This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now 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 of identity theft, trafficking in identity information and unlawful possession or trafficking in certain government-issued identity documents, to clarify and expand certain offences related to identity theft and identity fraud, to exempt certain persons from liability for certain forgery offences, and to allow for an order that the offender make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity.
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.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He referred to an article in Le Devoir that talks about the impact of biker gangs on auto theft and other crimes committed in Montreal and throughout Quebec. I would like to hear him talk a little more about that.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very relevant question.
The article, written in a brief, precise style, appeared in this morning's paper and was, I think, expected by analysts. It explains why the Hells Angels and other similar groups must be criminalized. In committee, I had the opportunity to move a motion that was well received by my colleagues. We heard from a number of witnesses. One situation that must be corrected is this: even though a court of law in Manitoba declares that the Hells Angels meet the definition of a criminal organization under section 467.1 of the Criminal Code, the various prosecutors in Canada and Quebec must again demonstrate that the Hells Angels are a criminal organization during every trial involving charges of gangsterism. Of course, this requires a great deal of the Crown's resources and wastes a lot of time. That is why we would like to see a list of criminal organizations put together in a manner that I will explain in future debates. I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, which addresses the issue of auto theft.
As has been said throughout debate on the bill, not only in this Parliament but in the previous one, there is strong support from the NDP. I want to start off by being critical of the government. The bill should have been passed into law at least a year or year and a half ago if it had not used a number of tactics to slow down the work of the justice committee, preventing bills like this one from moving ahead.
I want to provide a caution and I will do that in a bit more detail as I get into my speech. This is not the be all and the end all. When I was preparing some notes for my speech this morning, it made me think of one of the lawyers I articled for and one of my law professors, who became a judge while I was still in law school.
Both of them gave me what I thought was some very good advice. As a lawyer, a judge or a legislator, one cannot always look to solutions in the law as a strictly legislative approach. There are a good number of times when the better approach is a practical one. That is very true with regard to this bill. It fills some cracks that exist in the Criminal Code and for that reason the NDP is pleased to support it. However, in terms of dealing with the issue of auto theft, practical, street-level solutions are going to be much more effective in dramatically reducing the numbers.
I will put this into context. During the course of the committee's work in analyzing the bill, we heard a good deal of evidence from representatives of Statistics Canada, specifically Juristat, on what the current situation was in Canada with regard to auto theft and what it had been over the last several decades.
It is interesting that with so much other crime in our country, auto thefts are in fact in decline. That is not in any way to minimize the problem with which we are faced. As we have heard from some of the other speakers, we are still averaging almost 150,000 thefts per year across the whole of the country. It varies quite significantly from province to province and even from city to city within provinces.
Overall, if we look at the statistics, on a per 100,000 population, we averaged about 375 thefts 30 years ago, in 1977. That peaked at slightly over 600 thefts per 100,000 in the 1996-97 period of time. It has declined since then, with several peaks during that period of time. In 2007, which is the last year we have statistics for, it is down to about 450 per 100,000 population in the country, again with very wide variations across the country.
I would note that because of the work done in the installation of immobilizers, when we see the statistics for 2008, which we will receive some time in July, I expect that number to be down even more dramatically to close to about 400. This is the information being received particularly from Manitoba and more generally across the country. We were at 375 per 100,000 in 1977 and we will be fairly close to that by the end of 2008. I am expecting an ongoing decline, so it will be almost a straight line from 2009 back to 1977, when we began gathering these figures.
Having put that in context, it is important to emphasize what has happened historically over that period of time.
Traditionally, we have looked at auto theft from three vantage points in terms of how they are perpetrated.
I think back to when I was first starting to practise law in the early 1970s. Clearly, joyriding, as we called it then and now, constituted by far the larger percentage of auto thefts. That is no longer the case. It still happens, and in fact, in provinces such as Manitoba that have a disproportionate number of thefts, it is quite clear from the statistics and the nature of the theft that the joyriding percentage is still quite high there. In the rest of the country, it has come down dramatically.
