Car Theft - Parliamentary Briefing
For the past couple of months, a certain Wellington St. address in Ottawa has stood silent and alone, abandoned to its sad fate. Besides considering the tax implications of making the empty building available on Airbnb, I’ve been sadly watching as the last transcripts of the activities normally emanating from that address quickly slip past their best-before dates.
But all is not lost! A whole whack of committees did file their reports to Parliament around the middle of December, 2024. Given that those reports represent the primary goal of all the committee hearings on which these briefings are based, why not see what hidden treasures might reveal themselves to us?
The first report to catch my eye was Fighting the Phenomenon of Vehicle Thefts in Canada by the Public Safety and National Security committee. I’ve covered the problem myself on these pages more than once. And I own a car. So you might say I’ve got at least one dog in this race.
Having explored the report alongside my (fairly) trusted generative AI friend, I’m unimpressed. To find out why, do enjoy this brand new conversation from The Audit’s Parliamentary Briefings series.
The Audit: Could you summarize any practical recommendations for improving the problem made in the report?
The Parliamentary report on vehicle theft in Canada provides a set of key practical recommendations to combat the problem. Here are the most notable ones:
Legislative & Policy Measures
Amend the Criminal Code – Introduce new offenses related to trafficking and exporting stolen vehicles, and increase penalties for vehicle theft associated with organized crime or violence.
Strengthen Anti-Money Laundering & Anti-Terrorist Financing Measures – Target proceeds of crime linked to vehicle theft.
Review the Bail System – In consultation with provinces and territories, assess bail policies to reduce recidivism and deter repeat offenders.
Expand Law Enforcement Powers at Ports – Amend the Customs Act to allow police more authority to inspect suspicious containers.
Ban Devices Used to Defeat Anti-Theft Systems – Restrict the sale, distribution, and import of electronic devices used for vehicle theft (e.g., key fob reprogrammers).
Port & Border Security Enhancements
Increase CBSA Container Screening – Require a minimum percentage of random container inspections at ports and enhance funding for stolen vehicle detection.
Enhance Police Collaboration at Ports – Improve intelligence-sharing between CBSA, RCMP, provincial police, and international agencies.
Modernize Export Regulations – Prevent tampering with export manifests post-departure and require submission of export documents at least 72 hours before shipment.
Invest in AI & Advanced Analytics – Implement AI to scan export data and identify stolen vehicle shipments more effectively.
Public & Private Sector Collaboration
Develop a National Strategy – Establish a National Intergovernmental Working Group on Auto Theft to coordinate efforts between federal, provincial, and municipal governments.
Encourage Vehicle Manufacturers to Improve Anti-Theft Measures – Work with manufacturers to enhance vehicle security, such as GPS tracking and immobilizers.
Strengthen International Collaboration – Improve information-sharing with INTERPOL and foreign border agencies to track stolen vehicles abroad.
Raise Public Awareness – Launch a national awareness campaign on vehicle security best practices to reduce theft risks.
Insurance & Consumer Protection
Allow More Flexibility for Insurers – Explore regulatory changes based on the UK model to allow insurers to adjust policies for the most frequently stolen vehicles.
Improve Vehicle Registration Data Sharing – Facilitate interprovincial records exchange to detect fraudulent vehicle re-registration ("revinning").
Regulate the Sale of Vehicle Parts – Strengthen oversight of the resale market to curb the sale of stolen components.
These measures aim to disrupt organized crime networks, strengthen port and border security, improve law enforcement capabilities, and promote better vehicle security standards.
The Audit: Would there be enough officers to meaningfully address inspections even if the Customs Act was ammended to allow police more authority to inspect suspicious containers? Or, in other words, if more inspections were practical, wouldn't customs officials already be doing them?
You're hitting on a crucial issue: capacity and resource constraints. The report does recommend amending the Customs Act to allow police more authority to inspect containers at ports, but that alone wouldn't necessarily increase the number of inspections. The key limitation isn't legal authority—it's the availability of officers and resources.
