Justice Committee on June 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 28 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, June 3, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. The agenda shows three items for us to deal with. Unfortunately, we're getting started late, so we'll likely only get through the first item. Perhaps we'll touch on the third, which is an in camera planning meeting. During the first hour, by order of reference, we'll be considering Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).

To help us with our review of Bill C-26 on auto and property theft, we again have with us Minister Nicholson, who is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada. Supporting the minister are William Bartlett and Paula Clarke from the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice.

Minister, we're glad to have you here again. You have 10 minutes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much. I feel as if I'm a member of this committee again, Mr. Chairman. I was for nine years, and I feel as if I'm back. It's like a permanent spot.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here on Bill C-26, the Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime). It's an important piece of legislation. I think it demonstrates our seriousness about taking steps to crack down on property crime, particularly auto theft.

Auto theft remains a serious issue in Canada. It's one of the most pervasive forms of property crime in Canada. It is one of the highest-volume offences in Canada. In the December 2008 report on motor vehicle theft, Statistics Canada said that in 2007, approximately 146,000 motor vehicle thefts were reported to the police across Canada. That's an average of 400 thefts per day.

Motor vehicle theft has a significant impact, as you might guess, on owners, law enforcement, and the insurance industry. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that auto theft costs Canadians more than $1.2 billion each year, including policing, health care costs, as well as the cost of non-insured thefts, legal costs, and out-of-pocket costs such as insurance and deductibles. It also creates public safety concerns for Canadians as stolen vehicles are often involved in police chases or dangerous driving, which can result in injury or death to innocent bystanders.

As you know, Bill C-26 proposes reform in three key areas: the creation of a distinct offence of theft of a motor vehicle; a new offence for altering, obliterating, or removing a vehicle identification number; and new offences for trafficking in, and possessing for the purpose of trafficking, property obtained by crime, including the importing or exporting of such goods.

The creation of a separate offence for car theft will send a clear message to car thieves that our justice system is determined to fight against car theft in Canada.

Our proposed offence would be a hybrid one, with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on indictment and 18 months' imprisonment on summary conviction. There would also be a mandatory penalty of six months' imprisonment for a third and subsequent indictable offence.

As the bill is currently written, all three offences would have to have been dealt with as indictable matters. We will be proposing an amendment to have the first two offences proceeded on by either summary conviction or indictment, but the third offence would be proceeded on by way of indictment for the mandatory penalty.

This penalty is a balanced and moderate approach to repeat offences of a serious nature. This penalty sends a message that the criminal justice system will not tolerate auto theft, and the inclusion of a mandatory penalty in the proposed offence for repeat offenders will help restore public confidence in our criminal justice system.

We're also proposing to create an offence for wholly or partially altering, obliterating, or removing a VIN--a vehicle identification number--on a motor vehicle. Under the new amendments, anyone convicted of tampering with a VIN would face imprisonment for a term of up to five years on indictment, or six months or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both, on summary conviction.

An advantage that both the new VIN tampering offence and the new, distinct motor vehicle theft offence would have over the current offence used to cover these activities, which is now “possession of property obtained by crime”, is that a conviction for these new offences would more clearly and accurately document a person's involvement in an organized vehicle theft ring as part of their criminal record. I think that's very important for crown attorneys across this country. This in turn would help the police to deal more appropriately with those offenders in subsequent investigations and prosecutions.

I will turn from a focus on auto theft to the proposed trafficking offences. These proposed trafficking offences are intended to target more broadly the entire marketing chain that processes the proceeds of theft and other property crimes, such as fraud. They will, however, also address the auto theft problem: trafficking in property obtained by crime includes the movement of stolen automobiles and their parts. This is the area in which organized crime is most involved in auto theft, either through car theft rings, chop shops that dismantle stolen cars for parts, the act of changing the VIN on a car to hide its identity, or sophisticated international rings that smuggle stolen high-end luxury cars from Canada to far-flung locations in Africa, the Middle East, and eastern Europe, to name but a few.

