This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
In committee (Senate), as of Oct. 29, 2009
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create offences in connection with the theft of a motor vehicle, the alteration, removal or obliteration of a vehicle identification number, the trafficking of property or proceeds obtained by crime and the possession of such property or proceeds for the purposes of trafficking, and to provide for an in rem prohibition of the importation or exportation of such property or proceeds.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice
moved that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Rob Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).
The bill is aimed at tackling the separate but related problems of auto theft and trafficking in stolen property and other property obtained by crime. The bill reintroduces offences for tampering with a vehicle identification number and for trafficking in property obtained by a crime, which was initially set out in Bill C-53, a bill that our government introduced in the 39th Parliament.
Bill C-26 also proposes a new distinct offence of theft of a motor vehicle, which is similar to the offence proposed in Bill C-343, a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, which died on the order paper in the last Parliament. I would be remiss if I did not mention at this time the efforts of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his outstanding work on behalf of his constituents and for raising awareness of this serious issue.
Auto theft is one of the most pervasive forms of property crime in Canada. While there has been a downward trend in auto theft rates in the last decade, it stills remains one of the highest-volume offences in Canada. In its December 2008 report on motor vehicle theft, Statistics Canada reported that in 2007 approximately 146,000 motor vehicle thefts were reported to the police across Canada, averaging 400 thefts per day.
Motor vehicle theft has created a significant impact on owners, law enforcement and the insurance industry. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that auto theft costs Canadian more than $1 billion each year, including non-insured vehicle theft, policing, health care, legal costs and out-of-pocket costs such as insurance deductibles.
Motor vehicle theft also creates public safety concerns for Canadians, as stolen vehicles are often involved in police chases or dangerous driving, which can result in injury or death to innocent bystanders. Such was the case of the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy, a Nova Scotia educator and mother of three children who was killed on October 14, 2004, when her car was struck by a youth driving a stolen vehicle. Sadly, this is not a rare incident. A study carried out by the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft reported that in the period of 1999-2001, 81 people were killed as a result of auto theft and another 127 people were seriously injured.
The bill therefore proposes that a new offence of motor vehicle theft be added at section 333.1 of the Criminal Code. It is true that many offences in the Criminal Code already address motor vehicle theft, such as theft, fraud, joyriding, possession of property obtained by crime and flight from a police officer. However, the bill would create a distinct offence with an enhanced penalty for a third and subsequent conviction in the form of a mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment.
The creation of this distinct offence is an important measure that will assist prosecutors. 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 or possession of property over $5,000 and there is no indication on the available record as to the type of property that was stolen. The result is the prosecutor and the judge do not know if they are dealing with a prolific car thief or with a car thief involved with organized crime. The proposed distinct offence will help give the courts a clearer picture of the nature of the offender for bail hearings and when it comes time to impose a sentence.
In a report published in 2004, Statistics Canada estimated that roughly 20% of stolen cars were linked to organized crime activity. Organized crime groups participate in the trafficking of stolen autos in at least three ways. First, they operate chop shops, where stolen vehicles are disassembled and their parts are trafficked, often to unsuspecting customers. Second, organized crime is involved in the process of altering a car's legal identity through changing its vehicle identification number, commonly known as its VIN. Third, high-end, late-model luxury sedans and sport utility vehicles are exported from Canadian ports to far-off locations in areas such as Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
The bill takes serious steps to address organized crime's involvement in motor vehicle theft in a number of ways, including by the proposed creation of two new offences of general application that will target trafficking in property obtained by crime whether stolen property or property obtained by fraud or other crimes. Let me be clear, though. The scope of the proposed trafficking offences is comprehensive and will extend to all forms of trafficking and property obtained by crime, not just stolen autos.
To understand how the proposed offence of trafficking and property obtained by crime would help, consider what ultimately happens to personal property when it is stolen during a typical break and enter. Members in the House probably have constituents who can relate to the offence of break and enter. When thieves break into homes, the first thing they usually do with the goods is sell them to a fence, who buys them at a significant discount and then sells the stolen property at a profit, either to pawn shops, legitimate businesses or directly to customers who have ordered a specific item such as a high-end bicycle or electronics.
In the theft cycle it is the fence who provides the avenue to pursue the financial incentive that motivates the thief to commit the initial crime.
Another example of trafficking involves the stealing of vehicles to export or dismantle for parts. This is a lucrative business for organized crime and one that affects the legitimate retail industry. Stolen parts are easily fenced and often sold to unsuspecting customers or garages. It is far easier to traffic automotive parts than entire vehicles, especially when exporting by sea.
Selling automotive parts can also be more lucrative than selling an entire automobile because parts from cars older than five years old are often worth much more than the vehicle would be worth if it was sold as a whole.
Chop shops that disassemble stolen cars thrive in urban areas, especially those with easy access to ports. Canadian chop shops export automotive parts throughout the world.
Presently the general offence of possession of property obtained by crime in section 354 of our Criminal Code carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for property valued over $5,000. It is the principle Criminal Code offence that is used to address trafficking in property obtained by crime. There is no specific trafficking offence that adequately captures the full range of activities involved in trafficking, such as selling, giving, transferring, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering stolen goods. The current theft and possession provisions also do not recognize organized crime involvement in these activities.
There is an organized nature to the activities involved in dealing in property obtained by crime. Take auto theft as an example. Chop shops often keep as little inventory as possible to avoid detection and to minimize the risk of multiple counts in the event of a raid. The offence of possession of property obtained by crime does not capture the fact that the chop shop operation processes far more motor vehicles than are normally seized during a raid. Additionally, the police often only charge the person who is in possession of the property at the time of the raid. In many cases none of the other players can be fully prosecuted during the existing theft or possession offences.
To more effectively address organized crime, including commercial auto theft, it is necessary to target all the middlemen, including the seller, the distributor, the person chopping the car, the transporter and the person arranging and organizing these transactions. This is also the case in regard to the trafficking of stolen property in general.
The proposed reforms in Bill C-26 will give law enforcement and prosecutors new tools to target those who participate in any part of the entire range of activities that are involved in the disposal of illegally obtained goods. To this end, it will make it an offence to traffic in or possess for the purpose of trafficking in property obtained by crime.
The proposed offences will be based on a wide definition of trafficking. It will include the selling, giving, transferring, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering of goods or offering to do any of the above. As such this, new law will target all of the middlemen who move stolen property from the initial criminal act through to its sale to the ultimate consumer.
I should mention that there are victims at both ends of the spectrum, the individuals who have had their property stolen and the unsuspecting purchasers of goods obtained through the theft from innocent victims.
This government believes that serious crime should be appropriately punished. Accordingly the proposed trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking offences will have higher penalties than the existing possession offence in section 354 of the Criminal Code. If the value of the item trafficked exceeds $5,000, the maximum penalty will be 14 years imprisonment. If the value is less than $5,000, the matter will be a hybrid offence and will carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment or six months on summary conviction.
As noted, the movement of stolen property across Canada's international borders, especially automobiles, is a particular problem. However, at our ports now, Canada Border Services Agency officials cannot use their administrative powers under the Customs Act to stop suspected stolen vehicles from leaving our ports. In order for the CBSA to be able to bar the cross-border movement of property obtained by crime, goods must first be classified as prohibited goods for the purpose of importation or exportation.
No such classification is currently set out under federal law. If customs officials come across suspected stolen automobiles, they do not currently have the administrative authority to detain the shipment, or even to determine themselves whether the cars are stolen by accessing databases. They can, of course, refer clear cases of criminal activity to the police, but the application of administrative customs' powers would be far more effective in helping to interdict the export of stolen goods.
To address this concern, I am pleased to say that the bill proposes to supply the necessary express prohibition against the importation or exportation of property obtained by crime. This would trigger the administrative enforcement powers of the Canada Border Services Agency.
In the case of auto theft, for example, CBSA officers would be able to investigate, identify and detain imported vehicles or vehicles about to be exported, and to search databases to determine whether such vehicles were indeed stolen. These actions could ultimately produce evidence that would allow the police to conduct criminal investigations and lay criminal charges.
As I have mentioned, another one of the ways in which organized vehicle theft is facilitated involves disguising the identity of stolen vehicles. This process involves stripping the vehicle of all existing labels, plates and other markings bearing the true vehicle identification number, and then manufacturing replacement labels, plates and other markings bearing a false vehicle identification number obtained from imported or salvaged vehicles.
There is currently no offence in the Criminal Code that directly prohibits tampering with a vehicle identification number. Like trafficking, the current Criminal Code provision used to address VIN tampering is the general offence of possession of property obtained by crime.
The proposed amendment would make it an offence to wholly or partially alter, obliterate or remove a VIN on a motor vehicle. Under the new offence, anyone convicted of tampering with a vehicle identification number could face imprisonment for a term of up to five years on indictment, or punishment on summary conviction.
As of October 1, 2008, when Bill C-13 came into force, the general penalty for an offence punishable on summary conviction is now a fine of not more than $5,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. This would be an additional offence. A person could be charged with both the possession of property obtained by crime and the proposed VIN tampering offence, which could result in a longer sentence. In order to ensure that the proposed VIN tampering offence does not capture lawful behaviour such as automobile body repair, recycling and wrecking, the offence also includes an express exemption provision.
This government is serious about fighting crime, and this legislation is a strong measure to help law enforcement and prosecutors punish criminals who commit auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime.
I want to take this opportunity to thank our Minister of Justice, who has carried the ball on a number of significant measures that tackle violent crime, gang crime, organized crime and motor vehicle theft. As he is fond of saying, we are just getting started.
There is so much more we can do, and we are doing that. This bill is a big part of protecting all Canadians from the offence of motor vehicle theft.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-26, which was formerly introduced as Bill C-53 in the last Parliament. That Parliament was stopped, so we did not get to consider that bill.
This is an act to amend the Criminal Code, specifically with respect to auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime. The theft of autos has become a very prolific business for organized crime in the country. I do not mean to pick on cities, but certainly with respect to Montreal and Winnipeg, we, at the justice committee, have heard time and again about the auto theft challenge for mayors.
Being a former mayor, I understand that complaints about the state of one's city come from the people to the mayors and councillors. It becomes a complaint that resonates through a city, and it can affect the image of a city. No city wants to be called the car theft capital of Canada or a province or a region.
Anything we can do through the Criminal Code, through provincial regulations, through public safety programs, public education programs is important. Initiatives as simple as telling people to lock their cars or not to park their cars in certain areas have started at the municipal level. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has addressed the issue that is so rampant in some of its member cities with respect to how to prevent auto theft, how to avoid the occasion of auto theft.
At the other end, organized crime has made it a business. It has become the Fortune 500, so to speak, of stealing autos in larger centres.
In the middle, all we can do in Parliament is review legislation with a view to making the situation more tolerable in our large cities, and indeed throughout the country, with respect to auto theft. That is one part of this bill.
I would like to say that the Conservatives are learning; they are getting a little better. The parliamentary secretary said such nice things about the Minister of Justice. I would not want that to go to their heads. The fact is that Bill C-53, which when introduced was virtually going to end auto theft according to the Conservatives, has now been changed in this bill, Bill C-26, and it is a separate offence in the Criminal Code in order to deal with auto theft. The Conservatives made it a separate offence, which is a good thing. We applaud that. We will be supporting it.
However, I think it is important for members of the House and the public to know that despite all the rhetoric that appears on CTV, CBC, and all the other networks across this country, from the spokespeople of the Conservative Party, we cannot do everything from this Parliament. It is not possible.
What is possible is to work well with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It is not to make enemies of mayors and councillors, which the government has done so often, but to work in harmony with all levels of government to make auto theft a priority--
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but of course the time demands it. There will be 16 minutes and a bit remaining in the time allotted for his remarks once the debate resumes.
