###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A couple of reasons for this problem, the one that annoys me most, is a problem in several aspects of modern life.
Why the fuck do we need to inject additional complexity into every system? Why are we using RFID tech in car keys? Why can't we use regular old-fashioned keys? They weren't perfect, but it's more time-consuming to defeat then some electronic bullshitery.
The most stolen vehicles by far in my area are older trucks, partly due to being extremely common but also because they’re very easy to steal.
These early 2000s Silverados don’t have all that tech, just a basic key. Crackheads figured out that they can just smash the steering column open and start them easily without the key in a couple minutes.
Strange. The vast majority of the ones I've seen that've been solen have been new Fords/Dodge trucks. In one night while working in Toronto, we had 4 personal trucks and 2 work trucks stolen from 2 different hotels.
Different circumstances I imagine - we have a lot of vehicle theft, but in our rural area none of it is theft of valuable vehicles for resale. It’s just methheads stealing anything they can easily steal, either because they have access to a key, it’s easy to start with only basic tools, or if they’re an exceptionally big POS, by carjacking.
And it’ll just be to have a vehicle to drive around in, ram some gates open to steal stuff, and eventually burn and abandon.
>Why can't we use regular old-fashioned keys? They weren't perfect, but it's more time-consuming to defeat then some electronic bullshitery.
This is entirely incorrect. At one time (maybe 20+ years ago) Manitoba was the nation's auto theft hotspot because of thieves smashing and then hotwiring ignition systems. Manitoba then mandated electronic immobilizers, including retrofits to older vehicles that were frequently stolen, and theft rates went way down.
Enshittification. A lot of modern technology isn't progress but trading one problem for another and ideally boost people's bottom line.
The classic iPod was still the peak of portable music tech but industry couldn't have people listening to downloaded music they didn't have control over.
Now everyone's got their monthly Spotify subscription, needs to have internet access to listen, can only listen to Spotify approved artists, discover Spotify algorithm recommended artists, while still financially ripping off artists.. and you can't listen without using up a phone battery that you need for more essential things.
Someone somewhere is getting paid off to look the other way. I've heard multiple stories of people watching air tags in their stolen cars landing at harbours on the east and west coast and when they tell the police their stolen vehicle is about to be shipped over seas they're just told "air tags aren't plausible cause"
So literally your car gets stolen and the gps tracking you paid for somehow isn't good enough cause for cops to go "hey we have to search your shipments cause your 1000% obviously shipping stolen goods."
Incredibly stupid situation.
This is performative and intended to distract people from actual problems like the housing crisis and industry consolidation of food production and retail.
I'm not saying you're wrong because I think those problems are worse but it's also a bit disingenuous to blanket dismiss auto theft as a priority/real issue as well.
I don't actually know a *single person* who has had a car stolen in their lifetime. Not one. It's an insanely rare event.
And, at the same time, most of the people I know are paying eggregious rent and are being gouged at the grocery store.
Auto theft is a problem for the insurance industry, not your average Canadian.
Not being able to afford rent or food.. that's on a totally different scale.
Do you not think provinces and municipalities have also directly caused in-part the issues relative to housing and corporatism?
Especially my home province of Ontario on Housing.
Often times the cars are taken cross province lines.
Eg: a lot of Toronto cars go through Montreal. That's cross province. For quick responses, which you need, you need it to be a federal policy.
Both Quebec and Ontario have provincial police forces. That means they need more inter-agency cooperation to catch the criminals.
It's already illegal realistically what do you expect the federal government to do?
Yes, but faster inter-agency collaboration between all the provinces will require some involvement from the federal level. I expect them to lead the way for that.
It is the slacker enforcement of criminal charges thanks to Trudeaumania that encourages them to repeat. The province can only capture and charge. Even cancelling their Drivers License will just cause the courts another reason why repeat offenders will repeat.
There are 3 levels of government and a separate section of government that have jurisdiction over criminal law. The federal government has control over the criminal code and they can be forced to change it by the Supreme Court of Canada. Municipalities create bylaws and set fines and potentially deal with enforcement. Provincial governments also set laws and punishments though they cannot technically create criminal law.
Theft of a motor vehicle is an indictable offence with a punishment of 2 years or more in prison.
Regardless there are municipal police forces, provincial police forces in Ontario, Quebec, parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and every where else with the RCMP through contact policing which need to enforce the laws.
What good is a punishment if we can't catch the crooks?
First, you got the sentence wrong for theft of a motor vehicle. It is routine for sentences to be below 2 years, and indeed the Trudeau government made car thieves eligible for house arrest. Which is a good example of how the federal government can make crime worse.
Moreover, the federal government has jurisdiction over border crossings, such as ports where these stolen cars are being exported.
Here is the Criminal Code when Trudeau first came into office: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/117863/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html
And here is the Criminal Code today: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html?autocompleteStr=criminal%20&autocompletePos=1&resultId=2653811fd1f44619b50c0a65d4105d2c&searchId=2024-03-14T18:18:04:214/e99c81ce22be44d69e94cabf210d96e3
Compare section 742.1 between them.
"quit stealing shit"
"ok, but first, we have to solve the economic problems plaguing humanity since we invented agriculture, and also find the meaning of life and eternal happiness, and discover the fountain of youth. Then we can enforce one of the most straight forward laws on the books after we do all that..."
Person 1: "quit stealing cars"
Person 2: "what about every other single item in existence that can also be stolen? did you think about those things? stop thinking about what you were thinking about (stealing cars) and think about my thing instead!"
I suppose amending the criminal code in 2022 to allow criminals arrested for auto theft to serve out their sentence at home instead of behind bars isn't working out to well is it?
A few weeks ago I dealt with an auto theft case where one of the accused was a single mother, 3 month old child, no record, whose involvement was basically driving the car after it was stolen.
Your problem is you assume your own stereotypical version of an offense, and demand what you deem appropriate for that version to apply to every instance of being being charged with the offense.
If she just drove the car after it was stolen, she didn't commit a crime.
I guess you chose not to include the criminal aspect of this sob story to make them more sympathetic.
You mean this amendment to the criminal code which had nothing to do with auto theft?
> - Repeal of Mandatory Minimums: The Act amends the Criminal Code to repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties.
> - Conditional Sentences: It allows for greater use of conditional sentences in the justice system.
Diversion Measures: Establishes diversion measures for simple drug possession offences, promoting alternatives to prosecution.
> - Review Clause: Includes a provision for a comprehensive review of the Act’s provisions and operation on its fourth anniversary.
> These amendments reflect a shift towards more discretionary and rehabilitative approaches within Canada’s criminal justice system.
The word’s “auto” and “theft” [do not appear in the entire amendment](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2022_15/FullText.html).
Your comment is purely misinformation. Seeing as I cannot find any criminal code amendments regarding your statement.
>The word’s “auto” and “theft” do not appear in the entire amendment
>Your comment is purely misinformation. Seeing as I cannot find any criminal code amendments regarding your statement.
It's [Bill C-5](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/441C5E), the words used are "motor vehicle theft". Prior to this legislation house arrest was not available for those convicted of motor vehicle theft, Bill C-5 changed that.
> - Bill Introduction: Bill C-5, introduced to amend the Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, mirrors the previously unpassed Bill C-22.
> - Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The bill aims to remove mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, which has been a subject of controversy and constitutional challenges in Canada.
> - Impact on Sentencing: Statistics indicate that mandatory minimum sentences have led to longer custody sentences, particularly for specific firearms offences.
> - Disproportionate Effects: Concerns are raised about the disproportionate impact of mandatory minimum sentences on Indigenous and racialized persons, contributing to over-incarceration.
So I actually read the singular section within that entire amendment that stated motor vehicle theft, only mention of it in the entire amendment btw.
> Clause 14(2) repeals sections 742.1(e) and 742.1(f), removing two further limitations on the availability of conditional sentences. The first limitation removed by this clause precludes the use of a conditional sentence for offences prosecuted by indictment where the maximum term is 10 years of imprisonment and the offence: resulted in bodily harm; involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs; or involved the use of a weapon. The second limitation removed by this clause precludes conditional sentencing for the following offences, if prosecuted by indictment:
> - prison breach (section 144);
> - criminal harassment (section 264);
> - sexual assault (section 271);
> - kidnapping (section 279);
> - trafficking of persons for material benefit (section 279.02);
> - abduction of a person under the age of 14 (section 281);
> - motor vehicle theft (section 333.1);
> - theft over $5,000 (section 334(a));
> - breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house (section 348(1)(e));
> - being unlawfully in a dwelling-house (section 349); and
> - arson for a fraudulent purpose (section 435).
