Bill C-343 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft)

Criminal Code

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved that Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to introduce this bill and speak to it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I ask people to take their conversations outside the chamber and into the lobbies. If you want to talk, that is where you talk. We are doing business in here now.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.

I truly appreciate how special it is to rise on behalf of my constituents and propose legislation that we will debate, voted on and hopefully pass.

I want to talk a bit about my very large riding that takes in the beautiful Qu'Appelle Valley, with its many lakes and rivers, Big Quill Lake in the north and a large piece of the city of Regina. When one has a riding that is so diverse, it is often difficult to pick just one item to sponsor in the form of a private member's bill. There are so many different kinds of issues facing the riding, but I decided to tackle something that affects my entire riding, rural and urban alike.

For many years Regina has had the title of the car theft capital of Canada. In many years, per capita, more car thefts have occurred there than in any other city in Canada. Thanks to the hard work of the Regina police force and city officials, and I should commend our chief of police specifically and our mayor, that rate has begun to come down. However, Regina is still victim to an inordinately high number of car thefts every year.

Over the past decade the story is the same all across Canada. Vehicle theft rates have doubled in London and Hamilton, tripled in Regina and more than quadrupled in Winnipeg. This has resulted in a large increase in rates in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular. In 2000-01 large increases were also reported in Victoria, which was up 55%, and in Edmonton, which was up 39%. However, it is not just cities.

I will tell hon. members about a small but beautiful farming town called Abernethy. There are just 200 or so people who live in the town and on surrounding farms. I was summoned by my constituents from that town to attend a town hall meeting to discuss a crime wave this summer. A town of just 200 people an hour outside of Regina had suffered almost 20 stolen cars in a short period of time. Assuming that every household has at least one vehicle, that is a rate of somewhere between 10% and 20%, which is very shocking. Clearly this issue needs to be addressed.

My bill would do several important things for which stakeholders have been calling for years.

First, the bill would create a separate and specific criminal offence for stealing a car. Currently, the most likely charge arising from someone stealing a car is being charged with theft of over $5,000. If a car is stolen that is worth less than that, a lesser charge along with a lesser sentence, is applied.

As the Insurance Bureau of Canada has said, should it matter if it is a luxury vehicle or a 10 year old sedan? A car theft is a car theft. Should it be more of a crime to steal a car from a rich person than to steal a car from a working class family? I would venture to guess that the majority of households across Canada own a car that is probably worth less than $5,000 and often that is the car they use to take children to school, bring elderly parents to appointments, get to work on time and everything else for which we all use our vehicles. To have the vehicle stolen, it should not matter if it is a luxury Lexus, BMW, a minivan or a 10 year old sedan.

Second, my bill would establish minimum sentences for a first, second and subsequent offence. This is a very important measure and something of which I am glad to see our government doing more. On the first offence, a conviction would result in a fine of not less than $1,000, or imprisonment for a term of not less than three months, or both. On a second offence, a conviction would result in a fine of not less than $5,000, or imprisonment for a term of not less than six months, or both. On a third conviction, being charged as an indictable offence, the fine would be not less than $10,000 and imprisonment for a term of not less than two years.

Why do we need minimum sentences? Right now in Canada there are too many inconsistencies in sentencing. Repeat and dangerous offenders are getting sentences that are quite frankly, too lenient. A study that came out just over a year ago, which was consistent with previous studies, indicated that the typical auto thief was not somebody just out joyriding. Rather he was a 27 year old male, addicted to drugs, who had 10 prior criminal convictions, not charges but convictions. He stole cars to commit other crimes. This is an important fact to remember. Several studies from police groups, insurance providers and others indicate that these cars are being stolen to commit other crimes or because of involvement in organized crime.

Let us talk about organized crime involved in the matter of car thefts. I spoke with the Insurance Bureau of Canada this very afternoon and I would like to share a few of the stats that it told me.

First, the rate of recovery has been significantly lowered in Canada over the past few years. It used to be that over 90% of stolen cars were recovered by the police. Now that number is falling to closer to 70%. Stolen cars were often used for joyriding, often young people out at night, stealing a car, riding around for awhile and then ditching it, so it was easy for the police to recover the car at the end of the night or the next morning, or it was used to commit another crime, most often a break and entry.

One police officer in Regina said that it was not the luxury cars that were often targeted, but ordinary pickup trucks, as thieves, who were breaking into a home, needed a way to haul away their loot. They would steal a pickup truck, drive it to the site of the break and entry, break into the home, steal some property, drive it away and then ditch the truck.

Often that car or truck would be recovered, but nowadays, there is a prevalence in organized crime of stealing the cars to be chopped or to be sold overseas. I was told today that if a car is stolen anywhere along the St. Lawrence Seaway, there is about a 30% chance that by the end of the week, that car is on a ship going overseas. There is an interesting number. In 1996 Polish police reported the seizure of 11,000 vehicles from North America, 70% of which were Canadian, so clearly there is a market overseas for stolen cars that are obtained in Canada.

My bill would deal with this. It would address these repeat offenders and it would go a long way toward addressing the involvement of organized crime. It also contains these escalating penalties. What are the benefits of escalating penalties for an offence? It lets first-time offenders know that the treatment they receive from the criminal justice system will only get worse. It encourages them to take seriously some of the alternative measures that are available to them.

This kind of activity places a high burden on the Canadian public, not just taxpayers but also regular car owners who pay premiums. In fact, the Insurance Bureau of Canada states that in higher premiums alone, $600 million a year goes to compensate for the loss of stolen vehicles. It is closer to $1 billion when we take into account all the court time, the police time and the investigative research that is done. Often it is not the police forces themselves that conduct these investigations. It is the insurance providers, the underwriters of the insurance bureau that engage in these investigative activities. The police do not have the resources, so it is the private sector, and that is often recouped by higher premiums for car owners.

As a taxpayer, I believe money spent on prisons is money well spent. When we look at what governments spend money on, whether it is bureaucratic waste, corporate welfare or nanny state programs, which provide little to no return on the investment of taxpayers, and compare that to money spent on locking up dangerous offenders and keeping our streets safe, I think most Canadians would agree with me.

Many hon. colleagues will tell me that putting more criminals in jail will cost money, and that is true. However, as I mentioned, it is money well spent. The question becomes this. Is there a more cost effective way to deal with these criminals?

Some will say that more money for social programming will have the same effect in reducing crimes for less money and fewer people facing incarceration. I agree that this may be true for young people or for first-time criminals, but once a criminal steals his third, fourth or even tenth car, he is no longer troubled or at risk. He is a car thief. As well, one has to consider the substantial savings from the insurance premiums, from the court costs and from the policing costs and that any new money that might have to go into prisons or capacity in jails will largely be offset by those savings.

Members should also consider the benefits of the deterrent effect of these tougher sentences. If criminals know they will be dealt with harshly, they will be less likely to steal cars and therefore will not be charged and will not go to jail.

In 2001 Statistics Canada reported that in the year 2000 the per capita rate of auto theft was 26% higher in Canada than it was in the United States and that Canada's rate had surpassed the level of the United States for the previous five years. Moreover police reported that rates of motor vehicle theft were higher among Canadian urban centres with populations over 500,000 than among American cities with populations exceeding 500,000. Canada has recently ranked fifth out of seventeen countries for the highest rate of auto theft, and it is easy to see why.