We have that theft, and obviously with the joyriding, it is almost always a young person, oftentimes young people who cannot even drive legally, who will steal a vehicle for a very short period of time and then abandon it. That vehicle is generally recovered.
The second type of theft has become a fairly recent phenomenon. We cannot even put percentages on it, but we know it is happening at a more significant rate than it was as recently as even five years ago, and certainly 10 years ago. This is a theft that is perpetrated by an individual who steals the vehicle for the purposes of committing another crime. We have what would be expected as the usual types of thefts, sometimes for armed robbery, sometimes for kidnapping, and more often for break and enter and they are using the vehicle to transport the stolen goods. In the vast majority of those thefts, the vehicle is then subsequently abandoned, if the person is not apprehended.
The third one, of which we have seen a significant increase in percentage, is theft for profit. It is organized crime stealing large numbers of vehicles at the high end. These would be more valuable vehicles, specifically targeted for this purpose.
Interestingly enough, it has a couple of interesting phenomena. One, organized crime is generally engaging or hiring young people to steal the vehicles, the directing mind never going near them, having set up a chain where it is usually stolen by a street gang member, delivered to the organized crime centre where the vehicle is altered in some way, sometimes completely taken apart for parts, but most often altered in some way, sometimes painted, and then shipped out of the country, oftentimes to Africa and Asia, those two markets. They are going into countries where there is much more limited enforcement of laws and they are sold there, oftentimes at greater value than they could be sold at as used vehicles in Canada. One of the parts of this bill specifically addresses that issue, but I will come back to that.
So we have this phenomenon that is growing, we believe, from the numbers we are seeing, that is using young people just starting out in their criminal careers, being hired to steal vehicles, and those vehicles are being put into a network and ultimately exported from the country.
One of the ways we know this is happening is in looking at statistics for thefts and how often the vehicle is recovered. We know, and we have learned this from police and prosecutors, that once they determine the facts of the theft they are able to say that this was the stereotypical joyriding, and in the large percentage of cases, as I said earlier, those vehicles are abandoned and then recovered, oftentimes intact, sometimes with some damage as the result of an accident.
On the other hand, if it is part of organized crime, if it is a theft for profit, the percentage of successful recoveries is extremely low, because those vehicles, in a large number of cases, are exported from the country or they go through a chop shop and the parts are sold off, so the vehicle is never recovered intact.
It is interesting to look at the proof of this by comparing the figures for Manitoba, specifically Winnipeg, and for Montreal.
From the testimony we heard from witnesses and the statistics we are seeing, it is our belief that organized crime syndicates in Quebec, and specifically in the Montreal area, are very active in this network of auto theft, whereas in Manitoba, the vast majority of thefts are more of the joyriding kind. The recovery rate of stolen vehicles in Manitoba is over 80%; in Montreal, it is right around 30%. We can do that comparison with other cities and provinces, but this statistic is the one that is the most telling.
My next point goes back to the comment I made about my law professor and senior when I was articling, about practical solutions.
On a percentage basis, auto thefts are dropping in the country. We cannot attribute that to this legislation since it is not yet in effect. It should have been, but that is the government's problem. The reason that auto theft is decreasing is really because of two things that have happened.
By September 1, 2007, all new vehicles in Canada had to have immobilizers. These immobilizers have had the effect of stopping thefts of the joyriding kind by almost 100%. The individual who steals a car for joyriding purposes does not have the sophistication, the competency, or the criminal network to steal a vehicle.
For almost two years we have seen a decline in the number of thefts of the joyriding kind and thefts for the purpose of committing another crime, the reason being that the individual could not get the vehicle to start. It was just not possible.
However, organized crime looked at that and decided to change its method of operation. We know from apprehensions in the Montreal area in particular that organized crime will acquire a towing vehicle, either by stealing it or leasing it, or whatever, and steal 10 or 20 cars in one evening by towing them away. Those cars then go into the network and are sold off internationally.