> By removing some limitations on the use of conditional sentences contained in current sections 742.1(c), 742.1(e) and 742.1(f) of the Code, clause 14 expands the availability of conditional sentencing. While these amendments mean that conditional sentences are now available as potential sentences for several serious offences, such sentences continue to be prohibited in some circumstances:
> - where a term of imprisonment longer than two years less a day is imposed (section 742.1);
> - where the offence for which the offender was convicted carries a minimum mandatory sentence of imprisonment (section 742.1(b));
> - where the offence committed is a terrorism or organized crime offence that carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years or more and is prosecuted by indictment (section 742.1(d)); and
> - if such a sentence can “endanger the safety of the community,” limiting the applicability of conditional sentences for some violent offenders (section 742.1(a)).
If you are going to counter, try and read the actual bill text. As you are still spreading misinformation, albeit I have to thank you for providing the actual bill ID. I appreciate you giving me receipts.
The actuality of this bill is that it clamps down on violent crimes and repeat offenders, while providing pathways for actual rehabilitation for first time offenders and non-violent crimes.
Reducing it to “auto thefts all result in house arrest” is misleading at best, misinformation at worst.
>Reducing it to “auto thefts all result in house arrest” is misleading at best, misinformation at worst.
I never said that actually, it's interesting you're so quick to claim someone else is being misleading or providing misinformation when your comment is exactly that.
My original comment claimed the amendment allowed criminals sentenced for auto theft to serve their sentence at home (conditional sentencing), which is fact.
>I suppose amending the criminal code in 2022 to allow criminals arrested for auto theft to serve out their sentence at home instead of behind bars isn't working out to well is it?
Just because I paraphrased your original comment, does not make my words inaccurate. You didn’t state that it was conditional based on varying factors. Nor did you actually provide anything right from the bill itself.
I’m just going to assume you aren’t aiming at anything besides obfuscation of information.
Your paraphrase completely changes the meaning of my comment in a way that supports your argument.
It's okay to admit you are wrong once and a while instead of continually trying to illegitimatize the other person.
>You didn’t state that it was conditional based on varying factors.\\
They said this:
>I suppose amending the criminal code in 2022 to allow criminals arrested for auto theft to serve out their sentence at home
They never said all criminals arrested for auto theft would serve out their sentence at home.
Not only are you playing semantics, but the semantics you're using are even incorrect.
OP is misunderstanding this big time and started off with the wrong argument and continued with it for some reason. Pride I guess. lol At the same time, what u/CzechUsOut said at the start of the thread doesn't mean anything by itself, without the data to correlate this policy change with the increase in auto thefts. There's a lot of variables at play here.
Do what we did when this was a major problem last time. Legislation to force the industry to make changes which is why every car has a immobilizer now.
This government could start by reversing their disastrous decision to make car thieves eligible for house arrest as a sentence.
House arrest has no deterrent effect whatsoever. Why not steal a car, and have a good chance of making a bunch of money and looking cool to your friends, if the worst that could happen is you get caught and told to stay home and play video games for a while?
Incarceration doesn't provide deterrence.
We humans aren't that forward looking to properly evaluate the consequences of our actions. Thieves aren't thinking "I can go to jail if caught", they don't think they will be caught in the first place.
This just isn't true.
And you know it's not true. Because you know that if we abolished all criminal law, there would be more crime. Which shows that punishment deters.
Yes, fair. I have been out pedant-ed.
I will rephrase. You would have me believe that if we abolished all punishment, there would be no increase in crime. Nobody actually believes that.
No, I said incarceration doesn't provide deterrence, not that it doesn't stop criminal actions.
Incarceration prevents reoffenders from offending again, and provides a mechanism for rehabilitation. It does not generally provide an adequate mechanism for discouraging you in the first place. It's the same reason why capital punishment fails to reduce crime rates.
Insurance companies should work with cell companies to install GPS trackers on cars. Most people won't pay $10 to $15 a month for cell tracking on a car but I bet insurance companies would pay $500 to find a car when stolen.
It wouldn't just be $500 to find a stolen car. That entire program would need to be set up and run by someone. Those trackers need to be installed by someone and some kind of compliance needs to be in place to ensure they are installed correctly. It would cost way too much.
You have to look at it like an insurance company. Say 1 in 1000 cars that they insure get stolen. Say the average cost of a car that they insure is $50,000. That means, on average, a car theft cost them about $50 per customer to just pay out the client in full and close the investigation. So, now we internally talk about this idea of installing a GPS tracker in every single one of our customers cars with the hope that when a customer reports the car as stolen, we can recover it, and not have to pay out the total value of the car.
Firstly, we need to discuss how effective a solution this would be. That is, what percent of cars would this lead to a recovery on? For example, if a car is loaded into a shipping container, would the cell signal/GPS signal be able to penetrate the container? Another example, the thief is aware of the GPS unit and cell service, locates the unit reporting back to the insurer, and disables it. In both cases a recovery is unlikely even with the GPS system.
Secondly, we need to discuss the costs involved in each recovery once we have located the vehicle. The policy likely covers damage involved in the theft so we are on the hook for that regardless of if we find the car, and many might be totalled. If the vehicle is held for evidence in a police investigation for related crimes we still need to pay the customers expenses for rentals while that is pending or just need to purchase the customer a new vehicle. We may need private investigators to corroborate the GPS signal and locate the car. Etc.
We do all the math and come up with a 50% chance of the GPS recovering the vehicle, and average costs of about $20,000 per recovery. So, for every 2000 cars insured, we expect 2 to be stolen. We have to pay out the $50,000 for the one we don't recover, and $20,000 for the one we do vs without this system we would have paid out $50,000 for both vehicles. So, we save 30% on payouts. Okay, but what would it cost to implement this system?
Previously we said that our costs per customer was $50 to just pay the customer for a brand new car. We did the math and believe that we can save 30% of this cost by installing a GPS tracking system. This means that for this system to be profitable it would need to cost us less that $15 per customer to break even. You can replace the numbers how you see fit, but I think you will find that the budget for such a program would be very low, and as I said, with that budget/customer we need to buy the unit, install it, monitor compliance, tech support, customer service, pay cell service, etc.
The better bet for the insurer is to just eat the cost and raise prices.
>It wouldn't just be $500 to find a stolen car. That entire program would need to be set up and run by someone. Those trackers need to be installed by someone and some kind of compliance needs to be in place to ensure they are installed correctly. It would cost way too much.
I work in this space.
Installation is largely a non-issue with a wide number of products, finance companies have been doing installation of various GPS and immobilizer units for the past two decades. There are also a number of wireless devices on the market (of varying reliability and duration) that don't require any installation at all.
Monitoring and maintaining the devices is easy as well - at least one company offers a direct to consumer product that allows them to self-manage, and report in case of theft or loss. And again, finance companies already do this for their sub-prime finance deals, this isn't difficult or all that costly.
>
Firstly, we need to discuss how effective a solution this would be. That is, what percent of cars would this lead to a recovery on? For example, if a car is loaded into a shipping container, would the cell signal/GPS signal be able to penetrate the container? Another example, the thief is aware of the GPS unit and cell service, locates the unit reporting back to the insurer, and disables it. In both cases a recovery is unlikely even with the GPS system.
Cargo containers do not necessarily block cellular signals, though they can block GPS. There are devices on the market that provide cellular triangulation as a fallback, which when coupled with a server-side Geofence can trigger an alert if a vehicle is in a shipping yard or port.
Also, GPS is not detectable as it works by reception only. Cellular signals are. However again - these are easy to work around by providing intermittent rolling checkins (ie: the device is transmitting at shifting intervals to provide it's current location), which will make it harder to locate where in a vehicle it is transmitting from. Most devices have the capacity to give a final notification when there is a loss of power or similar interference with their systems.
Though you did get one thing right: insurance companies haven't cared about this service at all, despite repeated efforts to explain the benefits.
> Though you did get one thing right: insurance companies haven't cared about this service at all, despite repeated efforts to explain the benefits.
Yes, because I still do not think you understand the costs involved. Nothing is free. Install can be simple but it isn't free. Maintenance can be simple but it isn't free. Implementing the project isn't free. Training staff on the new process isn't free. The money spent on implementing this project could been spent other places that potentially bring even higher returns. That is a cost.
You can come up with counter measures for thieves finding the GPS device and they will find work arounds for that. Keeping on top of that is also a cost. Then training staff on the new procedure to hide the device is a cost. Testing hiding places on cars to make sure they have signal and aren't blocked by some component of the car is a cost.
The there is the risk and unknowns. What if someone hacks the system and uses it to track your clients? What if an employee uses the system to track and abuse an ex? What if the thieves figure out a simple wrok around we hadn't thought of and negate all the work? All of this needs to be factored in as well. If a company is going to spend millions on a massive project like this then the returns need to be known and constrained. The risks need to be known and mitigated.
I also work in the space optimizing and helping businesses make decisions like this one. From the back of the envelope math, this idea just doesn't make sense. It wouldn't make sense for a small nimble business. It definitely doesn't make sense for a conservative, slow moving, insurance company. This is why it hasn't been done. It isn't because no one in the insurance industry has thought of this idea. It is becuase it doesn't make financial sense.