In the U.S. many states have very tough penalties. They have a specific offence for the theft of a motor vehicle and they have correspondingly high sentences for that. As we can see from these statistics, one of the factors has resulted in a lower rate of car theft in the U.S. than in Canada.

Having that lower rate of incidents would save taxpayers' money and would dramatically increase the personal security of Canadians. I think that is a huge priority for this government and something which every member of the House would want to work toward.

Our government has taken some very real steps toward improving the safety of our streets. We have cracked down on criminals who use guns. We have eliminated house arrest for a large number of criminals. We have brought in tough three strikes legislation for dangerous offenders. My bill follows in that vein. It establishes three strikes guaranteed prison time. I believe all members should find something in this bill to support.

In the last Parliament my colleague from Langley introduced a similar bill. At the time, the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice said this:

What sort of messaging is being sent when his [meaning an offender] conviction by indictment would have a maximum penalty of five years, in other words, cutting the maximum penalty in half?

My hon. colleague felt that the previous version of the bill was flawed because the maximum penalty was only five years. I have remedied that situation. I can inform all hon. members that my bill contains a maximum penalty on indictment of 10 years for the third or subsequent offence.

The then parliamentary secretary went on to say:

Therefore, the use of mandatory minimum sentences, as found in Bill C-293, could be contrary to the established Canadian sentencing principles, such as proportionality and restraint in the use of imprisonment.

I believe that too often it is the restraint in the use of imprisonment by judges that leads to spikes in criminal activity. If repeat offenders were dealt more prison time, they would be out on the streets less and therefore would have less ability to commit crimes. As I mentioned before, the average car thief has 10 prior convictions.

As well, my bill contains a mandatory minimum sentence of two years only on the third offence. This fits in with the principle of proportionality, dealing with someone who has already established a pattern of offending. We can look at all kinds of offences such as violent assaults, rapes and child molestations that are being committed by offenders who are either out on probation or who have served their complete sentence because their sentence was too light to begin with.

Repeat offenders are better off in jail than in our communities. Once an offender commits a second, third, or fourth crime, he is declaring himself unfit for life in society and is showing his need to be removed. He has forfeited his rights to personal freedom and personal liberty.

I am a big believer in rehabilitation. I do believe that many criminals can be saved, or at risk people can be saved before they commit crimes, with preventive measures like work training, drug and alcohol treatment and anger management. But at what point does society say that enough is enough, and we are not going to subject ourselves to yet another offence by the same person, and put that person in jail? I think three strikes is a fair proposal.

I do want to tell my hon. colleagues that I am open to their suggestions on how to make this bill better. I am eager to work in a constructive way to get this bill passed, and I am open to any amendments that would help make that happen. However, the main thrust of the bill, guaranteed prison time for repeat offenders, is crucial. It is Parliament's job to set the parameters for sentencing for the courts. It is within our rights as legislators to instruct the courts on this matter.

I did not arrive at this conclusion in isolation. Many organizations across Canada are asking for this type of legislation. Richard Duben, the vice-president of investigative services at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said, “This is a serious, often violent crime”--meaning car thefts--“that is putting the safety and security of our communities at risk. We desperately need stronger laws to curb auto theft, particularly for the repeat offenders causing so much of the problem. We are delighted to see the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle taking the initiative on this important public safety issue and we hope to see his bill passed into law”.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution specifically asking for a separate criminal offence for vehicle theft. The association passed a resolution calling on the government to do just that. My bill accomplishes this goal in setting aside a specific offence in the Criminal Code for theft of a motor vehicle. As I mentioned, the three strikes guaranteed prison time is also a key matter.

I would ask all hon. colleagues to go home during the two break weeks in March and randomly pick some constituents' names out of the phone book, call them, and ask them if they think someone who has been convicted of car theft for the third time should be sentenced to at least two years in jail. I predict that the majority of people will ask why it is only for two years. I offer two years as a starting point for debate. I understand we are in a minority Parliament and there are parties with different priorities. A sentence longer than two years might even be worth it. I urge my colleagues to ask their constituents if they think a sentence of two years for a third conviction for stealing someone's car is too harsh. I predict that most, if not all, members will come back here with the majority saying it is not long enough.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is trite to say that the primary consideration in assessing all aspects of criminal law and our criminal justice system, including in particular sentencing provisions, is the protection of the public and the safety of each citizen and, by extension, each community in Canada.

We have a collective responsibility to Canadians to ensure that laws passed in the House will truly take us a step further in ensuring the safety of Canada's citizens and that laws passed here are not the result of slogans, gimmicks or calculations. No party in this chamber has a monopoly on the desire to safeguard the security and safety of all Canadians and it is irresponsible to suggest that any of the parties in the House is soft on crime.

We need to set aside conjecture, to set aside speculation and deal with the hard and fast reality of criminal behaviour and the roots of criminal behaviour. The truth is that human behaviour, criminal or otherwise, does not lend itself to a simple or computer driven analysis, and it is too easy to conclude that there will automatically be a deterrent effect if the sentencing bar is only set high enough or the sentencing bar is only set harsh enough.

The member opposite in introducing this bill is of the belief, sincerely held--and I attribute that to him, he sincerely believes--that a potential thief will be deterred from his criminal act when he realizes that a second or third offence of auto theft will yield a certain prescribed penalty. Logic and rationale are not at the forefront of a person's mind when he decides to take property not belonging to himself. For the member opposite who introduced the bill to rather blithely assume that this grid or scale of sentences will actually deter auto theft in Canada is, and I say this with respect, naive.

Unquestionably, auto theft is a serious issue for all Canadians, in the member's riding, in my riding, throughout Canada, but I am not convinced that the manner in which it is addressed in the bill is the best way, or even an effective way, to deal with the problem of auto theft. Indeed, if I were satisfied or persuaded that this type of sentencing regimen or schedule would actually result in a decrease of auto theft in Canada, I would be quite happy to speak in favour of the bill.

Our criminal justice system, which has resulted in Canada becoming unquestionably one of the safest countries on earth in which to live, properly uses mandatory minimum sentences with considerable restraint. Our system prefers an individualized sentencing approach which gives courts the discretion to fashion a sentence which is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the conduct of the offender, while also considering any aggravating or mitigating factors.

There are certain myths or misconceptions which surround the issue of criminal law in Canada, chief among them being that the rate of crime is on the increase or, as some feel, the rate of crime is wildly on the increase. According to statistics, the rate of crime is actually decreasing.

The member opposite is again likely assuming that those who engage in criminal behaviour are informed about all aspects of criminal law, including sentencing provisions. In reality, most individuals are not aware that there are minimum sentences, so to suggest or hope that minimum penalties will automatically trigger a decrease in criminal behaviour is simply not realistic.

Although it may be said that reasonable people can be discouraged by harsh legislation, reasonable people are not normally individuals who are committing crimes. Crimes are, in essence, impulsive actions committed by only certain segments of the population.

To use an analogy, when capital punishment was abolished, there were suggestions in some quarters that the homicide rate would surely increase as the harshest penalty then available was no longer the law of the land. As we all know, the homicide rate in Canada has decreased over the years.