The rate of auto theft in Manitoba is three times the average for the country. Abbotsford, B.C., the other city that is close statistically, has a little better than twice the average of the rest of the country.
The Government of Manitoba, through its public auto insurance, required everyone to have an immobilizer on their vehicle in order to get insurance. It had tried doing that on a somewhat voluntary basis for about a year but had very little uptake. When it was mandated, thefts in Winnipeg specifically, but Manitoba generally, dropped dramatically. We have not seen the final figures because the full year would have been 2008, but we know that in 2007 the figure declined.
My colleague from Winnipeg, who used to be a provincial member of Parliament, stood up in the House about a month or so ago and proudly announced that, for the first time, the city of Winnipeg went a whole 24 hours without an auto theft.
Immobilizers have had a dramatic impact in driving the numbers down. Because the numbers came down so dramatically in Manitoba, the numbers have been brought down for the rest of the country.
That was a practical solution, and I have been quite critical of the private insurance industry in this country for not following suit, because it is obviously working. They have been before the committee a number of times on this bill and others, in the form of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They set out their statistics, which I am sure are quite accurate, about the losses they are taking and what it is costing the rest of the community in terms of health care costs, our police officers' time, and our prosecutors and our judges.
I ask them why they do not get their members to follow the example of the Government of Manitoba. It is working there clearly. We are driving the rates down, we think, by as much as 40% or 50%. I do not get a satisfactory answer from them. They are quite prepared to slough this off to others, including this level of government, but the problem of auto theft is something that the private insurance industry could solve to a significant degree. If they did that, if every car in this country were required at this time to have an immobilizer in order to be insured, we would see the auto theft rate drop in this country by as much as 50%. They will not do that.
With regard to the bill itself, it has four specific provisions, all of which we support.
It first would create a specific offence of auto theft. At this point, in the code, the theft of an auto is treated like the theft of household furniture or other property. We are creating a separate offence, and there are good reasons for doing that in the case of some legal decisions we have had over what is the theft of a vehicle. It is important that we do that.
The second section is even more important. It would create a specific offence for tampering with the VIN, the identification number that all vehicles have. As I said earlier, this is an area where we are going right at organized crime, because in the vast majority of cases, they are the ones who are taking vehicles apart or altering the VIN before they export them to Asia or Africa. That section would make it a specific offence.
The next point is that it would create additional authority where, in terms of dealing with the export issue, we would authorizing the CBSA to specifically intervene when they find stolen parts and stolen vehicles that are being shipped out of the country. Historically, they have had to call the local police force to intervene, because they did not have a specific jurisdiction. We would now give that to them.
I have to say to the government again that I do not believe it has addressed in any adequate way the additional resources that are going to be need. We heard from the committee chair, in one of my questions earlier today, that there are going to be efficiencies here. I think the Conservatives are deluding themselves in believing that.
I live on the busiest border crossing in this country and have regular contact with CBSA officials. They have no belief that there can be those kinds of efficiencies when they are taking on this additional responsibility. I think we are going to see that this part of the legislation will not be very useful, because our officers at the border will not have the resources to actually deal with it.
The final point on this bill is that it raised some concern with a delegation that came before us that we would allow a defence of lawful excuse. This would be where a vehicle has been in an accident and the damage to the vehicle is where the VIN is situated. A regular repair shop would have to deal with that part of the vehicle and would not be guilty of an offence for tampering with that.
It went a bit further, and we have some concerns about that. It is an issue that we will have to address. I just want to say to that delegation that we heard them and we will be monitoring this on an ongoing basis.
We are going to support this bill. I hope the government will find a way to provide those additional resources to the Canada Border Services Agency and get this through as quickly as possible, having delayed it for over two years now.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I consider the member for Windsor—Tecumseh one of the more reasonable members of the NDP caucus and he is a valuable member of the justice committee. However, I am somewhat troubled by one of the positions taken by the NDP at committee. The NDP members are supportive of the bill in general, but one of the things they tried to do at committee was to remove the mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison for those who are convicted of a third or subsequent offence of auto theft.
