Bill S-9 (Historical)

Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime)

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.

Justice

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to fight gangs and organized crime is to remove their profits. Auto theft threatens the safety of our communities and costs Canadians over $1 billion each year. It is one of the largest sources of illegal profits for organized crime.

Last week our government's Bill S-9 passed the House of Commons. This bill will deliver tough action on auto theft and on crimes involving the trafficking of stolen property. The bill also will remove dangerous drivers from our roads.

Would the parliamentary secretary give the House an update on the recent news concerning this important bill?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 18, 2010

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 18th day of November, 2010, at 9:10 a.m.

Yours sincerely, Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were BillC-40, An Act to establish National Seniors Day and Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).

Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, joyriding has been going on since the invention of the automobile, but it has taken an extremely long time to pass this bill. It first started out as Bill C-53, then it became Bill C-26 and now it is Bill S-9, a Senate bill.

I have two questions for the hon. member. First, why is it taking so long to pass this bill into law?Second, why does the crime prevention government seem to think that putting everybody in prison is the answer? I would like the hon. member to compare, if possible, incarceration to putting immobilizers in all vehicles.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill S-9, as it is now called. I have spoken on this bill under other numbers in the past.

I listened very intently to all of the speeches this morning. I want to begin by pointing out that auto theft is something that has been with us for a number of years. It goes back to the 1970s, but I do not think it became a public issue until sometime in the 1980s.

Essentially there was a long delay. I think governments of all political stripes were asleep at the switch for a considerable amount of time, when in fact they could have moved a little earlier than they did.

It is comforting to know that auto theft numbers are dropping because of efforts made by various governments, for example, the Government of Manitoba and the government in Ottawa as well. It was in 2003 that the federal government announced that, effective September 1, 2007, all new cars sold in Canada would have to have immobilizers.

So if we do the calculations and recognize that the average car is on the road for perhaps 15 years, it will be around 2021 before the problem actually solves itself. I do not think we should have to wait that long for the problem to solve itself.

The fact of the matter is that the federal government, as far back as Brian Mulroney but certainly under the 13 years of Jean Chrétien and the Liberals, in any one of those years could have acted and could have enforced the requirement for the mandatory installation of immobilizers, which they did effective September 1, 2007.

Just so members know how effective these immobilizers are and can be, for example, the Ford Motor Company in its 1996 version of the Ford Windstar, on sale in the fall of 1995, the higher end models of those vehicles had factory-installed immobilizers. That was sort of the beginning of immobilizers in mass-produced cars. There may have been some around previously in higher end vehicles.

Gradually over time more and more of these immobilizers became factory-installed. There was an after-market product available to be installed, but there were some problems with them. I checked several years later with the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, perhaps as little as two or three years ago, and was told that no vehicle with a factory-installed immobilizer had been successfully stolen.

Now, they are damaged because the thieves break into the vehicles and, when they cannot steal the car, of course there is still resulting damage to the vehicle. At least they are not running away with the vehicle, taking a potentially lethal object out on the road and perhaps running somebody down or being involved in accidents with the vehicle.

We knew early on that this was a very solid solution to the problem. The question is, Why did the government not act? When I checked back a few years ago with the Insurance Bureau of Canada data and information, I was not surprised but I did read that there was information available that immobilizers could have been factory-installed in vehicles for as little as $30, I believe I read, but it could be a little more than that. It is not a significant expense.

The United States government could have enforced these and made them mandatory. The Canadian government could have done this.

When police started to report rising theft rates of automobiles, and statistics started to show that people were being injured and killed because of auto theft, it would have been prudent for the government to take this issue more seriously and attempt to nip the problem in the bud by forcing immobilizers to be installed at the factories. But that was not done.

In the 1990s, the Conservative government of Gary Filmon in Manitoba attempted to tackle the problem by several means. It did not get to the point of dealing with immobilizers. It was looking at things that, in the end, proved not to work. It planned to sue the offenders and hold off giving them their driver's licences.

Bear in mind that, at least in Manitoba, authorities had determined that level four offenders for car theft numbered around 50 people. In other words, 50 people were stealing most of the cars. The theory was that if we concentrated on those 50 people the numbers would be reduced.

Most of those 50 people were very young. Some were as young as 13 or 14 years old. Trying to sue them would be an impossibility. Holding their driver's licences back did not mean much to them. Making the parents responsible was another attempt by the Filmon government. It passed legislation holding the parents responsible for these kids.

In the end, I do not think the government was able to gain any significant restitution or result from these efforts. Nevertheless, it was an attempt to respond to the problem. The government of Manitoba was still not there in forming a gang suppression unit, immobilizers, or any of the best practices that seem to have helped to solve the problem.