Another example is repeat drinking and driving offences. There are mandatory minimum sentences for repeat drinking and driving offences, but these minimum sentences have not changed in 15 years. The legislation has not been changed, and yet in 15 years, significant positive steps have been taken in lowering the number of drinking and driving offenders. The rate has not decreased because punishments have become harsher. Rather, the rate has decreased through education and through increased enforcement of the law.

The ultimate rehabilitation of an offender offers the best long term protection for Canada and for society since rehabilitation ends the risk of a continuing criminal career. There is simply no compelling or persuasive piece of evidence that the sentencing provisions or schedule as outlined in this bill will reduce the incidence of auto theft in Canada.

As has been noted by experts at the Centre for Criminology at the University of Toronto, the literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past 25 years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher penalties reduce crime rates. Indeed, a more reasonable assessment of the research to date is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society.

I heard it said years ago and I still rather tend to believe it is not so much punishment which is feared by individuals, it is the fear of being caught. In my view more resources need to be devoted to the enforcement of our current laws to ensure that more and more wrongdoers are caught.

It has been said that the best deterrent to criminal behaviour is an eye witness. We need to do more at the front end of the spectrum; that is, we need to do more to detect criminal behaviour, including auto theft, and to ensure that those individuals who are caught are prosecuted according to current laws.

It is shortsighted and misleading to the public to pretend that incarcerating more and more individuals for auto theft will actually result in a decrease or a reduction. The statistics loudly tell us otherwise.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will resist the temptation to talk about foreign affairs, even though I could have a positive influence.

First I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his initiative. He is right to remind us that auto theft is a harsh reality that harms our society. He is certainly right to want us, as parliamentarians, to discuss this reality and propose the most appropriate measures. However, I do not believe that the bill before us this evening allows us to respond to our colleague's concern. In some respects, this bill is even contradictory and inconsistent with the current provisions of the Criminal Code.

Let us start at the beginning. The Bloc Québécois has never been in favour of increasing mandatory minimum sentences. The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh knows that the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of this, with only a few exceptions.

Mr. Speaker, allow me in passing to wish my former colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles the best of luck. He is a brilliant man. You know that Richard Marceau is a candidate for the Parti Québécois in the riding of Charlesbourg, in the Quebec City suburbs.

As the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh politely but incessantly reminds me, the Bloc Québécois has supported mandatory minimum sentences before, but in one very specific context, child pornography.

For the rest, it has been well documented, both by the Toronto centre of criminology and the Université de Montréal centre of criminology. When it was time for the parliamentary committee to review and examine Bill C-10, the committee clerk, Ms. Diotte—whom I thank for her fine work—sent us some 30 studies, both American and Canadian, showing that there is no correlation between having mandatory minimum sentences, their deterrent effect and the crime rate.

We know full well that the society with the highest rate of imprisonment in the world is still the U.S., our neighbour to the south. Nevertheless, the U.S. does not have the lowest crime rate.

From the perspective of criminology, law enforcement, and the design of legislation, we do not believe that having a mandatory minimum sentence for an offence will deter individuals. Not only do we believe that mandatory minimum sentences are not a deterrent but, furthermore, we are against such sentences because they do not allow for judicial discretion.

The sacred principle in law, and the sacrosanct principle in sentencing, is the individualized sentence. Appearing before the judge are the Crown and the accused, both represented by lawyers. The truth emerges from the clash between these points of view. The judge, who must be impartial, must weigh the evidence. In some cases, the jury will do so. The judge will hand down a sentence based on the circumstances, the specific offence and the evidence presented.

This is why, in principle, we do not agree with mandatory minimum sentences.

There is something disconcerting about our colleague's bill. Once again, auto theft is a worrisome reality and the Association of Canadian Insurers provided some very convincing testimony in this regard. Section 322 of the Criminal Code defines theft, although it does not make specific reference to auto theft. Section 322 defines theft and Section 344, a little further along in the Criminal Code, sets out the applicable sentence.

In the case of theft of a vehicle worth more than $5,000, the maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment. There are not many cars today worth less than $5,000, as we know.

Our colleague has presented a bill in which the maximum sentence for second or subsequent offences is five years. Why dispense with the provisions in the Criminal Code? Even if it is not a subsequent offence, a judge is able to look at the seriousness of the offence, the context and motivations, and the history of the offender. Thus, in cases of theft of a motor vehicle, the judge may impose sentences of up to ten years.

The second problem with this bill is that it relies on fines. For the first offence there is a fine of $1,000; for a second offence, $5,000; and for a third offence, $10,000. This brings up questions about the relevance of using fines in cases of vehicle theft. Obviously fines do not affect criminals in the same way. A $10,000 fine will not have the same impact on an organized crime leader as it would on a person living in poverty. With respect to my colleague's objectives, I am not convinced that imposing fines for vehicle theft is the way to go.

In a way, would it not have been preferable for our colleague to ask us to have a closer look at the charges brought against organized crime? It is clear that, here in Canada, there are certain sectors in which organized crime is very active. This is true in the car sector and the resale of car parts. In certain areas of Canada, especially where there are port facilities, cars are brought into Canada in containers, and this is a real problem. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to ensure that we have the best possible detection technology within the various infrastructures, such as our ports. It is also our responsibility to ensure that we have the best investigation mechanisms.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois has been extremely concerned about the whole question of police investigations and the tools available to the police to conduct their investigations. We agree entirely with the police that they should have electronic surveillance warrants, as well as with the notion that reverse onus is possible before a court of justice, in certain circumstances in which property is obtained by crime and when that property belongs to a criminal organization.

To conclude, I would like to emphasize that my hon. colleague's motivation is certainly commendable and that this is a real problem. Every year, I read the reports from Criminal Intelligence Service Canada and from the RCMP, and I know that, in Canada, auto theft is a real problem, especially thefts by organized crime rings. However, I do not think that the bill in its current form will find any support from the Bloc Québécois caucus, given that it contradicts sections 322 and 334 of the Criminal Code.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-343 is a private member's bill purported to deal with the issue of auto theft. What it does, as is so common with the response from the Conservative Party and the government, is introduce a simplistic analysis, although I know well-intentioned, to a reasonably complex problem.

Before I proceed, I want to raise an issue that has bothered me since I saw this bill on the order paper. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is the author of the bill, is also one of the Acting Speakers in this House. I was concerned to see a bill that I would say has, and we have seen that today, a significant degree of controversy behind it in terms of the use of mandatory minimum penalties. We also know, from the speeches that have been given so far today, that both the Liberal member and the member from the Bloc have expressed grave concern about their ability to support and do not intend to support the bill.

I had some of my staff do some research on this and it is my opinion that any member of the House who is also a Deputy Speaker or Acting Speaker should not bring forth before the House a private member's bill or a motion as part of the rotation that we all are entitled to unless it is non-controversial, it would draw or at least be expected to draw support from all the other parties and would be almost non-partisan.

My concern was further highlighted this evening when I heard the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle in his speech to the House extol the virtues of his government. He indicated quite clearly that this private member's bill was completely in keeping with the government's agenda on crime. Clearly, both in terms of the substance of the bill and then the comments this evening, they show no bipartisan approach, just the opposite.