Abbotsford has been plagued with auto theft. If he were to speak to the residents of my riding, he would hear a strong support for a mandatory minimum sentence for serial car thieves. In many cases, these car thieves steal not 10, 20 or 30 times, but hundreds of cars every year. Yet, there is no guarantee that they will receive a prison term or at least a prison term that is going to get them off the streets for a period of time to reconsider their life of crime.
Why is it that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and his party are so ideological in their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences when a large majority of Canadians support it, especially in circumstances where we are dealing with serial car thieves?
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have two answers to that. First, anybody who has practised law for any length of time and knows what goes on in our criminal courts would think that it is a joke that one is only going to get six months in jail after a third theft. That is what the bill does. It has another condition to it. It is also required to have the prosecutor move by way of indictment. Otherwise, the mandatory minimum does not apply. On the third offence, an application must be made by way of indictment.
Again, this is so typical of the ideology that drives the Conservative Party. It puts out a big dramatic statement that we are going to solve all the car theft problems by imposing a mandatory minimum of six months and it expects the Canadian public to believe that. I do not believe that and I do not think the Canadian public is going to buy it.
The second reason why we are systematically opposed to mandatory minimums is because we trust our judges. I can point to any number of cases that I have seen over the years where judges blew it. They made a mistake. They are human. However, in my belief, they are still the best judges in the world. I have a great deal of faith in their ability to look at the individual case and decide to give someone two and a half years instead of six months.
In the vast majority of cases, that is the kind of penalty the repeat offenders are going to be looking at, certainly with anything involving organized crime. They are going down for hard time and probably going to federal pens. The problem with putting a six-month mandatory minimum into it is that that then becomes the target. That is the one that the judges start adhering to. It is a useless piece of the bill.
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
When I looked at the statistics, I was shocked to see that in Ontario—I think Windsor is still in Ontario, and that concerns my colleague—there were 50,065 car thefts in 1999.
We do not yet have the statistics for 2007, but in 2006, there were 38,398, so let us say 39,000, car thefts in Ontario. That is almost 11,000 fewer cars stolen in Ontario.
Does my colleague know why there was this decrease? Is there some kind of phenomenon in Ontario? We were not yet in a recession.
Were there any measures that could be used in other regions in Canada that led to this significant decline in the number of car thefts?
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have no explanation for what happened.
According to one statistic, between 1997 and 2007, car thefts decreased by 45.5% in Ontario.
At the same time, big cities, like Toronto and Windsor, started cracking down on street gangs. That is a considerable percentage, and I see no other explanation for the decrease in car thefts. Nothing else was done. There were no immobilizers installed or anything like that. I do not know why there was this decrease.
I hope that it is the direct result of the actions taken by our police.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, as car thefts rose in the last 20 years, we had the car industry basically resisting putting in factory-installed immobilizers. I recall consumer groups, a number of years ago, trying to put pressure on the car companies. It had been determined at the time that the car manufacturers could factory-install an immobilizer for about $30. However, they were more interested in putting more cup holders in the cars than they were dealing with this very serious issue.
It was not until about 1997 that Ford Motor Company, and I know because I bought one of its products at the time, had a factory-installed immobilizer in its products. Interesting enough, from 1997 on, there was not a single Ford product with the immobilizer in it stolen in Manitoba. However, Ford installed the type that is approved at the highest level. Meanwhile, other companies, I believe GM and Chrysler, installed immobilizers that were not as good in their cars. The result now of course is that Manitoba does not recognize those, and that causes a lot of internal conflicts. There is a lot of blame here to be shared. There is no one cause of this. It is up to us, now, to get together and solve this problem.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Manitoba is very accurate in the assessment of what happened over that decade period of time. The auto industry was, in so many other ways, reluctant to come into the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century, and we have seen it in all sorts of ways.