When the NDP government of Gary Doer came into power in 1999, it had a lot of issues to deal with. It was not overly quick to deal with this one. I believe it was 2005 when the provincial government announced an immobilizer incentive program.

I remember that the government was planning to theft-proof 90% of Winnepeg vehicles within five years. The government was going to guarantee a price of $280, taxes included, for the purchase and installation of immobilizers that met Canadian standards. The customer had to pay $140, half the installation cost, to the insurance corporation, which was a government-owned corporation in Manitoba. The government provided interest-free loans and was going to give an insurance reduction of $40 annually.

Guess what? Almost nobody took up the program. After a while, six months to a year, we found that people were not participating.

Finally, the government decided it had had enough and mandated the installation of the immobilizers free of cost, which was $200. The government made it a requirement that immobilizers had to be installed before vehicle registration and insurance could be renewed, thereby ensuring that it was going to be done. Also, there was a reduction in insurance.

One would think that people would be lined up by the hundreds to get this done, given that this program was free and there was going to be an insurance reduction. But the reality is that people complained. People did not want to get their free immobilizers installed in their vehicles. They felt it was their right to drive around without the fear of their car being stolen.

There is this strange train of thought out there. Many people retain a more or less 1950s mentality, and think they should be able to leave their house doors and car doors unlocked and that no one should steal anything. These people are not dealing with reality. The majority of people realize that they are required to take some precautions and lock their vehicles and homes.

Thieves target certain models of cars. Since September 1, 2007, all new vehicles have factory-installed immobilizers. That means that during the last three years of vehicle production all cars had immobilizers installed at the factory.

Manitoba has taken vehicles methodically, group by group, and worked its way down from the highest-theft vehicles to the lowest. Over time, there is a smaller pool of vehicles available for theft. That has been reflected in lower automobile theft rates. Manitoba had an immediate reduction in the first year. The province had a long way to go, because it was the auto theft capital of Canada by quite a long shot. In fact, Manitoba was almost double the national average in auto theft.

The province had a lot of work to do, but it had a good base to start from. Auto theft was cut down substantially. Once, a couple of years ago, no thefts occurred during a 24-hour period. One day in a month a couple of years ago, Winnipeg actually had zero car thefts. Manitoba has started to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

This problem should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. When governments see a problem, they should be proactive, not reactive. The problem should be studied early on. We should have started studying this problem in the eighties to determine how best to solve it. Putting an immobilizer in a vehicle is a simple solution.

The other part of the approach was to set up a gang suppression unit with the police department, and that has worked very well. The police know who these level four offenders are. They are roughly 50 people. The police targeted these 50 people, and most of them are now in jail, where they are unable to steal cars.

A number of others who are out on bail wear a monitoring device obtained from Nova Scotia, where it evidently works well. There have been incidents of car thieves cutting off their ankle bracelets and escaping, but by and large it has been a decent program. Manitoba set up a pilot project for a year, and I believe it is still going on. So it appears that the pilot worked out okay and is achieving some results, in spite of the odd hiccup along the way.

Manitoba also looked at the bait car program, which is an interesting program that works in some parts of the United States. It also works well in B.C.

However, Manitoba, for one reason or another, decided not to proceed with the bait car program. It could be because we have very cold temperatures for a large part of the year. Vancouver has warmer temperatures to work with. However, to each his own. Evidently, the bait car program worked reasonably well in Vancouver, and that is fine if it is getting results.

The Manitoba government then decided to chase this tough on crime government for some action on crime. To that end, Premier Doer led a delegation to Ottawa on September 13, 2007, and he included in his delegation the attorney general, the opposition Conservative leader, the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba, and the mayors of Winnipeg and Brandon. He also included a number of other people.

The province's approach to reducing auto theft and youth crime focuses on four broad areas. One is prevention, with programs like lighthouses, friendship centres, and education pilot projects as well as initiatives like vehicle immobilizers. Another is intervention, with the highly successful turnabout program and intense supervision for repeat offenders. A third is suppression, with more targeted funding for police officers, corrections, and crown attorneys dealing with auto theft. The final area is consequences, which includes lifetime suspensions of driver's licences for repeat offenders.

In addition, the premier cited the success of provincial initiatives dealing with drinking and driving, which helped reduce related fatalities and injuries by 25% from 1999 to 2003. There were also changes that Manitoba was asking the federal government to make.

