Justice Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Our agenda is before us. The order of reference today is Bill C-343, an act to amend the Criminal Code, in regard to motor vehicle theft. The mover of this particular private member's bill, Mr. Andrew Scheer, is prepared to testify in front of the committee.

Andrew, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for allowing me a few moments of the committee's valuable time to come and speak about my private member's bill and hopefully answer any questions you might have.

I thought this would be a very high-profile bill, and when I walked outside I thought it would have a whole lot of media interest, but unfortunately, they're somewhere else. I thought if maybe I showed up in handcuffs, we might be able to draw some of them in here to pay attention to this.

I won't repeat everything I said at second reading, because I think members have either already heard the speech or have access in Hansard to the full spiel that I gave in the House. But I do want to cover a couple of points, and then of course I look forward to a cordial and meaningful discussion with my colleagues regarding any specific points they may raise with me.

I should first thank the Insurance Bureau of Canada. I believe they're testifying later today. They've done a tremendous amount of work, analyzing and tracking statistics, analyzing trends, and really providing a lot of background information to both lawmakers and law enforcement to come up with new ways of reducing auto theft in Canada.

My private member's bill would do a few important things that many stakeholders for years have been calling for. First, the bill would create a separate and specific criminal offence for stealing a motor vehicle—a car or truck. Currently, the most likely charge arising from someone stealing a car is being charged with theft over $5,000. If the vehicle is worth less than that, of course, the lesser charge, along with a lesser sentence, is applied.

That raises a good point that many law enforcement people and the insurance bureau have brought up in the past—that is, why should it matter if you steal a motor vehicle worth more than $5,000 or less than $5,000? The impact of the theft is the same on the family that has suffered the loss. Whether it's a brand-new Nissan Altima or a 1993 Ford Windstar, it's still a theft. It's a theft of a motor vehicle, and the impact on the family that relies on that vehicle is the same. Why should there be a higher penalty for stealing from the rich than stealing from the poor or the working class who can't afford the luxury vehicles?

There are also several requests from law enforcement, and I believe you've been given a few documents, one of which was the resolution passed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, calling on the Government of Canada to enact legislation creating a separate offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to theft of motor vehicles. The reasoning behind that is similar to the reasoning behind the difference between the Criminal Code conviction for break and enter and the Criminal Code conviction for theft. There's an explanation in your package in regard to why they're calling for that particular part of the bill.

The second major thing my bill would do, if passed, is establish minimum sentences for a first, second, and subsequent offence. As currently written, on the first offence a conviction will result in a fine of not less $1,000 or imprisonment for a term of not less than three months. It then escalates on the second offence. On the third offence, there would be the mandatory minimum sentence of a term of not less than two years and a fine of not less than $10,000. I didn't arrive at these numbers purely in a vacuum. Le Groupement des assureurs automobiles, the Quebec group of automobile insurers, talk in their documents about the problem with fines as currently stipulated not being enough to discourage organized crime. If you're engaged in motor vehicle theft for the purposes of gang activity or organized crime, when you get caught, some of the fines that are being handed out are just not enough to discourage this. It just becomes a cost of doing business and not a real deterrent.

There are a considerable number of stakeholders calling for these kinds of measures, calling for tougher penalties and separate offences for theft of motor vehicles. The Premier of Manitoba has been very vocal. He led a delegation from Manitoba here just recently, calling for many of the things that are contained in my bill. In addition, you'll find mayors of towns like Regina and Windsor also very much interested in getting the assistance they need to combat car theft.

Many police forces around Canada are trying innovative things at the local level, such as using bait cars, and different kinds of strategies to reduce auto theft, such as working in different communities with outreach programs to try to get people, especially young people, away from turning to crime to finance their activities. They've also expressed a need for help at the federal level, specifically with the Criminal Code. They can do a lot at their end, but they need help at the national level.

I've also included some statistics in your kits that look at the way the theft of motor vehicles has exploded in the last 10 years. It's becoming a major problem. The Insurance Bureau of Canada will tell you later today that more and more it's being linked to organized crime. It's no longer the idea of younger people being out for a joy ride or addicts stealing your car for cash for their next fix. Especially in eastern Canada, along the Quebec-Windsor corridor, it's becoming theft for export. You'll see that the recovery rate in Quebec is down significantly--56% of cars stolen are recovered. That compares with the recovery rate in the Toronto area in 2002, which was 75%. The inference there is that more and more of these cars aren't being found because they're being chopped and shipped. They're being sent overseas.

I have a statistic that I used at second reading. In 1996 Polish police reported the seizure of 11,000 vehicles from North America, 70% of which were Canadian. That's just one country in the European Union. That's a pretty significant number of stolen vehicles they're recovering, and 70% of them are from Canada.

We're seeing a lot of exports in stolen vehicles. I think what this bill would do is really make it tougher for organized crime to rely on people to go out and steal cars for them because these people would be in jail longer.

I'm not sure how much time I have left, Mr. Chair, so I'll try to wrap up relatively quickly.

I know there's a lot of talk these days about mandatory minimums. I know there are some concerns that the opposition has expressed, and I would certainly love to have a further discussion on that today.

I think one of the biggest things this bill would do is especially target the repeat offender, the depiction of a young person who is maybe at the entry level, so to speak, of an organized gang or crime group. This would have a significant impact on individual deterrence. I truly believe that. He or she would no longer be able to count on doing what they do, and then if they get picked up, it might be a few days out of their crime cycle and then they're right back out to it.

