Evidence of meeting #6 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was car.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Inspector, Winnipeg Police Service
I can't say for sure right now, but I would certainly be able to respond to you in writing after I find out exactly what the perspective is on multiple offences in one night and whether they'd be charged as and considered to be three different ones.
Executive Director, National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft
Typically, in my experience of going to court, more often than not, we'll see that the crown will lay three, four, five charges, or whatever the case may be. At the court time, they'll convict him on one, and then they'll stay the remaining ones.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
It would be like a global sentencing in a way, one way or another, taking into account one of the offences the individual is involved in.
Inspector, Winnipeg Police Service
I'd just add that I know our officers document such incidents by saying something like “between the dates and times of the 12th of August and the 17th of August, an offender did steal one, two, three, or four different types of vehicles”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
That's again as a single offence. Some of these stats may not be accurate in the sense that if there are convictions, your reporting may be accurate but the conviction rate may not be accurate when you look at an individual being charged for a series of offences if the vehicles are stolen between dates and times. Is that right?
Conservative
Executive Director, National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft
Yes, I just wanted to point out one more thing.
In the province of Manitoba, they have a mandatory regulation for immobilization of vehicles, even now in the after-market. You'll see that the attempted theft rate there is extremely high, and that's probably reflective of the immobilizers being put into those vehicles—the after-market ones. Of course, now with the oncoming regulation of Transport Canada as of September 2008, there's going to be a lot more resistance in these vehicles.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Let's hope so.
I understand that there's a move afoot to inform everyone how to get by the immobilizers.
Executive Director, National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft
We haven't had any defeated since 1997 or 1998, and we've been monitoring not only Canada, but Europe and Australia. There have been no defeats to date.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Good to know.
Thank you, Mr. Ward, Mr. Poole. We appreciate your evidence here before us, and we thank you for taking the time to come.
I will suspend for 60 seconds, and we will then get to committee business right after that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Before you are a number of amendments to the bill. The first I would like to draw your attention to is amendment L-1. I'll make the reference number known here; it's 3181381. That's Liberal amendment number 1.
Please note that there are some conflicts with amendment L-1 when it comes to amendments G-1 and BQ-1, so look at all those, maybe, in context.
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I've seen the Bloc's amendments, and I'll give Mr. Lee a chance to explain his amendment to see.... He has five. Is the plan to discuss all of these at once, because there's only one clause? Are we going to have just a kind of open discussion on...?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Well, certainly it may be advantageous to discuss it broadly. I'm not sure whether the Liberal members have had a chance. I'm going to ask them to make their presentation here in reference to amendment L-1, but it would probably be wise to discuss them all in context.
Mr. Lee.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
My amendments do two things. This looks like a lot of amendments, but essentially they're simply doing a bit of surgery on the bill.
It does two things: it accepts the principle that we are enacting a new criminal offence, motor vehicle theft; it then removes all aspects of mandatory minimum punishments; and it retains a conviction by indictment or a conviction punishable on summary conviction.
The sentence that would be there for a conviction by indictment would be a ten-year maximum, and the sentence that would be there for a summary conviction would be a two-year maximum. There is no option of a fine.
My bill would delete all of the proposed subsections that are now shown on page 2. All of that would be deleted; that's what those amendments do.
I point out that under section 734 of the Code, the court is always empowered to impose a fine as an option, if so advised. Again, my amendments take away all of the mandatory minimum procedures.
I'm prepared to move this whenever. Maybe the other parties or individuals would want to explain their amendments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
It would permit us to have some discussion on that point, Mr. Lee. We would appreciate it, I think, broadly as a committee.
Mr. Ménard.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, if it were the committee's wish to dispose of the bill before we return to the question period...
The amendment introduced by the Bloc Québécois has the same objective as that introduced by Mr. Lee. If it is the committee's wish to adopt Mr. Lee's amendments, my colleague and I will support the proposed regime of offences.
It's important for us that there not be any mandatory minimum sentences. We have had the opportunity to explain that. We could withdraw our amendment and proceed with the vote, if that was the committee's wish.
We also support the series of amendments moved by our colleague Mr. Lee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
The only thing that would be required is that you not move your amendment and support Mr. Lee's; that would be the end of it all.
Mr. Masse.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
We'll be supporting the Liberal amendment, and if we want to have a vote before question period, we would be supportive of that as well.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I think we heard a lot of testimony about the need for improvements in this area. I think the bill that's been brought forward is a good one. I will not be supporting the Liberal amendment. We believe there is a place, certainly on a third offence, where there should be some kind of minimum sentence in place.
I've sent around two amendments that I think represent a compromise, based on some of the questioning that we heard from the opposition. We're not gutting the bill, which I'm opposed to, but leaving it in place. I would like to let members know what the government amendments would do.
Number one, it would remove the mandatory minimum penalty for the first and second offence. So I think that's certainly meeting Mr. Ménard over half way.
On the third offence there would be a mandatory minimum penalty of not two years, but six months. That's what the amendment I've introduced would do. It would lower the maximum term of imprisonment for summary conviction from two years to eighteen months. That is consistent with the existing penalty scheme in the Criminal Code and it would also make all the necessary consequential amendments.
One other thing: it would increase the maximum term of imprisonment on a first and second offence from five years to ten years. That is actually consistent with what the maximum is already under theft over $5,000. So it would make the bill consistent with what's in the code.
What it would leave in place from the bill is having auto theft, which I think we're pretty much in agreement on, and it would leave in place the six-month minimum on a third offence. Acknowledging that this is a minority Parliament, we're trying to meet opposition members over half way. So I hope that members are agreeable with this. There are just two amendments there, and I think that would do almost everything that we hope to accomplish.