter this conversation — I think this is mainly for you, Ms. Steeves — in the “ounce of prevention” category. You talked about how well heeled the organized crime folks are. I can imagine that if they’re targeting the city of Moose Jaw, which doesn’t have excessive resources to resist the wisdom of organized crime — but auto manufacturers have pretty darn deep pockets here. I would have thought that it is well within the capacity of auto manufacturers to continually develop devices and strategies that can thwart organized crime.
I would also have thought, contrary to your suggestion, that the more people knew about, let me call them anti-theft devices, the less likely anybody would be to try to steal those cars.
I live in a condo now, but I used to own a home. I had a sign right in front that said, “I’ve got detection devices so don’t break into my house.”
Senator Simons: Did you have any?
Senator Cotter: That’s not the main point, right?
The point is that if you have them and you tell people who might be inclined to try to steal your stuff, they probably won’t or they are less likely to. So the idea that oh, we don’t want to tell anybody that we’ve developed anti-theft devices seems to me to be counterintuitive. Can you respond to those observations?
Ms. Steeves: Thank you for that. Again, the auto manufacturers are investing in technologies, in systems to combat this on an ongoing basis. Certainly, it’s important that customers understand that their new vehicle, or the vehicle they’re purchasing has as far as anti-theft. We can provide some broad examples but I think it wouldn’t be helpful to list everything, because the crime would certainly take advantage of that.
It is ongoing, and manufacturers are very committed to ongoing development and working with authorities to combat theft.
Senator Cotter: Perhaps a small supplementary. This is a really unfair way of putting this, but I’m going to put it this way anyway, Ms. Steeves. The kind of desire not to have anyone know what Ford is developing, it has occurred to me that maybe it’s because you’re afraid, I don’t know, Tesla or Chrysler or somebody might steal the idea from Ford as kind of an IT thing. But I would have thought that if you were a car company and you could say it’s going to be pretty difficult for anybody to steal your car because we’ve put a technology in, that would be a selling feature. I would buy such a car, or I would be more likely to buy such a car. I don’t hear that from car manufacturers, though. Have I not been listening, or is it that we just don’t tell anybody how difficult it is to steal such-and-such a car because we don’t want somebody to figure out how to work around the technology?
Ms. Steeves: That’s an important point. But I think with organized crime, vehicle theft is very lucrative and they are taking extraordinary steps to figure out theft systems. Companies are very much committed to advancing what they have on these vehicles. Every new model year, vehicles are coming out with new and hardened systems. It’s ongoing and there’s always more to do. But certainly the manufacturers are committed to that. Again, it’s multi-faceted. Law enforcement needs the support and capacity as well, and the importance of all the stakeholders collaborating and working on this as a collective effort. There are a lot of moving pieces to this, for sure.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Based on what you said, I get the sense you’re not accepting any responsibility.
For example, if the key to get into my house is a code, and I publish the code in a newspaper, I’d have no business saying that there’s a major theft ring and lots of crime in my municipality and it’s the police’s fault for not being there to stop the thieves.
It’s like you’re not taking any responsibility. By definition, a key is a small device with a unique formula to lock and unlock something. However, if the formula isn’t really unique, and anyone can get it, the device is no longer a key. If you sell me a car, you’re also selling me a key, and if you’re telling me anyone can use it, my insurance premium is going to go way up.
I understand that you don’t want to take any responsibility, but do you think manufacturers should make more of an effort to find solutions? Yes, other parties share in the responsibility: Customs and the police aren’t doing much. However, I feel that a significant share of the responsibility lies with the manufacturer, don’t you?
[English]
Ms. Steeves: The manufacturers are constantly working on new ways to harden their vehicles. It is ongoing. They are making those investments and it is top of mind, for certain. They’re very committed to this and they want their customers to be safe. That’s very important for every manufacturer.
Senator Tannas: Ms. Steeves, are you able to tell us what percentage of vehicles, new vehicles today, would be able to be tracked when they’re stolen? I drive a pickup truck, have done for 30 years. It won’t surprise anybody. I’m from Alberta. I’ve probably had 15 of them, and in the last 25 years, they’ve all had OnStar. I know that if I get a crash, boom, it’s going to locate me, I’m going to be talking to somebody. Even if I didn’t subscribe to OnStar, it would do it and I’d have to pay after the fact. That’s General Motors.
I’m wondering, you’re getting a rough ride from people that you’re supposed to solve this problem, but it seems to me that if there’s a large percentage of automobiles that can be tracked, and that technology is there and not disabled, it falls on somebody else, doesn’t it, as well, to go catch that or go find it? I’m curious. Or am I missing it? Are these sophisticated thieves able to easily disable OnStar, as an example?
Ms. Steeves: They can.
Senator Tannas: So all of that technology and the hardening that you’re talking about doesn’t work?