Would More Inspections Be Practical?
Customs officials already struggle with inspection capacity – The report acknowledges that CBSA lacks the personnel and infrastructure to inspect a high volume of outgoing shipments. If they had the resources, they'd likely already be doing more.
Physical inspections are time-consuming and logistically difficult – Containers must be physically opened, inspected, and resealed. This requires specialized equipment and staff trained in both vehicle identification and export compliance.
Current reliance on intelligence-driven targeting – CBSA already uses risk assessments and intelligence-sharing to prioritize inspections. The proposed legal changes might allow police to assist, but without a substantial increase in resources, the total number of inspections wouldn't necessarily rise.
Would More Officers Solve the Problem?
The report does call for:
Hiring more border officers – Expanding the CBSA workforce, particularly at major export hubs.
Investing in scanning technology – Increasing the use of non-intrusive scanning methods to detect stolen vehicles.
Reducing spending on outside consultants – Reallocating funds from external contractors to direct border enforcement.
However, hiring and training new CBSA officers takes time and money. Without substantial new funding, simply giving police the authority to inspect more containers wouldn’t necessarily translate into a meaningful increase in enforcement.
What Would Make Inspections More Effective?
More CBSA officers and dedicated funding – The recommendation to hire more officers is crucial, but it needs to be a significant expansion, not just minor staffing increases.
Greater automation & AI-assisted screening – AI-driven risk assessment tools could improve detection without requiring proportional increases in personnel.
Mandatory vehicle export pre-screening – Requiring vehicle export declarations to be verified before containers are sealed for shipment could prevent stolen vehicles from reaching ports in the first place.
Bottom Line
Yes, legal changes could allow for more inspections in theory, but without a major increase in CBSA personnel, scanning technology, and operational funding, the practical effect would be limited. If law enforcement had the resources to meaningfully expand inspections, they likely would have done so already.
The Audit: What specific bail reforms were suggested?
The report does not explicitly call for specific bail reforms but recommends a review of the bail system in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments. The relevant recommendation is:
Recommendation 28:
Recognizing that the bail system is a joint responsibility between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, that the Government of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with the provinces and territories, review the bail system to reduce recidivism and deter auto theft.
What This Means:
The report does not propose concrete changes such as mandatory detention for repeat offenders or stricter bail conditions.
Instead, it calls for a review, which leaves open the possibility of different policy directions.
The stated goal is to reduce recidivism—suggesting a focus on repeat offenders who steal vehicles while out on bail.
Context: Why Bail Reform Is a Concern
Police witnesses reported that a significant percentage of arrested auto thieves were already out on bail at the time of their offense.
Some witnesses noted that young offenders are frequently released without serious consequences, making auto theft a "low-risk, high-reward" crime.
Some provinces, such as Ontario, have called for stricter bail policies for repeat offenders and organized crime-linked thefts.
What a Stronger Bail Reform Proposal Could Have Included:
Stricter bail conditions for repeat auto thieves (e.g., requiring stricter justifications for release).
Mandatory pretrial detention for repeat offenders or those linked to organized crime.
Bail restrictions on offenders caught in possession of car theft devices (e.g., key fob reprogrammers).
Stronger monitoring (e.g., GPS tracking) for high-risk offenders.
Since the report doesn’t detail specific reforms, it leaves room for interpretation.
The Audit: How likely is it that restricting the sale, distribution, and import of electronic devices used for vehicle theft will deter professional criminal gangs?
How Effective Would a Ban on Theft-Enabling Devices Be?
The report suggests restricting the sale, distribution, and import of electronic devices used for vehicle theft, particularly radio signal amplifiers and reprogrammers (e.g., key fob cloning devices like the Flipper Zero). While this might make it harder for casual criminals, it’s unlikely to significantly deter organized crime gangs, for several reasons:
1. Criminals Will Still Acquire These Devices Illegally
Black Market & Smuggling – Even if Canada bans these devices, criminal organizations can smuggle them in, just as they do with firearms, drugs, and other contraband.