Equally, as I said earlier in my speech, critical of the insurance industry in this country. If it had come onside earlier, we could have reduced these numbers quite dramatically, greater than we have been able to up to this point.
I want to make one more point in this regard. We are going through this again right now with the auto industry and the insurance industry. There is technology that is fairly close to being usable on all vehicles that would prevent the vehicle from starting if the person was intoxicated as a result of alcohol. We are very close to having that. We are close to being able to do it economically.
But, again, there is great resistance from the auto companies, less so in Europe than here, but there is still great resistance. When we look at the tragedies that occur on a daily basis as a result of impaired driving due to alcohol, it is one of those areas where additional research should be done and that technology developed and carried on. If we have not learned from this experience, maybe we will when we see what the consequences are when we finally get those types of immobilizers on vehicles to prevent drunk driving in this country.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member is not willing to support our government in providing some additional direction to the judges when they are imposing sentences on serial car thieves. However, I did notice he spent a lot of time talking about immobilizers. He decried the fact that the insurance business does not want to accommodate that.
In B.C., we have the bait car program, and the latest results show a 30% reduction in car thefts. I wonder why the province of Manitoba has not implemented a bait car program.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is simply not as effective.
I have a sister in British Columbia, as well, who also had her car stolen. I remember her talking to me about the bait program because that was the first time I heard about it. It has been used there. It is expensive to staff those vehicles with all the police resources that have to be put into play.
The use of the immobilizer is, in effect, mandatorily imposed through the auto insurance scheme. The Government of British Columbia could be doing the same because it has public auto insurance there as well. It would have a much more effective result.
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Abbotsford to ask me that same question relating to minimum prison sentences during the period reserved for questions and comments. I will have what I think is a wholly appropriate response under the circumstances.
For those who are listening to us, these are pretty impressive figures. I have the statistics for 1999, but I do not want to dazzle our audience with a whole lot of numbers. I would just like to demonstrate why the government must attack this scourge and why the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-26. As a criminal lawyer for a number of years, I have, as my colleague from Hochelaga said, experienced this with a number of my clients, and I will come back to that.
In 1999, 161,388 vehicles were stolen in Canada. Nearly 10 years later, in 2006, the figure was 159,944. Let us round that up to 160,000. So there has been just a slight drop. Only 1,000 fewer car thefts in close to 10 years,so we have a major problem.
Let us look at the situation in Quebec. In 1999, 43,068 vehicles were stolen, and in 2006, 38,821. So yes, there has been a drop, but we still have a problem.
I have some good news for our audience. In 2006, the car the most often stolen in Canada was—and if someone has one of these, they would be wise to keep a close eye on it—the two-door 1999 Honda Civic. It is followed by the two-door 2000 Honda Civic. Third, the four-door all-wheel drive Subaru Impreza. Fourth, the two-door 1999 Acura Integra. In fifth place is the 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan/Voyager, and in seventh the 1994 Dodge Plymouth Caravan Voyager. In eighth place we have the two-door 1998 Acura Integra. Ninth place is held by the two-door 2000 Audi TT Quattro Coupé 2000, and tenth by the two-door 1994 Dodge Shadow Plymouth Sundance hatchback. Why did I list all those? Because there really is a problem, most definitely a problem with auto theft.
When I look at the bill we have before us, which the Bloc will be supporting as I said, we see that there are three types of car theft. A theft is always a theft, I agree on that, but there are three different categories.
Let us talk about the theft of an idling vehicle by a young person aged 15, 16, 17 or 18. How many times do cars get stolen when the owner has just run into the convenience store for two minutes to get a newspaper? They leave the keys in the ignition, the motor is running, and the young person happens by. He has decided he wants to go downtown, so he takes off with the car, and when he gets downtown he abandons it in a public place and just goes on about his business. That is what is known as a joyride. Kids who just take cars to drive around in. They have no intention of doing any harm to them, or anything else. They just want to take a spin for a little while. That is the first kind of theft, and it is unacceptable.