Ms. Steeves: It’s ongoing. You can introduce new technologies and over time organized crime will concentrate on those and try to figure them out, reverse engineer, so to speak. It’s ongoing. It’s challenging, and companies are working toward new systems, new processes, to make it more and more difficult for someone to steal a vehicle. Again, it’s constant because crime is always sort of at your heels on that a little bit. They’re well funded. I really would emphasize that companies are very much working on this ongoing, and working with government departments and with law enforcement to further develop systems that will defeat criminals. But it is ongoing.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Cotter: Perhaps it’s not the technology, but nobody wants to steal your half-ton truck.
Senator Tannas: [Technical difficulties].
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming. We very much appreciate your time here.
Senators, for our next panel we welcome Scott Elliott here in the room with Mr. Alexander Caudarella and Mr. Thomas Kerr both joining us on video conference. We’ll begin with opening remarks from Mr. Alexander Caudarella.
Alexander Caudarella, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, or the CCSA, today. My apologies I can’t be there in person. I’m joining you this evening from the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. I have been meeting with counterparts this week about the broader drug issues as, like Canada, the U.S. is impacted with growing severity of the crises gripping both countries. One thing remains clear. We need to include a spectrum of treatment, recovery, prevention and harm reduction, all of which that arc toward improved health.
For supervised consumption sites, the benefits are clear. They are not limited to mitigating the harms related to overdose but also work to improve other key health conditions. These sites function as a critical access point for additional health and social services for underserved populations. One of the patients I’ve had as a family physician for some time felt so stigmatized and excluded from the health care system that he waited months with a spine infection that nearly left him in a wheelchair. It was a supervised consumption site that got him care, cured his hepatitis C, started him on methadone, and ultimately helped him to reduce and eventually stop his drug use.
[Translation]
Supervised consumption sites have been around for over 40 years, and they’re a necessary and scientifically validated part of the continuum of care. That said, regulatory changes show that the way these services are set up and delivered is as important as the services themselves. They should be deployed as a partnership: Neighbourhood and community residents should be invited to participate in the discussions and consultations.
Supervised consumption sites should serve their clientele, but they should also take care of their neighbourhood. That’s why it’s important to make the right choices and provide necessary supports. For example, sites in residential areas, where families live, should have the necessary funds to play an active role in picking up trash around the sites and in the neighbourhood. They should be accountable to their communities, and they should collaborate with municipalities and police services to keep their neighbourhoods safe.
[English]
The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction is committed to informing our feedback with the voices of those with lived and living experience, service providers, researchers and other partners. We know that application requirements can be a burden for many organizations seeking approval for opening or continuing operation of a supervised consumption site. Proposals to open and operate a site are often led by small, community-based organizations operating in an environment of budgetary constraints and with minimal human resources. Greater streamlining and simplification and a renewed focus on partnership and true collaboration would improve the application and renewal process for applicants.
We have a collective opportunity and responsibility for transparency, openness and accountability. The onus is on us and our communities to collectively devise a straightforward approach that prioritizes both the needs of clients and the public, the quality and consistency of services across the country, and the efficient and effective use of resources. As it stands, the process is not transparent and prevents or deters communities from applying, which then leads to accelerated harms and, unfortunately, deaths.
We should also seize the occasion to ensure that supervised consumption sites become more embedded in the overall health and social systems that function as a front door to wellness. The sites are well positioned to provide a range of harm reduction and health supports to people who use drugs, like drug checking services and peer-assisted programs, and can significantly increase access to primary care services. If you see someone every day, build that trust and connection, you can build their confidence and mobilize the moment they’re ready to reduce or stop use or build their motivation to health.
As you may have already heard, people working on the front lines of this crisis are experiencing high rates of burnout and trauma-related disability. A streamlined and standardized regulatory process can prioritize key necessary components such as needed wellness supports for workers.
We are witnesses to a worsening crisis in an era of cheap and deadly synthetic drugs. The use patterns of those who are dying are rapidly shifting from injection to inhalation, and the structure and accountability can help supervised consumption sites evolve and adapt to these new realities.
If we treat supervised consumption sites like the public health interventions that they are, they can become the wide open door that leads frequently to treatment and health. If we engage communities in dialogue and ensure that wraparound supports are in place and reduce the regulatory red tape, we can improve public safety and save lives together. A greater availability of evidence-based substance use health supports is urgently needed.
On behalf of CCSA, I want to thank this committee for taking the time to explore and better understand supervised consumption sites and other resources to recognize the diverse community settings in which they should be integrated via meaningful engagement and partnership and the potential impact of proposed amendments to the controlled substances act. I welcome your questions and remain available for this committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We will go on to the presentation from you, Mr. Elliott.
Scott Elliott, Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Peter Centre: Hello, everyone it’s a pleasure to be here. The last time I was near the Senate was in 1986 and Senator Jacques Hébert was on a hunger strike. I don’t get to be here often to be in the company of the Senate.