The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations between all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the notice period for a Take Note Debate be waived in order to allow for a take note debate tonight that would take note that the seal hunt is a humane and legitimate economic pursuit, and that the European Parliament's recent decision to ban the importation of seal products is misinformed, inflammatory, counterproductive, and should be rejected.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The member for Hull—Aylmer on a point of order.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, could you delay the vote a little so we can obtain a final, word-for-word copy of the motion? In that way we will be able to make an enlightened decision.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The member is asking that the vote be postponed to later, perhaps around 2:15 p.m.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
When this bill was last before the House the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe had the floor and there are 16 and a bit minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.
I therefore call upon the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, I intend to use my 16 and a bit minutes to drive home the fact that certainly the official opposition supports this bill, but there are a number of questions as we send the bill to committee that we as parliamentarians might reasonably ask the government.
I left off after my three and a bit minutes of speech before oral questions in suggesting that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and municipalities across the country have been directly and indirectly calling on the federal government to do something about auto theft for some time. As the Insurance Bureau of Canada says in its publications, auto theft is not just an insurance or policing problem, it is not a victimless crime and it is not just a properly crime. Auto theft affects cities and the way we think about our communities. Many mayors are concerned. A mayor's nightmare might be that his or her community ends up in the top 10 list of car theft capitals in Canada. No one wants that.
Unlike a lot of other major crimes that are monitored by the media, such as spousal abuse, sexual abuse, murder and assault, the root causes of which are very difficult and profound for cities and leaders to deal with, auto theft is probably something that can be affected by a community response and not just a federal government response. For example, the communities themselves could help by educating the public as to where not to park and certainly by providing better lighting. That is the minimal end of it.
However, with respect to investment in technology, the government has a very poor record. For instance, the Insurance Bureau of Canada says that investing in industries would give us certain deterrents such as immobilizers. Immobilizers are electronic devices that arm automatically when a vehicle is switched off. They prevent the unauthorized starting of a vehicle. Canada should be a leader in this technology. Instead we heard today about world-leading scientists leaving the country. that is the track record of the government.
Auto theft is a global problem. It is profitable for criminals. It is expensive for law-abiding citizens. In fact, although auto theft might not affect every small community in this country, it does affect everyone's insurance rate. The Insurance Bureau of Canada suggests that up to $35 of one's insurance premium per year is attributable to auto theft. For those of us who have never had a car stolen and paid auto insurance for as many years as we have been paying insurance, one gets the depth of the problem with respect to auto theft. It is a $1.2 billion per year cost that affects not only the people who have had their vehicles stolen, but everyone who pays insurance.
It is an economic issue which the government should be doing more about than presenting a bill. In the last Parliament, Bill C-53, the government's first stab at it, was not really carefully drafted. The Conservatives have come back with advice from the opposition and from the IBC law reform section. They have improved it to put in a separate offence for auto theft. Cheers for that.
There is some literature out there that says that this only affects high-end SUVs and high value import models, but it is not so. To give an idea of how this affects the average Canadian driver, the top 10 stolen vehicles for 2007 include models that are very popular, such as the Honda Civic, the Honda Civic SIR, the Dodge Plymouth Grand Caravan, and everyone who has ever been a van dad or a van mom knows that the Dodge Caravan is a very popular vehicle. Other models in the list are the Grand Caravan Voyageur, the Plymouth Shadow, and the Neon. These are vehicles that average Canadians drive. They are stolen and chopped up sometimes by criminal organizations, which I will get to in a minute.
The statistics indicate that there are over 1,200 instances of auto theft per 100,000 population in the province of Manitoba as a high, down to roughly less than 150 instances per 100,000 population in provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The mayors of Winnipeg, Abbotsford, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, London and Hamilton must be very concerned that their cities are at the top of the heap when it comes to motor vehicle theft.
We on this side of the House will not be opposing this legislation. The bill will be sent to committee where we will discuss some of the statistics and some of the things that could be done in a better way to tackle the issue of auto theft.
After over three years in government and with cities like that which are not all in Liberal held ridings, and in fact very few of them are, one would think the Conservatives would understand that auto theft is a bigger problem than the bill it brought in two years into its mandate and one which was not really drafted that carefully. Finally, over three years into its mandate, the government has drafted a bill that would do something toward the problem of auto theft.
The mayor of Winnipeg appeared before committee about a year ago. He is looking for federal legislation. With the power the federal government has and the programs and policies it has access to, one would think the federal government would be doing more about auto theft.
People in the cities that I just mentioned from the ground up might push their MP, who in turn might push the Minister of Justice and those responsible for science and technology to do something about auto theft. One would think the government would present a bill that would meet no opposition. After three and a half years, there should be more to it.
The issue of how the Insurance Bureau of Canada has made this information available is quite relevant. The information has been online, for anyone who cared to look at it, for the last seven years. This has been a problem over the last seven years.
I applaud the steps in the bill in defining car theft as a separate offence, and getting at the issue of organized crime as an element, which is the next aspect of my speech. I want to start with how this affects the average Canadian.
Although we think it is important to target organized crime as it profits from the theft of autos and the chop shops and the creation of a whole industry out of the theft of vehicles, the other reality is that only one out of five auto thefts, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, benefits organized crime. The four other auto thefts are auto thefts per se. These are the items that touch every Canadian and the items the government should be doing something about.
Although I said the bill is not perfect, it is a good start in that it is updating the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a massive document, a panoply of rights and derogations created by maybe one of the last really good Conservative prime ministers going back two centuries. Sir John Thompson, who was from my part of the world, Nova Scotia, basically wrote or scripted or copied and pulled together the Criminal Code in 1892, I believe.
The Criminal Code has grown. It needs a more wholesome review than just the piecemeal approach that has been taken by legislators for the last 50 to 60 years. We have to look at a more catholic view of codes around the western world, the jurisdictions with common law as their source of law, and do something about reforming the Criminal Code.
As we go along we have to realize, obviously because that document is so old and such a compendium of additions over the last 100 years, that more than Criminal Code amendments could be brought to bear on issues touched by the Criminal Code. The case in point is auto theft and organized crime.
We know that one in five cars in Canada is stolen for the purpose of aiding organized crime or gangs. One of the elements in this bill which has long been suggested is to create a separate offence for tampering with the vehicle identification number. The vehicle identification number is a system of 17 alphanumeric characters that provide a unique identifier for each vehicle.
There are those who will take out the 17 digit VIN unintentionally or perhaps without the purpose of benefiting and aiding gang-related or organized crime coffers. In the code, there is a reasonable hybrid offence dealing with that. In one instance, where it has been proven to the satisfaction of the prosecutor that there was intent for criminal purposes to obliterate the VIN, it is a more serious, indictable offence. However, in the cases where that intent cannot be shown, the hybrid aspect allows a prosecutor to proceed, or I suppose by amendment at a trial, a defendant's lawyer could convince a judge that the case should proceed for sentencing purposes by way of summary conviction. I think the maximum is set at $2,000.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada is certainly in favour of such a move, but the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada recently noted:
The Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau has identified an increase in four main fraud techniques that are used by organized crime to steal vehicles. These include: the illegal transfer of Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) from wrecked vehicles to similar ones that have been stolen; a legitimate VIN is used to change the legal identity of a stolen vehicle of the same make, model, and colour, a process called “twinning.”
We would have thought that a VIN might be obliterated by someone selling a vehicle to hide the previous vehicle's imperfections. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often you have to trade in vehicles, but you want to make sure that the vehicle you have is the vehicle it appears to be from the VIN. However, we are seeing that a vehicle in the wreck heap is actually having its VIN used for another vehicle that has been stolen, thereby purporting to confuse the consumer and perpetuate a fraud.
As in the case of possession of property obtained by crime, in this new aspect of the offence, the property must have been derived from the commission of an indictable offence in Canada or outside Canada. In addition to proving criminal origin, the prosecution would have to prove that the accused had knowledge of the criminal origin. The issue with respect to how this will hurt organized crime will have to be looked at in the discussions at committee.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights just returned from a 12-hour day of hearings in Vancouver with respect to organized crime. The discussion was wide ranging. We discussed aspects with respect to the illegal marijuana grow-ops and the currency of organized crime in that part of the world. We also know from our research looking into this bill and now supporting this bill as it goes to committee that some of the currency of organized crime is in stolen vehicles with or without obliterated VINs.
Further, the stolen vehicles are resold, but there have also been vehicles that have been stolen and chopped up into parts for export. In section 355.1 of the code, the definition of “traffic” covers a wide range of activities, including selling, offering and delivering. As we move this bill to committee, it is important for all of us to be very aware that prosecutors and Department of Justice officials themselves will have to convince us that this is a good bill of goods that we are buying here in terms of trying to use the provisions of auto theft prevention as a means also to prevent profit from going to organized crime.
It is all well and good to go on the news and say that we are fighting organized crime and present an auto theft bill. There are two goals: to prevent auto theft, clearly, and for the first part of my speech I talked about the public, the mayors and the FCM from time immemorial having an interest in having that reduced on its own; and also to reduce the cash stream, the lifeblood and currency of organized crime.
Therefore, we need to get underneath this trafficking definition and ensure that as the new law is enacted it will actually have an effect on organized crime. As I mentioned, four out of five vehicles are stolen not for the purposes of organized crime in Canada. As I mentioned, the onus is a little bit higher when it comes to obliterating the VIN number. There needs to be actual knowledge or intent. As I also mentioned, the definition of trafficking might be easier when it comes to things like drugs. There is an item in a cash consideration.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, from your days in law school, consideration can be a mere peppercorn but it also can be wads of cash. With vehicles and chopped parts, it is not that clear.
I want to say finally that, not as an old grey mayor but an old mayor, I am really compelled to do something for mayors. When we had the mayor of Winnipeg in committee a year or so ago, I felt very strongly that as legislators we had to do all that we could.
This is a nice little bill and we will support it when it goes to committee. We are doing what we can on this side to make places like Winnipeg safe. What we also must remember is that the Conservative members have the levers of power. They have the purses that short term political success brings but they can do a lot more with respect to encouraging a reduction in auto theft. One of those things is to talk to the municipalities more often.
For all those ministers to give a score card to us, but the number of times they have been to FCM, I bet, would be pretty pathetic. We will be support the bill as it goes to committee.
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, being a former mayor, spoke about speaking to the mayors of Sarnia and Winnipeg. I would like to hear his opinion about what the mayor of Moncton has said. He also spoke about what the mayor of Montreal said.
We come from a riding in the east end of Montreal where we are close to a shopping centre. Car theft is predominant and not enough action has been taken.
However, I would like to hear, as a former mayor, what his current mayor has said about the issue and if we will need to get the bill moving fast or if there will be many amendments that his mayor has suggested.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is not a competition but in 2007, Montreal had the most stolen vehicles and the fewest recovered of any city in Canada. That is the other aspect. I know that Mayor Katz of Winnipeg was here and he spoke about the tools that the municipalities have which are limited, but they have to do with prevention and awareness.
One of the aspects is that vehicles can be stolen but if they are not being recovered it leads to an inference that there is a higher incidence of organized crime involved with those thefts.
The government could do a couple of things. It keeps really good statistics on this and Juristat is okay but we have no idea as parliamentarians exactly where the hotbed of organized crime input or activity with respect to car theft might be. The government might be able to assist us with that. More important, it might be able to assist municipalities with respect to this. This is the kind of strategic investment that the government should be making in municipalities and communities outside the whole shovel ready infrastructure aspect.
Cities are sophisticated and, by their very nature, cosmopolitan centres of our population. For the first time we have more urban people than rural people. Cities need the tools that the Government of Canada could provide through research and development and technology transfers.
The government needs to get on with this. I have not heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs answer a question, make a speech or say anything for a couple of years now. Is this not something that could be discussed, with what must be happening, which, I hope, are meetings with the provincial counterparts who in turn could invite the third sphere of government, as we call it, the third community of interest, those communities and cities out there that need federal assistance with respect to preventing auto theft and making our communities safer.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his speech and for his work on the justice committee. He and I are both members of that committee and, even though we are often on opposite sides of issues, it is nice to see that from time to time we can actually make common cause work toward the betterment of our Canadian society.
One of the questions I want to ask him has to do with an experience we have had in British Columbia. I, too, speak to our mayors on a regular basis, my mayor, George Perry; the mayor of Langley, Peter Fassbender; the mayor of Mission, James Atebe; and Dianne Watts from Surrey.