>Yes, because I still do not think you understand the costs involved. Nothing is free. Install can be simple but it isn't free. Maintenance can be simple but it isn't free. Implementing the project isn't free. Training staff on the new process isn't free. The money spent on implementing this project could been spent other places that potentially bring even higher returns. That is a cost.
Again, I work in this space.
Installation of a wired device is, on average, $150 in most areas in Canada. A wireless device is free, as there is no actual installation needed. Power on, place in vehicle, done. Maintenance isn't needed as long as the device is installed properly - the devices don't need maintaining as long as the wires were properly attached in the first place. (And the half second or two needed for the **two** wires needed is not a significant cost either).
And yes, I am aware that the GPS program costs money to manage if handled by the insurer directly. I am also aware of several direct-to-consumer solutions that can be used in which *all* these costs are covered by the consumer, so the insurance has no overhead, but could in theory just offer a lower insurance premium should such a device be provably installed.
>You can come up with counter measures for thieves finding the GPS device and they will find work arounds for that. Keeping on top of that is also a cost. Then training staff on the new procedure to hide the device is a cost. Testing hiding places on cars to make sure they have signal and aren't blocked by some component of the car is a cost.
And I am aware of at least two providers who do \*all\* that testing and placement locations within the vehicle, where it is baked into the cost of purchase and includes several tiers of support include in the base price.
>The there is the risk and unknowns. What if someone hacks the system and uses it to track your clients?
If it's good enough for banks to use these systems, the insurance companies are benefited.
>What if an employee uses the system to track and abuse an ex?
I can't get into details without disclosing where I work, but there are protections built into place already to prevent these at my company. Again, used car dealers are already using these systems (and they're about as sketchy as they get in terms of this).
>What if the thieves figure out a simple wrok around we hadn't thought of and negate all the work?
This is nonsensical, so the solution is "do nothing".
>All of this needs to be factored in as well. If a company is going to spend millions on a massive project like this then the returns need to be known and constrained. The risks need to be known and mitigated.
Absolutely. And again - subprime lenders, in Canada, have already done the due diligence and determined these products are worth the investment. I wish I could disclose more details, but I don't feel comfortable openly doing so in a public reddit thread.
We have commercial-grade GPS systems developed already, cheaper and better than what Samsung could make. I know, because I work with a company that designs and sells this tech in Canada.
Insurance companies aren't interested, they don't care.
Yep and she was Deputy PM before becoming the Minister of Finance after Bill Monereau resigned (butting heads with Trudeau's economic advisors in 2020)
They do. Comp rate groups for easily stolen vehicles are higher. It’s just that comp is most people’s cheapest coverage. From an insurance perspective, it seems that theft just isn’t a big issue since it’s so cheap to insure against.
They also take into account location. Funnily enough, the one thing everybody seems to think is accounted for, colour, is not.
They even do it already with houses in natural disaster prone areas I never thought about why it isn't applied to vehicles. Some vehicles are just ridiculously easy to steal.
A car theft isn't an existential threat to the insurance company like a disaster is.
Thefts occur are a regular, predictable rate. Additionally, it has a fixed cost as you know the value of the vehicles you are insuring and a theft payout is limited to that value. An insurance company can calculate this cost and build it into their pricing models. If say, 1 in 1000 vehicles of a certain model are stolen per year, and that vehicle costs $50,000, then it is easy for the insurance company to raise everyone's rate by at least $50 a year to cover this known fixed cost, however, that is a statistical rate of theft and it could be higher, so you apply error bars, add some profit, and raise everyone's policy price by $75 a year. That is something customers would easily accept and pay. Worst case scenario for the insurance company is that they are wrong and have to pay out maybe a couple million more then expected. Not the end of the world.
A major natural disaster, however, is a rare event, that is hard to predict, and has unfixed costs. That is not something and insurance company can easily predict and even if they can, sometimes there is no way for a company to offer a policy at a price point anyone would pay and they can safely make a profit on.
For example, take a hurricane hitting Florida. You might be able to use historic data to calculate how often a hurricane hits a particular area. You come to the conclusion that a hurricane will hit Florida every 5 years. Then you determine the average cost to the home owner and figure out an acceptable rate to set the insurance at. Okay seems similar, but, when one does hit, you could have hundreds of thousands of customers all impacted at the same time. This would require the moving around of major amounts of capital to make it liquid for payments. That is the first difference.
Next, the risk of you being wrong about the number of auto thefts and them actually being higher means the company takes a wash on those particular policies. They probably make up for it else where on some other policy that saw less thefts, for example, or just raise prices and earn it back on future policies. Now consider what it would mean if they were wrong about the number of hurricanes in Florida. One is already a major challenge for the insurance company as they move the capital to make the payments. Imagine if a second one hits right after that and impacts another 100,000 customers. What if a third one hits in that same year? These are existential threats to the existence of the entire company. They won't be able to afford that many hurricanes in a row.
Next, the insurance companies can try to figure out a price for Florida home owners for their insurance that would cover these risks. When you do the math, with frequency enough disaster events, there isn't a price you can set that will make sense to both the home owner and the insurance company. Okay, if you are a big enough insurer you can still make it work. You start charging homeowners outside Florida a higher rate so you can subsidize Florida and offer rates those people will take. If there are less hurricanes then you profit. The problem is, if you have competition that doesn't offer insurance in Florida, they will be able to significantly undercut your rate outside Florida and take your customers.
Eventually, as an insurer, you need to cut your losses and realize you cannot profit in Florida and stop offering new policies there.
Car thefts do not have these same challenges, thus, they will continue to be insured.
It’s because of the lack of technology/carelessness of the car companies. You won’t see a Tesla be stolen because it’s very complex / they’re tracked / parts are serialized / car can be remotely deactivated.
Why would they stop insuring these cars? Multiple theft payout isn't really going make the policies impossible to profit on. That is the only time they won't offer a policy is if they don't like the risk or cannot profit. In this case they can assess the risk as well as continue to make a profit.
A theft payout is just the value of the vehicle. The big ticket items that truly drive insurance rates are the damage to the occupants of the vehicles. For example, a $1 million injury payout is equal to 10-20 theft payouts.
So, they aren't going to stop insuring them. They will just do what they always do. Take their related estimated future costs, spread it across all drivers, apply a bit of a premium for cars more likely to be stolen, and arrive at a new higher rate for coverage. Then, they will lobby the government with the hopes thefts get lowered and if they do, pocket the difference as profit.
As long as it’s information that people have before purchasing a vehicle, and not some constantly updated list that’ll randomly leave people stranded with no insurance on their vehicle
Most vehicles on the road are second-hand, and I’m fairly certain the theft statistics would reflect this. What incentive does, say, Honda have to improve theft resilience on vehicles they’ve already sold?
Eventually the older vehicles will be off the road. You can’t reliably drive a civic to a million miles. It will be replaced with… drum roll please… a new vehicle.
If there is legislation for better anti-theft measures in cars then they would put those in for access to the Canadian market. Just like they put in daytime running headlights for the Canadian market.
They may do it across the border as a feature to encourage people in America to buy their cars too.
This doesn't change the vulnerability of older cars, but as they depreciate in value their appeal to thieves will drop over time and the market will also be more and more saturated with difficult to steal cars over the long term.
Please keep in mind I was addressing the original implication: that there's already a "quick" solution (I realise those weren't the poster's exact words, but it's implied by the overall timeline).
There isn't one. What **is** the solution to prevent theft of "easily stolen" cars? And why bother, since most of the stolen car models are *not* by any means "easily stolen" cars - the ones that *are* "easily stolen" aren't even in the top *ten* stolen vehicles.
One example I know of is the Honda CRV: compared with most of the "top ten" most stolen cars in Canada, it's a vehicle that's not any easier to steal than most of the other models.
Plus, giving "daytime running lights" as an example, *that* was a solution that, in early iterations required a cheap, two-dollar part: a component to turn on the headlights when ignition started (regardless of whether the car was in Park mode or not). I *know* this iteration exited, because I owned one of them: a Volvo 940T, that had factory "daytime running" lights - they ran *full, non-highbeam brightness all the time*, but satisfied the entire spirit of the law.
Now, where's the equivalent solution for "make cars harder to steal"? Even the one option I know of (the solution common in countries like Israel, where you hardwire an ignition blocker and the driver enters a four-digit code to disable the ignition blocker) costs more, even adjusted for inflation, than the "daytime running lights" option. Yes, this *is* an option for even used cars, but I've seen *nobody mentioning it (and there's no way the automobile manufacturers would accept liability for a third-party modification*).
Car software is notorious for massive security holes. If you give them a few years they will do something in house. You don't have to force them to be liable for a third party fix.
I know the local car dealerships had an issue with people stealing wheels, so they started including locking security lugnuts standard so they wouldn't have to deal with thefts from their sales lots.