I’m not a policy guy. That’s not my wheelhouse. I’m rooted in real-life experience. I am living with HIV. I have had Hepatitis C and I’m a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. I have navigated years of stigma in substance use challenges giving me more of a unique street-level kind of perspective.
I’m also the CEO of one of Canada’s largest HIV and harm-reduction agencies. I’m an active board member of national organizations, so I witness the successes and failures of our policies, our treatment modalities and our front-line solutions every day.
I have never looked at things like Bill C-69 before. I was going through it and trying to understand it. I see us moving from an emergency situation to something that is more entrenched. It’s smart to have regulations and to have a clear, straightforward process. I also think it’s sad to have to acknowledge the permanence and long-term impact of this problem.
From my perspective, I want to make it super clear that while I believe regulations will help with government efficiencies, they won’t solve the problem of chaotic drug use or the related issues we see in the community.
The problem is not about supervised consumption sites, as easy as it is to blame. The problem is about poison drugs, shifting drug-use patterns, mental health issues, complex medical care needs, homelessness, poverty, stigma and community safety. The polarization and the politicization of these issues are the problem. Outdated policies and funding silos are the problem. A failure to innovate and comprehensively address the needs of a population sidelined by society is the problem.
In my organization, we look at it from a larger macro sense. We see that doubling down on strategies that don’t yield the desired results doesn’t make good business sense; it doesn’t work. That’s why we’re fully supportive of new approaches and trying things in a different way.
When we talk about the people we serve at the Dr. Peter Centre and the organizations that we work with on the front line, we’re not talking about weekend warriors, or about people who dabble the occasional time, or about people who have a lot of support and the means to find treatment or ways to do it on their own. We’re talking about a portion of the population that, remaining unchecked, will continue to consume a disproportionate amount of resources, public discourse and political hand-wringing. In the work that we have looked at, we see about 2% of the Canadian population.
About 30 years ago, when AIDS was a complex and polarizing issue, the Dr. Peter’s stepped up and provided hope and solutions on a national stage. And 20 years ago, when we opened our facility in Vancouver, we also opened North America’s first supervised injection site. Many of you won’t know that because it was done under a loophole in the B.C. nursing act and did not have legal federal exemption until many years later. Just seven years ago, we took out a national mandate to lead front-line organizations struggling to find solutions in integrating harm reduction measures.
When we look at this in the macro sense, it’s sometimes hard to see the hope. It’s hard to see the solutions. However, where I work, we see solutions and hope every day. We connect our clients to medical care that both respects and align with their choices and stabilizes their health. We have proven health outcomes, including medication adherence and fewer hospital visits. We have a therapeutic environment and provide counselling, drug treatment, art and music therapy and restore people to humanity. Few good decisions are made on an empty stomach, so we provide healthy and nutritious meals. We’re cost effective, operating at a fraction of the cost of acute care beds or incarceration and we’re a good neighbour. Where we operate, right in front of us is an elementary school and a park, and we’re in one of the most densely populated areas of Canada.
Our model of being a front-line medical organization, a national community mobilizer and an innovative thought leader remains fairly unique. We are not unique, though, in seeing the gaps and issues across the country. There is no clear leadership for front-line organizations that work in this space. It is not one cohesive sector. We’re not talking about a sector but, rather, siloed and separated sectors that work without any integration, housing, health. When we look at front line, Indigenous, African, Caribbean and Black communities, shifting government policies, funding, complicated provincial mandates and municipal issues make program resiliency difficult. We’re going to see that get worse and not better.
The Chair: Mr. Elliott, I’ve been very generous with the time, but that’s too long. If you can just conclude.
Mr. Elliott: I’ll summarize. What are we looking for? What do we want? We want to address the client needs in a holistic manner, streamline funding silos, recognize that no one size fits all and ensure that the regulations created by government enhance solutions rather than create more barriers. Thank you.
The Chair: At the end, if there are no questions, I will let you finish. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Thomas Kerr.
Thomas Kerr, Director of Research, British Columbia Centre on Substance Use and Professor of Social Medicine, University of British Columbia, as an individual: Good afternoon. I’m very honoured to be here and would like to thank you for inviting me to participate in this meeting. I would like to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you today from the unceded and traditional territory of Coast Salish people, including the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
I have extensive experience characterizing high-risk substance use as well as the impact of related health interventions and policies. I’m trained as a psychologist and have over 15 years clinical experience including in the field of substance use.
I also have extensive experience evaluating supervised consumption sites in settings throughout Canada, the U.S., Australia and France.
Beginning in 2003, I led the scientific evaluation of North America’s first sanctioned supervised consumption site. I have published over 40-peer reviewed studies on the topic of supervised consumption sites, also known as SCS. There are now approximately 40 federally approved SCS operating in Canada, and there are over 100 of these facilities implemented in over 60 cities and 11 countries. The objectives are to prevent infectious disease transmission, overdose events and related deaths, connect people who use drugs with external services, including addiction treatment, and improve public order by reducing the use of drugs in public space.