Le Groupement des assureurs automobiles has also said that in Quebec it takes several convictions before any jail time is realized. As I said, it's just the cost of doing business. The low fines and lack of jail time make it relatively easy for these people to continue to engage in these kinds of activities.

That's why I feel there are two major prongs of this bill. Establishing a separate offence is something the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have been calling for to help in their crime tracking and analysis. It also helps down the line for further prosecutions if you can look at someone's rap sheet and see not just a generic conviction of theft of over/under $5,000, but actually a specific offence for theft of a motor vehicle, establishing tougher penalties, and indeed mandatory minimums on the third offence.

I think it targets the habitual reoffender while allowing the judge discretion on the first- and second-time offenders. There's a lot more leeway there. If there are young people, first-time offenders, who through youthful exuberance are out joyriding or trying to impress their friends, the judge would have the ability to look at the facts and determine what sentence would be appropriate, but nonetheless a clear message would be sent to habitual reoffenders that consistently breaking the law, consistently stealing cars, will result in real jail time.

I think the time for my statement is up. I'd be happy to have a further discussion with my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

I have a point of clarification on your bill, Bill C-343. I noticed that you didn't indicate any information or reference to proposed subsection 334.1(5). Could you clarify that subsection for the committee?

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

Yes. I believe, from discussions with the legal department of the House of Commons, which helped me draft the bill, this is multiple thefts in one event, so to speak. So if someone has two or three offences in the same kind of incident, those would count as subsequent offences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Or one, two, three, four offences?

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

That would count as separate, subsequent offences, as I read this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Scheer, congratulations on bringing a private member's bill through.

On a point of order—this should not come out of my time, Mr. Chairman—the sign out front of the room here indicates we're meeting in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

That was for the subcommittee before.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm indicating to the chair now that I'm asking the clerk to take care of it. I checked it twice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It will be looked after.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Could the sign that states this meeting is in camera please be removed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It will be removed.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Now, may I start with my time?

Mr. Scheer, I congratulate you on focusing on theft of an automobile. We focus on theft of cattle; there's no harm in focusing on theft of automobiles. So that part of the bill I'm very comfortable with.

But I do have difficulty with the sentencing. I have two questions, really. You said you focused on the sentencing. You haven't just pulled it in out of the air. I'm pretty sure you're not an expert on sentencing, and you've seen the need here to create a sentencing regime that is distinct, separate from all the rest of the Criminal Code sentencing. It's distinct and separate from the part of the Criminal Code that deals with the organized crime sentencing. It's not clear to me why you have felt the need to create a separate sentencing regime for automobiles, particularly when you have indicated to the committee that it's your belief that organized crime lies behind this, behind so much of the current auto theft problem that exists across the country.

I'm inferring from this that you believe that by increasing a fine this will deter organized crime, that if we increase the fine to $1,000, somehow organized crime will back off and decide to steal something else. Do you really believe this, that by putting in a minimum fine, organized crime is going to forget about the $72,000 Porsche?

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

I think on the first offence, having a fine set at that level—of course, it's a minimum fine.

Sorry, let me double check that. I'll make sure I'm not.... Yes, “not less than one thousand dollars”.

It would certainly allow the judge...if the prosecution can present evidence that there is involvement in organized crime, it could certainly be higher. It's more for the first-time offender who may be looking at starting this as a career, seeing what he can get for a chopped-up car. If it's a tougher fine than what is currently being meted out, it would be a deterring factor, an individual deterrence on that level, so that it might not be worth his time to do it.

I understand your point.

The other thing that's difficult for law enforcement agencies with regard to organized crime is of course to prove some of it. Convictions under a lot of the organized crime laws...it's difficult to get at them.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay, but for organized crime matters we have significant ten-year, seven-year, and even life sentences, which doesn't appear to be deterring organized crime in a major way. Yet you believe that by having a minimum fine...you, in your own words, said that you really believe it will provide some deterrence.

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

Absolutely. The more deterrence, right?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You're a believer. That's fine.

I want to ask you about a guy who manages a parking lot or is a tow-truck operator. They're going to be subjected to these same minimum fines when they tow somebody's car illegally from a lot. That's your—

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

That's not theft.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It would be theft if they detained the person's vehicle. That is clearly a theft. They intend to take the car; they've been asked to tow the car. They take it, and later on there's found to be some defect in the process.

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

They're not charged now with theft over or under $5,000 when they do it. You may be right. The principle behind the—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Oh, yes they are. I have one in a file.

In any event, if you haven't made provision for that, that's okay.

In my last question, I'm simply trying to resolve a possible ambiguity here. In proposed paragraph 334.1(1) the words say, “Every one who commits theft of a motor vehicle is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction”, and then it goes on to state the sentence.

Then in proposed paragraph 334.1(2), on the next page, it says, “Every one who commits theft of a motor vehicle is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable”, blah, blah, blah, after conviction to a certain sentence.

So you have an ambiguity here. The first sentence says you're guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction, and then in the next section, proposed paragraph 334.1(2), you say, “Every one who commits theft of a motor vehicle is guilty of an indictable offence”. I think I understand the intent, but you have an ambiguity on the face of it that may give rise to difficulty.

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

Yes, I see what you're saying. I see the point you're making.

Of course, the intent of this section is to specifically spell out that the third offence would result in being convicted of an indictable offence. I understand the point you're raising, that as it's written right now the comma might be in the wrong place and might contradict the first section, where it says “of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction”.

It may be something the committee might need to look at, to clear up the language on that. This is my first crack at a PMB.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You have a pretty good batting average so far, Mr. Scheer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Monsieur Ménard.