No other province, to my knowledge, was doing this at that time. The NDP government of Manitoba was actually getting tough on crime. It was coming to Ottawa to talk to the pretend tough on crime government, demanding that the federal government provide stronger penalties for youth involved in serious crimes, especially auto theft. The province wanted to allow first degree murder charges for gang-related homicides. It wanted to eliminate two-for-one remand credits, which the government, to its credit, is doing now. It wanted to classify auto theft as an indictable violent offence, and it wanted to make shooting at buildings and drive-by shootings indictable offences as well. In addition, Manitoba requested the federal government to examine the issue of drivers who refuse to take a breathalyzer test, with a view to strengthening existing laws.

I ask the member for Sudbury, my colleague, does that sound like a party and a government that is soft on crime? The Manitoba NDP government was asking for things that the tough on crime government here in Ottawa cannot seem to get done at all. It has accomplished only two of the five requests from the provincial government. It is clear that the government that is tough on crime is the NDP government of Manitoba. It is tough on crime, but it is also smart on crime, because it relies on best practices. We do not run off for whatever is politically popular at the time. We proceed with what works, what gets results.

I have explained to the member about immobilizers, how we were able to pilot that program and get drastic results in auto theft reduction. I also explained the gang-suppression unit, which isolated and identified those 50 people.

I have not started even one word of the notes I brought with me today. I am extremely disappointed about that, but I am sure that there will be questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), be read the third time and passed.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-9. This is not the first time we have debated this topic, which is a very serious challenge for the entire country. Many bills have already been introduced about this topic.

This is not the first time that we have stood and talked about doing something with respect to auto theft.

First, before I get into criticizing the government for interrupting its own legislative agenda with the interruption of the sitting of Parliament, one of the most effective ways to battle auto theft and crime in general is to resource our police forces, our prosecutors, our court systems and to restore confidence, which has been diminished in our judicial system by the actions, the words and, in the case of funding, the inactions of the Conservative government.

I met with some representatives of the policing community in Winnipeg. Winnipeg, as members know, once had the dubious distinction of being the auto theft capital of Canada. However, It does not anymore. Therefore, congratulations to the city council and the police forces of Winnipeg. However, another community now has that distinction. Whenever one community falls off the dubious mark, another leaps ahead.

Let us be clear on this. We compliment ourselves in passing laws. We think these great statements and declarations have an effect, and sometimes they do. I do not want to diminish the work of the justice committee, or the Minister of Justice or Parliament itself. However, let us face it, with prorogation, elections, debates and the slowly moving process involving our legislation in our bicameral system, whether it is a Liberal-dominated or now a Conservative-dominated holding up of legislation, the fact is we do not put out a great quantity of precise, surgical legislation for topics like auto theft.

We might ask ourselves, how Winnipeg did it if it did not have our help with this legislation or legislation like it. It did it with resources. It did it with smart tactical policing. It identified groups of what were most likely to be the perpetrators of auto theft and went after them. It also instituted programs outside the Criminal Code and outside strict policing with respect to electronic devices that determined where thefts occurred and where the vehicles would go.

I will take the blame for all of us in Parliament, but we are late at the game in getting to Bill S-9. I have said it before. I hope Bill S-9 does not follow the ill-fated path of its identical twins. We are now into triplets, of which Bill S-9 is a part. Sadly, if this were an obituary in a few months because of an election or something, it would read, “predeceased by identical twins Bill C-53 and Bill C-26” and maybe we would come back again, do another bill and then there would be quadruplets.

The point is we have to get to this bill and we have to pass it. We worked very well at the justice committee, making suggestions, doing the due diligence with respect to Bill S-9, getting statistics and all those sorts of things.

There is no question we want this bill passed. It would give a lot of aid to police services and to communities suffering from epidemics of auto theft.

One thing we know, as the justice committee and parliamentarians in general, is police forces have their hands full, their resources are not necessarily growing and, overall, the criminal element in our country is getting leaner, sleeker, smarter, better resourced, more focused and more efficacious. This is the battle we are fighting on every front, not just auto theft.

However, it particularly bears down on auto theft. The theft of an auto, whether it is for the purposes of committing another crime for temporary use, or committing some other crime of a violent nature so as to hide the identity of perpetrators or the cash value of vehicles, this is an epidemic in our larger communities, for sure. The intelligence of the criminal community in disassembling vehicles, obliterating vehicle identification numbers and transporting parts of cars or whole cars internationally is not in the decline; it is on the rise. Whatever we can do in a modest way to make that better, we should all be for it.

Bill S-9 attempts to amend the Criminal Code. It was introduced, in this case, in the Senate and received first reading on May 4. As I mentioned, it is identical to Bill C-26 and targets motor vehicle theft. It also addresses trafficking in any other property obtained by crime in the exporting and importing of such property.