The evidence is clear and there is little serious academic debate about the merits of these facilities. They meet these objectives. One of the highest forms of scientific evidence is the systematic review where evidence from several studies on the topic are combined and analyzed to reach a conclusion regarding the effectiveness of a given intervention.
There are now three peer-reviewed published systematic reviews on SCS that reach the same conclusion, namely, that SCS are effective in meeting their objectives and do not produce negative unintended consequences. This was further affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada where the justices were unanimous in their support of Insite, Canada’s first SCS, and concluded that Insite had been proven to save lives.
Sadly, despite the mountains of peer-reviewed evidence supporting the effectiveness of SCS, this form of intervention has been grossly politicized in Canada. I would be happy to provide examples of this.
With the introduction of a specific legal regime for SCS exemption under section 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA, the previous government made the federal process for approving SCS extremely onerous.
In 2019, the HIV Legal Network produced a report that found that the federal exemption application process represented a significant barrier to the expansion of this life-saving service across the country. Their follow-up work on this topic in 2024 found that, despite progress made to streamline the exemption process, case-by-case exemptions continue to pose barriers to the scale-up of SCS, including by leaving the decision to legally operate a site in the hand of the federal government.
The HIV Legal Network has recommended depoliticizing and facilitating SCS implementation by removing the requirement for site-specific exemptions. They notably recommend that the federal government grant a class exemption, including through regulations, that would automatically provide protection against prosecution under the CDSA.
Supervised consumption sites are essential harm-reduction services, and clients and staff should not be exposed to criminalization for attending them.
Critically, any new regulatory regime must guarantee more, not less flexibility and pathways to rapidly scale up a diversity of services where needed. Access to SCS, including inhalation services, is vital for the thousands of people who use drugs in Canada and face the risk of dying a preventable death due to the toxic drug supply. All unjustified red tape to SCS implementation must be removed. The new regulatory scheme should not impose conditions for SCS authorization that would maintain or create barriers for the rapid scale up and prevent their full integration into a comprehensive set of services for people who use drugs.
Onerous community consultations are one example of that. One might argue that communities should have a say in the implementation of SCS, despite six studies undertaken in three countries showing that the implementation of SCS actually improved public order and did not exacerbate crime. Yet, these consultations at the community level often devolve into unfounded, non-evidence-based claims about public disorder and crime.
I note that we do not consult local communities on the establishment of services for cancer or cardiovascular disease, so why such an elaborate approval process for SCS? The onerous approval process appears really to be rooted in the discrimination and stigma associated with substance use, not evidence.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is time to accept that SCS are evidence-based life-saving interventions and should be implemented wherever need is identified. These decisions should be left to the very local expert health officials who have been charged with protecting the health of individuals and communities throughout Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Elliott, I’ll give you my time to finish.
Mr. Elliott: I’m good. Thank you.
The Chair: Then we’ll go on to questions.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. Yes, you’re very efficient, Mr. Elliott. That was a good summary right at the end that you just did.
First, I would like to ask questions to Mr. Kerr. From a research perspective, Mr. Kerr, what are the advantages and disadvantages of moving from ministerial exemption system to a regulatory authorization regime for supervised consumption sites?
Mr. Kerr: Unfortunately, I don’t think we have any research evidence to really comment in a conclusive manner. I think, right now, it’s very unclear what “authorization” really means, but it seems like it could confer very broad discretion on the Minister of Health to place limitations or constraints on the operation of these facilities.
My point is really that this is a case of exceptionalism where we are placing an evidence-based health intervention that has been shown to save lives in a whole other category than other services. It’s time to drop this federal approval process and leave it to local health officials to determine where the need is and what types of facilities should be implemented.
Senator Batters: I was thinking about this as you were giving your opening remarks, but given what you said — that it’s unclear what “authorization” even means — they have plugged in a small section into a massive budget implementation act, which, as I was saying in a previous panel, means that we have a several-hundred-page bill that our committee is only able to have a limited time — basically, this one panel — for our study on this part of it. Then, we have to deal very quickly with that and get the bill back to the Senate so that it can be dealt with, because it’s part of a budget implementation act. So we’re also unable to potentially really amend things.
Do you think this is the sort of provision that should even be in a budget implementation act, or should it be in a standalone piece of legislation that we could properly study and, if necessary, amend?
Mr. Kerr: I fully agree with your comment that this should really stand as separate legislation.
I agree with the recommendations of the HIV Legal Network. They are international experts on legislation and controls related to these types of facilities. Their recommendations don’t really jive with the bill we’re discussing today.
Again, my great concern is that, given the lack of details regarding what “authorization” means and the potential for new powers given to the Minister of Health to impose constraints and limitations, we’re actually increasing the extent to which these facilities could be politicized in the future as governments change.