One of the strategies that our police force has actually implemented is the bait car program. The bait car program sets up vehicles that are obvious targets for theft. They are rigged with GPS units, tracking devices and, from time to time, even with a video camera. Police have been able to nab thieves because they are going after these high profile automobile targets. They have had considerable success in reducing auto thefts throughout the Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions.
I would ask the member if there has been some exploration of using a bait car program to reduce the incidents of auto theft in his province.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the justice committee, the member for Abbotsford, for his question and for his hard work. I also compliment him on his past municipal experience. I know he is one of the MPs who understands the statistics I have from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics that cite Abbotsford as the second highest CMA, census metropolitan area, of incidents of car theft at or around 1,000. This must be a very acute problem for his mayor and for himself.
I have read about the bait program and it is a wonderful thing. New Brunswick, of course, which is ranked the third lowest jurisdiction for car theft, has, as the member may know, a much more dispersed population and the program has not been used. Auto theft is a problem, obviously, but it is not as big a problem as we understand it to have been in the western provinces.
It is great that the member has an understanding of the issues that municipalities face. I just wish that all of his colleagues to his left, right, centre, above and below him had the same depth of understanding.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I had to respond when I heard the member ask the question about the bait car program because in Manitoba, I think we did look at that program and decided that was not the way to go.
I can tell the member from New Brunswick what we did in Manitoba that has proven to be very successful. We were the car theft capital of Canada for a few years until three or four years ago when we made the decision to mandate immobilizer use through our public insurance corporation. We had a voluntary program for a couple of years and very few people were taking us up on it. Two years ago we finally made it mandatory for people to install them. We gave it to them for free and we gave an insurance credit for them to do it.
We had one day last month when there were zero car thefts in Manitoba. We have gone from the highest in the country for a number of years to zero one day last month. I think the member should look at the Manitoba program and maybe look for some answers there.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, that is why in my speech I did not mention that the Insurance Bureau of Canada has recommended or has been pushing the immobilizers. I was not aware of the degree of success. I realize there has been success in Winnipeg.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada talks about the immobilizers automatically interrupting the power and only if one has the correctly coded key can the car be mobilized again. They say, “It is the most effective means of preventing drive-away theft”. It begs the question what not drive-away theft is. It means that when someone steals it but they cannot go anywhere. It is sort of like having a minority government. It is a government but it cannot do what it wishes.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure of serving on the justice committee with the member and I thank him for all his work, insight and experience as a former practising barrister and solicitor.
In his comments, he indicated that he thought Bill C-26 was a good bill but he called it imperfect. I am curious as to how he might improve it and what his thoughts are on the sentencing provision that provides for a sentence of a minimum of six months incarceration following the third or subsequent offence. Has he thought perhaps that is too lenient and that maybe we might want to think of mandatory incarceration on a second offence?
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on the justice committee. He brings to the justice committee a legal bearing, which is good. It is always nice to welcome a fellow barrister and solicitor.
The issue I referred to in my speech surrounding the bill is the definition of trafficking, as we need to deal with it. This is new territory and the separate offence for auto theft and the level of proof, because in some cases there would be a hybrid way of proceeding, might be difficult. We will need to look at it at committee. In other words, I would like to hear from prosecutors and other people involved with administering the law.
As an aside, there seems to be a bit of a gap in our procedure over here. We often hear from defence lawyers and Department of Justice officials but the separation of powers does not allow us to talk to judges that much. We also do not often t hear from prosecutors but we should because they are the ones who are proffering the indictments and laying the charges in many provinces, sometimes it is the police, but they would give us evidence or give me advice anyway as to how, in some ways, the bill will be a difficult hurdle to prove.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I want to thank the hon. members for listening.
From the outset, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. Of course, we will take our work seriously during committee meetings, and we will propose amendments. However, we recognize, and have for a few years now, that car theft and the cross-border trafficking of parts used to build cars are an important issue.
When discussing the issue of car theft, we must keep in mind that there are two levels to this. The first is organized crime. One in five cars stolen in Canada is linked to organized crime networks. I have been a member of this House for 16 years now. Despite the fact that I look very young, this is my sixth election campaign. I have been a member of this House for 16 years. I have always been interested in the issue of organized crime, which is now in its fourth generation. Organized criminals are operating in new ways. There is the whole issue of organized crime infiltrating into the above-ground economy. For a long time, the main products in the organized crime line up were drugs, illegal betting and gambling, and the control of certain licensed establishments. But, in the past few years, we have seen organized crime infiltrate into the above-ground economy, including, unfortunately, the construction industry. Members of the RCMP appeared before the committee to name a few of the industries where organized crime was more likely to take hold. They talked about the automobile industry, the landscaping industry and the construction industry. I am not trying to imply that the entire construction industry has fallen prey to organized crime. It is, however, one of the more vulnerable industries. Why? Because there is the possibility of overbilling. There are a lot of contracts out there, and a lot of money is changing hands. The issue of car theft is clearly tied to the issue of organized crime infiltrating into the above-ground economy.
There is also a second level, car theft. These are groups of young people who steal cars for the weekend and commit petty theft. They want to joyride and to have a good time and they cannot really be lumped in with organized crime. In either case, it is, of course, extremely distressing and causes a great deal of inconvenience for the victim. It also has an impact on the way society works.
To give an idea of the extent of this phenomenon, I can say this. In Canada in 2006—quite recently, that is—about 160,000 vehicles were stolen. According to the Groupement des assureurs automobiles, there were more than 38,000 vehicle thefts in Quebec in 2006. That is a significant number. Quebec is not the leading province for vehicle thefts. By comparison, per 100,000 inhabitants, Quebec has 507, Alberta has 725 and Manitoba has 1,376. The average across Canada is 487.
Let me repeat, 38,800 vehicles were stolen in Quebec in 2006. Quebec is not in the lead when it comes to vehicle theft. In Alberta, for example, there are 725 thefts per 100,000 inhabitants, In Manitoba, it is 1,376 per 100,000. I heard the testimony from the mayor of Winnipeg when we began hearings on Bill C-53 in the last Parliament. I know that it an extremely serious problem in Manitoba.
BillC-26 is not perfect because it contains mandatory minimum sentences. I will come back to that. Everyone recognizes that the Bloc Québécois is an extremely thorough and consistent party in the positions it takes. Each time that mandatory minimum sentences appear in a bill, we express our reservations and we try to amend the bill by working at the committee stage to have the mandatory minimum sentences removed. I will talk about that later.
But all in all, this is a good bill and the Bloc Québécois, in its legendary wisdom, will support it because, once more, we recognize that this is a major problem all across Canada.
Clause 5—
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I would like to appeal to my neo-Bolshevik colleagues and friends in the NDP for some quiet, and for some recognition of the fact that the Bloc Québécois is a very wise party.
I even feel that if the Speaker were to ask for the House's consent on that, he would almost get it.
With that said, let me continue by telling this House that, if clause 5 of this bill is passed, it will amend the section on the possession of property obtained by crime. More specifically, it will create a new offence, trafficking in property obtained by crime. That offence will be punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years. I repeat that the Bloc Québécois never sees a problem with maximum sentences in a bill. Maximum sentences, after all, do not tie judges' hands; they allow judicial discretion to be used, because justice must always be tailored to each individual. Each crime, each offender and each circumstance in which crimes have been committed must be considered. Each aspect must be analyzed on its own merits by a court of law.
Clause 5 of this bill will also define trafficking. “To traffic” is defined as to sell, give, transfer, transport, export from Canada, import into Canada, send, deliver or deal with in any other way, or offer to do any of those acts.
I think the parliamentary secretary explained one of the difficulties that are cropping up at this time. Customs officers sometimes see that material has been imported, or is about to be exported, that would make it possible to rebuild a vehicle. But if these components do not appear on lists of prohibited items, it is impossible for the customs officers who guard our borders to intervene. Clearly this is not a desirable situation and the definition of “trafficking” which we are proposing will allow this situation to be rectified.
Moreover, clause 3 of the bill amends section 353 of the Criminal Code and will create a new offence. In addition to the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime, an offence specific to tampering with vehicle identification numbers will be created. In Canada, all vehicles must have an identification number, and clearly when a car is stolen, thieves will attempt to alter or falsify that identification number.
If the bill is passed, we will amend section 353.1(1) of the Criminal Code. This new type of offence will specify that: “Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle.”
In this bill, the defence of having a lawful excuse will be permitted. We understand that the fact of altering, removing or obliterating a vehicle identification number while performing normal maintenance work should not lead—and my colleague agrees—to charges being laid under the new offence to be created.
Bill C-26 also introduces a mechanism which includes a minimum mandatory sentence. This is a provision of the bill which the Bloc Québécois is going to attempt to amend in committee. This new provision is clause 331.1, wherein a person who commits automobile theft and is convicted for the third time on proceedings by way of indictment will be sentenced to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months. The Bloc does not agree with this provision of the bill. This is not as serious or as worrisome as other bills the Conservative government has tabled. This minimum sentence will be tempered by the fact that crown prosecutors will have the choice of laying charges by way of indictment. After three indictments, the minimum sentence will apply. However, motor vehicle theft may also be dealt with through summary conviction.
This provision means that the Bloc Québécois in its great wisdom and sense of nuances, and its extremely nuanced vision of justice—a perception of fine distinctions which its spokesperson totally and completely shares—considers that this provision tempers our position with regard to the bill. Since there are no hard core mandatory minimum sentences such as we are used to seeing from the Conservative Party in other bills, we will be able to propose an amendment to the bill and offer our support to the government for Bill C-26.
An explanation is in order. Why is the Bloc Québécois against mandatory minimum sentences? This is a position all of my colleagues, the party's critics and my predecessors in the area of justice have perpetuated. First, there is no correlation between the existence of mandatory minimum sentences and the recidivism rate and crime rates. Rather, the opposite is true: several studies looking at the American model which the Conservative government holds in high esteem have proved that, for instance, where drug trafficking is concerned, mandatory minimum sentences have not caused a decrease in recidivism rates and drug consumption. On the contrary, as my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber said, a man who always has a sense of fine distinctions and is not given to excess, and is thus a man who is capable of assessing the true worth of a bill, we are against mandatory minimum sentences because there is no link between such sentences, recidivism and crime rates, and also because they can have an adverse effect on the system. I invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ponder that.
When a crown attorney has a choice between laying charges that entail mandatory minimum sentences and charges that do not entail mandatory minimum sentences, it has been proven scientifically that the prosecutor will chose to lay charges that do not entail those sentences.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is a great committee, one of the best committees a parliamentarian can ever sit on. Yesterday at this committee we heard the testimony of a retired judge, Mr. Jerome Paradis. He came to explain the perverse effect of mandatory minimum sentences and it will be my pleasure to circulate that brief to journalists and to my Conservative colleagues. This is not an opinion held only by the Bloc Québécois, the member for Hochelaga or the member for Jeanne-Le Ber. The opinion comes from a former judge, a magistrate, who administered justice and presided over lawsuits; he came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to remind us of the perverse effects of mandatory minimum sentences. That is the reason the Bloc Québécois, from its inception, has always been opposed to mandatory minimum sentences. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois is the primary political force in Quebec and will remain so, we hope. We will certainly work very hard to keep it that way.
We might think that car theft is a phenomenon that affects mainly luxury vehicles. That would be wrong. I have here a list of the top 10 stolen cars in Canada in 2006. I would appreciate it if no one commented on the merits of each model, since everyone has their own opinion. The most stolen car model on that list is the 1999 Honda Civic two-door. It is followed by the 2000 Honda Civic. The third most stolen car is the little four-door all-wheel drive Subaru. There are in fact takers on the market. In fifth place is the 1999 Acura. The sixth model is the 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan/Voyager. The seventh most stolen model is the 1994 Dodge/Plymouth Caravan. In eighth place we have the Acura Integra. Ninth place is held by a little Audi. And tenth on the list of most stolen cars is the 1994 Dodge/Plymouth Shadow.