As I said, I had my staff do some extensive research on this. The protocols are that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are not to introduce into the House, although they would be, as part of the rotation, entitled to do so, a private member's bill, but that the Acting Speakers can. I was not able to ascertain any protocol, either here or in other houses of similar historical background, as to whether that extended to controversial bills, which is whether Acting Speakers have the right to bring in what are clearly partisan and controversial bills. Nothing in the research that I did told me anything about that.

It would behoove this House to start a precedent in that regard, in that when the Acting Speakers are appointed by the Prime Minister that they would be directed at that time to develop this protocol, that if they are going to bring forward a private member's bill or a private member's motion, that it be one that would be fully expected to draw significant all party support of the House.

I will conclude these comments on this subject with this. The fear, of course, for us, and I say this having practised in the courts all my professional career, is that we always are concerned about appearing in the courtrooms in front of judges who are unbiased and who do not come with any conflict. We are always sensitive to judges who may have expressed a bias in one form or another and then refused to recuse themselves when challenged.

I think it is a similar type of protocol that we need to develop in sensitivity, perhaps, to bias and the appearance of bias and conflict here, because the Acting Speaker, when he or she is in the chair, has the responsibility to keep order in this House and to treat all members equitably, fairly and equally.

The apprehension that as individual members of Parliament we would have is that if we had occasion to speak against a private member's bill that had been brought forward by that same Acting Speaker, as I am about to do, it would be to expect to question and to be apprehensive as to whether I would henceforth be treated fairly by the Acting Speaker.

[An hon. member]

Come on now.

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

That is what the concern is. It is one that needs to be addressed, so I raise it at this point to do that.

With regard to the bill itself, as it is so often with bills coming from the Conservatives on crime, it comes forward well intentioned but then takes it to an extreme. It takes it over the top. That is certainly what this bill does.

This being a private member's bill, of course I am speaking only on my behalf, but I could not support this bill on second reading, even to send it to committee, because quite frankly the parts of the bill that need to be amended out of the bill would almost certainly be ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principle and scope of the bill. I cannot support the bill. The rest of my caucus will be making their decision on their own as to what they are going to do.

We can recognize that auto theft is of serious concern, although I have to say that in a number of areas, particularly in British Columbia where this had been a rampant crime, the numbers in the last two years in fact have been dropping. I have not seen any numbers for the latter part of 2006, but in the last couple of years before that, the crime rate was actually dropping.

Setting that aside, because it is still a serious problem, the reason I cannot support the bill is that to introduce these mandatory minimums, both in terms of the fines and incarceration, is a response that, in my opinion, is going to have no impact. All the research that I have read on mandatory minimums would confirm that.

More importantly, from my perspective and perhaps from the perspective we want the community to have of this crime, it deludes our society into believing that this bill will have a positive effect in reducing the crime of auto theft. In fact, I do not believe it will have that impact because it also misses the real target we should be going after.

We know from a good deal of information that we are getting from our police services that the increase in auto theft has been driven, to a significant degree, by organized crime, both the traditional organized crime gangs and the bikers and now the street gangs. This is organized crime across that whole spectrum.

The bill does really very little to address that target group. I do not believe it does anything. Those in the target group are the ones we should be going after.

I have to say that if we look at some of the communities that have been successful, that is what they did. They used a dummy car to catch people. They have done a number of interesting and effective mechanisms, which they had already within their investigative tools, to catch the criminals. They have specifically tried to target the gangs. When they have done that, they have driven down the occurrence rate quite significantly.

I know from your signal, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. Again I want to reiterate that, although well intentioned, this bill does not accomplish at all what it is intended to do. I would be voting against the bill on second reading.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Palliser to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), which will toughen penalties for car theft.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to talk about my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, who of course is an excellent Acting Speaker. This is his chance to rise on behalf of his constituents on an issue of great importance in his riding and to deal with a subject of great importance to him. For the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to impugn his future fairness in decisions is way over the top. He is certainly very capable of balancing his role as an elected member of Parliament representing his constituents and his duties sitting in the chair.

Canadians have a right to feel safe in their homes and on their streets. That is why our government has taken tough action since being elected more than a year ago to crack down on dangerous offenders and to make our communities safer.

However, Canadians also have a right to be protected from car theft. Bill C-343 does that by toughening penalties for criminals who steal cars.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has brought forward an important issue worthy of debate as to whether to create a new distinct offence for motor vehicle theft. Under the current law, a person who steals a motor vehicle is normally charged with theft over $5,000.

After they gutted Bill C-9, we know that the Liberals and the NDP think house arrest should be a sentencing option available to judges. Conservative members strongly disagree.

Bill C-343 would create a separate distinct offence with enhanced penalties for motor vehicle theft. Bill C-343 would amend the Criminal Code so that everyone who steals a car will be subject to jail time or a fine or both. These punishments increase if the person steals subsequent cars.

These reforms are essential. Stealing a car is a serious crime. It is critical that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee so these proposed punishments can be debated. Certainly not all members in the chamber will agree on the specifics of the punishments, but they should at least support the bill on its merits of getting tough on car theft, get it to the appropriate committee and have that discussion there. My colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has said that he is certainly open to amendments.

Bill C-343 would help deter car thieves because it promises swift and certain punishment. The importance of that cannot be overstated. Of course we need better social programs and we need to work with the youth who are most likely to commit these types of crime, but as part of that strategy, someone who steps outside the law needs to be punished.

This bill would also help those who prosecute car thefts by creating a distinct offence for motor vehicle theft. A problem currently facing the courts is that very often a prosecutor is unaware that the offender is a career car thief. Normally the offender is simply charged with theft over $5,000 and there is no indication on the record as to the type of property that was stolen. The result is that the prosecutor and the judge do not know if they are dealing with a prolific car thief or someone involved in organized crime. The creation of a distinct offence would help to give the courts a clearer picture of the nature of the offender for bail hearings or sentencing.

It is clear from looking at the statistics that we need to reduce auto theft in Canada. In 2003 there were over 130,000 automobiles stolen in Canada. That is roughly one car stolen every three minutes. Car theft costs Canadian insurers over $600 million a year or $43 a year for every insurance policy. It is further estimated that other costs such as health care, courts, policing and out of pocket costs such as deductibles also cost Canadians another $400 million per year.

The real crime that occurs when a car is stolen goes far beyond the loss of property and the financial cost to replace it. Having a car stolen is a serious breach of personal security and a violation of one's right to own personal property. This is not a victimless crime. For those Canadians who rely on cars to get to work or school or drive their children to hockey practice or swimming lessons, having a car stolen can be disruptive and devastating. We as a society cannot stand idly by while this happens.

There is also the threat to public security and safety when a car is stolen. Very often auto theft leads to dangerous driving which can result in serious injury and death to police officers, the accused or innocent bystanders.

A study carried out by the national committee to reduce auto theft reported that between 1999 and 2001, 81 people were killed as a result of auto theft and another 127 people were seriously injured.

We also know that auto theft is not just kids taking cars out for a joy ride. It is also part of the way that gangs and organized crime profiteer while terrorizing ordinary citizens. Because of this, the recovery rate for stolen cars is on the decline. We also know that gangs target young people to commit car thefts.