Senator Batters: Is it given to the Minister of Health — I didn’t look at it — or is it given to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions?
Mr. Kerr: I’m not sure. I was under the impression it was the Minister of Health, I could be mistaken. Regardless, I don’t think this is the mechanism we should be using.
Enough is enough. These facilities have been in operation for over 20 years. We have mountains of peer-reviewed evidence. Experience is growing internationally with these facilities. There is no serious academic debate about the merits or claims about public disorder, crime and enabling drug use; that has all been studied. We don’t need this debate anymore. These are effective interventions, and given that we’re contending with what is really the worst public health crisis in the modern era, we have to be doing all we can to save lives. Reducing barriers to the implementation of these facilities is one way to do that.
Senator Batters: Thanks for your time.
Senator Dalphond: Just to follow up with the same witness. Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott, and the other witnesses who are attending today virtually.
I’m going to ask the question, nevertheless. Do you feel these amendments are a political response to those who claim that these centres are a real source of problems in the city’s downtowns around the country and that the experiment has been a disaster for many people?
Mr. Kerr: It’s hard for me to speak to the specific motivations of the government. What I have observed as someone who worked in the field over 20 years is that we often take progressive steps forward, and then when we have a backlash, governments try to win favour by acting a little tougher on these issues.
So it could well be the case that such a dynamic is in place here. It’s hard for me to say. But again, this exceptional treatment of this evidence-based intervention is totally unwarranted. I’m very confused by this bill and why we would be moving in this direction at this time.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for that answer. I fully agree with you. We should look at facts and not ideology.
From your testimony, I gather that the facts are not supportive of the conclusions that these centres as a source of problems, deteriorations and even the greater use of illicit products?
Mr. Kerr: Yes, it’s quite clear. As I mentioned, there are at least six studies taken from three different countries, including some from Canada, that have looked at the issue of public disorder and crime. They all found the same thing: Public order improved. Let’s be clear: That makes sense. If you take 500 people a day who would otherwise be injecting in the public and put them in a medical facility where they are provided with sterile equipment and where they leave their used equipment, you’re going to have less drug-related litter on your streets and less crime. So it’s very clear.
We also published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which, as I’m sure the committee is well aware, is one of the best medical journals in the world. We found that, actually, the rate of people entering into a detoxication facility, the first stage for abstinence-based treatment, increased by over 30% in the year after Insite in Vancouver opened.
So it’s very clear: These sites don’t create crime or public disorder, and they do not enable drug use. Any kind of pandering to those concerns is more politics than reality.
Senator Dalphond: Would you mind sending a link to this article to the clerk?
Mr. Kerr: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: I don’t know if you have submitted a brief to the committee. I know you were contacted at very late in the process, so I don’t know if you have submitted a brief to the committee, but I think every member of the committee would appreciate reviewing the article.
Mr. Kerr: You’re correct. I was contacted at the eleventh hour, where normally I would like to have submitted more materials in advance. I can do that tomorrow.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Can you send it to the clerk and he will distribute it to us all? Thank you.
Mr. Kerr: Yes, I will.
The Chair: I’m sorry, we did contact you very late.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Here’s what I’m wondering. Shouldn’t the minister’s or Governor in Council’s regulatory power include mandatory stakeholder consultation? In the notes, we’re told that stakeholders, including the provinces and territories, will be consulted, yet I see no obligation, unless I missed it somewhere in the text, but I don’t think so. I don’t see any legal obligation to consult.
I don’t see anything about consulting municipalities, either. For some of the sites with exemptions, we can see that the municipalities are directly involved because they’re in the community. There are zoning issues, and standards for construction, fire prevention, police services and first responders. We don’t see municipalities in any of the notes, even the ones from the government. Shouldn’t the consultation process to establish the regulations and the elements that must be taken into consideration under the regulations and permits that have to be issued be quite broad, involving all the stakeholders mentioned in the act? My question is for all three witnesses.
Mr. Caudarella: I can start. I don’t work for Health Canada, so I don’t know exactly what will be included. The way I read it, the regulations aren’t in place yet. It’s not public consultation, it’s public participation. So we’re trying to develop this idea of what people should expect from a consumption site, just like what people should expect from any health care facility that would be located in a particular environment or community.
Any government or country that has been able to turn the page on a drug or alcohol crisis has done so by involving the whole community. What we’ve seen is that consumption sites can help communities. We see less violence in the area and more cooperation with the health care system and even the legal system. Ultimately, neighbourhoods get better. It’s really all about participation.
In addition, there has to be a mechanism to deal with the neighbours’ problems or concerns, a mechanism they can use to make complaints. This has to be the same as how complaints about health centres, hospitals or any other health care facility located in a neighbourhood are handled. I really want to emphasize the idea that the centre is part of a neighbourhood and that it needs to be set up in such a way as to be part of the neighbourhood in conducting its operations.