These are not necessarily luxury vehicles, but again, the consequences of car theft are easy to understand when you live in a remote community, when you live in the regions and when you depend on it.
I am a member from Montreal, myself. In my riding there are nine metro stations. I can go anywhere in my riding by metro. But I entirely grasp the consequences of these car thefts in communities where there is no public transit.
I would like to point out that there are two kinds of car theft. There is the organized crime kind. In fact, two weeks ago, I presented a motion myself at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning organized crime. We have to be constantly on the lookout for ways to update the Criminal Code and give our police services more effective tools to combat organized crime. I would reiterate that mandatory minimum sentences are not the way to do that.
When I was elected to the House in 1993 I was 31 years old. Obviously, everyone ages in this House. It was explained to me that organized crime was proliferating when we lived in a society where there was a wealth index, where there were communications channels and where there were ways of using stalling tactics in the courts that were authorized by our legislative bodies.
I would like everyone to know that we will be supporting this bill, but that we are going to be making amendments in relation to the mandatory minimum sentences.
I will be pleased to answer any questions my NDP colleagues would like to ask.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the justice committee. Generally we agree on many things, but one thing we always and consistently do not agree on is the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences.
My friend, and other members of the committee, specifically from the New Democratic Party, who have concerns about mandatory minimums, will often cite criminology surveys that allege deterrence is not advanced by mandatory minimum sentences.
I would like to ask the member something specifically. He will know, as a lawyer and as a student of criminal law, that there are two aspects to deterrence: one is general, and the other is specific. With respect to specific deterrence and the offender who is involved in serial auto theft, three, four, five, convictions, at what point does society say that enough is enough and we will have to deal with that person's disrespect for the property of others by imposing a jail term? At what point does that serial behaviour become intolerable?
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. He is a member of the committee whom I hold in high regard. His opinions are almost always balanced. He is a moderate person, reminding us of St. Augustine, who said that virtue lies in moderation.
That being said, I repeat that it is not a matter of mandatory minimum sentences. From the first offence, the court must assess the context in which the offence was committed, whether it was a repeat offence and what the implications are for the family who was put in the situation of being deprived of a means of transportation. In certain circumstances, we must impose a sentence of six months, one year or two years. However, we always have more success with maximum sentences, which allow the court to assess the circumstances in which the crime was committed.
I would very much like to know to which studies the member is referring to support the principle of mandatory minimum sentences. I have been on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a number of years, and we have never seen any studies indicating that mandatory minimum sentences were, in any way, deterrents.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, we are supporting getting Bill C-26 to committee so we can fix some of the many problems. Whenever the Conservatives bring forward justice legislation, they always seem to have things that need to be improved.
I need to ask the hon. member how he feels about the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' one-note approach to justice. We have seen broken promises around police officers, cutbacks in crime prevention programs, and cutbacks in prosecutors across the country. The courts are more and more stuffed up.
Conservatives essentially put forward more legislation when they deal with any justice issues, but they will not do anything else to help the police forces across this country actually deal with issues of crime. They will not put any money into crime prevention. They cut back on prosecutors so the court system simply cannot contend with what is being brought forward.
Given the Conservatives' hypocrisy on crime, does the hon. member really think the Conservatives are credible on this issue?
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that, in certain circumstances, the government, despite the compassion we know it has, has been hypocritical—and I hope that that is parliamentary. It is a fact that I, myself, met with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police during their lobby day on Parliament Hill. They told us that, basically, the Conservatives had committed to allowing the provinces to hire 1,000 new community police officers and that, unfortunately, they had not yet fulfilled that promise, which was creating a lot of problems in certain communities.
It has always been our belief that when choosing between creating mandatory minimum sentences and making it possible for police investigations to be resolved more quickly, we obviously want to give more power to the police. So I share the analysis and concern of the hon. NDP member.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague is going to be supporting the bill. I am anxious to see what kinds of amendments he brings forward. I am afraid he is going to remove the mandatory minimum sentence of six months that the bill now provides for.
In my neck of the woods, which is British Columbia, we have serial car thieves who are convicted, not once, not twice, not 10 times, but 50 and 100 times for stealing cars. They are in and they are out, and they are in and they are out. They are not getting the time they deserve.
I noticed the member referred to the fact that his party, the Bloc, supports maximum sentences. Of course they do. No one ever gets sentenced to the maximum, or even close to the maximum, except when it comes to murder; that is usually life in prison, if it is first-degree murder.
I want to ask the member specifically, as a colleague of mine on the justice committee, whether he is proposing to remove the mandatory minimum sentence of six months from this bill. I hope not. I trust he will be sensible enough to persuade his colleagues to leave that in, because the residents of British Columbia are demanding that we crack down on these serial car thieves, who are a real nuisance and a terror in our communities.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This is a committee chair I am very fond of and I know how he loves music. There is something of Charles Aznavour about him, which we like.
I believe we must be very clear. If someone has been found guilty 150 times in his province without any proper sentence, I would hope that the Crown prosecutors of that province would do their job and file an appeal. I would like to be shown evidence of a case where a person was found guilty of 150 car thefts without any proper sentence.
I understand, moreover, that in this bill, as I believe I explained in my speech, the matter of minimum sentences is less of a concern because these apply to convictions on indictment. Prosecutors do, however, have total freedom to opt for summary conviction, where there is no minimum.
I do not want to commit myself today to the kind of amendment we will be making. We will study the matter and work very seriously in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We will listen to the witnesses. I would repeat, however, that we are opposed in principle to the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences in government bills for reasons I have had an opportunity to explain on numerous occasions in this House.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, Winnipeg went from the car theft capital of Canada, to a day last month where absolutely no cars were stolen. We did that through an immobilizer program and a gang suppression unit.
Now, if 15 years ago the previous federal government had required car manufacturers to install immobilizers in their cars for a $30 fee, which is what it would have cost, this problem would have been taken care of. This was under the previous Liberal government. It takes about 13 years to get the old cars off the road.
We have managed to do it in only two years in Manitoba, by enforcing the immobilizer program and getting them into cars, and by giving people an insurance reduction. We have proven it will work.
If the government would simply require that all new cars being sold in Canada have immobilizers, this problem would solve itself. I understand that last year the government in fact did that; it has required that all new cars have immobilizers.
Does the member have any comments about what the previous Liberal government failed to do over the last 13 years?
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
I think that there is an element of a worthwhile solution there. Do we need to require all car manufacturers to include an immobilizer? I did not think that was the case, I believed it was not mandatory. But I will consider his suggestion. We will certainly have occasion in committee to verify whether installation is mandatory or optional. We should perhaps follow the lines of the solution Manitoba has gone for.
I promise our colleague that we will look into this in committee.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26. It is important to set this in a timeline context.
For a good number of years, somewhere between 7 and 10 years, it has been quite apparent that we have a major problem with regard to car thefts. At one point, we almost had a competition, on an annual basis, as to which city would be the car theft capital of the country. This is not something about which we did not know. It is not something about which the previous Liberal government did not know. It is certainly not something about which the current government did not know.
I will make some comments on why the government has not addressed this problem. It is true not only about these amendments to the code, but a good number of others as well. The strategy and tactic of the government calls for criticism.
First I will deal with this bill and why it has taken so long to get here. The bill had a predecessor in the last Parliament, which was tabled for first reading in April of 2008. Coincidentally, at that point, the Conservative Party and the Conservative chair of the justice committee was using one of their tactics in the justice committee, which was also used in at least in three or four other committees, of destroying the functionality of that committee.
His initial stance with regard to the issue was one that I supported. However, once it was obvious the majority of the committee would overrule him on that, he refused to allow the committee to function. Therefore, from April of 2008 until after the election, the committee did not meet. It did absolutely nothing. The predecessor to this bill, which was Bill C-53 in the last Parliament, simply sat with nothing happening on it, as did all the other work of the justice committee on all the other justice and crime bills.
There was not only this role by the Conservative chair of the committee, but then the election intervened. I am sure there was no consideration given to the bill or any other crime bills at the time when the Prime Minister decided to have an election. We had the election, we came back to work and in December the Prime Minister decided to prorogue, again I am sure without consideration to the reality of the need for legislation in a number of areas in the Criminal Code.
We finally saw the first crime bill in February of 2009. The justice committee did not get to consider a crime bill for a whole year, from April 2008 until April 2009. That was the first government bill it had any opportunity to deal with all because of the conduct of the government.
In addition to that, in terms of specific events, the government has been absolutely determined to use crime and crime issues for partisan political purposes. From the very time the Conservatives were elected, and we can maybe argue that the tactic and strategy existed even before they were elected, they would take an individual issue and introduce a bill that would have a very narrow scope and few clauses to it to deal with the issue. The Minister of Justice would have a press conference, issue press releases and create news stories around the fact that they were addressing an issue.
Then a week or two later, the Conservatives would choose another issue as opposed to doing what they should have done, which was to address all the issues of which the government and Parliament were aware. In a large number of cases, they had all party support. In spite of that all party support, they continued with this strategy, and have continued with it right up to today.
It is a strategy that I think more and more people are recognizing for its lack of credibility, if the government is really serious about getting tough on crime as opposed to being smart on crime, which it does not seem to be capable of doing.
Last week the justice committee was in Vancouver. One of the tactics of the Conservatives when they asked questions of the witnesses was to tell them what they had done. They would list the bills and then ask the witnesses if they agreed with them. Their specific tactic was to address each issue separately. In fact, I think that specific question was put to the mayor of Surrey. He responded by saying he did not agree with them. He said that a lot of issues needed to be addressed. He was speaking from a community that had been particularly hard hit by crime in the last few months. He said there was no time to wait for the government to address them one at a time.
That is the point I have been making repeatedly for the last several years, as I have watched the government turn crime and crime issues to its partisan advantage as much as it can.
We need a major revamp of the Criminal Code. This is my version of what the 2009 Criminal Code should be. I believe at least a third to a half of it could be done away with and accommodated into fewer and clearer sections, sections that would be easier for our police, our prosecutors and our judges to enforce.
The best way of doing that review of the code and bringing it up into the 21st century would have been to commission the Law Commission to conduct a review, prepare a white paper on it and get a whole new Criminal Code that would be much shorter, much clearer and much simpler to enforce. What did the government do? It did away with the Law Commission, by refusing to fund it any more. That was two budgets ago. We are now faced with this.
Now we come to this bill and to the issue of auto theft. It should have been addressed by the Liberals when they were in power a good number of years ago. It should have obviously been addressed, as well, by the current government. It should have been dealt with effectively by including it into several omnibus bills, which could have been brought forward much more efficiently.
I want to make one more point about not using small omnibus bills. I am talking about addressing five to ten issues all at once. When we follow the strategy and tactics of the government, we need to have hearings on each one of the bills. We have to call witnesses, oftentimes witnesses who would address each one of these sections if they were in an omnibus bill. Now they have to come back repeatedly. Our justice department officials have to spend all this extra time in hearings, watching each bill go through. They are there to assist in that regard. The strategy the government is employing is a great waste of time, energy and resources. It is not fair to the witnesses and it is certainly not fair to the Canadian public.
When we deal with this specific bill and the issue of auto theft, we need to look at the effect it will have. I want to be very clear that we are supportive of creating the new offence. We are supportive of creating an offence that would make tampering with the VIN number a crime. This issue was around at the time I was in law school in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It has taken us all this time to finally deal with it.
We are dealing with, as well, introducing a new section on the whole concept of trafficking in stolen goods. It was not in the bill of last April. I have some problems with this. It is a concept, outside of trafficking in drugs, that is fairly new. We have to be very careful as to whether it will survive, not so much a charter challenge, but a challenge as to whether the offence is clear enough and the risk that it could be struck down for that. I have some difficulty with the way the section has been drafted. We will have to take a very close look at it.
I want to echo some of the comments of my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona on what the Manitoba government has done. We heard this from members of a delegation in Ottawa last year. They probably would have been at one point in front of the justice committee, but the committee was not sitting due to the tactics of the Conservatives on the committee.