Currently section 354 of the Criminal Code, the general offence of possession of property obtained by a crime, which carries a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment for property valued over $5,000, is the principal Criminal Code offence now used to address trafficking in property obtained by crime. This simple possession offence does not, however, adequately capture the full range of activities involved in trafficking. The trafficking offences will capture all of the players in a trafficking operation such as a chop shop, whereas the offence of possession of property obtained by crime applies only to those who are in possession of the stolen property, such as stolen cars. By their very nature, operations such as chop shops usually have very little inventory at any given time in order to avoid detection and reduce the probability of multiple counts in the event of an arrest.

Both of the proposed new trafficking offences would also have higher penalties than the existing offence of possession of property obtained by crime, because trafficking is a more serious matter than simple possession. If the value of the item trafficked exceeds $5,000, anyone convicted of this offence could face up to 14 years. If the value is $5,000 or less, it could be a hybrid offence and subject to imprisonment for up to five years on indictment or six months on summary conviction.

I am pleased that the trafficking offences would also make available to the Canada Border Services Agency the necessary authority to allow them to obtain property, including stolen cars about to be exported from Canada, in order to determine whether they are stolen and to allow the relevant police agency to recover them. I think this is a huge step forward.

Mr. Chair, my government is committed to taking the necessary steps to combat property crime, especially auto theft, and this legislation will be a strong measure to help law enforcement and prosecutors deal with criminals who commit auto theft or traffic in property obtained by crime.

Canadians want to see this legislation passed, and I look forward to working collaboratively to ensure its speedy passage into law.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We're going to start with Mr. Murphy. I'm going to suggest that we go with five-minute questions, given the fact that we only have 40 minutes left.

Mr. Murphy, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here.

We had a few kicks at this subject in the last Parliament. I'm just trying to summarize. The way I understand it, we had Bill C-53 and Bill C-64 in previous parliaments. This bill, Bill C-26, attempts to combine those aspects of Bill C-53, which dealt with auto theft and trafficking, and Bill C-64, which dealt with the vehicle identification number issue. As I get it, this bill modernizes, really, section 183 of the Criminal Code by allowing the interception of private communications, or electronic surveillance, to be added as a tool for the police with respect to the proposed section 333.1, which is the object here. Of course, in the last go-round we had witnesses from various municipalities, the insurance bureau, and police forces, who were all in favour of it. There was general acceptance of the principles behind the bill.

I'm more or less trying to clean up and understand what this bill is, what it adds to the other two bills I mentioned, and maybe ask tiny questions not about the innocent obliterator of a VIN. There is a common law offence of colour of right, or whatever it is, that allows the mistaken or honest body parts person to have obliterated part or all of a VIN. It was more specific in the previous legislation and it's not as specific here. Maybe I could get something from you, Minister, that this is protected. Clearly, no one wants to get people into the net who might have a valid excuse for obliterating part of a VIN.

The follow-up question is, since we're dealing with chop shops as related to organized crime, many parts themselves have identification numbers on them. Why not have the act apply to parts of cars? The VIN is just in one place, as far as I know--it's not really my background. It's on one place near the windshield. If it's throughout the vehicle, that's an answer in itself, I think. I think I read somewhere that it's not everywhere, but it's on certain parts, and it's not clear from the act that it applies to all parts of the vehicle.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've covered quite a bit of ground there, Mr. Murphy. You're quite correct, this puts together a couple of bills that have been before previous parliaments, and it also includes some of the provisions from a private member's bill. Andrew Scheer's private member's bill, you might remember, creates a specific, stand-alone offence for theft of an automobile.

With respect to VIN tampering, there are provisions in the proposed section...it's “without lawful excuse”. “Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, wholly or partially alters”--that is the offence. For the purposes of the vehicle identification number, it means any number or mark that is used for the purpose of distinguishing it from other motor vehicles. I think it covers that as well. It's comprehensive, and from the feedback we have received on this so far, I can tell you it's been very well received.