The raw notion was that we should create a separate offence for auto theft. That, in itself, is a good thing. If we look at the intent of code to develop the importance or hierarchy of offences, one would be surprised perhaps that cattle theft is defined separately in the code, but auto theft is not. Therefore, it is probably time, since the book originates from 1892, that we put auto theft at least on par with cattle theft, with all due deference to ranchers. The auto is the new horse and a way of getting around the community since 1920. Therefore, we are getting in the game and modernizing, and good for us.

It fits very nicely just after section 333 of the code, at about the middle of the section called “PART IX OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY”. The code speaks first about offences against the person. It speaks mostly about offences against the rights of property. Then it is almost two-thirds caught up with specific offences, modes of trial and procedural aspects of the code, which are so important.

To get back to the very simple nature of the bill, creating the new offence of vehicle theft as punishable is a good thing. We can all support it. It takes it to a maximum sentence of 10 years, which shows that we feel that auto theft is important. It is a serious crime. In the case of a third or subsequent offence, it also provides a mandatory minimum of six months.

There has been a lot of discussion about mandatory minimum sentences in the House and in the newspapers. I think people must understand that this is nothing new, that mandatory minimum sentences in strategic tactical areas have been introduced since the 1980s, more particular under a former Liberal government with respect to specific violent crimes involving guns and organized crime. They were implemented in a very thorough way in 1995. Adding mandatory minimums to a number of offences in the Conservative government's regime has been somewhat scattered, but let us examine it in this case.

If a person steals an automobile with intent to commit another crime, to obliterate the VIN or just simply steals a vehicle three times, is it reasonable that a minimum sentence be applied of six months? We think it is. We think this is a reasonable balance which would meet the test.

The overall test of sentencing in our country in section 718 is proportionality. It bears repeating that section 718 should be the start of any review of offences, any creation of offences, any change to offences because it sets out a scale of how we treat criminals once they have been convicted. Everyone should pay attention to the balance in section 718.

I suppose some would say that we should make rehabilitation of the convicted person the only agenda. I understand and have sympathy for that because every criminal is somebody's son or daughter and every criminal has a very good chance of going back into the community, so we ought to do our best to rehabilitate the incarcerated person. There is no question about that. It is important.

To make it overriding seeks to destroy the balance created within section 718. That balance must include denunciation of the act. In our country the strongest denunciation we give is to offences like murder. Murder in the first degree carries denunciation, meaning a person will be denounced by the judge or a jury of his or her peers by being given a sentence of life in prison with the eligibility for parole, which takes rehabilitation into account.

Therefore, there is a balance regarding deterrence, which is the third factor, suggesting that if the court gives a sentence, through following the laws of Parliament, of severity grave enough to stop someone else from doing the same thing is a good societal reason to up the sentence or consider it.

One of the final considerations in the big four is to remove the person from the public if there is harm.

Keeping all of those in mind, sentences must be proportionate to the offence created. Therefore, we feel that these mandatory minimums placed in this stand-alone section for auto theft are reasonable. They are not new in terms of sentencing and they are something with which we as lawmakers can live.

The stand-alone aspect of the bill is needed. It is modernizing the code. The mandatory minimum that attaches with it is proportionate.

Also, we always have to be mindful of the other provisions in section 718, which specifically suggest that if an aboriginal person is convicted of such an offence, the court must find a way to take into account the special circumstances of the aboriginal community. As we know, aboriginals represent such a high proportion of incarcerated people in our country. There is something wrong that and that is why the section was brought in, under a previous Liberal government. The section suggests to judges that they must take into consideration alternative measures that would better suit the convicted aboriginal person.

I do not see this in any way interfering with the duty of a judge to take that into consideration because the mandatory minimum, frankly, is a short time. Through our committee hearings, we did not hear of the disproportionality of first nations and aboriginal offenders with respect to this proposed offence in auto theft.

That leaves us with the other aspects of the bill, which are quite innovative, and we must compliment the Department of Justice for crafting legislation which is pretty tricky. Those are aspects with respect to giving our Canada Border Services Agency more power with respect to the exporting of vehicles and with respect to the obliteration of the vehicle identification number, or VIN. Those are two topics on which I will spend the rest of my time.

Let us tackle the VIN. I hesitate using the word tackle because it seems every Conservative bill tackles and solves a problem by its short title, when in fact it is a gradual evolution to the good of the Criminal Code. We would prefer the government to be less full of hyperbole and excitement with respect to its bills and concentrate on what is actually happening, which albeit is a good thing. It is evolving the Criminal Code to meet the needs of the changes in society. In this case, the vehicle identification number is something that is a bit tricky.

This is the numbered and lettered code on the dash of a vehicle, which identifies one's vehicle. However, members will know that in recent errors with multifaceted production methods, various parts of automobiles have various identification numbers. In any event, it is the manner in which vehicles are identified. The obliteration of that should be an offence on its own.

