That's right.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbsa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbsa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That was my point, that the licence plate is specific to the owner, not specific to the vehicle. It is not in any way employed to distinguish a motor vehicle from a similar motor vehicle. Its purpose is to identify the registered owner.
I don't see any ambiguity with the section just drafted, and I'll be voting against Mr. Lee's proposed amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you.
My point is very similar, except, just to assist the witnesses, the vehicle identification number also includes letters as well as numbers. It identifies not only the vehicle but also, as you stated, where it was made, the colour of it, the engine. It basically tells the people in the garage everything about that vehicle so that if you put it on another vehicle--in other words, you take it off and put it on another vehicle--it doesn't match. Sometimes the complete VINs are placed in various locations, and other times there are partial VINs, all to assist in the identification of the vehicle.
As you say, the licence plate only identifies who is the proper owner of the vehicle, not the identification of the vehicle, although the VIN number is included in the licence plate to assist police in verifying that.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
This is rare indeed, Mr. Chair, but I agree with everything my colleagues have said. This is a funny old meeting. I will go further. As my colleagues opposite say, it already is an offence to steal a licence plate. It is simple theft under the Criminal Code. The vehicle identification number is something completely different, I agree with them completely. That is associated with the car, whereas the licence plate is associated with the owner.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
Of course the very phrase “licence plate” references a licence, not a vehicle. I would also point out, for Mr. Lee's benefit, that while a licence plate may be temporarily attached to a vehicle, it distinguishes the vehicle from all other vehicles, not merely from similar motor vehicles, which is the point of the vehicle identification number.
I would also point out for Mr. Lee's benefit that if he were right that removal of a licence plate in this proposed bill would create an onus on the person who removed it, he would be even more aghast to see that subsection 354(2) of the Criminal Code creates an onus on the possessor to prove that the vehicle wasn't stolen. We already have a reverse onus in section 354 that says if you remove a VIN it's evidence that the vehicle was stolen. We're not departing at all from the principle of burden of proof relating to a VIN in this act any more than we were in subsection 354(2).
Lastly, I want to make a plea for simplicity and say that I would prefer not to add unnecessary words to a statute. I would ask why you would not criminalize any VIN removal without lawful excuse. If there is a lawful excuse, it's a different matter. But I think that phrase does encompass it completely.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I have a question for the officials. I won't reiterate what's been said.
I'm sorry, Derek, I'm not going to vote for your amendment. But we're still friends.
5:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
It's a tough life here.
I have a question about section 353. That stays, and that's dealing with the automobile master key. We're inserting proposed section 353.1, which is the obliteration of the VIN as an offence.
Then we move to section 354, which is now going to be called possession and trafficking in VINs. But it's not until 354 that we.... Sorry, am I wrong on any of this?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Possession and trafficking in VINs?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have interrupted you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Well, I could be wrong. But am I wrong that we don't define vehicle...? I think it's not intentional, but Derek has got us on to something.
The VIN is not defined in the section that makes it an offence to obliterate it. Is that in proposed subsection (2)?
It's the same one as in subsection (2) of having possession, which is now.... Is it the same? Why doesn't it have letters in it?
I guess what I'm saying is that section 354 stays, gets a new name, and has that definition section of VIN. In the one we're proposing, section 353.1, it has “for the purpose of” in subsection (2). Why doesn't it have, more specifically, a number or letter or a definition that's...? We all know what a VIN is, but I'm not sure that is the best wording for it.
In fact, if you took Derek literally, you could say that a VIN means any number or other mark placed on the vehicle. It's possible--I'm just thinking about defence lawyer tactics. Why don't we work on a better definition of VIN? Or do you think that's the best there is out there?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We used the same definition that is provided under subsection 354(3), for consistency. At the time this was drafted, this was a definition that was consistent with industry practices.
I think that if you want to look at the issues of letters as well, that would be covered under “mark”. I feel confident that--
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
You're confident. Has it ever been tried or used or anything?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Not that I've ever come across. That doesn't mean it's not out there, but I have researched case law and I haven't seen that.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Lee, do you want to withdraw the amendment, or do you want to have a vote on it?