In 2002, 40% of persons charged criminally for stealing a motor vehicle were between the ages of 12 and 17. Organized vehicle thefts rely on the legal system to be lenient with young offenders and when apprehended, young offenders are unable to identify other members or senior members of the theft ring.

Motor vehicle theft is an ideal recruitment tool for organized criminal groups. Research shows that youth, whose first offence is motor vehicle theft, are most at risk of continuing along the career criminal path. We need to take better action to prevent this and that is exactly what Bill C-343 will do.

Our government is committed to getting tough on crime. In fact, we have introduced a number of pieces of legislation designed to do just that.

Bill C-10 was introduced to ensure that criminals who use guns in the commission of an offence receive a very serious sentence with escalating mandatory minimum penalties.

Bill C-19 introduced by our government created five new offences to combat street racing and also provided for mandatory minimum periods of driving prohibitions. I am proud to say that this bill is now law.

Despite claims from the opposition parties that they will act and get tough on crime, we have not seen evidence of this in the House. The Liberals have declared that they are fighting Bill C-10. The Liberals and the NDP worked together to gut Bill C-9, an important piece of government legislation designed to eliminate house arrests for arsonists, car thieves, and those who commit break and enter.

The opposition parties are soft on crime. They do not like to hear it, but it is the truth.

In addition to introducing legislation our Conservative government has committed significant financial resources to crime prevention. Budget 2006 allocated $20 million over two years for communities to help prevent youth crime with a focus on guns, gangs and drugs. That is our government's record on getting tough on crime.

We have taken real action and our tough on crime agenda has the support of Canadians and certainly the people in Regina and Moose Jaw, and throughout the great riding of Palliser. Part of the reason that there is such widespread support for getting tough on crime in Saskatchewan is that we have a provincial NDP government that has one of the worse records in the country when it comes to crime. It made a promise in 1999 to hire 200 new police officers. It never did; it broke its promise.

Saskatchewan's overall per capita crime rate is higher than Ontario's. Saskatchewan has the highest homicide rate and the highest rate of violent offences of any province per capita. It also has the highest rate of break and enter in Canada. Regina, which is part of my riding of Palliser, is the second most crime ridden city in Canada and Regina has the highest number of car thefts per capita in Canada.

I guess the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is going to bring this forward when he has a chance to present a private member's bill. That is shocking and totally unacceptable that we have the highest number of car thefts in Canada.

While the recently introduced Regina auto theft strategy has helped to decrease the rates of auto theft in the city, the numbers are still too high and more decisive action must be taken.

That is what this bill does. That is why I am proud to second the bill put forward by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Toughening penalties for car theft is the right thing to do. It is another step that our government is taking to get tough on crime. That is what the residents of Palliser and Canadians across the country have asked for.

We all have a right to feel safe. Enough is enough. It is time to take action to stop people from stealing automobiles.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft).

I can say right off the bat that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. I will use the few minutes I have to try to explain the position of the Bloc.

Right now, in the Criminal Code, car theft is treated as any other theft, that is as a crime against property punishable by different penalties according to the value of the stolen goods. When an individual steal a motor vehicle whose value exceeds $5,000, the offence is punishable by a maximum prison term of 10 years. If the value of the vehicle is less than $5,000, the offence is punishable by a maximum of two years of imprisonment. Light sentences are usually imposed on car thieves and repeat offender rate is high. That is the reality.

Some people would have us believe that minimum sentences and minimum fines could solve the problem of theft. My colleagues from the Conservative Party are mistaken. The repressive system they have in the United States does not reduce the number of offences that are committed. Quite the contrary, the crime rate is higher in the U.S. Reality is very quickly catching up with them.

We need to have faith. We did not create our justice system. What we are trying to do here in this House is make the system better. It was our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers who created the system.

The justice system they created called for punishment that fit the crime. The justice system has a certain balance. Our parents and grandparents and their parents before them chose the very values and foundation of our society. It is a societal choice that was left to us by our ancestors.

Today, because the government is not happy with how the courts make certain decisions—often because they have been highly publicized—it wants to reform the entire legal system. That is what the Conservative Party wants to do: replace judges with minimum sentences. This is just the opposite of what our ancestors wanted.

In Quebec, the people who came before us did not bequeath this type of legal system to us. They left us a system based on equity and the judiciary. We trust in our judges to impose punishments that fit the crime.

The bill does not address certain dichotomies. As I explained earlier, the maximum punishment for thefts of vehicles worth $5,000 or more is 10 years in prison. The bill seeks to reduce the maximum prison term to five years. It sets minimum sentences and reduces maximum sentences.

It is important to understand that the society that was bequeathed to us wants balance, with a justice system based on the judiciary. We have to leave it up to the judges to hand down decisions. There are precedents. There are people who came before us. A whole framework has been put in place. The members of the judiciary do their job very well. We can discuss and argue about court decisions, but every case is unique. It is impossible to make all criminals fit the same mould.

The bill imposes minimum fines of $1,000 for a first offence and $5,000 for a second offence. Usually, people who steal cars do it because they do not have enough money to buy one. Even if we include minimum fines, car thieves who do not have the means to buy a car will not have the means to pay the minimum fine. They will face community work, fine option programs and prison sentences because they do not want to pay. We will have to put them in prison. The prison population will increase.

The law and order policy the Conservative Party is trying to sell us on makes no sense. It makes no sense when you think of the huge amounts of money that will be spent on the penal system. That is what will really happen if the Conservative Party brings this in.

What I just mentioned is only one example. A simplistic bill has been tabled to say that too many motor vehicles have been stolen. Regardless of the punishment associated with auto theft, if there are cars to be stolen and if people can make money selling car parts, there will always be criminals willing to do it. Mandatory sentences will not put the brakes on this system.

We have to be able to supervise people. Rather than focussing on punitive measures, we need a rehabilitation system. We need tools to take care of young people because these are juvenile delinquents who hate society for all kinds of reasons and who will do anything to stand out. They often get involved in bad stuff like auto theft.

We have to try to identify these people and invest in rehabilitation, in people who work with juvenile delinquents, in street workers. We have to try to stop young people from getting involved in criminal activities. That will definitely not happen by increasing sentences.

The Bloc Québécois has never changed its position on this issue. Every time the government tries to impose minimum sentences, it interferes with the judiciary and judges' decisions.

It comes as no surprise that the Conservative Party, given what it is doing with the judiciary, given that it sees that these minimum sentencing bills—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 7:26 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).

(The House adjourned at 7:26 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express my support for Bill C-343, introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

The government agrees that there is a pressing need to reduce the high rate of vehicles stolen every day in this country. This bill, by creating a distinct offence for motor vehicle theft, aims to do just that.

It is true that there are many offences in the Criminal Code that already address motor vehicle theft, such as theft, fraud, joyriding, possession of property obtained by crime, and flight from a peace officer. However, this bill will create a distinct offence, with penalties in the form of mandatory minimum sentences.

The sentence for a first offence will be a minimum fine of $1,000 or a minimum term of imprisonment of three months, or both. A second offence would result in a mandatory minimum fine of $5,000 or a minimum prison term of six months, or both. A third and subsequent offence would result in a minimum fine of $10,000 and a minimum term of imprisonment of two years, up to a maximum term of 10 years.