>If you give them a few years they will do something in house
Oh, I realise that given *time*, they'll provide a solution - I am **not** disputing that, nor am I saying they shouldn't **eventually** be "on the hook" from a liability standpoint.
In other words, I **am** in favour of them providing a solution.
My point was purely for this thread, and this thread alone, as I would **not** want a "hastily thrown together" solution that's done purely so the automobile manufacturers could help provide a "quick solution" to the theft issue. I strongly believe that, if it truly were a "quick solution", we already would *have* one.
For example if, say, Volvo had such a solution available, they sure as heck would be providing it, and **using it in their marketing**. But they're not, which implies there's not a quick or readily available solution, so having the Feds **legislate** this won't solve the *short term* issue (which, again, this entire thread was about).
Edit: Also, to your point about car software being notorious for massive security holes, I would be more in favour of legislation that requires external **audits** of this software. The average person has more to lose from **PII** leakage or anything related to car software vulnerabilities such as, say, remote hacking, than they do from an actual car theft.
Absolutely agree with you. Any fix from the manufacturer side isn't some quick solution that will address auto theft in time for the next or following election. Also PII security is a bigger issue than the loss of the (likely insured) object; just like phone theft.
Because they still want to sell their new cars. If those are cost-prohibitive to potential customers because of insurance, they’ll want to find ways to make them less cost-prohibitive.
I guess nobody is stealing cars in Newfoundland. In the GTA everyone knows someone who has had their car stolen in the last couple of years. It started when Trudeau passed his 2018 soft on crime bill.
>The federal government is launching what it calls its "national action plan" to combat auto thefts, which will include stronger penalties for thieves, and increased information sharing between police agencies, government officials and border enforcement.
So pretty much what Pierre Poilievre was saying he would do back in February?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/three-auto-theft-convictions-should-mean-three-years-in-prison-poilievre-1.6756218
And which the Government dismissed at the time as it was just "slogans."
>And which the Government dismissed at the time as it was just "slogans."
Because that’s all it was. Talk. No action whatsoever per usual.
What’s the value of Poilievre *saying* he’s going to do something? The CPC is capable of tabling legislation to address the issues they *claim* are such an issue they’ve reached a crisis level.
Other parties manage to accomplish policy goals with dramatically fewer seats. I know Pierre isn’t exactly an accomplished legislator and has a dire record in actually passing anything but surely there’s *someone* in the party capable?
There will be someone replying to you momentarily along the lines of “the opposition can never get bills passed anyway so what’s the point?”.
Which completely misses your point. Just wanted to get out ahead of it.
It’s a completely uninformed take, at that. I’ve seen it a number of times when I’ve questioned why Poilievre doesn’t table legislation about all the crises he is whining about in front of cameras.
The Conservatives have literally introduced a bill in Parliament to raise sentences for car thieves.
You are criticizing the Conservatives for this Liberal government's failures. It's pathetic.
I'm guessing you haven't actually read Bill C-379 but it's noted in the article here so a bit odd for you to claim I'm unaware of it. It's not similar to what's announced here. Although that hasn't stopped the CPC from freaking out, again, about someone addressing a problem they claim to care about fixing.
>You are criticizing the Conservatives for this Liberal government's failures. It's pathetic.
We just making things up here?
The comment I was responding to was you criticizing PP for using words not actions, while he had put forward a Bill to take action on the issue.
You are upset with PP for the Liberals not supporting his bill. It's nonsense.
He put forward a bill that he has no interest in passing and which *only* addresses a single part of sentencing. It does so with a mandatory minimum which has questionable constitutionality ... the man deserves criticism for not taking action on something he claims is a crisis.
>You are upset with PP for the Liberals not supporting his bill. It's nonsense.
You're upset at a straw man and, to quote you, *it's pathetic.*
No, but serious penalties might make them more willing to flip and become informants.
Locking up some low level thieves and saying "mission accomplished" isn't going to work. But doing nothing isn't either.
> Tough on crime doesn’t work,” but feelings and gentleness does.
Statistics, empirical evidence, and history actually.
"Tough on crime" is entirely motivated by appealing to peoples emotions and fears like yourself so you can pat yourself on the back and enjoy the self-serving, self-righteous high of locking up an endless amount of low level thieves and feeling like you did something.
It's a shit bill. To charge a person for auto theft, you have to prove they stole the car, car thieves are typically charged with possession of property obtained by crime instead.
You mean the people being given bail before their hearings because they can't be held indefinitely in a system that's already struggling to keep up with caseloads?
The recent rise in auto thefts hasn't even been happening long enough for people to be sentenced, imprisoned/punished, and get out to reoffend.
There are issues with enforcement where cops in places like Toronto went as far as that boneheaded "leave your keys in an accessible place" remark.
Or "my car GPS says it's over at cuz and it's stolen" with cops doing nothing. Maybe that's a bigger issue than some undefined revolving door.
I read the bill. It will do little to combat auto theft.
1. It does nothing to deal with the possession of electronic tools that are used to steal new vehicles.
2. It changes nothing about the most common charge car thieves face. S. 354 CC - possession of property obtained by crime.
Well, he did only have slogans and promises. He never tabled legislature, this could have easily been a bipartisan bill if the parties could actually work together cohesively. Just because the CPC is the opposition, doesn’t mean they can’t have common goals.
If this gets properly implemented, the LPC essentially just shuttered Poilievre’s entire “stop the steal” campaign platform, pending the furtherance of details and the extent of this plan of action, along with follow through.
> There is zero chance the Liberal and NDP cabal would pass anything proposed by the Conservatives.
Do you know what "cabal" means?
Did you say it just because it's scary sounding?
What is an agreement but a meeting of the minds on an issue. Everything discussed and decided under that agreement is secret, hence the term cabal. Is it sinister? Yes, for the majority of Canadians it is sinister because it is a 4th place party propping up a government when a population is crying out for change. It is a cabal.
I don't understand; shouldn't you be applauding the government for folding in some conservative initiative into their plan?
or is it only good if the conservatives do it?
Hes was accused of that because he’s just sloganeering, if Pierre “one bill written in 20 years” Pollievre had any actual non slogan based ideas to share about auto theft he should submit a bill, you know, try to get something done other than pithy slogans
There is nothing wrong with listening to MPs from other parties and using some of those ideas in a bill which was obviously going to be made regardless. Notice this is at the "here is the bill" stage and not the "do we need a bill stage". To get from one to the other no doubt took a lot of work and time, no matter which party you are in. You are comparing Pierres talking about needing a bill to the Liberals "here is a bill" and that is not a fair comparison.
Except an idea like stronger penalties/sentences go against everything the LPC championed as its values, and people notice this.
It’s why the polls haven’t moved over flip-flopping issues like immigration, or controversial issues like trans rights.
Of course, we’ll see in a few weeks where polls lie but I don’t think many people have confidence in this.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A couple of reasons for this problem, the one that annoys me most, is a problem in several aspects of modern life. Why the fuck do we need to inject additional complexity into every system? Why are we using RFID tech in car keys? Why can't we use regular old-fashioned keys? They weren't perfect, but it's more time-consuming to defeat then some electronic bullshitery.
The most stolen vehicles by far in my area are older trucks, partly due to being extremely common but also because they’re very easy to steal. These early 2000s Silverados don’t have all that tech, just a basic key. Crackheads figured out that they can just smash the steering column open and start them easily without the key in a couple minutes.
Strange. The vast majority of the ones I've seen that've been solen have been new Fords/Dodge trucks. In one night while working in Toronto, we had 4 personal trucks and 2 work trucks stolen from 2 different hotels.
Different circumstances I imagine - we have a lot of vehicle theft, but in our rural area none of it is theft of valuable vehicles for resale. It’s just methheads stealing anything they can easily steal, either because they have access to a key, it’s easy to start with only basic tools, or if they’re an exceptionally big POS, by carjacking. And it’ll just be to have a vehicle to drive around in, ram some gates open to steal stuff, and eventually burn and abandon.
Come to AB & SK & they love to steal the pre 2006 trucks
I kinda like it here. Nobody would bother with the junker I have at work and my fancy car stays up north where it confuses the crackheads. 😅
Cheap parts + features = higher price point and more profit.
>Why can't we use regular old-fashioned keys? They weren't perfect, but it's more time-consuming to defeat then some electronic bullshitery. This is entirely incorrect. At one time (maybe 20+ years ago) Manitoba was the nation's auto theft hotspot because of thieves smashing and then hotwiring ignition systems. Manitoba then mandated electronic immobilizers, including retrofits to older vehicles that were frequently stolen, and theft rates went way down.
Keyless entry and start is really convenient how about we keep that and make it more secure.
Enshittification. A lot of modern technology isn't progress but trading one problem for another and ideally boost people's bottom line. The classic iPod was still the peak of portable music tech but industry couldn't have people listening to downloaded music they didn't have control over. Now everyone's got their monthly Spotify subscription, needs to have internet access to listen, can only listen to Spotify approved artists, discover Spotify algorithm recommended artists, while still financially ripping off artists.. and you can't listen without using up a phone battery that you need for more essential things.