They told all the caucuses what they needed with regard to fighting auto theft. They also told us what they had done. It has been the most effective tactic in the country. My colleague said that there was one day last week where there was not one auto theft in all Manitoba. Two years ago Winnipeg was the auto theft capital of the country. There were literally as many as 50 to 100 thefts of cars on a daily basis in that city.
The statistics my colleagues from all parties are using with regard to auto theft are somewhat dated. Members are using figures from 2006 and 2007. If we look at 2008, and I believe even more so what we see at the end of 2008 and 2009, cities like Winnipeg and Vancouver have moved dramatically to reduce the amount of auto theft. They have not done this with legislation, and I am not taking away the need for the legislation. In the case of Vancouver it has used practical police tactics. In the case of Manitoba, the provincial government has used its public auto insurance to, in effect, force people to put an anti-theft immobilizing device on their car for free, if they want auto insurance. This issue came up, but I cannot remember in what other context.
Representatives of the Insurance Bureau of Canada officials were in front of the committee at one point in the last year. I asked if they proposed their private sector companies do the same thing. They said, no, that they believed in freedom of choice. In spite of this, as we heard from my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, IBC has a brief which shows the amount that auto theft costs it.
One thing the government should do is urge provincial governments, which have public insurance plans, to follow the model in Manitoba. It has literally cut auto theft by over 60% in a little over a year. That is an effective tool.
Today the chair of the justice committee spoke about Vancouver and its use of bait cars. I remember seeing one of the examples on national TV. I watched an individual being recorded, taped, all of it, not realizing he was in a bait car. The individual was subsequently apprehended, charged and convicted.
We could use those kinds of techniques, and the federal government should urge the provinces to do so. Their responsibility is enforcement.
Finally, from a practical standpoint, the government needs to comply with its promise that it will put more police on the streets. The use of the bait car, for instance, would be much more effective in Vancouver if there were more police officers there. When we were there last week, it was again confirmed that it had the lowest proportion of police officers to the general population of any major city in the country. In spite of the protestations of innocence and compliance by the government that it would put those extra 2,500 officers on the streets of this country, it has hardly met any of that.
With regard to the specifics, we agree that making auto theft a specific separate offence makes sense. It will make it easier for us to get convictions.
However, I do not want to mislead the Canadian public, as opposed to Manitoba driving down by almost two-thirds its auto theft because of its tactics around auto insurance. The figure we saw was as much as 47% of auto thefts reduced in Vancouver over the last two years from its peak, where it is now.
This section will not reduce auto theft to any significant degree. I would accord it a one to three percentile potential of reducing auto theft. We still need it because it will make it easier for our police and prosecutors to get convictions in very specific types of cases.
The need for the VIN number is a section that is really important because it targets members of organized crime. They are the ones that change the VIN numbers. They take it off if they can or in some other way alter it, and oftentimes ship the vehicle out of the country. It is very important that section gets passed.
I have made comments on the trafficking. It makes sense for us to be doing that. I am just not sure this section will accomplish it.
I do want to make one concern public at this point. The government is imposing additional responsibilities for enforcement of both export and import of stolen vehicles and stolen auto parts on the Canada Border Services Agency. There has been nothing in what the minister said when the government made the bill public in that usual press conference it always has. There was nothing about providing additional financial resources to our Border Services Agency.
Living on the border-crossing that is the busiest in the country, border officers are way over-taxed already in trying to deal with the trafficking of people, the trafficking in guns and the trafficking in drugs. That is true of our Border Services Agency at just about every crossing in this country. Unless additional financial resources and additional staff are put into it, this part of the section will be ineffective because there is no way they will be able to enforce it.
Finally, we have the concern that the Bloc has, and I want to address a couple of points to that, particularly the introduction of a mandatory minimum here after a third conviction for auto theft.
I want to be very clear that there are other sections of the bill that are clearly going after the organized crime sector, which has been estimated to be anywhere from 20% to 40% of all stolen vehicles in the country. They tend to be the high end ones, but not always.
We have to understand the way the system works. The organized crime members do not steal the cars themselves. They find people, usually young people, to do that. This section will be used primarily against young people, oftentimes people who have already been in conflict with the law in other ways, have other convictions, and oftentimes are abusers of drugs and alcohol.
In terms of what we should be doing to make these amendments most effective in reducing auto theft in this country is to be targeting organized crime. As I have said, I give the government full credit for doing that belatedly because it has taken it so long, but a good number of these sections are directed right at that. This one is not. This one will not get anybody who is a real senior member or even a mid-level member of an organized crime gang. It will be hitting those young people who are picked up, oftentimes from other sources and used specifically for this purpose. That is all it will be for.
Generally, mandatory minimums do not work and this will be another one of those cases where it will have no impact at all.
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for such a strong speech.
I myself have been a police officer for 18 years. In my policing service, I have seen a lot of clients out there who steal cars repeatedly, over and over again.
One of my stories that I would like to point out is as follows. I was working on a night shift and, lo and behold, Johnny goes driving by. He is in the car. I subsequently pull it over and the car is stolen. This is not the first time Johnny has stolen a car. It is about the fourth or fifth time. I arrest him, release him the next morning, take him to court, and he is released. What does Johnny say? “Nothing is going to happen to me”. Where do I see him again? He is stealing another car.
When we talk about maximum sentences, they are only used as guidelines. Now, as a government, we are trying to act as a deterrent. I can only see mandatory minimum sentences as working.
What I see here today is gone the common sense of protecting victims. The victims are the ones who are suffering here. What about Mary, who has just had her car stolen for the second time or the time third because that is all she can afford, and who now has to pay the insurance premium to get her car fixed? That could be $500, $700 or $1,000. She cannot afford that.
Our government is trying to make a means in which to protect everyday citizens. All I hear are lawyers standing up in the House trying to play on this maximum sentence. From a policing standpoint, my colleague mentioned 2,500 police officers. If it were not for the Liberals—
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there, it seemed to be all commentary.
Let me say a couple of things to the member. One, he cannot, in spite of all his years of experience in the police field, point me or this House to one study that shows that mandatory minimum penalties work with very few exceptions.
I have been a supporter of mandatory minimums with regard to impaired driving because that whole strategy that we as a legislature and as a country developed, the educational part of it, the enforcement part of it, and the legislative part of it, was an effective mechanism to reduce impaired driving. But even now the numbers of impaired driving are slipping back up. Even in that area, it is questionable, long-term, whether a mandatory minimum works.
I want to go back to the immobilizer, the locking device. Johnny, as he described him, would not have been able to penetrate that immobilizer. We know there are some very sophisticated, organized crime engendered crimes and thefts, and we know there are some of them who have figured out a way to break through the immobilizer. It is very rare, but it is possible. But Johnny is not going to break through the immobilizer. That is the most effective way.
What I am concerned about when I talk about protecting the Canadian public is effective techniques that will do it. This legislation is only going to touch a very small part of that. If we really want to be effective, we have to have some way of shutting it down so the car does not get stolen in the first place.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for coming out to beautiful British Columbia last week and listening to British Columbians when it comes to crime issues.
On one side, when we look at my neighbours in Surrey, they are concerned about car thefts. We need to have some kind of legislation to make sure that they are protected against those car thieves. On the other hand, I also have a border that is minutes away from my riding, which is also very busy. I have come to know that the government has cut funding so that the CBSA cannot hire any more new officers.
How would this hon. member suggest the government handle these issues, so that on one side we can have the laws and on the other hand we have the enforcement to deal with these situations?
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think the key is the approach that we take on it, as opposed to the government's approach where it is simplistic. We throw a mandatory minimum or two at it and maybe create a new offence, and that is going to solve the problem. If we approach it on that basis, all that does is accept that we have failed, we are going to have crime, and we are only going to penalize it.
The approach has to be, I believe, based on three principles: first, is prevention; second, is enforcement; and the third, is punitive. We have to think of the punitive as being our last resort.
When we talk to the insurance bureau and when we talk to individual car owners, does it really matter if the person gets three months, six months or two years if their car has been trashed and stripped down for parts? What they want is the car not to be stolen.
What we should be looking at, at any given time, is the basic principle of what do we need to put into play that will prevent the car from being stolen in the first place. That is true about any crime. The way to do that is to put more police officers on the street. We know that is the case and it is a particular problem in the Vancouver area.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is certainly one of the brightest minds on justice issues in the House of Commons.
As he knows, in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell is being strongly criticized for saying that he was going to be smart on crime and then cutting back on crown prosecutors and cutting back on corrections officials. He is actually being very hypocritical on that.
We have the same problem with the federal Conservatives. They have cut crime prevention programs, they refuse to keep their promises around additional police officers across the country. We have had cutbacks in the court system and perhaps most egregiously but symbolically, police officers came here on the Hill just a few weeks ago asking, as they have now for years, for a public safety officer compensation fund. The Conservative government continues to say no to protecting the families of police officers and firefighters who fall in the line of duty.
How more hypocritical can the Conservatives be than to offer some legislation but refusing to take action on any other issue?
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleague that I have been admonished by the Speaker for using the term hypocrisy when referring to someone else. Therefore, I will not be able to echo that sentiment.
However, there is a serious lack of credibility on the part of the government when it does all of the PR work that it does and promotes itself as being tough on crime and then we have the Canadian Professional Police Association coming out and saying, “You promised us 2,500 police officers. You didn't deliver. You betrayed us”. That is its word. “Betrayal” was its word.
If we need a validator on the credibility of the government on the issue of tough on crime, I do not know who else we could turn to better than the police association.
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate and enjoy listening to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
I wonder if he would address a couple of points. He made the point with respect to the way we package these bills. He said we have done them individually and that we should be putting them all together.
Would he not admit, because he was in the previous Parliament and had an opportunity to see our justice legislation, that but for the fact that the ones that we could not get passed individually, we put them all together into the Tackling Violent Crime Act. We would not have passed that bill through the House of Commons and the Senate but for the fact that we threatened, when we introduced the bill, that either it gets passed in its present form or we would call an election. In February 2008 I went to the Senate and I made the same point there, that either the Senate gets this thing passed by the end of February or my advice to the Prime Minister would be to call an election.
Would the member not admit that that is the only reason we were able to get that passed because otherwise we would get what is known as cherry-picking. People do not like one section and they want an amendment with endless witnesses before them. That is the one thing.
I disagree with him with respect to somebody who gets convicted of three auto thefts. I actually consider that a very serious crime. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have been on this issue and that you have shown some leadership on this. I have to disagree with the member on the idea that he is just a poor fellow mixed up on drugs and alcohol, and that he has only been convicted three times of stealing a car.
I challenge the member to call up the Attorney General for Manitoba. This is not another member of the Conservative Party who just wants to get tough on crime. I would ask the member to talk to him. I have been to Winnipeg six times in the last 14 months and he makes that point to me again and again.
We get a certain small number of people out of control who are repeatedly stealing cars, and picking them up even if they get a conviction. The Manitoba government wants action on this. It thinks that six months after one has been convicted for the third time, and again it is at the option of the Crown to proceed by indictment, that it is time the individual spent some time to break up this kind of criminal activity that he or she has been guilty of.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the two questions. First, in terms of the strategy they used to try to force the Senate to finally respond, the reality of putting that all together was that we ended up between elections losing one of the bills that I was particularly interested in. We ended up having to go back over the issue of raising the age of consent for sexual attacks.
I think that strategy was a purely partisan one of trying to get the Liberal senators to come on side. It did not speed up the processing of those five bills. In fact, because we then had an election, several of those bills ended up having to go back through the whole process again, through the House and then back up to the Senate. So I do not agree at all with his analysis that the strategy was an effective one.
With regard to the second part, I am hearing from the prosecutors and attorneys general as well that the real problem we are having with a lot of the lighter sentences that are being given, because there is not any mandatory minimum, is that we do not have enough time for the prosecutors, and in many cases the police who assist the prosecutors, in putting forth enough evidence to get decent ones. After three offences or 50 offences, does six months make sense? It does not make sense. We want something longer than—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. Minister of State and Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey North.