I am aware that not all members will agree on the penalty that a distinct Criminal Code offence for motor vehicle theft should have. However, I am certain that most members can agree on the utility of creating such an offence. Accordingly, the bill should be sent to the appropriate committee for review on its merits, including the proposed penalties.

I would like to note that the idea of a distinct offence for motor vehicle theft was supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on March 20, 2007, when he introduced Motion No. 295 calling for, among other things, an amendment to the Criminal Code to include auto theft as a distinct, stand-alone offence. Clearly this is an issue that cuts across party lines and is one that most members of the House can support.

Winnipeg holds the dubious distinction of being the car theft capital of Canada. For example, in Winnipeg, the auto theft rate in 2005 was 1,712 thefts per 100,000 population, whereas in Toronto there were 306 thefts reported per 100,000 population.

It is clear that the rate of auto theft in Canada is simply unacceptable. In 2001, the per capita rate of auto theft was 26% higher in Canada than it was in the United States. In the 1999 international crime victimization survey, Canada ranked fifth highest for a risk of car theft, with 1.6% of the population being a victim of car theft. Overall since 2001, the auto theft rate has remained roughly the same.

While in recent years auto theft rates have held steady at unacceptably high rates, the number of stolen vehicles that are recovered has been on the decline. It used to be that over 90% of stolen cars were recovered. Today, that rate has fallen to 70% nationwide, with recovery rates varying by city. In large cities in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, organized crime groups are believed to be more active in thefts, thanks in part to readily accessible ports that allow cars to be shipped out of the country quickly and with relative ease.

Out of the approximately 170,000 automobiles stolen every year, police and insurance experts estimate that about 20,000 of these cars are shipped abroad to destinations such as Eastern Europe, West Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

Stealing and reselling a vehicle is an extremely lucrative way for organized criminals to make money.

Let us take, for example, the scenario when a new luxury SUV is stolen. It is valued at $65,000 on the lot. It would cost an organized criminal around $1,000 to pay a youth to steal the car and approximately $1,500 to have the car “re-VINned” if it is being sold in Canada, or if it is exported to another jurisdiction, around $3,000 for shipping and handling. The automobile would likely be sold for around $45,000, resulting in a profit of nearly $40,000 per car.

Clearly the rewards for motor vehicle theft are enormous. There is a great incentive for young future career criminals to get involved in motor vehicle theft rings.

The involvement of youth in motor vehicle theft is a serious problem. Almost 40% of those charged with stealing motor vehicles are between the ages of 12 and 17 years. While vehicles are often stolen by youth for joyriding, it is also frequently the case that youth are enticed by organized criminals to steal an automobile and deliver it to a predetermined location all for a set fee. This involvement in organized crime unfortunately often has the effect of cementing criminal behaviour in young offenders. This influence on Canada's at risk youth is another tragic aspect of motor vehicle theft.

Not all of the news is bad though. Advances in technology, such as alarm systems, steering wheel locks, and GPS tracking units are making it harder to steal motor vehicles. However, as technology advances so do the skills that professional car thieves use to defeat these technologies.

So while the smash and grab method employed by most joy riders will no longer work on newer cars outfitted with sophisticated anti-theft devices, the new career car thief will ultimately find ways to outfox these devices.

It has already been mentioned that auto theft costs Canadians more than a billion dollars a year in insurance costs, medical costs, legal costs, police costs, and costs to the victims, such as insurance deductibles.

However, what about the costs that are impossible to calculate? I am referring to the human toll that motor vehicle theft has on our society. All too often when a car is stolen, the offender will drive erratically or at a high speed and not always because of police pursuit. Each year motor vehicle theft results in over 30 deaths and over 50 people being seriously injured a year in Canada.

Recently, a 10 year old girl in Regina was killed after a driver of a stolen pickup truck smashed into the minivan she was travelling in while he was attempting to escape the police.

As a society we do not tolerate impaired driving and our laws should treat this type of dangerous driving with the same seriousness. It is time that we reaffirm our commitment to making Canada's roads and highways safer.

I am proud that the government is taking a number of measures to tackle crime in Canada. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation that deal with serious criminal offences.

Bill C-10 was introduced to ensure that criminals who use guns in the commission of an offence or if an offence is gang related receive a very serious sentence with escalating mandatory minimum penalties for first and subsequent offences.

As well, the government also introduced Bill C-35 which seeks to protect the public from gun crime by amending the bail provisions in the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments would reverse the onus to the accused to prove why he or she should not be denied bail when the accused is charged with a serious offence committed with a firearm or charged with smuggling or trafficking firearms.

The government is serious about making our roads and highways safer. We introduced Bill C-19 which created five new offences to combat street racing. It also gets these dangerous drivers off the road by providing mandatory minimum periods of driving prohibition. I am pleased that this bill received royal assent on December 14, 2006.

Another step the government has taken to make our roads and highways safe is with Bill C-32 which aims to significantly increase fines and minimum jail terms for driving while impaired. This bill tackles driving while under the influence of both alcohol and drugs. Although it is already a crime to drive while impaired by drugs, currently police officers have to rely on symptoms of impairment to driving behaviour for an impaired driving investigation. There is no authority in the Criminal Code to demand physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples.

Bill C-32 would authorize the police to demand roadside testing and a drug recognition expert evaluation at the police station, and if this evaluation shows impairment, the police will be authorized to demand a sample of bodily fluid to identify that the impairment was caused by an illegal drug. Refusal to comply with these demands would be a criminal offence punishable by the same penalties for refusing to submit to an alcohol breath test.

The government is also committed to crime prevention. The 2007 budget allocates $64 million over two years to establish a national anti-drug strategy to crack down on gangs, grow ops and meth labs, prevent elicit drug use and illicit drug dependency. As well, the government has set aside $14 million over two years to combat the criminal use of firearms.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has brought forward a very important issue for the House to consider. I urge all hon. members to vote to send this bill to committee for further review.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft). It was introduced by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is also deputy chair of the committee of the whole.

The bill is meant to address the serious issue of automobile theft. While I appreciate my colleague's efforts in this area, I regret to say that the bill is a very imperfect way of trying to solve this problem. I want to raise a number of concerns that I think, should the bill reach committee, need to be considered as well.

As things stand now, the Criminal Code does have specific provisions to deal with the theft of motor vehicles. These offences would be covered by the general offence of theft as set out in section 322 of the Criminal Code. Punishments are laid out in section 334.

If the value of the stolen goods exceeds $5,000, the theft is an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison. If the value of the goods is $5,000 or less, the offence may be prosecuted by way of a summary conviction or an indictable offence. In the first case, it is punishable with a maximum jail term of six months or a fine of $2,000 or both. In the latter case, the maximum penalty is two years of incarceration. In addition, if the circumstances surrounding the theft result in criminal negligence causing death, those convicted are subject to a penalty of life in prison, the most serious sentence in the Criminal Code.

There are also a series of offences in the Criminal Code that deal with related car theft offences. For instance, some offenders may at times decide to flee from law enforcement personnel in stolen vehicles, the member just gave an example, and drive perhaps recklessly to do so. If this occurs and there are no injuries as a result, the offender may be charged with the offence of flight from a peace officer and this offence carries a maximum term of five years of imprisonment. Should flight lead to death, as was the case just given, then the offender is criminally liable to a term of life imprisonment for this terrible crime.