If there is a reason to obliterate the number, it has to be a pretty good one. At committee, we could only think of people who were in the automotive repair business and might inadvertently obliterate a VIN in repairs effected in the restoration of vehicles that had been damaged. In the case where the part of the vehicle where the VIN had been damaged, there would have to be a lawful excuse. Therefore, we covered it off, with the help of the Department of Justice, by suggesting that without lawful excuse, the VIN should not be obliterated. However, we wanted to maintain that a VIN alteration was a very serious thing and was something new for the Criminal Code. Bravo for all of us agreeing that this should be the case.

The obliteration of or tampering with the VIN is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. This is in clause 4 of the bill. We thought that exemplified the seriousness with which we viewed tampering with the VIN. Remember that auto theft is a more serious provision because it is a maximum of 10 years. Tampering with the VIN is a maximum of five years. We think this is the right hierarchy.

Another offence that is created is the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime and possession of property obtained by crime for the purpose of trafficking. This is punishable by a maximum of 14 years and is a very important part of the bill.

In the time that I have left, I will speak about CBSA and our borders.

While this bill is about auto theft, I think we realize that from sea-to-sea-to-sea we have a long, undefended, porous border. We do our best, but it is a fantastically large task for the Canada Border Services Agency to patrol our borders with the same efficacy that smaller nations patrol theirs. One can imagine that the borders of Liechtenstein might be a lot easier to guard, because it is a much a smaller country.

In our case, we have to admit that we have long stretches of border that are undefended and not monitored. For someone attempting to smuggle guns in, smuggle drugs out, or import or export cars or car parts, it must be easier for them to do that than it is for the RCMP, CSIS, the Canadian government, and the Canada Border Services Agency to plug the holes. With that in mind, we thought it was a great idea to allow the Canada Border Services Agency, by amendment, to prevent the cross-border movement of property obtained by crime, including stolen vehicles.

It might come as quite a shock to people not on the justice committee that this was not an offence before. It will be now, if this bill passes. If the bill does not suffer the fate of its previous twins, it will be an offence to move property obtained by crime, like a stolen vehicle or vehicle parts, across the border.

We had to have assurances from the justice department that there was no extraterritoriality provision in this. Really, it is saying that the vehicle that just left is a party to an offence, and the offence is the exportation. The vehicle might already be gone, might already be somewhere else, and there might be legal issues with respect to obtaining the evidence of the crime, which is the exportation.

We know that the Canada Border Services Agency does a good job. We know that it needs funding, law, and the tools to prevent exportation of vehicles and vehicle parts.

I will segue into something that is controversial.

We had a long debate, not so much in Parliament but certainly outside of Parliament, about gun control. I think all of us would agree that guns are often instrumental in the commission of crimes, and that many guns come into this country illegally through our border. I think we should stop and reflect on doing something about that.

These illegal handguns come through a porous border, and we must give the Canada Border Services Agency the tools they need to prevent this traffic. In the case of auto theft, it is exportation, going the other way. But we want to give CBSA the tools and resources to prevent the intrusion of guns upon our sovereignty. The saying goes that “guns do not kill people, people kill people”, but guns are the objects that are used.

When the Canada Border Services Agency appeared before us, it presented itself in a most professional and informed manner. I want to commend CBSA as an agency of the government. I want to make sure that the government understands that it is ready, willing, and able to take on the task of defending our border.

This little part in this little act is a salute to the men and women of the Canada Border Services Agency for the fine job they do in all parts of our country, whether it is airports or borders, seaports or rail stations. The Canada Border Services Agency protects us and needs our help. Bill S-9 delivers that help.

I am pleased to support the bill in general and the federal agencies that will be affected.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).

This bill has strong support from the government and the opposition parties, which just goes to show how important this bill is.

I will not discuss the bill in detail, since it has been thoroughly studied and I think it is time to move forward with this initiative and to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to better deal with auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime.

In essence, this bill directly targets the very serious issue of property crimes and, more specifically, auto theft. The bill will add offences to the Criminal Code by creating a separate offence for motor vehicle theft, offences that provide for sanctions for trafficking in property obtained by crime, and also an offence for tampering with vehicle identification numbers.

Auto theft costs Canadians over $1 billion a year, and related cases of dangerous driving make Canadian roads unsafe. Furthermore, it is clear that auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime represent a huge source of revenue for organized crime groups.

With this bill, our government has taken measures to protect Canadians, their property and their communities. That is why I support this bill. I would like to conclude by thanking all the members of the House, including the members of the justice committee, for the work they have done on this important legislation, and I urge members to pass it as quickly as possible.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the NDP opposition motion.