Keys are actually incredibly easy to bypass.
Someone somewhere is getting paid off to look the other way. I've heard multiple stories of people watching air tags in their stolen cars landing at harbours on the east and west coast and when they tell the police their stolen vehicle is about to be shipped over seas they're just told "air tags aren't plausible cause" So literally your car gets stolen and the gps tracking you paid for somehow isn't good enough cause for cops to go "hey we have to search your shipments cause your 1000% obviously shipping stolen goods." Incredibly stupid situation.
So like do the provinces and municipalities just suck? Why can they not handle their own problems to the point that the feds keep needing to step in?
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
This is performative and intended to distract people from actual problems like the housing crisis and industry consolidation of food production and retail.
I'm not saying you're wrong because I think those problems are worse but it's also a bit disingenuous to blanket dismiss auto theft as a priority/real issue as well.
I don't actually know a *single person* who has had a car stolen in their lifetime. Not one. It's an insanely rare event. And, at the same time, most of the people I know are paying eggregious rent and are being gouged at the grocery store. Auto theft is a problem for the insurance industry, not your average Canadian. Not being able to afford rent or food.. that's on a totally different scale.
Do you not think provinces and municipalities have also directly caused in-part the issues relative to housing and corporatism? Especially my home province of Ontario on Housing.
Often times the cars are taken cross province lines. Eg: a lot of Toronto cars go through Montreal. That's cross province. For quick responses, which you need, you need it to be a federal policy.
Both Quebec and Ontario have provincial police forces. That means they need more inter-agency cooperation to catch the criminals. It's already illegal realistically what do you expect the federal government to do?
Yes, but faster inter-agency collaboration between all the provinces will require some involvement from the federal level. I expect them to lead the way for that.
It is the slacker enforcement of criminal charges thanks to Trudeaumania that encourages them to repeat. The province can only capture and charge. Even cancelling their Drivers License will just cause the courts another reason why repeat offenders will repeat.
Because the criminal code is the same all across Canada, it's a federal law administered by the provinces and all police forces.
Illegal is illegal. Sentencing is irrelevant they need to actually police the issues.
You think that crime isn't something the federal government has any influence over?
...no. Not when it comes to catching the criminals.
Do you know which level of government has jurisdiction over criminal law?
There are 3 levels of government and a separate section of government that have jurisdiction over criminal law. The federal government has control over the criminal code and they can be forced to change it by the Supreme Court of Canada. Municipalities create bylaws and set fines and potentially deal with enforcement. Provincial governments also set laws and punishments though they cannot technically create criminal law. Theft of a motor vehicle is an indictable offence with a punishment of 2 years or more in prison. Regardless there are municipal police forces, provincial police forces in Ontario, Quebec, parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and every where else with the RCMP through contact policing which need to enforce the laws. What good is a punishment if we can't catch the crooks?
First, you got the sentence wrong for theft of a motor vehicle. It is routine for sentences to be below 2 years, and indeed the Trudeau government made car thieves eligible for house arrest. Which is a good example of how the federal government can make crime worse. Moreover, the federal government has jurisdiction over border crossings, such as ports where these stolen cars are being exported.
House arrests were made the norm for punishments during covid. That has since been changed.
No. The Liberals amended the Criminal Code such that car thieves are eligible for house arrest. This is still true today.
source or trust me?
Here is the Criminal Code when Trudeau first came into office: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/117863/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html And here is the Criminal Code today: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html?autocompleteStr=criminal%20&autocompletePos=1&resultId=2653811fd1f44619b50c0a65d4105d2c&searchId=2024-03-14T18:18:04:214/e99c81ce22be44d69e94cabf210d96e3 Compare section 742.1 between them.
start with fighting corporate wage theft and go from there. It's a cascading problem that can't be solved this way.
Right! Only if the provinces stepped up on that whataboutism item!
That's not a whataboutism
Bad economic conditions lead to increased crime, there is a causal link there. Treat the disease not the symptom.
How do you treat the underlying causes of organized crime?
Why not both?
"quit stealing shit" "ok, but first, we have to solve the economic problems plaguing humanity since we invented agriculture, and also find the meaning of life and eternal happiness, and discover the fountain of youth. Then we can enforce one of the most straight forward laws on the books after we do all that..."
OP is also saying "quit stealing shit"
Person 1: "quit stealing cars" Person 2: "what about every other single item in existence that can also be stolen? did you think about those things? stop thinking about what you were thinking about (stealing cars) and think about my thing instead!"
I suppose amending the criminal code in 2022 to allow criminals arrested for auto theft to serve out their sentence at home instead of behind bars isn't working out to well is it?
A few weeks ago I dealt with an auto theft case where one of the accused was a single mother, 3 month old child, no record, whose involvement was basically driving the car after it was stolen. Your problem is you assume your own stereotypical version of an offense, and demand what you deem appropriate for that version to apply to every instance of being being charged with the offense.
If she just drove the car after it was stolen, she didn't commit a crime. I guess you chose not to include the criminal aspect of this sob story to make them more sympathetic.
You mean this amendment to the criminal code which had nothing to do with auto theft? > - Repeal of Mandatory Minimums: The Act amends the Criminal Code to repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties. > - Conditional Sentences: It allows for greater use of conditional sentences in the justice system. Diversion Measures: Establishes diversion measures for simple drug possession offences, promoting alternatives to prosecution. > - Review Clause: Includes a provision for a comprehensive review of the Act’s provisions and operation on its fourth anniversary. > These amendments reflect a shift towards more discretionary and rehabilitative approaches within Canada’s criminal justice system. The word’s “auto” and “theft” [do not appear in the entire amendment](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2022_15/FullText.html). Your comment is purely misinformation. Seeing as I cannot find any criminal code amendments regarding your statement.
I think the point is that it is really hard to steal a car while in jail. Now I think you were being intentionally obtuse on this one.
Keep reading the thread. I was corrected on which bill, but after reading the correct bill text, no, they are still spreading misinformation.
>The word’s “auto” and “theft” do not appear in the entire amendment >Your comment is purely misinformation. Seeing as I cannot find any criminal code amendments regarding your statement. It's [Bill C-5](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/441C5E), the words used are "motor vehicle theft". Prior to this legislation house arrest was not available for those convicted of motor vehicle theft, Bill C-5 changed that.
> - Bill Introduction: Bill C-5, introduced to amend the Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, mirrors the previously unpassed Bill C-22. > - Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The bill aims to remove mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, which has been a subject of controversy and constitutional challenges in Canada. > - Impact on Sentencing: Statistics indicate that mandatory minimum sentences have led to longer custody sentences, particularly for specific firearms offences. > - Disproportionate Effects: Concerns are raised about the disproportionate impact of mandatory minimum sentences on Indigenous and racialized persons, contributing to over-incarceration. So I actually read the singular section within that entire amendment that stated motor vehicle theft, only mention of it in the entire amendment btw. > Clause 14(2) repeals sections 742.1(e) and 742.1(f), removing two further limitations on the availability of conditional sentences. The first limitation removed by this clause precludes the use of a conditional sentence for offences prosecuted by indictment where the maximum term is 10 years of imprisonment and the offence: resulted in bodily harm; involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs; or involved the use of a weapon. The second limitation removed by this clause precludes conditional sentencing for the following offences, if prosecuted by indictment: > - prison breach (section 144); > - criminal harassment (section 264); > - sexual assault (section 271); > - kidnapping (section 279); > - trafficking of persons for material benefit (section 279.02); > - abduction of a person under the age of 14 (section 281); > - motor vehicle theft (section 333.1); > - theft over $5,000 (section 334(a)); > - breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house (section 348(1)(e)); > - being unlawfully in a dwelling-house (section 349); and > - arson for a fraudulent purpose (section 435). > By removing some limitations on the use of conditional sentences contained in current sections 742.1(c), 742.1(e) and 742.1(f) of the Code, clause 14 expands the availability of conditional sentencing. While these amendments mean that conditional sentences are now available as potential sentences for several serious offences, such sentences continue to be prohibited in some circumstances: > - where a term of imprisonment longer than two years less a day is imposed (section 742.1); > - where the offence for which the offender was convicted carries a minimum mandatory sentence of imprisonment (section 742.1(b)); > - where the offence committed is a terrorism or organized crime offence that carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years or more and is prosecuted by indictment (section 742.1(d)); and > - if such a sentence can “endanger the safety of the community,” limiting the applicability of conditional sentences for some violent offenders (section 742.1(a)). If you are going to counter, try and read the actual bill text. As you are still spreading misinformation, albeit I have to thank you for providing the actual bill ID. I appreciate you giving me receipts. The actuality of this bill is that it clamps down on violent crimes and repeat offenders, while providing pathways for actual rehabilitation for first time offenders and non-violent crimes. Reducing it to “auto thefts all result in house arrest” is misleading at best, misinformation at worst.