Senator Carignan: To clarify, from a zoning perspective, planners will try to locate a hospital on a site that can accommodate it because it’s a pretty big building, and they’ll probably want room for expansion. They’ll also make sure it’s near major roads. Comparing that to the kind of injection site located here seems inappropriate. Planners will try to locate a hospital near where the need is, in more underprivileged areas because the people who need it aren’t going to take a taxi to get to emergency. It has to be easily accessed, right on the road, nearby. Isn’t that kind of a clumsy example? Is it suggesting that “disadvantaged area” is the same as “higher risk”?
Mr. Caudarella: Any place that provides services has to be convenient to the place where the services are most needed. It’s not helpful to put all the consumption sites in underprivileged areas. It makes more sense to put them where the need is, which isn’t always in those areas. The questions that should be asked in a city are the same as for any other health care facility. What is the need? Where should the facility be located? Where is it needed? It doesn’t necessarily have to be where there’s poverty and more unhoused people. That would have more of a stigmatizing effect than anything else.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses.
The numbers from Alberta are very sobering. In 2019, the year before the pandemic began, 626 people in Alberta died of drug overdoses. Last year, it was 1,867. In Edmonton, where the death rates are some of the highest, in 2019, there were 190 deaths, and last year, there were close to 700.
It’s hard to say to people that things would be even worse without supervised consumption sites when things are pretty dire. There is no alternate timeline that we can go check as a control.
As I understand it from a piece I read this week by the journalist Paul Wells, one of the challenges they are having in Edmonton is that people have moved from injection to inhalation. They are smoking fentanyl, crack or whatever it is, and it’s much harder to monitor people because they are not going to get clean needles or paraphernalia.
Professor Kerr, you talked about that, but I wanted to ask each of you in turn: What do we do when people are moving away from injection drugs? Once upon a time, we thought that was a good thing because they were less likely to get hepatitis, HIV and other blood-borne illnesses. But if you can’t supervise people while they are consuming, does a safe consumption site still serve as much of a purpose?
Mr. Elliott: That’s a great question. The consumption patterns have changed dramatically. I will give you a very concrete example. Seven years ago when I started at the Dr. Peter Centre, we were seeing about 60 unique individuals using our supervised injection site. So 60 different people. Today, there could be maybe two. The vast majority of the people now are smoking, not injecting, to your point. We are legally not allowed to do smoking indoors because of smoking laws — not to do with the federal government per se, but this gets back to the regulations with the municipalities and the provinces.
We would love to have — supervised consumption, the word “consumption” means to consume whether it’s inhaling, snorting or injecting. It doesn’t matter. We can do it all in our centres. But regulations stop us. There are all sorts of barriers that stop us. The only reason we would do supervised consumption at all is to have people use in a safe manner and to hopefully connect them to care at some point. That is the goal.
When we look at changing drug patterns, that’s the reality. When I think about — when we were talking in the last question about location and we look at where people go and how people are using, in Vancouver as well, if you come by the Dr. Peter Centre or anywhere in the Downtown Eastside, you will see a greater problem than there was seven years ago. I’m saying, “see.” I’m not saying the problem is greater, because there’s no evidence for that. You see the problem. The problem is that it’s homelessness, the problem is it’s mental illness, the problem is we’re seeing people now with severe cognitive damage because of the multiple overdoses they’ve had, and there is no treatment for them.
So are we going to see the problem worsening? Yes. We’re seeing it in small towns and small cities across the country, where they didn’t have “overdose” as an issue in the past. That has nothing to do with supervised consumption sites as being the problem. It has everything to do with the drug being the problem.
Supervised consumption sites are one part of the solution. I say “one part” because, again, from our perspective, it has to be that holistic view of looking at it. We could have as many consumption sites as we want, but if we don’t address the other issues, we will not see the problems get dramatically better.
Senator Simons: But you said you have two patients.
Mr. Elliott: They’re not patients. Out of our day health clients, probably two — now, we have different programs, to put that into context. Thank you.
Senator Simons: But that’s extraordinary. That’s not —
Mr. Elliott: Many people have moved onto opioid agonist therapy, or OAT, and we also have what’s called injectable opioid agonist therapy, or IOAT, where we prescribe injectable medication as well so they don’t need to go to inject. But we’re not allowed to set up — technically, we are now, through a loophole, but we just can’t afford to yet. But we’re not allowed to have people smoke indoors in that setting. That’s the problem.
Senator Simons: Is there time for Professor Kerr to answer?
The Chair: I’ll put you on second round.
Senator Simons: I wondered if he had an answer.