I live in a region that is 600 km from Montreal, and some 500 km from Ottawa, and cars are a necessity in regions like mine. There is little if any public transit in small places such as ours. In the riding of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the only place with municipal service is Rouyn-Noranda. There is none anywhere else.
When someone is deprived of the use of his car, it is a problem. No offence to my hon. colleague from Hochelaga, with his metro and other public transit, but we have nothing like that. So it is very unpleasant to lose your car, I would go so far as to say unacceptable. Very often, the young people who take a car just for a joyride do not even realize they are depriving someone of his means of transportation. They need an appropriate sanction. I will return to this later if my hon. colleague from Abbotsford will ask me the question. The problem with these young people will not be solved with jail time. There may be an underlying problem but generally, if they are taken to youth court under the young offender legislation and given community service—like painting or washing vehicles in garages or at the municipal vehicle pound—the problem solves itself.
There are two other types of theft that this bill provides a strong response to. That is why, I would repeat, we will be supporting it. I am referring to motor vehicles being stolen for parts. This is what happens. Generally, an individual sees a vehicle and knows a place where someone can strip the vehicle for parts. We were told, in our practice, that quite often this is done to fill an order. A young person is told that they need a 1978 or 1980 Volkswagen windshield, or a particular kind of radiator. Very often, the individuals receive an order and go out and steal a vehicle, which they bring back to a specific place. The vehicle is stripped and only the parts are kept. I will come back to this during in-depth consideration of the bill, but quite often, the vehicle is stripped for parts. It is broken down into pieces. I have seen Audi TT transmissions completely stripped. Vehicles are stolen for a spoiler. There was a time when vehicles were stolen for the windshield, because it had wires that could be used to receive radio signals. Completely unacceptable things have happened. It has become totally unacceptable.
I am not going by order of seriousness, but I think this point is the most serious. Generally, someone who steals vehicles for parts is not necessarily part of a ring. The person does it for the parts. They steal two or three. Yes, they may be part of a ring. With no disrespect to my hon. colleague from Hochelaga, this really happens more in big cities like Montreal, Toronto, Calgary or St. John's, where we see vehicle thefts with definite organization and where organized crime has already started to be in evidence in places where vehicles are stripped. In regions like mine, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, or even Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean, criminals tend to do it more to fill orders.
There is a third kind of offence. This one was less visible in recent years, but it is being seen more and more and it is very important. Earlier, my colleague mentioned the number of vehicles that had been stolen in recent years, and in particular the number of those vehicles that had not been found. That is extremely dangerous. An order is sent out. Someone says: “I want a Porsche 911. I want a 2006 Volkswagen Jetta. I want an Audi TT. I want an Acura.” And so on.
Why? Because organized crime has in fact set up a system where vehicles are taken for export. What do they do? Obviously, it takes an entire organization. There has to be good planning to know how they can be exported. Generally, organized crime controls the supply chain from the outset, from when the order is placed to the final step. I will give an example, something that has happened several times. Someone wants a Porsche 911 or a Porsche Carrera. Why? Because the Porsche Carrera will end up somewhere in Russia, or somewhere in Afghanistan—maybe not—or in other countries, but in very specific places. To organize that kind of theft, that kind of crime, you need a well oiled, well run organization. That is where Bill C-26 is going to be useful.
I want to get into the details of the bill. It contains a particularly important provision. This bill would amend section 353. It would create a hitherto non-existent offence. My colleague from Hochelaga is very young and, sadly for us, has not yet been called to the bar. Unfortunately, he only recently found his calling in the law. However, those of us who are older remember a time when the stolen parts market was booming. What happened was that a guy would steal a car, go to a chop shop and have it broken down into parts. The charge was having voluntarily, directly or indirectly, encouraged an individual to commit an offence, or having directly or indirectly possessed an object known to have been stolen. What did people do? They went to the chop shop, had the car broken down into parts, and then sold the parts.