Obviously, society does not accept this type of behaviour and available sentences for this crime reflect that strong message. Also related is Bill C-19 which was passed by Parliament some months ago. It received royal assent on December 14. It dealt with the issue of street racing, one with which our previous Liberal government had been dealing. In any case, Bill C-19 defined street racing and created a set of five specific offences to deal with this issue.

I will recognize that the theft of automobiles may sometimes be undertaken systematically by organized criminal organizations and I might say that in my time as solicitor general, I saw that issue up pretty close.

In this regard the Criminal Code holds a number of additional and useful tools that can apply when auto theft is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. These additional tools provide for the possibility of consecutive sentencing and reduced parole eligibility.

My point in referring to various sections of the Criminal Code is to show all Canadians that there are already existing and efficient mechanisms to deal with the issue of motor vehicle theft.

Let us now consider the effects of Bill C-343, were it to receive royal asset one day. The bill would add a new section to the Criminal Code, section 334.

On a general level, the bill affects the current motor vehicle theft regime in the following ways.

One, the bill brings in mandatory minimum sentences, be they fines or incarceration.

Two, the bill sets out what are referred to as escalator mandatory minimum penalties which establish increasingly harsher penalties for people who commit the crime time and time again.

Three, more specifically, an offender who was found guilty a third time of motor vehicle theft would automatically be incarcerated for a time period of 2 to 10 years.

Four, the bill erases the distinction given to the value of a vehicle that is stolen as an aggravating factor that would be taken into consideration in sentencing determination upon conviction.

Let us consider the specific sentencing provisions outlined in Bill C-343. Let us first examine the punishments established for summary convictions.

For a first offence prosecuted summarily, the minimum mandatory penalty is three months of incarceration and/or a fine of $1,000. The maximum penalty is a two year prison sentence. Should a second offence later take place and also be prosecuted summarily, the punishment is that of a six month jail term and/or a $5,000 fine. The maximum is also a two year sentence. As I stated previously, the value of the vehicle is of no consequence in these sentencing arrangements.

Should the criminal act be prosecuted by means of indictable offence, the minimum penalty upon conviction would be a three month jail term and/or a $1,000 fine. The maximum sentence would be a five year stay in prison. For a second offence prosecuted by way of an indictment, the penalty would be a six month incarceration and/or a $5,000 fine. The maximum sentence is a five year jail term. Here too, the value of the stolen vehicle has no effect on the sentence.

Finally, in the case of a third offence, the individual may only be prosecuted via indictment and cannot be prosecuted through a summary conviction. Its penalty is a minimum of two years in jail along with a $10,000 fine. Its maximum sentence is 10 years of jail time.

We do have to consider the issue of mandatory minimum penalties and their use.

The minority Conservative government seems to believe that mandatory minimum sentences and mandatory minimum penalties are the ultimate panacea to all crime committed in Canada. However, when they are used as a sweeping blunt instrument like in Bill C-343, they could lead to an immense increase in prison populations and a series of unintended consequences. For instance, the presence of mandatory minimum sentences often affect how a Crown attorney lays charges and conducts plea bargains. Has this been considered by the mover of the bill? I suspect not. It would no doubt have dire consequences for Canada's justice system.

As we on this side of the House know and appreciate, Canada uses mandatory minimum sentences with restraint, preferring an individualized sentencing approach that gives the court the discretion to fashion a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the offender, considering also any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Given this, the broad and generalized use of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-343 would be contrary to the established Canadian sentencing principles such as proportionality and restraint in their use. The flexible approach, I believe, delivers quality justice and has the support of many Canadians. We should not disregard these facts.

It would seem that the bill's mover believes that any potential thief would be deterred from a criminal act when he or she realizes that a second or third offence, in this case of auto theft, would yield a certain prescribed penalty. That is not necessarily the case. I realize I am not--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jeanne--Le Ber.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-343. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to increase minimum penalties for motor vehicle theft.

A similar bill, Bill C-293, was defeated at second reading during the last Parliament. At the time, the Bloc Québécois voted against it, and today, we will vote against it again. The only difference between the two bills is that Bill C-343 establishes a two-year minimum sentence for a third car theft offence instead of a one-year sentence.

Currently, the Criminal Code treats car theft like any other theft, that is, as a crime against property punishable by different penalties according to the value of the stolen goods. When an individual steals a motor vehicle whose value exceeds $5,000, the offence is punishable by a maximum prison term of 10 years. If the value of the vehicle is less than $5,000, the offence is punishable by up to two years in prison. As we are all aware, most of the time, shorter sentences are given. I would note that a vehicle worth less than $5,000 is becoming a rare thing these days. At any rate, thieves generally steal vehicles that they think have a certain cash value.

The bill before us seeks to amend the Criminal Code to impose minimum prison sentences for motor vehicle theft. It sets out different sentences for first offences and repeat offences. As I said, we are against this bill. We believe its purpose is not really to solve this problem but to create the illusion of doing so. I mentioned earlier that we voted against a nearly identical bill on September 28, 2005.

Minimum penalties are at the heart of this bill. We know that, in the vast majority of cases, the concept of minimum penalties is an ineffective deterrent to crime. In our society, most people readily obey the law. Any reasonable person obeys the law and they do so not because they worry about the repercussions, but because they are reasonable and they simply respect society. Those who do not obey the law do not have that good sense. In the majority of cases, in almost all cases, these people think they will not be caught. So the severity of the punishment is not much of a deterrent to criminals. When the legislator determines the length of a maximum term of imprisonment, they are far more concerned with establishing the relative seriousness of a crime in relation to others than with the deterrent it would provide.

So, to think that because a thief is familiar with the Criminal Code and knows that there is a minimum penalty, he will be deterred from stealing a car is wrong in most cases.

I would like to provide some international statistics that prove that imprisonment is not an effective measure for crime prevention. Canada imprisons 101 persons out of every 100,000 inhabitants. In the European Community, it is 87 out of every 100,000. In France, the number is 77. I do not think anyone believes that countries in the European Community or that France are less safe than our country. In Japan, one of the countries which has the lowest number of cars stolen, 50 out of every 100,000 inhabitants are imprisoned. In fact, the places in the western world where crime rates are the highest include the United States, where 689 out of every 100,000 inhabitants are imprisoned. The United States even surpasses Russia, where that number is 673.

Contrary to the Conservatives' worn-out rhetoric about law and order and getting tough on crime, the numbers show that this does not work. Putting people in jail does not prevent crime. We put people in jail to punish them once they have already committed crimes. We have to get to the root of the problem and work on preventing crime.

The members of the Bloc Québécois do not like the idea of minimum penalties because we do not want judges' hands to be tied unnecessarily. In some cases, this can produce undesirable results because judges may be inclined to acquit a person rather than impose a penalty they consider unreasonable. If the application of this legislation results in people who would otherwise have been given less severe penalties being acquitted because judges cannot bring themselves to apply such draconian penalties, we will be no further ahead. How paradoxical that this bill should have come from the Conservative Party, because in the past, the Conservatives criticized political activism on the part of judges and accused them of making or amending legislation. They said this was the prerogative of elected representatives, that it was up to the House to vote on legislation, and that the judges had no business getting involved.