I am pleased to add my voice in support of Bill C-26, which would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen our ability to fight auto theft and the trafficking of property that is obtained by crime.
In last November's Speech from the Throne, our government promised a tough approach to serious crimes. Auto theft and other serious property crimes have been a high priority for our government since we were elected in 2006.
The bill before us would create a number of new offences to tackle the trafficking of property gained by crime and the tampering with a vehicle's identification number.
Stakeholders, such as law enforcement agencies, provincial governments, and even the residents of my riding, are deeply concerned about the impact of auto theft on their communities. They have called on our federal government to do something about this serious crime, and this legislation is our response.
While auto theft rates remain unacceptably high, there are a number of remarkable success stories in our fight against auto theft. Let me take a few moments to highlight some of these.
Police services in Winnipeg have developed comprehensive strategies that specifically target those youth who we know commit a significant portion of all auto thefts. The result has been that, in 2007, the Winnipeg Police Service recorded a 33% drop in the number of vehicle thefts.
In the Vancouver area, which I am familiar with, the police have had great success with their bait car program. This is a program that uses police-owned decoy vehicles, which when stolen can be monitored through surveillance and GPS tracking. In some cases, they even include video cameras to actually record the criminal driving off in the stolen car. Again, we have seen a significant decline in auto theft in many parts of our region, including my own riding of Abbotsford. I would be pleased to give members details of a YouTube site that highlights one of these successful bait car arrests.
Insurance companies have also done their part. As many of us know, they are providing financial incentives to those customers who install immobilizers or other anti-theft devices. Again, this initiative is having a marked impact on the number of vehicles being stolen in our communities.
I also want to give credit to the police. They are now using something called automatic licence plate recognition technology, which speeds up their identification of stolen cars as they are driving through the streets of our communities. They have been using that technology in Abbotsford as recently as February of this year.
While effective programming such as these success stories that I have recounted are a crucial aspect of any crime-reduction strategy, any such program must be founded upon strong laws that give law enforcement the necessary tools to fight auto theft and other property crimes.
The creation in Bill C-26 of a distinct offence of motor vehicle theft would send a strong message to would-be thieves that the criminal justice system is serious about fighting auto theft in Canada. Our proposed offence would be a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on indictment and 18 months' imprisonment on summary conviction. There would of course also be a mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment for a third and subsequent conviction, as members have already heard from some of the other parties in the House. This is a balanced and modern approach to a serious repeat offence. That is reflected in the fact that the opposition parties in the House are actually supporting the bill on auto theft.
While not all auto theft is linked to organized crime, criminal organizations play a very significant role in this type of criminal activity. Organized crime groups participate in auto theft in three principal ways. First, they operate so-called chop shops where stolen vehicles are disassembled and the parts are trafficked to mostly unsuspecting buyers.
A second area of activity involves the alteration, obliteration or destruction of the vehicle identification number, the VIN. The VIN is removed from a stolen car to mask the identity of the vehicle. All vehicles in Canada are required to have a VIN number in order to clearly distinguish them from other motor vehicles. Criminal car theft rings typically replace the VIN of a stolen vehicle with one from a legitimate vehicle of the same make and model, thereby altering the vehicle's identity.
The bill contains a new criminal offence of wholly or partially altering, obliterating or removing a VIN number on a motor vehicle. Anyone convicted of tampering with the VIN could face imprisonment for a term of up to five years on indictment or six months on summary conviction, and a fine of not more than $5,000.
The third way that organized crime groups participate is by actively engaging in stealing and exporting late model, and in some cases, high-end vehicles, particularly sport utility vehicles and luxury sedans. The movement of stolen property, especially automobiles, across Canada's international borders is a very profitable enterprise for organized crime.
Indeed, trafficking in property obtained by crime is the lynchpin that makes theft and other property crimes profitable. A complex criminal industry moves these goods from the initial theft to unsuspecting consumers, and in the process, the stolen property often moves through the hands of numerous criminal intermediaries, making tracing of the property and identification and conviction of the perpetrators that much more difficult.
In response, our bill attacks trafficking by creating two new offences. The first would cover the selling, giving, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering of property obtained by crime. The second offence would cover simple possession for the purpose of trafficking. Police would be able to use these offences to specifically target the middlemen that I referred to earlier, who move stolen property through all the links in the chain of a criminal enterprise.
The proposed trafficking offences would carry serious penalties. Trafficking in property obtained by crime with a value over $5,000 would be a strict indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Trafficking in property that is stolen that has a value of under $5,000 would be a hybrid offence with a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment on indictment and six months on summary conviction.
The penalty for simple possession of illegally obtained property is 10 years, and the proposed trafficking offence that the bill addresses would add an additional four years, for a total of 14 years maximum, to reflect the fact that trafficking is a more serious form of criminal activity than simple possession. This is certainly consistent with other 14-year maximum penalties that apply to serious property crimes, such as fraud over $5,000, and possession of counterfeit money.
I also want to stress that the proposed trafficking offences would apply to all illegally obtained property, not just to property obtained by theft. For example, property obtained by crimes such as fraud would also fall under these new penalties. The new offences would certainly cover the various crimes that comprise commercial auto theft, such as the operation of a chop shop and the exportation of stolen vehicles out of Canada.
Let me conclude. Bill C-26 again shows that our Conservative government is serious about fighting all kinds of crimes. Property crimes, especially auto theft, cause serious economic and social harm to Canadians. As a former victim of auto theft, I can speak from personal experience of the sense of violation that one feels when one's car is stolen and vandalized. Canadians will simply not tolerate this kind of activity anymore.
I ask my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-26 and pass it as quickly as possible. As chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will certainly do everything I can to expedite the bill's passage.
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech.
I am supportive of Bill C-26 and it being tough on enforcement. I am concerned because in the member's speech I did not hear anything on the other side of the equation, which is that those criminals who are committing these property offences go to jail and eventually come out.
As the critic for public safety, I have talked to police chiefs and police officers across the nation. They are concerned about the government's complete lack of action on programming and dealing with problems like addiction. This is causing a huge problem.
Criminals are going into the prison system but they are not getting the treatment they need to deal with what often are addiction issues. Somewhere north of 60% of those incarcerated are facing addiction issues. They come out of jail and they repeat the offence. Why? Because they have to feed their addiction and that is how they get money.
The Calgary police force has introduced the notion of a safe jail, yet it is not getting support from the government so that those individuals can get the support and services they need to break the cycle of addiction.
The member talked about being tough on crime. Could he talk about how we could actually stop the victimization in the first place by addressing issues like addiction? Why were those not referred to in his speech?
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been. We have had a number of budgets that have addressed specifically the issue of treatment.
When it comes to crime, we have some short-term challenges, we have some medium-term challenges and we have long-term challenges. Bill C-26 addresses specifically a short-term challenge, which is auto theft. The intent is to make our communities safer and protect the property of our citizens.
My colleague is quite incorrect to suggest that our government has done nothing to address the issue of treatment. In fact, in the 2007 budget, our Conservative government made $111 million available over five years to address drug treatment across Canada.
I would encourage the member to get his facts right before he gets up in the House and makes a statement that is entirely incorrect and does not reflect the facts.
Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, I am a former police officer on leave of absence from the Winnipeg Police Service, as many of my colleagues know. I believe I am the most recent active member of a police service serving here in the House of Commons.
I want to assure members opposite that when I say I support this bill, it is because I have personal experience in dealing with not only victims, but the accused who have stolen cars.
I want to thank our government and the member who spoke on this.
In Winnipeg we face many of these types of crimes. This is a serious crime that causes a number of injuries and deaths. I am proud to be part of a government that is addressing this issue. I just want to thank the member for bringing this to light.
I want to ask the member a specific question about some of our youth. We have a problem with joyriding in Winnipeg. I want to bring to light that this legislation will also apply to youth in our wonderful city. It will be a crime in the Criminal Code that will affect youth. At what point are we in the process with regard to the sentencing principles for youth?
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is to be commended because her city and her province have been leaders in addressing the issue of auto theft.
We heard in the House earlier today that there has been a close working relationship with insurance companies to make sure that immobilizers are used in cars.
We have also heard testimony, and I mentioned it in my speech, about the specific targeting of youth, the ones who are most likely to commit auto thefts, in order to make sure that we can remove those individuals from the communities into situations where they can get the help they need.
One member of the House mentioned earlier today that there was a day this year when there was not one auto theft recorded in the city of Winnipeg. That is remarkable. It means that the city is making progress. We are making progress in British Columbia with the bait car program which has proven to be significant in reducing auto theft crime in our communities.
The member and I are going to work together to address this significant challenge.
Dona Cadman Conservative Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in support of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).
Over six years ago, my late husband, Chuck Cadman, introduced legislation to address VIN tampering, auto theft and property crime. I am very pleased and I know many of my constituents in Surrey North are too, to see that this government is listening to common sense and working to protect our property and our communities.
Auto theft and other forms of property crime plague Canadian communities and make our streets unsafe. To address this serious problem, Bill C-26 proposes to create a new offence of motor vehicle theft, a new offence to address tampering with an automobile vehicle identification number, and new offences to address trafficking in property obtained by crime.
Trafficking in property obtained by crime is the marketing chain that processes the fruits of theft in other crimes like fraud. One form of trafficking in property obtained by crime is the movement of stolen automobiles and their parts. This is where organized crime is the most involved in auto theft, either through chop shops that dismantle stolen cars for parts, the act of altering a car's VIN number to hide its identity, or the sophisticated international rings that smuggle stolen high-end luxury cars from Canada to far-flung locations in Africa, the Middle East and eastern Europe.
It is also important to note that organized car theft rings employ youth. In 2002, 40% of persons charged criminally for stealing a motor vehicle were between the ages of 12 and 17.
Transport Canada reports that organized vehicle theft groups recruit youth to steal cars in order to protect the upper levels of the theft ring. They rely on the legal system to be lenient with young offenders and when apprehended, these offenders are unable to identify other members of the ring because they work in isolation and are purposely not introduced to the other members of the organization.
Motor vehicle theft is an ideal recruitment tool for general involvement in organized criminal groups. Academic research shows that youth whose first offence is motor vehicle theft are most at risk of continuing on the criminal career path.
Section 354 of the Criminal Code, the general offence of possession of property obtained by crime, which carries a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment for property valued over $5,000, is the principal Criminal Code offence that is currently used to address trafficking in property obtained by crime. This possession offence does not adequately capture the full range of activities involved in trafficking.
The proposed offences would provide for a wide definition of trafficking that would include the selling, giving, transferring, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering of goods, or offering to do any of the above, of property obtained by crime. As such, this new law would target all of the middlemen who move stolen property from the initial criminal act through to the ultimate consumer.
Both proposed offences have higher penalties than the existing offence of possession of property obtained by crime. If the value of the item trafficked exceeds $5,000, anyone convicted of this offence could face imprisonment of up to 14 years. If the value does not exceed $5,000, it would be what is known as a hybrid offence, and subject to imprisonment for up to five years on indictment, or up to six months on a summary conviction. This penalty would be consistent with the existing penalty scheme of the Criminal Code.
It is also worth noting that if any indictable offence is found to have been committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, there is an additional offence that would also apply. It would be open to the prosecution to prove the additional element of a link to organized crime and obtain a separate conviction under section 467.12 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years, which must be served consecutively to any other sentence for the crime in issue.
The proposed trafficking offences would also respond to the concerns of stakeholders, such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada, that have long advocated for stronger enforcement to prevent the export of stolen vehicles.
Under the Customs Act, in order for the Canada Border Services Agency to apply the administrative powers of the Customs Act to the cross-border movement of property obtained by crime, such goods must first be classified somewhere in federal law as a prohibited good for the purpose of importation or exportation. This bill would supply that classification provision.
Today, CBSA officers are only authorized to examine and detain goods entering or exiting Canada in order to determine whether or not the importation or exportation complies with federal legislation controlling the movement of goods across our borders. The CBSA mandate does not include a broad law enforcement role and its officers thus have limited authority to deal with the movement of stolen property. The express prohibition provision in this bill would allow CBSA officers to examine and detain stolen goods, which could ultimately result in the police laying criminal charges.