Mr. Kerr: The important point to make in addition to the points Mr. Elliott has made is that there are inhalation facilities operating throughout Canada and in British Columbia. These are extremely busy and they are effective in promoting some of the same objectives as injection sites, in particular, the emphasis on overdose prevention. Certainly, as the drug supply has become increasingly toxic, the need for overdose response for people who are inhaling drugs has only become greater.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I started spending time in the Downtown Eastside when I was 16. I’m now 52. My son, my granddaughter and some of my spiritual family members live there. From my teenage years to now, I’ve seen major changes in drug use in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montreal. People used to use certain types of drugs, but now there’s a chemical cocktail out there that’s really affecting our people. People tell me there’s no crime involved, but there are a lot of First Nations people cleaning up back alleys to pick up needles.
Don’t you think it’s time we took a deep breath together and talked to community organizations, organizations like yours and aboriginal women’s organizations that try to support people in these situations, so we can come up with solutions that are appropriate for 2024? This is about organized crime, mental health, municipalities and provincial governments. We need to work together instead of just rushing to put something into this bill that may end up impeding the fight against this crisis.
[English]
Mr. Elliott: If I may, I couldn’t agree more. I’ll give you a couple of concrete examples. Of our day health clients, 30% are Indigenous. We have developed over the past five years a very robust Indigenous program that has a cultural medicine lens from it. Because using different language and language that lands is super important. We’ve also partnered with an Indigenous organization to work nationally.
One of the problems that exist in creating and delivering programs is, again, and I’m beating the same drum, but it goes back to the siloed nature of how we approach things. We have 500 day health clients of which 30% are Indigenous. We cannot access any Indigenous money because we’re not an Indigenous organization. We talk to Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, regularly, but they don’t do urban. We talk to First Nations Health Authority; we are not Indigenous, et cetera, et cetera.
When we look at the needs that are in these urban settings, precisely as you’re talking about, there is not a pathway for urban Indigenous organizations or organizations that support urban Indigenous at all. Because many of our clients are not from B.C.; they’re from all over. We have lots from the prairies, lots from Alberta, and they come to Vancouver and get stuck in the Downtown Eastside and they kind of get out and they end up with us. It’s a huge issue. There are a lot of learning to be found there.
I also want to say that working with Indigenous organizations where we’ve gone from a very strong culture of abstinence-based language and abstinence-based approach to a harm reduction approach is difficult. It’s complicated and it has a lot of pitfalls. But there are a lot of learning to be had there, for sure.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here and for your work.
Mr. Elliott, you say you’re not a policy guy, but you are a policy guy. You ended your speech, you had to because we have a short time, but you were talking about there being no clear leadership for organizations. You were talking about program resiliency being in jeopardy. I’d like you to start there.
I just want to let you know, governments need to react, and it’s easier for governments to just put regulations, speak tough on crime, speak sentencing, than it is to actually have the conversations that you’re trying to have.
How do we speak to communities so that the community speaks to politicians, to get what is actually needed to make things work?
Mr. Elliott: I’ll talk about the word “react” for a second first. What we’ve been doing in the whole harm reduction sector over the last seven, eight years is reacting. We did nothing until it was a major health crisis. Then we reacted. Eight years ago — Dr. Kerr would know this — eight years ago, I think there were two supervised injection sites in the entire country — two. Now there are 60 plus all the overdose prevention sites, or OPS, plus a whole bunch of organizations who are doing work. We’re reacting. Now people aren’t using injection sites. They’re smoking. So we’re starting to react. We keep coming from this reactive thing. We’re behind. We’re on the front line. We are one of the leading organizations in the space, and we are reacting because we can’t get ahead.
When I talk about leadership in the front-line sector, I want to be clear. The organizations we’ve worked with, over 400 organizations across the country, but they’re all people like us that we work directly with the clients. The HIV Legal Network was mentioned. What does HIV have to do with drugs? Nothing, except that the only people who have been working on this, out of the sector, came out of the HIV movement. So we have all these different sectors working in these weird ways that aren’t combined together.
A concrete example: In the last few years we had 13 different federal government contracts to do our work nationally. It’s all the same client. At the end of the day, the client we serve is the same person, but we’ve had to access money through the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, or PIAC, through the Substance Use and Addictions Program, or SUAP, in order to knit that together. That is not leadership. Those are barriers. We can do it because we’re big and sophisticated enough, but the organizations that are on the ground, the smaller Indigenous organizations outside of Regina, are not getting access to any funding and so they’re not getting access to programs.
That leadership piece, one of the things that I see is we need to knit together these front-line organizations somehow. I don’t want to create another bureaucracy in our sector, but what do we even call them? We can’t call them harm reduction because now that is politicized. We can’t use that language. What do we even call the sector? We don’t know that yet. We’re thinking about it. We’re talking to colleagues. We called a meeting in February of 30 CEOs from across the country, from housing, from mental health, whatever, to start having those conversations together, because none of us can solve this on our own. Supervised consumption sites are a huge part of what we’re doing, and I know that’s what the bill is about and what we’re talking about. That is a Band-Aid. It is not going to get what you want. You want people off the streets, into treatment, being healthy. You’re not going to get that through a Band-Aid. You’re going to get that through addressing it in a holistic, comprehensive manner.