Foreign Purchases & Online Markets – Many of these tools are widely available on international marketplaces. A Canadian ban wouldn’t prevent criminals from ordering them from China, Eastern Europe, or the U.S..
DIY Tools – Many hacking tools used in auto theft (e.g., CAN injection devices) can be built with off-the-shelf components available at electronics stores.
2. The Most Sophisticated Thefts Use Other Methods
Relay Attacks Without Specialized Tools – Some modern car thieves use simple radio amplifiers (which aren’t explicitly designed for car theft) to relay signals from key fobs inside homes.
Hacking Manufacturer Software – Some high-end thefts involve hackers exploiting vulnerabilities in manufacturer systems, not just signal cloning.
VIN Cloning & Reprogramming – Even without reprogramming devices, criminals can steal vehicles and swap or forge VINs to make them appear legally registered.
3. Organized Crime Will Adapt
Criminal gangs are constantly evolving their methods. If one tool is banned, they will shift to:
New software exploits targeting car security systems.
More violent theft methods (carjackings, home invasions) if digital methods become harder.
Using insiders (e.g., corrupt mechanics, dealership employees) to access vehicle systems.
What Might Work Better?
Instead of a device ban alone, a broader strategy would be more effective:
Manufacturer Collaboration – Require auto manufacturers to harden keyless entry systems against relay attacks and reprogramming.
Improved Digital Authentication – Enforce the use of stronger encryption and multi-factor authentication for key fobs and electronic unlocking.
Track & Monitor Devices, Not Ban Them – Instead of a total ban, Canada could require licensing and tracking for individuals purchasing or possessing such devices.
Focus on Organized Crime Networks – Rather than restricting tools, dismantling criminal export networks and enhancing border inspections would likely have more impact.
Bottom Line: Will a Ban Help?
For casual thieves? Yes, it might deter opportunistic criminals who buy these devices online.
For organized crime? No, they will find ways around it through smuggling, alternative hacking methods, or violent theft.
The Audit: Was there no mention of ensuring that people arrested for auto theft are actually brought to trial? Conviction rates have, historically, been low.
The report does touch on issues related to prosecution and sentencing, but it does not explicitly focus on ensuring that individuals arrested for auto theft are actually brought to trial. However, several recommendations are relevant to improving conviction rates:
Amend the Criminal Code – The report recommends introducing new offenses specifically targeting vehicle theft linked to organized crime, violent carjackings, and possession of electronic devices used for theft. This suggests an intent to provide law enforcement and prosecutors with better legal tools to secure convictions.
Increase Sentences and Aggravating Factors – The report proposes:
Escalating sentences for repeat offenders.
Harsher penalties for vehicle theft when linked to organized crime.
Adding an aggravating factor if an offender involved a youth in the crime.
New offenses related to exporting stolen vehicles.
Review the Bail System – The report acknowledges that many offenders are repeat offenders and suggests the government work with provinces and territories to review the bail system to reduce recidivism and deter auto theft. However, it does not directly call for reforms to increase conviction rates.
Enhance Intelligence and Prosecution Coordination – The recommendations include:
Expanding intelligence-sharing among law enforcement agencies.
Establishing a National Intergovernmental Working Group on Auto Theft.
Increasing federal support for joint intelligence groups targeting auto theft.
Improve Customs and Law Enforcement Collaboration – The report proposes:
Enhancing police capacity to investigate and take custody of intercepted stolen vehicles.
Requiring ports to provide better accommodation for CBSA inspections.
Expanding the role of Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers in detecting and handling stolen vehicles.
What’s Missing?
The report does not explicitly address prosecution bottlenecks, low conviction rates, or ensuring that charges result in trials and convictions. There is no direct mention of increasing prosecutorial resources or ensuring that charges laid actually lead to meaningful judicial outcomes. Given historically low conviction rates, this could be a significant gap in the recommendations.
So basically, the usual Ottawa output: a report that has a bunch of stuff that sounds good but doesn’t actually do very much of anything.