With this proposed amendment, CBSA officers could identify targets, conduct examinations and detain these goods. They could then search law enforcement databases to determine whether the goods had been reported as stolen and refer the case to the police in appropriate cases.
There is no offence in the Criminal Code that directly prohibits the alteration, obliteration or removal of a VIN. The proposed amendment would make it an offence to wholly or partially alter, obliterate or remove a VIN on a motor vehicle. Under the new amendments, anyone convicted of tampering with a VIN could face imprisonment for a term of up to five years on indictment, or six months, or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, on a summary conviction.
In order to ensure that honest activities such as automobile body repair, recycling and wrecking are not captured by the offence, there is an express exemption provision in the offence that would exclude its application to legitimate motor vehicle repairs or maintenance.
A conviction for this offence would more clearly and accurately document a person's involvement in an organized vehicle theft ring as part of the person's criminal record. This, in turn, would help police and Crown prosecutors to deal appropriately with these people in subsequent investigations and prosecutions.
Finally, the creation of a distinct offence of motor vehicle theft will send a strong message to auto thieves that the criminal justice system is serious about reducing auto theft rates and putting offenders in jail.
The proposed offence has a mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment for a third offence. This is a proportionate and reasonable penalty for an extremely serious problem in Canada.
I believe that the government has brought forward a strong piece of legislation that will be of great assistance to law enforcement and prosecutors.
I would urge all members of this House to support Bill C-26 and to send it to committee for further consideration. Our communities need this legislation and they need it now.
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that we have heard and one of the commitments made by the government is the need for more police officers. We understand the government has made a commitment of 2,500 more police officers but has not yet honoured it.
I am advised that the city of Surrey has one of the highest ratios of police officers to residents. I wonder if the member could comment on her government's commitment to increase the number of police officers and what her expectations are.
Dona Cadman Conservative Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have made a commitment to getting more police officers. One thing we are having trouble with is recruitment. There is a definite need for more police officers, all over the country.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about how the government is treating police officers.
A couple of weeks ago, Canadian Police Association representatives, police officers from right across this country, were here. We had the broken promise on the 2,500 police officers that the government committed to and then failed to deliver.
Perhaps most egregiously, we had the broken promise around the public safety officers compensation fund. Conservative members voted for my motion to put this into place for firefighters and police officers, where in the event they died in the line of duty their families would be taken care of. The government has steadfastly refused to move on that.
Does the member think the Conservatives have betrayed police officers, firefighters and public safety officials by refusing to do what they said they would do before they were elected to government?
Dona Cadman Conservative Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I would say that the CPA does not speak for all police officers. A lot of it is for municipalities and others.
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, it was the member from Surrey North's late husband, Chuck Cadman, who came from ICBC, as did I, and both of us joined the fight against auto crime. I got a chance to spend some time with Chuck Cadman here in the House.
In 2004, I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-293, which is basically the bill that is presented today. I want to thank the hon. member for continuing the work of Chuck and I.
It was the Conservatives who voted in favour of my private member's bill at that time, but the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP all voted against it.
I want to ask the hon. member what she thinks has caused the change. Does she sense that the opposition will now support getting tough on auto crime, or will they permit this very serious crime to continue?
Dona Cadman Conservative Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition is with us on this. I think they realize we do have a definite problem in this country, and they are willing to work with the government to help forward our beliefs.
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member could perhaps deal a bit with crime prevention and the fact that the budget is underspent by more than half. Does she see crime prevention as an important part of the solution? Could she speak to that? I am very concerned that we have been underspending that budget and not doing nearly enough on prevention.
Dona Cadman Conservative Surrey North, BC
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are working with the provinces on this. Everybody, all municipalities and all governments, have to work together to make this work. I do not think it will be one person or one party that will make a difference. It will be everybody working together.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Being one of my associates on the northwestern caucus, she has done tremendous work when it comes to being tough and smart on crime. I have to give her credit.
As I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, auto crime has been a major problem for my constituents in Newton—North Delta and my neighbours in Surrey for years. The city of Surrey has a terrible reputation for car theft, which has only become worse in recent years.
There have been a couple of versions of this bill drafted by the government. I hope that this one will get it right, but it is not quite there, from my perspective.
As far back as 2003, the numbers were bad. There were 8,105 vehicles reported stolen. Cars were often stolen for a short time to allow thieves to commit other crimes, such as robberies, drug dealing, break and enters, and dangerous driving, which has often resulted in fatal collisions or serious injuries.
Recently we have seen how car theft has become a major activity among the gangs, which hold such a terrible grip on our community. This is what makes auto theft so dangerous to the safety of our communities. Auto theft leads to other crimes, crimes that are associated with gang violence.
Yet outside my community, auto theft is a serious problem for all Canadians. Has the government given it a serious response this time around?
Though due attention has been given to criminal organization activity, it is too broadly based. As we all know, tougher action from Parliament is needed to hold criminals accountable.
The government's approach to tough crime legislation is less than adequate. Instead of moving forward with workable legislation, it would rather resort to blaming the opposition for its failure to move legislation forward.
The bill does target the altering or destroying of the vehicle identification number of a stolen car. But criminals often use guns to commit their crimes, and here the government still has done very little. The Conservatives have quietly put off regulations requiring the marking of imported firearms, a regulation that would help stop the flow of illegal firearms and gun crime.
The regulations were supposed to come into effect on December 1, 2007, but the government needlessly postponed this requirement until December 2009. We all know what happened then. No legislation was more important than proroguing Parliament in order to save the Prime Minister's skin.
Like so many other issues, a short-sighted political agenda has again driven counterproductive Conservative policies. Fortunately for the residents of my riding, the City of Surrey thinks further ahead. It believes that crime prevention strategies must be comprehensive and collaborative.
More than five years ago, the Surrey RCMP began a crime reduction initiative focusing on reducing auto theft and property crime. It identified and targeted prolific offenders. Two teams, the auto crime target team and the integrated municipal provincial auto crime team, were created to focus on a few offenders who were responsible for a large number of these crimes. Surrey partnered with the police, courts, corrections services, all levels of government, social service agencies and residential and business organizations. This work helped form the blueprint of the Surrey crime prevention strategy, which is still a pioneering document two years later.
The results speak volumes about this kind of approach. Auto theft decreased in Surrey by 38%, from 2003 to 2006. Furthermore, the program made 737 arrests. From surveillance operations held from April 2004 to December 2006, 100% of charges recommended to the crown were approved. They had an 87% remand success rate. That means that 95% of the cases resulted in guilty pleas.
Members of the auto crime and property crime target teams were proud to accept the 2007 Vehicle Theft Award of Merit, presented by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, in New Orleans, on October 16, 2007.
The bottom line is that in Surrey, collaboration and cooperation has been the key to successfully targeting auto theft.
What this government must take away from my community's example is the concept of partnership, which is often lost on that side of the House. The Conservatives have dropped the ball so many times in this regard that the police associations I recently spoke with have given up on a real dialogue.
That said, we need some legislation for auto theft, and passing this legislation will help. It will target the transfer of goods that have been acquired criminally and the possession of property known to be obtained through crime for the purpose of trafficking. This will help close the chop shops that sell stolen cars for parts. It will help to shut down the gangs that ship stolen cars abroad to be sold in the black market. This is very important.
However, a crime and punishment agenda that fails to include all levels of the community is limited in its effectiveness.
Closing legal loopholes is necessary, and that is why I am supporting the bill.
While policing and crime prevention still play a vital role, reducing crime requires the attention of everyone in the community. Sometimes success at the community level is about challenging our own way of thinking, and sometimes it is about challenging others, including our own citizens. That is why heavy-handed tactics of the government, including a lack of community consultation on most of its proposed legislation is a huge obstacle in the way of progress.
Before I conclude, I want to re-emphasize that tougher penalties for the type of chronic criminals who commit these crimes are vital to turning the tide. However, it is just as important that the federal government, and everyone in the House, becomes immersed at the community level. That is what I have tried to do, and that is what I will try to keep doing over the next years.
I am proud to say that my communities of Surrey and Delta were very early leaders on this file, but obviously more has to be done and done fast.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 is a very good bill and a bill that should be supported. However, the government should be concentrating on things that work rather than just public relations.
I want to point out that the former Filmon government in Manitoba back in the nineties brought in several measures that it thought were good at the time, such as the restitution measures and the denial of a driver's licence to young offenders. However, those measures did not work as auto theft rates at that time kept going up. It was not until the Manitoba government, two years ago, brought in a mandatory immobilizer program in cars, that auto theft rates dropped, which indicates that we are getting results.
We had a federal Liberal government in power for 15 years and all it had to do was mandate automatic immobilizer installation in the factory. The Insurance Bureau of Canada priced it out at around $30. The Liberals never did that. Had they--
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I will have to stop the hon. member there to allow time for the hon. member for Newton--North Delta to respond.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the legislation, tougher laws are part of the process and we should all support that. At the same time, we need to ensure we have the resources.
The hon. member from Winnipeg South Centre, who sits beside me, is committed to the people of Manitoba. She brings issues forward and we all collectively work together to ensure the lives of the people in Manitoba are taken care of. We are here to duly represent our constituents.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the member's comments indicating that he will be supporting Bill C-26.
I specifically would like to know if he is supportive of the minimum mandatory sentences that would impose a minimum jail sentence of six months incarceration for a third or subsequent offence. Does he think that will help in the fight against auto theft in cities such as Surrey, which he represents, where organized crime has been out of control for quite some time now?
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see the member for Edmonton—St. Albert in beautiful British Columbia listening to people telling him about crime in my community.
Whenever the issue of crime has been raised in the House, irrespective of who or which party raised it, I have always stood in my place in support of being tough on crime. I have always supported that initiative.
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP plays an important role in front line policing in British Columbia. I wonder if the member could comment on the Conservative government's broken promise to give pay parity to the RCMP officers to ensure they are paid the same as any other officer and how that might impact morale?
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our first responders, particularly the RCMP officers, they cannot raise their own voices because they do not have a union. Their first and foremost priority is saving the lives of Canadian citizens and protecting us and making us safer.
I find it shameful that the Conservative government has withdrawn its support for a raise in pay for these hard-working police officers. I personally see the government--
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, however brief, as I see the clock is moving quickly toward the end of the day.
Much has been said today about the situation of the high auto theft in the city of Winnipeg. I was pleased to be here in Ottawa to hear the delegation that came from Manitoba in September of 2007. We have heard many references to the mayor of Winnipeg attending but many more were with him. The premier was with him, the leaders of the opposition parties were with him, the leaders of the aboriginal community, the mayor of Brandon and several members of the community who had been affected by auto theft and auto crime.
They came forward and had a whole series of representations to make to those they met and they had several meetings here, but a good deal of it focused on auto theft. They asked, quite specifically, for tougher penalties for those involved in serious crimes, particularly motor theft, and they asked, very specifically, to have auto theft made an indictable offence.
On my return to Winnipeg, I began a series of consultations in the community, meeting frequently with the District 6 Police of the Winnipeg Police Force in my own riding, meeting with community members who were involved with crime prevention and meeting with many of the perpetrators of the crimes in a round table with young people involved in auto theft. I heard various interesting things.
We have heard much today about the numbers in auto theft. I have the most recent ones taken off the website today from the Winnipeg Police Department. The combined actual and attempted auto thefts from the beginning of January until yesterday were 1,522, compared to approximately 2,700 last year. Indeed, the numbers are going down and they are going down, as we have heard earlier, because of initiatives taken by the province, initiatives like the immobilizer prevention programming, intervention programming, suppression programming and consequences for young people, which often includes a lifetime suspension of a driver's licence for repeat offenders.
When that delegation came from Manitoba, they asked the federal government to act. They asked the federal government, as I indicated earlier, to make auto theft an indictable offence and to respond with stiffer penalties.