Senator Clement: Bam.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’m going to ask my question in French. I thank the witnesses for enlightening us, but I can’t let this meeting end without talking about our future, our children and what’s happening in Quebec around proximity of schools and early childhood centres. Another social crisis is likely looming.
I haven’t heard anyone talk about this situation today. I agree that it’s important to work with the neighbourhood and minimize the administrative complications that get in the way of consultation.
What do you think about having a school within 100 metres of an injection facility? We know that kids are being harassed and don’t want to go to school anymore. There’s garbage and human waste littering the sidewalks on the way to school.
Parents are not happy about it, because they’re on their own, trying to navigate the municipal government, borough discussions, federal public health and provincial public health. I’m actually astounded that nobody has mentioned this in the last hour. What are your thoughts on this situation?
[English]
Mr. Kerr: I’m happy to speak to that issue. Sorry if I sound overly scientific, but here we have a problem of causality. This has happened in a number of settings where SCSs are implemented. You want to implement a facility like this in a setting where there is a high concentration of drug users.
Now, if you are concerned about drug-related litter and people injecting in public spaces, then actually what you want is a supervised injection facility in your neighbourhood, even if it’s close to a school, because we know these facilities don’t attract more drug users. They simply are located in places where drug users are already congregating.
I want to emphasize that while it’s easy for members of the public or parents of school-age children, of which I am one, to say, “Hey, look, I saw someone using drugs in public and they dropped their syringe; it’s the injection site,” that’s a pretty simple and easy analysis. But the research shows a very different story that when you take a systemic and rigorous approach to evaluating the impacts of these facilities, they reduce litter, the number of people injecting in public places, and there is no evidence to suggest they attract people from elsewhere.
In fact, we wish they did. One of the great limitations of this form of intervention — I like to refer to them as micro-environmental interventions because they have a very small geographic reach. In our evaluation of the Vancouver site, we found that 70% of regular users of the facility live within three blocks of the facility, and the vast majority of people said they would not use a facility if they had to travel more than four blocks.
Again, it’s a chicken-or-egg problem. We certainly saw this in Vancouver recently, where a bunch of community members started shooting videos of people using drugs in public and posting it online and blaming the injection site, and the city took the step of closing it. But the reality is that there was a homeless drop-in centre in that neighbourhood for a decade, long before a supervised injection site opened. There are other services — it’s downtown and near to where the drug dealing happens. It’s not the injection site bringing this disorder; it’s all the other elements, social and in the health spectrum.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of our witnesses. I wanted to pick up on something you raised, Mr. Elliott — well, all of you have raised. You mentioned the need for coordinated services. Certainly, a number of us — I think of Senator Audette, Senator Clement and I who have all worked in these areas for many years. In fact, when I was in Alberta, the easiest thing to get for anybody getting out of jail was a ticket to B.C. because Alberta was happy to just ship everybody there.
The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice — and recently I’ve been discussing with people like Dr. Jiaying Zhao, who is from the University of British Columbia, or UBC, and doing the cash transfers, as well as folks in Finland who have said exactly what you said, that we have to stop reacting in dealing with the crisis, and that it’s cost-effective in human ways but also in financial ways if we address the social, housing, economic and health inequities upfront. They’ve shown that they’ve eliminated homelessness, they’ve virtually eliminated poverty, by coming at these issues. As Dr. Zhao’s research shows, when you provide finances to folks, not only do they get housed, their drug use and alcohol — their consumption actually reduces, even for folks with addictions.
Have you seen others of those examples — I’m not in any way suggesting all of what you’ve suggested isn’t helpful, but have you seen some of those ideas taking root? You mentioned the discussions you’re having with CEOs across the country. Is that an effort that’s being looked at to try to develop a policy framework that would address these issues upfront?
Mr. Elliott: To the best of my knowledge, there’s no one leading that, no, on the front-line organization standpoint. Now, are there organizations doing it? Yes. It’s just that — because Casey House in Toronto, there’s us, there are others who are doing this work, but we’re not doing it in a well-coordinated, systemic manner. When it comes to bringing that together, there are ways of doing it. That’s not rocket science. It takes effort and it takes a concerted strategy for that.
Last comment I have, just back to schools and children. I started using drugs at 13 years old. There was no supervised consumption site near my house. I’ll just leave it at that. We have an elementary school right across the street from our facility. We’ve been there for 21 years. We’ve had zero complaints in 21 years from that school.
The Chair: Thank you to all the witnesses. I’m sorry I was not able to let you expand on your points of view, but I’m the person who has to mind the time, and we’ve already gone over time. Thank you very much. This was very interesting. We could have had another hour with you.
Senators, thank you very much for your patience today. I didn’t run this well. I apologize. But it was so interesting, it was hard to cut people off.
Senators, I want to remind you that tomorrow we have a panel and then we will work on a two-page report — wish us all luck — to be reported back on Monday. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)