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

There's just the other element that is maintained in this act, which is that the hybrid nature of this offence gives some discretion to prosecutors to decide the severity of the evidence with respect to the offence. As I say, the auto repair industry is not without its own problems with respect to compliance on all issues, let's just put it that way. What this is targeted at, Mr. Minister, is organized crime and chop shops and the high-end stuff. It's not, I hope, destined to get other people into the net who aren't part of those organizations.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

What we're trying to respond to, for the most part, in this bill is to update the Criminal Code to catch everybody who gets involved with these operations. It's limited now to people who are in possession, for instance, of stolen goods. Well, how many people are actually in possession of it? You get these chop shops and it's a large operation. What we want to do is capture everyone. So it's a little bit like the bill on identity theft. We're modernizing the Criminal Code to make sure it captures all the activity.

As you quite correctly pointed out, this activity is undertaken by gangs, organized crime. It's becoming a huge issue, and we have to make sure that the laws are up to date in this country to respond to it. We have to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, you have five minutes.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I shall ask a question and then I will let my colleague ask another one. I shall be brief so that we can both contribute.

Would you have statistics that you could give our Committee? As a matter of fact, a distinction should be made between joy riding which is quite often organized by groups of people for entertainment purposes—which is, of course, also reprehensible—and car theft within the context of organized crime.

I also wish to get statistics on that subject. My colleague will ask his question and the Minister might answer after that.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a simple question, Mr. Minister. It deals with the section of the bill amending section 333.1 of the Criminal Code. Let us suppose that a young offender 16- or 17-years old has been convicted after being prosecuted by indictment, however, after having reached the age of 18, he commits a third offence which is also prosecuted by indictment. Would the mandatory penalty apply to that 18-year old, to that adult who just attained the age of 18?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It has to be three offences under the Criminal Code. Again, with respect to children or teenagers, it's the Youth Criminal Justice Act. But it has to be three convictions under this. So I think your answer is no.

I perhaps didn't quite get what your question was, but you have to have three separate convictions, and they have to proceed then on the third one by indictment, which goes back to actually something Monsieur Ménard had to say.

If the person is joyriding, if they're convicted once, twice, it's up to the crown attorney then, at that point, to determine the seriousness of this. It's discretion, and as you also pointed out, throughout this you'll see that these are hybrid offences. They can proceed by summary conviction or indictment. It depends on the circumstances and facts of each particular case. But the discretion is there, so I think it's an appropriate balance.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do we any statistics on this, Mr. Chair?

[Paula Clarke, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

The previous two convictions would not apply to joyriding. That's a separate offence under the Criminal Code. So it would have to be three convictions under the new offence of motor vehicle theft.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Could we get statistics concerning different types of thefts? Some thefts are committed by car theft rings associated with organized crime while others are committed by young people. I am told that in Winnipeg this is quite common.

I think having this aggregated data on this two types of theft would be very helpful.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

My understanding is that, of the number I gave you, which was somewhere between 150,000 and 180,000, about 20% of it is directly involved with organized crime. Those are the statistics we've been given.

Concerning your own province of Quebec, Monsieur Ménard, you may be interested to find that the lowest recovery rate in the country happens to be in Quebec, in terms of a car getting stolen. That is why law enforcement agencies were quite interested in Montreal and other places. We are giving the powers now to the Canada Border Services agents to try to intercept these cars and car parts coming in and out of the country. They looked quite favourably on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Comartin for five minutes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Minister.

In Bill C-53, in the last Parliament, you had put tampering with the VIN after section 377, and now you've moved it to follow section 353. Is there any reason for that, other than the fact that section 353 already addresses some issues around cars, while section 377 was about damaging or altering other documents?

[William Bartlett, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Mr. Comartin, when we looked at it again, it was just felt that it was simply a more appropriate place in the code in terms of the kinds of related offences. There are no substantive changes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There's nothing substantive to it at all.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I wasn't quite sure what you said, Mr. Minister. Are you proposing a further amendment?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

And that would be to proposed subsection 333.1(2)?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's a specific offence with respect to auto theft. It wouldn't matter whether the first two convictions were indictable or summary convictions, but on the third one it would be at the option of the crown attorney whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. If he or she proceeds by summary conviction, the mandatory six-month penalty does not apply.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I understood that, but what I'm asking is whether it is subsection 333.1(2).

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, it is.