Now there is a new section that reads as follows:
Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle.
I said that I would say it at least ten times during my speech, so I will once again refer to the member for Hochelaga. He does not own a car—and I respect that—so he does not know this, but next time he takes the metro in Montreal, which he often does, or travels on VIA Rail, as he does every week, he should take a look and he will see that every car has an identification number. Generally it can be found inside the car—I would hope—just below the windshield. It is a very long number that usually includes several letters.
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
My colleague from Hochelaga, who quite obviously is an expert, knows that it has 12 letters and several numbers. So what happens? Every car has an identification number. What were people doing? People were stealing cars and chopping them up for parts, thereby removing that number. With the number removed, they can no longer be tracked down. Their parts can no longer be traced. Certain companies have made some changes. I know it exists, and I am an advocate of this. German car makers have already made some advances on this. Manufacturers have even begun putting electronic chips in many major car parts like the engine, transmission, carburetor, and wheels, which are often referred to as “mags”. Generally speaking, a Porsche's wheels are called “mags”. Each wheel is worth a fortune. When cars are stripped down for their parts, it is for the money.
This is all set out in section 353, which will be amended and become section 353.1. But there will be one exception. It was not very clear. My colleague from Hochelaga and I asked some questions in committee concerning this small ambiguity. The department's representatives answered our questions. There will be one exception, and one exception alone. It reads as follows:
Despite subsection (1), it is not an offence to wholly or partially alter, remove or obliterate a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle during regular maintenance or any repair or other work done on the vehicle for a legitimate purpose, including a modification of the vehicle.
An example would be if a vehicle is in an accident and, for whatever reason, the front—where the VIN is found—must be replaced. If the windshield is replaced and the VIN is removed accidentally, of course charges will not be brought against the individual who did the repair for a legitimate purpose. That will be the only exception.
I have a hard time accepting one thing, however, and that is the minimum jail sentence set out in the bill. We will vote in favour of the bill, since it has at least been watered down a little. Subsection 333.1(1) indicates:
Everyone who commits theft is, if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, guilty of an offence and liable:
(a) on proceedings by way of indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months in the case of a third or subsequent offence;
That was put in the bill. Our government colleagues mentioned, though, that they had included this measure in case someone who had committed his 18th theft was prosecuted by indictment and was to be sentenced. There is a problem. If someone commits 18 thefts across Canada without being caught very often, I guarantee that he will receive a minimum sentence of around a year. The judge will say that that is enough.
The government should not interfere in judges' work. Judges' discretionary power is extremely important. In this case, the government wants to impose a minimum sentence of six months in prison after a third offence, even though the person will probably be prosecuted by indictment. I do not dare say that there is something Machiavellian about that, but there, I said it. There is something biased about it. My colleague from Hochelaga, who is a very good prompter, gave me the right word. This is part of a trend. The government does not trust judges. I have a problem with that.
I want to say, as I have said before and I will say many times again, as long as the Conservatives are in power and keep on introducing bills with mandatory minimum sentences, that the problem is not when offenders go into prison, but when they come out. I will give an example.
If someone who has committed his 12th auto theft is sentenced to one year in prison but is released after two months, there is a problem. The problem does not lie with the judge's sentence, but with the offender's early release from prison. Offenders are not serving their full sentences.
This is a worthwhile bill, and we will support it, because we believe it is important to send a clear message. Possession of stolen vehicles is a scourge. We need to give customs officers the means to check certain things. It is surprising that someone can send a container with three Porsche 911s in it to an address in Russia or elsewhere without being questioned. We need to look at this. This is what this bill is about, and we will be pleased to support it.
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for speaking so passionately about this bill.
The Bloc Québécois member mentioned a few times that he would like the member for Abbotsford to ask him a question. I do not believe that the member for Abbotsford will ask him a question. Therefore, I would like to ask him to talk about the minimum six-month sentence proposed by the Conservative bill.