Pursuant to any order adopted by the House earlier today, the vote on that opposition motion will take place on Tuesday, November 16 at the end of government orders.

Tomorrow the House will have the occasion to debate at second reading Bill C-32, Copyright Modernization Act, and the backup bill, should debate conclude at second reading, will be Bill S-9, Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act, which I know is a key priority of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Next week, as the member opposite said, is a constituency week. I encourage all members to remember and recognize the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces, on November 11.

When we return on Monday, November 15, we will call a number of bills, including Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, Bill C-31, Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, Bill C-35, Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, Bill C-20, An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, Bill C-28, Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, Bill C-22, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act and Bill C-48, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. We would also consider calling other bills that may have returned from committee by the time we return.

Thursday, November 18, shall be the next allotted day.

In closing, I wish all members a productive constituency week.

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Monday, October 25, your committee has considered Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), and agreed on Tuesday, October 26, to report it without amendment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'm mindful of the reminder you gave to all members of the committee at our last clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, I believe it was, at which the majority members on the committee defeated the short title because the amendment amending the short title was deemed inadmissible.

I do have a concern about this short title. I do not believe the English version of the short title accurately and appropriately expresses the French version of the short title.

In French, the short title is Loi visant à contrer le vol d’automobiles et le crime contre les biens. But,

in English, the short title says this act may be cited as the Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act. I do not believe that in any way accurately translates or represents this bill, whereas the French short title does.

So I'm asking if the government is at all open to perhaps modifying the English clause so that it more accurately represents the French short title, which in fact does represent accurately the bill itself, whereas I do not believe the English short title does.

Is there any openness to try to find an English short title that more accurately represents the actual body of the bill, the objective of the bill, in the way that the French title does? Because the French title does it very well.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I very much appreciate the comments that our colleague Mr. Ménard is making to justify the amendments he is suggesting, but I am not going to be able to support them.

I would like to explain my reasons briefly. First, these minimum sentences would not apply to young offenders. Secondly, in my opinion—and I hope I am accurately reflecting his words—for once, the Conservative government has zeroed in on a problem with surgical precision. Third, the minimum sentence proposed by the bill is quite lenient.

And because of the fact that the government has once more gone to the trouble to establish that it has to be a third conviction for the same offence, I feel that I can support the clause in Bill S-9 as written, with no hesitation or difficulty, and I am comfortable doing so.

I am very comfortable justifying my vote for the clause as written and against the amendments that you are proposing, Mr. Ménard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I reconvene the meeting.

We're moving to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code for auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime.

Monsieur Petit.

[Caroline Xavier, Director General, Corporate Secretariat Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss CBSA's role in relation to Bill S-9.

Before I talk about the bill, I would like to take a moment to talk about CBSA's role in managing the border as well as the services we provide.

The CBSA is mandated to provide integrated border services that support national security and public safety priorities and facilitate the free flow of legitimate persons and goods, while meeting all requirements under program legislation.

This responsibility extends to enforcing immigration and refugee policy and to border inspection of food, plants and animals. It also aims to provide information and enforcement support that enable us to fulfill our legislative obligations in security and safety matters.

Overall, CBSA administers some 90 acts and regulations that govern the eligibility of people and acceptability of goods entering or leaving Canada.

The CBSA uses a risk-based intelligence approach to border management, whereby the agency focuses its efforts on the people and goods that are considered high risk, while facilitating the border clearance of low-risk travellers and goods.

The risk-based approach allows the agency to ensure that the costs and delays imposed by the clearance processes on legitimate people and shipments crossing the border are minimized, while at the same time identifying and interdicting diverse security threats as early as possible in the travel and supply chain continuum. Ultimately, this approach allows the agency to allocate its resources in the most effective manner possible by assessing risk as far away from the border as possible.

In June 2009 amendments to the Customs Act were made to strengthen the CBSA's ability to interdict contraband and other illegal items in customs-controlled areas, such as airport tarmacs and seaport docks. The primary purpose of these amendments was to give the CBSA greater scope and flexibility in its management of risk.

The key amendments allowed the CBSA to fully implement what we call the advance commercial information program, also known as eManifest, and to put in place changes at customs-controlled areas. Ultimately, this allows the agency to bring greater security within the trade supply chain through the receipt of advance commercial information via the eManifest initiative.

As mentioned, the CBSA enforces the Customs Act and other federal statutes and regulations. However, none of these acts or regulations includes a provision to specifically address the export of stolen vehicles and, in particular, suspected stolen vehicles.

Under current legislation, the CBSA may receive and act upon intelligence information, but the information must relate to the administration and/or enforcement of the Customs Act. The CBSA may only conduct an administrative check of outbound cargo to ensure its compliance with the Customs Act, the reporting of goods regulation, or any other act of Parliament the agency administers and enforces.