It is rather ironic to see the Conservatives denounce a so-called intrusion by judges in our work while, at the same time, they are proposing a bill that interferes in the work of judges. Personally, I believe it would be best to maintain the traditional division of power. We are here, as legislators, to enact legislation and determine the relative seriousness of offences. We must leave it up to the judges to impose the most appropriate penalties after taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors that may come up in a given case. As legislators, we will never be able to incorporate that into a bill.

It is even more ironic that this bill would lower the maximum penalty for a first offence. As I was saying earlier, the current sentence is 10 years, but that would be decreased to five years in the case of a first offence. If, as legislators, we pass this legislation, it could be construed as belittling the seriousness of the offence, which seems rather illogical. That was probably not the intention of the sponsor of the bill, but there is a clear incongruity here.

Another problem arises from the fact that the $10,000 fine provided for in the bill would not have the same impact on everyone, depending on the offender's financial situation. Motor vehicle theft is often the work of organized groups. These groups are often very wealthy, and a $10,000 fine would not be a much of a problem, given the profits earned from the sale of stolen cars. However, for certain isolated young people who spontaneously commit a one-time indiscretion, this would be a very serious penalty. For these reasons, it seems to me that this bill completely misses the mark. The Conservative government and the Conservatives would be much wiser to leave the firearms registry alone, which would help prevent crime.

As we all know, throughout Quebec and Canada, crime prevention programs and subsidies are being cut by the government. That is where we must act, to prevent crime before it happens.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak in support of Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), and I thank the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for bringing this important bill forward.

It is clear from reading Bill C-343 that this proposed legislation is directed at combating the high rate of auto theft in Canada. Reducing the rate of auto theft would make Canadian streets safer and would target a major source of profits for criminal organizations.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a distinct offence with enhanced penalties for the theft of a motor vehicle. The bill provides that the sentence for a first offence would be a minimum punishment of a fine of $1,000 or a minimum prison term of three months, or both. A second offence would result in a mandatory minimum fine of $5,000 or a minimum prison term of six months, or both. A third and subsequent offence would result in a minimum fine of $10,000 and a minimum term of two years imprisonment with a maximum of ten years.

The auto theft rate in Canada must be reduced. Statistics Canada reports that more than 160,000 cars were stolen in 2005, which is up from 130,000 in 2003. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that motor vehicle theft costs Canadians over $1 billion a year in insurance costs, health care, court, policing and out of pocket expenses such as deductibles.

While the financial cost of auto theft is a serious concern, an even greater concern is the dangerous driving that often results from the commission of the offence of stealing a car. Dangerous driving can and does result in serious injury and death to innocent Canadians. Such was the case of the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy, a Nova Scotian educator and mother of three children. She was killed on October 14, 2004 when her car was struck by a youth driving a stolen vehicle. Just recently in Regina a young girl was killed when the minivan in which she was driving was struck by a stolen car whose driver was evading the police.

In my own province of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg has become the auto theft capital of Canada. Manitoba's auto theft rate jumped over 10% in the last two years, despite a $22 million program to put in ignition immobilizers in as many vehicles as possible. In 2006, Manitoba recorded 9,449 vehicle thefts, up from 8,957 in 2005, but still down from the record 10,638 in 2004, one of the worst years ever for car theft, which placed Manitoba on top among provinces for auto theft.

This epidemic often leads to the destruction of vehicles and serious injuries to law-abiding motorists and pedestrians when the stolen vehicles are used as weapons or taken for dangerous joyrides.

Just last month a group of kids in Winnipeg stole vehicles and then targeted joggers, clipping them with their car mirrors. It is these kind of criminals that we need to get off our streets.

There is also a trend in Canada where auto theft is shifting away from random acts of crime toward organized criminal activity. Experts link the recovery rate of stolen cars to the degree of organized crime involvement. The recovery rate for stolen cars is on the decline. For example, in Toronto, over 90% of stolen cars used to be found and returned. Now that rate is less than 70%. In Quebec, less than 50% of stolen cars are recovered.

Out of close to the 170,000 automobiles stolen every year, police and insurance experts estimate that about 20,000 of these cars are shipped abroad to destinations such as eastern Europe, West Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

Vehicle theft rings are insidious organizations that the government is determined to fight. They tend to be complex organizations made up of brokers who hire middlemen who, in turn, hire thieves to steal the cars. Typically, the thieves are young people who are instructed to steal the vehicle and deliver it to a set location. At this point, the vehicle is normally chopped and dismantled for parts or re-VINed, where the vehicle identification number is altered, or the car is exported.

Another serious issue is the role of young offenders in motor vehicle theft. Almost 40% of those charged for stealing a motor vehicle are between the ages of 12 and 17. Oftentimes cars are stolen for joyriding but, increasingly, organized crime is recruiting youth to their operations. Youths are required to steal the cars and deliver them to a middleman, while the criminals at the upper levels of the organization are protected from the risk of getting caught by the law.

Canadians know that our government is committed to getting tough on crime. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation that aim to crack down on serious criminal offences.

Bill C-10 was introduced to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for serious offences involving firearms for gang related offences. For offences committed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, such as a handgun, there are mandatory minimum penalties of five years on a first offence and seven years for a second or subsequent offence.

The government has proven its commitment to combat dangerous driving through Bill C-19, which created five new offences to combat street racing and also provided for mandatory minimum periods of driving prohibitions. I am pleased that the House supported the bill and, indeed, that it received royal assent on December 14, 2006.

Another step that the government has taken to make our roads and highways safer is with Bill C-32. In 2003, alcohol and/or drugs were involved in 1,257 fatalities, 47,181 injuries and 161,299 property-damage-only crashes involving 245,174 vehicles. The total financial and social costs of these losses are estimated to be as high as $10.95 billion.

The bill would significantly increase fines and minimum jail terms for driving while impaired. It also would make it easier to investigate and prosecute impaired driving cases. The bill also deals with those who drive while on drugs, authorizing police to demand roadside physical sobriety tests and bodily substance samples at the police station.

The government has shown its commitment to crime prevention in the 2007 budget in which $64 million over two years were set aside to establish a new national anti-drug strategy to crack down on gangs, grow ops and crystal meth labs, prevent illicit drug use and treat illicit drug dependency. In addition, $14 million over two years have been set aside to combat the criminal use of firearms.

Under the current law, a person who steals a motor vehicle is normally charged with theft over $5,000. Bill C-343 would create a separate, distinct offence for motor vehicle theft.

Another compelling reason for the creation of a distinct offence is that it would make the criminal justice system more efficient. Currently, a prosecutor is often unaware of whether an offender is a career car thief. Normally the offender is simply charged with theft over $5,000 and there is no indication on the record as to the type of property that was stolen. The creation of a distinct offence would help to give the courts a clearer picture of the nature of the offender for bail hearings or when it comes time to handing down a sentence.

I support Bill C-343 and urge hon. members to send the bill to committee so it can be reviewed in greater detail.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 2, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:11 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at second reading of Bill C-343, under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #170

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)