The government took a very long time in responding. I know you, Mr. Speaker, introduced a bill, which I was pleased to support, at one time. I also was pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a private member's bill. However, because of my place on the order paper, my bill has yet to be brought forward in the House. It is Bill C-526, which I introduced originally in March 2008. My bill asked that a person who commits a motor vehicle theft for a second or subsequent offence be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a prison term not exceeding 10 years and would require a mandatory minimum sentence of a year.
I am not, for the most part, someone who endorses mandatory minimums. I think that prevention is equally important. However, I saw first-hand, when I met with this group of young people in a round table, what the impact of the prospect of going to jail had on them and the efforts that they were willing to make through remedial action, programming and supports in the community that would ultimately turn their lives around.
I was quite stunned when I heard a young man say that at the height of his car theft activity he and a partner were stealing up to 21 cars a day. I am not quite sure how they physically managed it but that is what he indicated to me. I asked him why he was here, why he was taking the program that he was and what was he doing. He described the program he was taking. He described the job opportunity that he had and described the fact that he now had a son and wanted a better life for his son.
Therefore, coupled with the requirements for the prospect of incarceration, there must be the opportunities for remediation prevention.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order please. The hon. member will have four and a half minutes left to conclude her remarks the next time the bill is before the House.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda.
The bill seeks to expand the definition of “identifiable group” under hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by gender.
Currently the law states that it is prohibited to propagate hate against an individual because of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. However, it is not against the law to propagate hate against individuals because of their gender.
By enacting this important improvement to the Criminal Code, Parliament can begin to address the serious issue of promoting hatred and violence against women or men.
This amendment should have been made long ago. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues on all sides of this House will support this long overdue initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
There seems to be a discussion going on at the far end of the chamber, which is creating a lot of noise. I would urge hon. members to carry on their discussions in the lobby. It is available, and I am sure they will find it much easier to chat there rather than yelling across the House here.
The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had the floor. There are four and a half minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks.
I therefore call upon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to use a bit of the time remaining to conclude my remarks. I want to make it clear that I support Bill C-26.
We heard much yesterday about the high incidence of auto theft in the city of Winnipeg. We also heard yesterday that both the attempts and the actual theft of cars was being reduced, through a host of measures that had been undertaken by the provincial government and the police department of the City of Winnipeg.
However, I am pleased this legislation has come forward. It is long overdue. The leadership delegation from Manitoba came here 16 months ago to ask for auto theft to be made an indictable offence. The response was another piece of legislation, which really did not address the issue. The Prime Minister, as most are aware, came to Winnipeg and announced a bill, but it did not create a distinct offence for vehicle theft. It dealt with the VIN and the trafficking of stolen property.
The legislation is long overdue. As I indicated yesterday, in March 2008 I introduced a private member's bill, which went substantially further than this bill. I called upon auto theft to be an indictable offence, with a mandatory minimum sentence of one year after a second offence.
I am pleased to see the legislation here. I am pleased offer my support for it. I hope it will move through the House in a timely manner and that there will be an opportunity for colleagues to discuss it further in committee.
I want to emphasize the importance of prevention programs as well. There have to be consequences for the offence, but there also have to be prevention programs. We know the provincial government is doing this. It is incumbent upon the federal government to provide the support and resources for the provinces to do what they must do. It is important for the federal government not to disengage from anti-gang activity or programs that do not deal with violence in communities.
Prevention is equally important, but there have to be consequences to the action.
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my colleague, but unfortunately was not present when she started her speech so I do not know whether she mentioned this, but I have a question to ask her, one that I feel is important. Can she inform the House how many vehicles are stolen annually in the province of Manitoba, and in the Winnipeg area in particular? Has the number been going up or down in recent years?
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I did address this yesterday. It was noted yesterday that a few weeks ago we had, for the first time, a day when there were no auto thefts at all in the city of Winnipeg, and that was quite remarkable.
However, the most recent figures I have indicate that from January 1 to May 3, there were 723 actual auto thefts and 799 attempted auto thefts, for a total of 1,522. Last year at this time, the total of both attempted and actual auto thefts was in the area of 2,700. The numbers are going down about 40% because of a variety of measures introduced by the police department, which include very concentrated and direct efforts to apprehend the well-known perpetrators of auto theft, the imposition of mandatory vehicle immobilizers and a variety of prevention and alternative programs that are currently funded largely by the provincial government.
This is why I indicated that the federal government also had to be there addressing these issues.
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my experience regarding auto theft with the House.
I practised criminal law for thirty years. The issue of auto theft comes up regularly. Throughout my career I saw numerous young people come before the courts on auto theft charges. I will come back to this point later, but lawyers consider there are two different offences: auto theft and joyriding. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and I think this needs to be taken into consideration when this bill is examined in committee.
In my opinion we need to let this bill, on which the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour, go to committee for in-depth study. It is an important and worthwhile bill which addresses a phenomenon that affects our society.
My colleague from Hochelaga spoke yesterday about auto theft in major cities. My colleague has no car, so he is not at risk of car theft. In big cities, the phenomenon is different than in the regions. Let me explain. I will compare the Montreal region and the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region. Obviously it is problematic to have your car stolen in Montreal, because the insurance companies are often rather uncooperative and there are investigations. That is no fun for anyone, but there is always the possibility of taking public transit. Obviously, the situation is the very opposite if you have your car stolen in a region like Abitibi—Témiscamingue, where there is very little public transit. A stolen car causes all manner of problems and difficulties.
Unfortunately, many vehicles stolen in the outlying areas end up in Montreal or the Montreal area or somewhere else, to be disassembled. This is a reality. A stolen car is rarely found in one piece. Generally, they are stolen, taken to a chop shop, transformed or modified. Expensive major parts are taken off and resold.
Society is plagued by auto theft. We believe that the new offence that would be created in the Criminal Code could be worthwhile and should be analyzed in detail. However, we should think twice before imposing mandatory minimum sentences for auto theft. I will come back to this shortly.
I would like to talk a bit about Bill C-26. This bill would create an offence for tampering with a vehicle identification number. This will not mean much to those who are watching. I will explain.
Every vehicle has an identification number, which the dealer notes when the vehicle is maintained. The dealer looks at the identification number, which is stored in a data bank. He knows what maintenance was done on the vehicle most recently, what sort of vehicle it is and what sort of maintenance it requires. This identification number is very important. The problem is that the number is found in only one place in the vehicle. Generally, it is quite visible. It has to be so that the garage can take note of it. It is inside the vehicle, on the edge of the windshield.
In committee, we can look at whether chips could be placed in other spots inside the vehicle, on important parts such as the wheel rims, the engine or the transmission.
Would it not make sense for manufacturers to put chips in vehicles to help trace them? I know from experience that a number of dealers have begun using this sort of identification, which could be used to trace these parts if the vehicle were stolen.
Let us go back to Bill C-26. I want to point out that in 2005, the Liberals introduced Bill C-64, which became Bill C-53, which has now given rise to Bill C-26. I hope that we will be able to pass this bill, because I feel it is important to create an offence for tampering with an identification number. I feel this is important because the bill will be broader in scope. Bill C-26 also targets the trafficking, exportation and importation of property obtained by crime.
Possession of stolen property is a Criminal Code offence. It means that you have in your possession an object that you are using and you know is stolen. For example, and this is the case unfortunately for many people, their car is stolen and, for one reason or another the VIN number disappears. Quite often the vehicle is found at the other end of Quebec or Canada. The vehicle has been transformed: it has been repainted and the doors replaced. The person buying the vehicle quite often believes that the vendor selling the car for an incredibly low price is honest. The courts have intervened on several occasions with regard to wilful blindness.
If you purchase a 2007 or 2008 Audi A4 for $2,000, it is obviously a case of wilful blindness. You deliberately ignore the fact that the car may have been stolen. Someone who purchases a Mercedes, especially a recent model, for $10,000 or under can expect to be charged with possession of stolen goods.
Heaven knows that there are many very honest people and I have met some in my career. They purchase a car at a reasonable price. I was looking at the list of stolen vehicles. Take, for example, someone who buys a 1999 Honda Civic coupe for between $10,000 and $15,000. They would expect to be purchasing a legitimate car, one that was not obtained by committing an offence such as theft. All this is difficult to prove. It is complicated for the courts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knew that the car was stolen.
Tampering with an identification number must be an offence. The vehicle identification number may be altered, modified or changed, but only by the dealer. When I read the bill I noted that this person will obviously not be prosecuted. That is not the purpose of the bill.
This bill creates the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years. It also creates sections 355.1, 355.2 and 355.3 in the Criminal Code. The definition will be important, since “trafficking” will not have the same meaning as it does in the Food and Drugs Act. It will correspond to the definition of the term “to traffic”, in the sense of to sell, give, transfer, transport, export from Canada, import into Canada, send, deliver or deal with in any other way, or to offer to do any of those acts.
With this, we are getting at the very heart of organized crime. Motor vehicle theft is very much the work of organized crime. A great deal of organization is required to have people who steal motor vehicles and bring them to specific locations so they can be disguised, changed or even broken down into pieces.
At this time, it is very difficult to identify the mags—pardon the expression—of a Passat, Beetle or Audi A4. It is very difficult to tell the difference if there is no chip or something to identify them. So the vehicle is broken down into pieces. That is what has been happening in many scrapyards, to use the jargon of those in the business. Of course they are not real scrapyards. The store front indicated auto parts, but motor vehicle were seen being brought in. We even have photos.
With this bill, we will be putting up a roadblock for organized crime—an appropriate expression given the subject. This must stop. Section 353.1 proposes the following offence: “Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle.” This is a recent offence, and very interesting. It is one of the reasons we will be voting in favour of this bill.
I do, however, have a serious problem and it is one that will require the bill to be examined very carefully. Here we are again with minimum prison sentences. Personally, I have a big problem with that. The Bloc cannot support minimum sentencing. That is not the solution. It is never the solution. They want to impose a minimum sentence on someone who is on his third auto theft charge. We need to be careful.
There are what are called joyriders and there are real car thieves. The first group are often kids from 15 to 19 who decide to steal a car just to get to a party or to look like a big shot —which is not really the case—to get from point A to point B. There is a specific section of the Criminal Code on this. Auto theft can be a theft in the legal sense, yet if it is a joyride, it is just some kids who see a car left near a convenience store with the motor running, and decide to take it just to get to point B, which is not far away. With respect, that is not auto theft. It is a theft from the legal point of view, but it is called instead taking a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. There is a section in the Criminal Code on that.
We will have to be careful how minimum sentencing is imposed. I am very surprised to hear the Conservatives say, and say more than once, that someone who has committed at least three auto thefts should receive a minimum sentence. The problem is not when they go into prison, but when they come out. Let me quickly explain.
To give an example, the judge has someone before him who is on his third theft. He stole a car once and sold it to a scrapyard. He did this twice and got caught.
I would be very surprised if that person did not get a minimum prison sentence. The court needs to make sure the offender understands that enough is enough and that he cannot keep stealing cars. That is usually what happens. However, imposing minimum prison sentences....
If a person commits theft at 17 and then again at 18, should we not wonder why that person is stealing cars? The court should gather more information, analyze that information, and make sure that its sentence fits both the crime and the individual.
Now, the problem is that when a judge tells Mr. X that he deserves a prison sentence and then sentences him to six months in jail, that youth can get out in three weeks and never serve the time. That is the problem. I think that we will have to be very careful when we look at this bill in committee, because we have to consider minimum prison sentences for major crimes when we are dealing with a repeat offender who neither understands nor wishes to understand. I think that judges are the ones who should sentence offenders, and I think that they are well informed.
The Conservatives need to understand, listen and analyze. People convicted of offences should serve their time in jail and not be freed after serving one-sixth of their sentence. They should not be released until they have done some soul-searching and participated in rehabilitation sessions.
The problem is that a young person sentenced to 12 months in jail can be back on the street in a month and a half. Clearly, that is a problem, and it will continue to be a serious problem. We need to re-examine the parole system. That is what we are saying. We will vote for the bill so that it can go to committee, but the Conservatives need to understand that minimum prison sentences will not fix anything. We have to tackle the parole system.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)