Currently, if a CBSA officer happens to discover what they suspect is a stolen vehicle during the course of an export examination, the officer does not have the legal authority to investigate whether or not the vehicle has been reported as stolen. Rather, the officer only has the authority to inform the local police jurisdiction of his or her suspicion. The police will then run checks on the vehicle through various databases to determine whether it's stolen.

Included in the Criminal Code amendments being considered by this committee is a provision that prohibits the importation and exportation of property obtained by crime, such as stolen vehicles. This prohibition will enhance the CBSA's ability to manage the border by triggering existing authorities in the Customs Act, which will allow the agency to undertake examinations to determine whether vehicles have been reported as stolen.

Under the proposed legislation, an officer who suspects that a vehicle has been stolen will also have the authority to run database checks to determine whether the vehicle has been stolen. In doing so, the CBSA will refer vehicles to the police that the agency believes to be stolen rather than just suspected of being stolen.

Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would provide the CBSA officers the lawful authority to assist police by examining and using various law enforcement databases for the purpose of detaining stolen vehicles. Such detained vehicles will then be turned over to the enforcement partners for further investigation, thus enhancing our information sharing capabilities with our law enforcement partners.

Bill S-9 will empower the CBSA to examine vehicles, determine theft through database checks, and detain stolen vehicles until the police can investigate the offence and take possession of them as part of their ongoing enforcement activities. Essentially, this bill will put the CBSA in a better position to work in a more effective manner with its national and international law enforcement partners to deter the cross-border trafficking of stolen goods.

Bill S-9 will also create specific offences: the offence of auto theft; the offence of tampering with a vehicle identification number; and the offences of trafficking in property obtained by crime and possession of property obtained by crime for the purpose of trafficking.

This bill will have a direct and positive impact on the CBSA in that it will allow the agency to play a more direct and meaningful role in preventing the exportation of stolen goods.

Currently the CBSA has a strategic export control program as part of our Customs Act authorities. Bill S-9 will provide CBSA further authority to assist our law enforcement partners by actively targeting those shipments that are reported for export before they reach the port, for the purpose of detecting stolen goods—in particular, vehicles.

These authorities will allow us to look at the export information we are receiving in advance so that we may work with our law enforcement partners to determine whether or not there could be an infraction or prohibited goods, such as a stolen vehicle.

Within its current legislative framework the CBSA works diligently on its own enforcement priorities that support police efforts to identify and investigate suspected stolen vehicles destined for export. The CBSA will continue to utilize a risk-management approach to do advance analysis, using intelligence from our law enforcement partners and our tools to focus our attention on suspicious containers.

In 2008 the CBSA participated in a six-month export vehicle verification probe led by the RCMP. During this probe, the CBSA used established export verification techniques, tools, and resources to look for indications of suspected contraventions of the Customs Act, the reporting of exported goods regulations, or any other act administered or enforced by the CBSA.

During the probe, the CBSA officers assisted the RCMP and examined 281 containers at the ports of Montreal and Halifax and intercepted 258 stolen vehicles. The results of the probe provided law enforcement agencies with a glimpse of the current situation regarding stolen vehicles.

With the passage of Bill S-9, the CBSA will have the legislative authority it needs to take a more effective role in law enforcement efforts to intercept stolen vehicles.

As part of our ongoing enforcement activities, the CBSA will be able to use the authorities provided by this bill to do our job more effectively within the parameters of our available resources.

Thank you for inviting me to contribute our perspective for your consideration of this legislative proposal.

I am now ready to answer questions. Thank you.

[Julie McAuley, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee regarding Bill S-9.

Statistics Canada does not take a position on the proposed amendments in the bill. The presentation we have prepared contains our most recent data on motor vehicle thefts. All data sources used are clearly indicated on the slides, as are any pertinent data sources.

We have included supplemental information at the end of the presentation for the consideration of the committee and have distributed a copy of a Juristat article on motor vehicle theft that was released in December 2008 using 2007 data. That is the most recent Juristat article on this subject.

My colleagues Ms. Mia Dauvergne and Mr. Craig Grimes will help answer any questions.

Please turn to the first slide in the deck.

Police-reported motor vehicle thefts in Canada have generally been declining since 1996. The rate of motor vehicle theft declined 15% between 2008 and 2009, continuing a downward trend that began in 2003.

Police-reported motor vehicle thefts are incidents in which a land-based motorized vehicle is taken or attempted to be taken without the owner's authorization. It includes incidents in which the perpetrator has the intent to steal a vehicle but is unsuccessful.