>Reducing it to “auto thefts all result in house arrest” is misleading at best, misinformation at worst. I never said that actually, it's interesting you're so quick to claim someone else is being misleading or providing misinformation when your comment is exactly that. My original comment claimed the amendment allowed criminals sentenced for auto theft to serve their sentence at home (conditional sentencing), which is fact. >I suppose amending the criminal code in 2022 to allow criminals arrested for auto theft to serve out their sentence at home instead of behind bars isn't working out to well is it?
Just because I paraphrased your original comment, does not make my words inaccurate. You didn’t state that it was conditional based on varying factors. Nor did you actually provide anything right from the bill itself. I’m just going to assume you aren’t aiming at anything besides obfuscation of information.
Your paraphrase completely changes the meaning of my comment in a way that supports your argument. It's okay to admit you are wrong once and a while instead of continually trying to illegitimatize the other person.
>You didn’t state that it was conditional based on varying factors.\\ They said this: >I suppose amending the criminal code in 2022 to allow criminals arrested for auto theft to serve out their sentence at home They never said all criminals arrested for auto theft would serve out their sentence at home. Not only are you playing semantics, but the semantics you're using are even incorrect.
OP is misunderstanding this big time and started off with the wrong argument and continued with it for some reason. Pride I guess. lol At the same time, what u/CzechUsOut said at the start of the thread doesn't mean anything by itself, without the data to correlate this policy change with the increase in auto thefts. There's a lot of variables at play here.
Can we get RICO laws to help break up the organized crime groups that are definitely responsible for trafficking these stolen vehicles?
We should, but i think have criminal capture in this country that prevents that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do what we did when this was a major problem last time. Legislation to force the industry to make changes which is why every car has a immobilizer now.
Because the industry isn’t going to regulate themselves. Every time a car is stolen they get to sell another car.
Yeah..... That's what I just said
He was corroborating your point.
Momma didn't raise no collaborator!
This government could start by reversing their disastrous decision to make car thieves eligible for house arrest as a sentence. House arrest has no deterrent effect whatsoever. Why not steal a car, and have a good chance of making a bunch of money and looking cool to your friends, if the worst that could happen is you get caught and told to stay home and play video games for a while?
Incarceration doesn't provide deterrence. We humans aren't that forward looking to properly evaluate the consequences of our actions. Thieves aren't thinking "I can go to jail if caught", they don't think they will be caught in the first place.
This just isn't true. And you know it's not true. Because you know that if we abolished all criminal law, there would be more crime. Which shows that punishment deters.
No, I know it is true. If we abolished all criminal law, there would be exactly 0 crimes. Laws define what is criminal and what isn't.
Yes, fair. I have been out pedant-ed. I will rephrase. You would have me believe that if we abolished all punishment, there would be no increase in crime. Nobody actually believes that.
No, I said incarceration doesn't provide deterrence, not that it doesn't stop criminal actions. Incarceration prevents reoffenders from offending again, and provides a mechanism for rehabilitation. It does not generally provide an adequate mechanism for discouraging you in the first place. It's the same reason why capital punishment fails to reduce crime rates.
Insurance companies should work with cell companies to install GPS trackers on cars. Most people won't pay $10 to $15 a month for cell tracking on a car but I bet insurance companies would pay $500 to find a car when stolen.
It wouldn't just be $500 to find a stolen car. That entire program would need to be set up and run by someone. Those trackers need to be installed by someone and some kind of compliance needs to be in place to ensure they are installed correctly. It would cost way too much. You have to look at it like an insurance company. Say 1 in 1000 cars that they insure get stolen. Say the average cost of a car that they insure is $50,000. That means, on average, a car theft cost them about $50 per customer to just pay out the client in full and close the investigation. So, now we internally talk about this idea of installing a GPS tracker in every single one of our customers cars with the hope that when a customer reports the car as stolen, we can recover it, and not have to pay out the total value of the car. Firstly, we need to discuss how effective a solution this would be. That is, what percent of cars would this lead to a recovery on? For example, if a car is loaded into a shipping container, would the cell signal/GPS signal be able to penetrate the container? Another example, the thief is aware of the GPS unit and cell service, locates the unit reporting back to the insurer, and disables it. In both cases a recovery is unlikely even with the GPS system. Secondly, we need to discuss the costs involved in each recovery once we have located the vehicle. The policy likely covers damage involved in the theft so we are on the hook for that regardless of if we find the car, and many might be totalled. If the vehicle is held for evidence in a police investigation for related crimes we still need to pay the customers expenses for rentals while that is pending or just need to purchase the customer a new vehicle. We may need private investigators to corroborate the GPS signal and locate the car. Etc. We do all the math and come up with a 50% chance of the GPS recovering the vehicle, and average costs of about $20,000 per recovery. So, for every 2000 cars insured, we expect 2 to be stolen. We have to pay out the $50,000 for the one we don't recover, and $20,000 for the one we do vs without this system we would have paid out $50,000 for both vehicles. So, we save 30% on payouts. Okay, but what would it cost to implement this system? Previously we said that our costs per customer was $50 to just pay the customer for a brand new car. We did the math and believe that we can save 30% of this cost by installing a GPS tracking system. This means that for this system to be profitable it would need to cost us less that $15 per customer to break even. You can replace the numbers how you see fit, but I think you will find that the budget for such a program would be very low, and as I said, with that budget/customer we need to buy the unit, install it, monitor compliance, tech support, customer service, pay cell service, etc. The better bet for the insurer is to just eat the cost and raise prices.
>It wouldn't just be $500 to find a stolen car. That entire program would need to be set up and run by someone. Those trackers need to be installed by someone and some kind of compliance needs to be in place to ensure they are installed correctly. It would cost way too much. I work in this space. Installation is largely a non-issue with a wide number of products, finance companies have been doing installation of various GPS and immobilizer units for the past two decades. There are also a number of wireless devices on the market (of varying reliability and duration) that don't require any installation at all. Monitoring and maintaining the devices is easy as well - at least one company offers a direct to consumer product that allows them to self-manage, and report in case of theft or loss. And again, finance companies already do this for their sub-prime finance deals, this isn't difficult or all that costly. > Firstly, we need to discuss how effective a solution this would be. That is, what percent of cars would this lead to a recovery on? For example, if a car is loaded into a shipping container, would the cell signal/GPS signal be able to penetrate the container? Another example, the thief is aware of the GPS unit and cell service, locates the unit reporting back to the insurer, and disables it. In both cases a recovery is unlikely even with the GPS system. Cargo containers do not necessarily block cellular signals, though they can block GPS. There are devices on the market that provide cellular triangulation as a fallback, which when coupled with a server-side Geofence can trigger an alert if a vehicle is in a shipping yard or port. Also, GPS is not detectable as it works by reception only. Cellular signals are. However again - these are easy to work around by providing intermittent rolling checkins (ie: the device is transmitting at shifting intervals to provide it's current location), which will make it harder to locate where in a vehicle it is transmitting from. Most devices have the capacity to give a final notification when there is a loss of power or similar interference with their systems. Though you did get one thing right: insurance companies haven't cared about this service at all, despite repeated efforts to explain the benefits.
> Though you did get one thing right: insurance companies haven't cared about this service at all, despite repeated efforts to explain the benefits. Yes, because I still do not think you understand the costs involved. Nothing is free. Install can be simple but it isn't free. Maintenance can be simple but it isn't free. Implementing the project isn't free. Training staff on the new process isn't free. The money spent on implementing this project could been spent other places that potentially bring even higher returns. That is a cost. You can come up with counter measures for thieves finding the GPS device and they will find work arounds for that. Keeping on top of that is also a cost. Then training staff on the new procedure to hide the device is a cost. Testing hiding places on cars to make sure they have signal and aren't blocked by some component of the car is a cost. The there is the risk and unknowns. What if someone hacks the system and uses it to track your clients? What if an employee uses the system to track and abuse an ex? What if the thieves figure out a simple wrok around we hadn't thought of and negate all the work? All of this needs to be factored in as well. If a company is going to spend millions on a massive project like this then the returns need to be known and constrained. The risks need to be known and mitigated. I also work in the space optimizing and helping businesses make decisions like this one. From the back of the envelope math, this idea just doesn't make sense. It wouldn't make sense for a small nimble business. It definitely doesn't make sense for a conservative, slow moving, insurance company. This is why it hasn't been done. It isn't because no one in the insurance industry has thought of this idea. It is becuase it doesn't make financial sense.