In 2009 police reported about 108,000 motor vehicle thefts, averaging about 300 stolen vehicles per day. This figure includes both completed and attempted incidents. This is down slightly from 2008, when police reported about 125,000 motor vehicle thefts.

A little over one-third of motor vehicle thefts in 2009 involved cars, and another one-third were of trucks.

Motor vehicle theft is one of the most common types of police-reported crime in Canada. In 2009 such thefts accounted for 5% of all Criminal Code offences and 6% of all non-violent offences.

The next slide shows that the highest rates of motor vehicle theft tend to be in the western provinces and northern Canada. In 2009, for the first time in 13 years, Manitoba did not have the highest reported motor vehicle theft rate in the country; Nunavut had the highest rate, with 593 motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 population. Vehicle theft rates in Manitoba have declined in four of the past five years, including a 39% drop in 2008 and a 28% drop in 2009.

The next slide indicates that in general the same geographical pattern is seen for Canada's census metropolitan areas. In 2009, while the highest rate of motor vehicle theft was in Brantford, Ontario, generally motor vehicle theft rates are higher in western Canada's CMAs.

Winnipeg's rate has been among the highest in Canada for the past 17 years. However, the rate of motor vehicle thefts in Winnipeg decreased from 956 per 100,000 population in 2008 to 629 per 100,000 population in 2009. This has driven the decrease in Manitoba's overall motor vehicle theft rate. In 2009, Winnipeg accounted for 74% of Manitoba's motor vehicle thefts, down slightly from 2008, when it accounted for 81%.

Motor vehicle theft is one of the least likely crimes to be solved by police. Of all vehicle thefts in 2009, 11% resulted in an accused person being identified, compared with 33% of all other non-violent offences.

Slide 5 shows that, similar to other non-violent offences, police-reported theft is a crime often associated with youth. In 2009, police-reported motor vehicle theft rates were highest among 15-to-18-year-olds. Youth 12 to 17 years old accounted for approximately three in ten persons accused of motor vehicle theft in 2009, slightly higher than the proportion of youth accused of other non-violent offences.

About 82% of all persons accused of motor vehicle theft in 2009 were male; this compares with 75% of those accused of other non-violent offences.

Drawing from analysis done in 2007, the next slide looks at police-reported motor vehicle thefts and organized crime. We do not yet have a reliable, direct way of measuring organized crime involvement, but vehicle recovery status has been used as a proxy measure.

As you can see, about four in ten stolen vehicles were not recovered by police, suggesting that these may have been related to organized crime. In 2007 vehicle recovery rates were lowest in the province of Quebec and among the highest in Winnipeg.

In the next slide, we turn to the question of court outcomes for charges of motor vehicle theft. It is not possible to identify motor vehicle theft using court administrative records alone, as motor vehicle thefts are currently recorded together with other thefts under section 334 of the Criminal Code. However, we can link court records, which contain criminal court outcomes, with police records, which contain offence characteristics, in order to identify this subset of theft in Canada.

The question of whether or not motor vehicle theft is treated differently from thefts in general by the courts is often asked, and we recently linked these administrative files to answer this question for another project. An unrepresentative sample of court records did show differences in the way in which theft in general and motor vehicle theft were treated by the courts. Incarceration was used more frequently for guilty charges of motor vehicle theft, and there were significant differences in the length of custody imposed by the courts for motor vehicle theft compared to other theft.

The Criminal Code under section 335 describes taking a motor vehicle without consent as an offence resembling theft. In slide 8 we see that several thousand of these theft-like charges are completed in Canadian criminal courts each year. The number of these charges against youth has been declining since the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, while the number of these charges against adults has changed very little since 2000-01. The proportion of guilty findings for adults and youth tends to be higher for this charge than for charges generally, but almost identical to the proportion found guilty for theft in general.

Next we turn our attention to data available from criminal courts on the possession of property obtained by crime. Because trafficking in such property is a new offence proposed under Bill S-9, it is not possible to provide data on the extent to which these cases also include trafficking of that property. However, it is possible to provide data on the number of cases that contain the underlying offence of possession of property obtained by crime. Since 2000-01, approximately 10% of all criminal court cases, or roughly 40,000 cases each year, contained at least one charge for property obtained by crime. In 2008-09, the proportion of these cases completed in youth criminal courts was higher than in adult criminal courts.

In summary, motor vehicle theft continues to be a high-volume offence in Canada, but Canada's police-reported motor vehicle theft rate has generally been declining since 1996. Motor vehicle theft rates are particularly high in the west. Vehicle recovery rates can serve as a proxy for organized crime involvement, and we have seen that the recovery rates vary across the country. Stolen vehicles are recovered less often in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, while in Winnipeg the recovery rate was among the highest.

Thank you. That ends my presentation.