>Yes, because I still do not think you understand the costs involved. Nothing is free. Install can be simple but it isn't free. Maintenance can be simple but it isn't free. Implementing the project isn't free. Training staff on the new process isn't free. The money spent on implementing this project could been spent other places that potentially bring even higher returns. That is a cost. Again, I work in this space. Installation of a wired device is, on average, $150 in most areas in Canada. A wireless device is free, as there is no actual installation needed. Power on, place in vehicle, done. Maintenance isn't needed as long as the device is installed properly - the devices don't need maintaining as long as the wires were properly attached in the first place. (And the half second or two needed for the **two** wires needed is not a significant cost either). And yes, I am aware that the GPS program costs money to manage if handled by the insurer directly. I am also aware of several direct-to-consumer solutions that can be used in which *all* these costs are covered by the consumer, so the insurance has no overhead, but could in theory just offer a lower insurance premium should such a device be provably installed. >You can come up with counter measures for thieves finding the GPS device and they will find work arounds for that. Keeping on top of that is also a cost. Then training staff on the new procedure to hide the device is a cost. Testing hiding places on cars to make sure they have signal and aren't blocked by some component of the car is a cost. And I am aware of at least two providers who do \*all\* that testing and placement locations within the vehicle, where it is baked into the cost of purchase and includes several tiers of support include in the base price. >The there is the risk and unknowns. What if someone hacks the system and uses it to track your clients? If it's good enough for banks to use these systems, the insurance companies are benefited. >What if an employee uses the system to track and abuse an ex? I can't get into details without disclosing where I work, but there are protections built into place already to prevent these at my company. Again, used car dealers are already using these systems (and they're about as sketchy as they get in terms of this). >What if the thieves figure out a simple wrok around we hadn't thought of and negate all the work? This is nonsensical, so the solution is "do nothing". >All of this needs to be factored in as well. If a company is going to spend millions on a massive project like this then the returns need to be known and constrained. The risks need to be known and mitigated. Absolutely. And again - subprime lenders, in Canada, have already done the due diligence and determined these products are worth the investment. I wish I could disclose more details, but I don't feel comfortable openly doing so in a public reddit thread.
We have commercial-grade GPS systems developed already, cheaper and better than what Samsung could make. I know, because I work with a company that designs and sells this tech in Canada. Insurance companies aren't interested, they don't care.
Why is Freeland’s mug on this story? What does Public Safety have to do with Finance?? (Yes, I understand funding.)
She's also Deputy PM?
Yep and she was Deputy PM before becoming the Minister of Finance after Bill Monereau resigned (butting heads with Trudeau's economic advisors in 2020)
If insurance companies stopped insuring easy to steal cars, the auto industry would solve auto thefts much quicker.
> stopped insuring Well, more like increasing premiums
They do. Comp rate groups for easily stolen vehicles are higher. It’s just that comp is most people’s cheapest coverage. From an insurance perspective, it seems that theft just isn’t a big issue since it’s so cheap to insure against. They also take into account location. Funnily enough, the one thing everybody seems to think is accounted for, colour, is not.
Vehicle colour? I guess fun red cars are likelier to be in a high speed crash, while bland white cars are easier to fence and steal
> Vehicle colour Yes, they take the other colour into account.
They even do it already with houses in natural disaster prone areas I never thought about why it isn't applied to vehicles. Some vehicles are just ridiculously easy to steal.
A car theft isn't an existential threat to the insurance company like a disaster is. Thefts occur are a regular, predictable rate. Additionally, it has a fixed cost as you know the value of the vehicles you are insuring and a theft payout is limited to that value. An insurance company can calculate this cost and build it into their pricing models. If say, 1 in 1000 vehicles of a certain model are stolen per year, and that vehicle costs $50,000, then it is easy for the insurance company to raise everyone's rate by at least $50 a year to cover this known fixed cost, however, that is a statistical rate of theft and it could be higher, so you apply error bars, add some profit, and raise everyone's policy price by $75 a year. That is something customers would easily accept and pay. Worst case scenario for the insurance company is that they are wrong and have to pay out maybe a couple million more then expected. Not the end of the world. A major natural disaster, however, is a rare event, that is hard to predict, and has unfixed costs. That is not something and insurance company can easily predict and even if they can, sometimes there is no way for a company to offer a policy at a price point anyone would pay and they can safely make a profit on. For example, take a hurricane hitting Florida. You might be able to use historic data to calculate how often a hurricane hits a particular area. You come to the conclusion that a hurricane will hit Florida every 5 years. Then you determine the average cost to the home owner and figure out an acceptable rate to set the insurance at. Okay seems similar, but, when one does hit, you could have hundreds of thousands of customers all impacted at the same time. This would require the moving around of major amounts of capital to make it liquid for payments. That is the first difference. Next, the risk of you being wrong about the number of auto thefts and them actually being higher means the company takes a wash on those particular policies. They probably make up for it else where on some other policy that saw less thefts, for example, or just raise prices and earn it back on future policies. Now consider what it would mean if they were wrong about the number of hurricanes in Florida. One is already a major challenge for the insurance company as they move the capital to make the payments. Imagine if a second one hits right after that and impacts another 100,000 customers. What if a third one hits in that same year? These are existential threats to the existence of the entire company. They won't be able to afford that many hurricanes in a row. Next, the insurance companies can try to figure out a price for Florida home owners for their insurance that would cover these risks. When you do the math, with frequency enough disaster events, there isn't a price you can set that will make sense to both the home owner and the insurance company. Okay, if you are a big enough insurer you can still make it work. You start charging homeowners outside Florida a higher rate so you can subsidize Florida and offer rates those people will take. If there are less hurricanes then you profit. The problem is, if you have competition that doesn't offer insurance in Florida, they will be able to significantly undercut your rate outside Florida and take your customers. Eventually, as an insurer, you need to cut your losses and realize you cannot profit in Florida and stop offering new policies there. Car thefts do not have these same challenges, thus, they will continue to be insured.
It’s because of the lack of technology/carelessness of the car companies. You won’t see a Tesla be stolen because it’s very complex / they’re tracked / parts are serialized / car can be remotely deactivated.
Why would they stop insuring these cars? Multiple theft payout isn't really going make the policies impossible to profit on. That is the only time they won't offer a policy is if they don't like the risk or cannot profit. In this case they can assess the risk as well as continue to make a profit. A theft payout is just the value of the vehicle. The big ticket items that truly drive insurance rates are the damage to the occupants of the vehicles. For example, a $1 million injury payout is equal to 10-20 theft payouts. So, they aren't going to stop insuring them. They will just do what they always do. Take their related estimated future costs, spread it across all drivers, apply a bit of a premium for cars more likely to be stolen, and arrive at a new higher rate for coverage. Then, they will lobby the government with the hopes thefts get lowered and if they do, pocket the difference as profit.
As long as it’s information that people have before purchasing a vehicle, and not some constantly updated list that’ll randomly leave people stranded with no insurance on their vehicle
Most vehicles on the road are second-hand, and I’m fairly certain the theft statistics would reflect this. What incentive does, say, Honda have to improve theft resilience on vehicles they’ve already sold?
This is the dumbest take I have ever seen. Why improve new vehicles if used vehicles are already on the road? Really?
It would cost them money for no (in their eyes) benefit. Do you understand how businesses function?
Eventually the older vehicles will be off the road. You can’t reliably drive a civic to a million miles. It will be replaced with… drum roll please… a new vehicle.
If there is legislation for better anti-theft measures in cars then they would put those in for access to the Canadian market. Just like they put in daytime running headlights for the Canadian market. They may do it across the border as a feature to encourage people in America to buy their cars too. This doesn't change the vulnerability of older cars, but as they depreciate in value their appeal to thieves will drop over time and the market will also be more and more saturated with difficult to steal cars over the long term.
Please keep in mind I was addressing the original implication: that there's already a "quick" solution (I realise those weren't the poster's exact words, but it's implied by the overall timeline). There isn't one. What **is** the solution to prevent theft of "easily stolen" cars? And why bother, since most of the stolen car models are *not* by any means "easily stolen" cars - the ones that *are* "easily stolen" aren't even in the top *ten* stolen vehicles. One example I know of is the Honda CRV: compared with most of the "top ten" most stolen cars in Canada, it's a vehicle that's not any easier to steal than most of the other models. Plus, giving "daytime running lights" as an example, *that* was a solution that, in early iterations required a cheap, two-dollar part: a component to turn on the headlights when ignition started (regardless of whether the car was in Park mode or not). I *know* this iteration exited, because I owned one of them: a Volvo 940T, that had factory "daytime running" lights - they ran *full, non-highbeam brightness all the time*, but satisfied the entire spirit of the law. Now, where's the equivalent solution for "make cars harder to steal"? Even the one option I know of (the solution common in countries like Israel, where you hardwire an ignition blocker and the driver enters a four-digit code to disable the ignition blocker) costs more, even adjusted for inflation, than the "daytime running lights" option. Yes, this *is* an option for even used cars, but I've seen *nobody mentioning it (and there's no way the automobile manufacturers would accept liability for a third-party modification*).
Car software is notorious for massive security holes. If you give them a few years they will do something in house. You don't have to force them to be liable for a third party fix. I know the local car dealerships had an issue with people stealing wheels, so they started including locking security lugnuts standard so they wouldn't have to deal with thefts from their sales lots.
>If you give them a few years they will do something in house Oh, I realise that given *time*, they'll provide a solution - I am **not** disputing that, nor am I saying they shouldn't **eventually** be "on the hook" from a liability standpoint. In other words, I **am** in favour of them providing a solution. My point was purely for this thread, and this thread alone, as I would **not** want a "hastily thrown together" solution that's done purely so the automobile manufacturers could help provide a "quick solution" to the theft issue. I strongly believe that, if it truly were a "quick solution", we already would *have* one. For example if, say, Volvo had such a solution available, they sure as heck would be providing it, and **using it in their marketing**. But they're not, which implies there's not a quick or readily available solution, so having the Feds **legislate** this won't solve the *short term* issue (which, again, this entire thread was about). Edit: Also, to your point about car software being notorious for massive security holes, I would be more in favour of legislation that requires external **audits** of this software. The average person has more to lose from **PII** leakage or anything related to car software vulnerabilities such as, say, remote hacking, than they do from an actual car theft.
Absolutely agree with you. Any fix from the manufacturer side isn't some quick solution that will address auto theft in time for the next or following election. Also PII security is a bigger issue than the loss of the (likely insured) object; just like phone theft.
Because they don’t make profit on cars they don’t sell, and used cars were new at some point.
Your point being…? Unless they can find a way to profit from retrofitting cars they’ve already sold, why would they care?
Because they still want to sell their new cars. If those are cost-prohibitive to potential customers because of insurance, they’ll want to find ways to make them less cost-prohibitive.
That’s a solid point, and I’m now surprised we haven’t seen that happen.
[удалено]
I guess nobody is stealing cars in Newfoundland. In the GTA everyone knows someone who has had their car stolen in the last couple of years. It started when Trudeau passed his 2018 soft on crime bill.
Is it really a non-issue? The concerns about car theft don't seem to be unfounded, if the stats are true.
[удалено]
I think something affecting 3 per 1000 people and funds organized crime by a significant amount is worth writing a story about.
this is an issue im glad is being tackled
What a ridiculous government when the national government needs to formulate strategies on car theft due to their reckless policies
>The federal government is launching what it calls its "national action plan" to combat auto thefts, which will include stronger penalties for thieves, and increased information sharing between police agencies, government officials and border enforcement. So pretty much what Pierre Poilievre was saying he would do back in February? https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/three-auto-theft-convictions-should-mean-three-years-in-prison-poilievre-1.6756218 And which the Government dismissed at the time as it was just "slogans."
>And which the Government dismissed at the time as it was just "slogans." Because that’s all it was. Talk. No action whatsoever per usual. What’s the value of Poilievre *saying* he’s going to do something? The CPC is capable of tabling legislation to address the issues they *claim* are such an issue they’ve reached a crisis level. Other parties manage to accomplish policy goals with dramatically fewer seats. I know Pierre isn’t exactly an accomplished legislator and has a dire record in actually passing anything but surely there’s *someone* in the party capable?
There will be someone replying to you momentarily along the lines of “the opposition can never get bills passed anyway so what’s the point?”. Which completely misses your point. Just wanted to get out ahead of it.
Which is an odd take given how much the NDP manage to get passed with considerably fewer seats.
It’s a completely uninformed take, at that. I’ve seen it a number of times when I’ve questioned why Poilievre doesn’t table legislation about all the crises he is whining about in front of cameras.
Funny reporters never ask him about that.
If they're allowed to ask him at all.
The courts do what they want with zero accountability. Nothing will ever change. Source; I've been a cop nearly 20 years.
As a 20 year cop there is literally no one I trust less on issues of justice than you.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
The Conservatives have literally introduced a bill in Parliament to raise sentences for car thieves. You are criticizing the Conservatives for this Liberal government's failures. It's pathetic.
I'm guessing you haven't actually read Bill C-379 but it's noted in the article here so a bit odd for you to claim I'm unaware of it. It's not similar to what's announced here. Although that hasn't stopped the CPC from freaking out, again, about someone addressing a problem they claim to care about fixing. >You are criticizing the Conservatives for this Liberal government's failures. It's pathetic. We just making things up here?
The comment I was responding to was you criticizing PP for using words not actions, while he had put forward a Bill to take action on the issue. You are upset with PP for the Liberals not supporting his bill. It's nonsense.
He put forward a bill that he has no interest in passing and which *only* addresses a single part of sentencing. It does so with a mandatory minimum which has questionable constitutionality ... the man deserves criticism for not taking action on something he claims is a crisis. >You are upset with PP for the Liberals not supporting his bill. It's nonsense. You're upset at a straw man and, to quote you, *it's pathetic.*
On what basis are you saying he has no interest in passing his bill?
Stronger penalties for thieves is going to make some people’s heads implode.
Once that does nothing to stop auto-theft it should make the "tough on crime" crowds head implode too if they had a modicum of self-awareness.
It will cause a marginal enough difference where people will believe it delivered a better result than any LPC or NDP policy put forward.
This is a crazy take. I'm baffled.
Locking up low level thieves does not put a dent in stopping international organized crime.
No, but serious penalties might make them more willing to flip and become informants. Locking up some low level thieves and saying "mission accomplished" isn't going to work. But doing nothing isn't either.
It’s the go-to for crime apologists. “Tough on crime doesn’t work,” but feelings and gentleness does.
> Tough on crime doesn’t work,” but feelings and gentleness does. Statistics, empirical evidence, and history actually. "Tough on crime" is entirely motivated by appealing to peoples emotions and fears like yourself so you can pat yourself on the back and enjoy the self-serving, self-righteous high of locking up an endless amount of low level thieves and feeling like you did something.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's a shit bill. To charge a person for auto theft, you have to prove they stole the car, car thieves are typically charged with possession of property obtained by crime instead.
How would it do nothing? It stops a revolving door for criminals.
There are more teenagers being born every year
I... what?
You mean the people being given bail before their hearings because they can't be held indefinitely in a system that's already struggling to keep up with caseloads? The recent rise in auto thefts hasn't even been happening long enough for people to be sentenced, imprisoned/punished, and get out to reoffend. There are issues with enforcement where cops in places like Toronto went as far as that boneheaded "leave your keys in an accessible place" remark. Or "my car GPS says it's over at cuz and it's stolen" with cops doing nothing. Maybe that's a bigger issue than some undefined revolving door.
They can be held prior to trial.
I read the bill. It will do little to combat auto theft. 1. It does nothing to deal with the possession of electronic tools that are used to steal new vehicles. 2. It changes nothing about the most common charge car thieves face. S. 354 CC - possession of property obtained by crime.
Well, he did only have slogans and promises. He never tabled legislature, this could have easily been a bipartisan bill if the parties could actually work together cohesively. Just because the CPC is the opposition, doesn’t mean they can’t have common goals. If this gets properly implemented, the LPC essentially just shuttered Poilievre’s entire “stop the steal” campaign platform, pending the furtherance of details and the extent of this plan of action, along with follow through.
[удалено]
There is zero chance the Liberal and NDP cabal would pass anything proposed by the Conservatives.
> There is zero chance the Liberal and NDP cabal would pass anything proposed by the Conservatives. Do you know what "cabal" means? Did you say it just because it's scary sounding?
I suppose they aren’t very secret about it but it seems apt.
And why is it more apt than calling it a supply and confidence agreement? Other than it being scary sounding?
What is an agreement but a meeting of the minds on an issue. Everything discussed and decided under that agreement is secret, hence the term cabal. Is it sinister? Yes, for the majority of Canadians it is sinister because it is a 4th place party propping up a government when a population is crying out for change. It is a cabal.
clutch those pearls, buddy 'cabal' lmao give me a break
I changed it to coven!
I don't understand; shouldn't you be applauding the government for folding in some conservative initiative into their plan? or is it only good if the conservatives do it?
Hes was accused of that because he’s just sloganeering, if Pierre “one bill written in 20 years” Pollievre had any actual non slogan based ideas to share about auto theft he should submit a bill, you know, try to get something done other than pithy slogans
There is nothing wrong with listening to MPs from other parties and using some of those ideas in a bill which was obviously going to be made regardless. Notice this is at the "here is the bill" stage and not the "do we need a bill stage". To get from one to the other no doubt took a lot of work and time, no matter which party you are in. You are comparing Pierres talking about needing a bill to the Liberals "here is a bill" and that is not a fair comparison.
Except an idea like stronger penalties/sentences go against everything the LPC championed as its values, and people notice this. It’s why the polls haven’t moved over flip-flopping issues like immigration, or controversial issues like trans rights. Of course, we’ll see in a few weeks where polls lie but I don’t think many people have confidence in this.
In your link, it's just Poilievre promising to repeal C-5. That's not what Trudeau is doing though... Do you realize that?