Justice Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

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

So in theory an individual might actually have four or five convictions, with the crown choosing on the third and the fourth not to proceed by way of indictment—

[Paula Clarke]

That's correct.

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

—and then eventually say “Okay, you've got five, we're going to go by indictment, and there's a mandatory minimum attached”.

[Paula Clarke]

That's right.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Are we ready to deal with the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

There's also a second Bloc amendment to the same clause.

Monsieur Ménard, did you want to withdraw that, or do you want to have it voted on as well?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I expect the vote to be the same. In my presentation, I said that the second amendment is a consequence of the first, because it deals with the way in which we are going to calculate prior offences. But if you want to move to a vote right away…

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

If you're happy to move on, I'll call the question on clause 3.

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

Are we not supposed to vote on the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We already voted on the first amendment. Now, with the second one, I understood everyone was prepared to move on.

If you want to vote on the second one, I will.

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

Call the vote on his second amendment. That's what I understood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we'll call the vote on the second Bloc amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

For clause 4, we have one amendment from the Liberals.

Mr. Lee, did you want to present that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I read this bill and the amendments, I saw in proposed subsection 353.1(2) the definition of “vehicle identification number”. The way it's described there is:

For the purpose of this section, “vehicle identification number” means any number or other mark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing it from other similar motor vehicles.

Now, putting a mark on a vehicle could include your name. You might paint your name on a vehicle, but more importantly, it appears to include a provincial motor vehicle licence plate, and I am not sure that is what was intended. Most of us think of a vehicle identification number as one of these stamped markings that show up on the engine block and on various other parts of a motor vehicle, placed there by the auto manufacturers.

What we have, then, is a section--and I'll ask officials to comment on this--that just by the bare words of the definition includes a vehicle licence plate.

Then the charging section notes:

Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle.

In theory, then, the act of removing your licence plate from the motor vehicle would constitute a criminal offence. In theory, somebody who simply took the motor vehicle licence plate from the motor vehicle would be committing an offence. I'm just taking the plain wording of this definition. On the face of it, someone who had vanity plates in a garage and removed them from the vehicle would be committing an offence unless he or she had what is described here as a “lawful excuse”. In other words, the burden is on the person. The offence is there unless the person has a lawful excuse.

I don't think our criminal law should be criminalizing very normal, routine acts, or be placing the burden on the citizen to have a lawful excuse to do something that up until this point in time he or she had every right to do, which is to remove the vanity plates.

If someone who was gathering intelligence--a police officer, a CSIS agent--for whatever purposes in an operation decides to remove a licence plate or alter a licence plate, you may say they have a lawful excuse. They might or might not.

I looked for a way to fix this and I thought that maybe we should remove the motor vehicle licence plate from the definition and clearly say that it's not included, but maybe the drafters really did intend a licence plate to be part of the definition. Then I thought that what I'd really like to do is switch the burden so that the person doesn't have to have a lawful excuse; rather, someone who removes a licence plate or alters a vehicle ID number must do it with intent to impede or obstruct in the identification of a motor vehicle. That would put the citizen back on neutral ground. That is the intent of my amendment.

In my amendment I've added words. After “A person”, it would read:

who, with intent to impede the identification of a motor vehicle and without lawful excuse, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates the vehicle identification number on the motor vehicle

That is the purpose of it. I'd like the officials to explain to me in whatever way they could--and my colleague may want to try as well--why a motor vehicle licence plate is not included in the current definition of “vehicle identification number” as it's set out here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. We'll have our officials respond.

I have a list of Mr. Rathgeber, Mr. Norlock, Monsieur Lemay, and Mr. Woodworth. We already have a long list. I'm sure everyone wants to jump in.

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

Mr. Chair, this is at this point not a debate. I'm looking for an answer from the officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's what I said: we'll hear from the officials

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I then listed those who have asked to speak.

Ms. Clarke.

[Paula Clarke]

With regard to the VIN, I think if you look at a plain definition of the wording used, it refers to a “number”. Normally in the course of using a VIN, it's an 18-digit number. But when you look at provincial licence plates, they have numbers and letters. So I think even with just a straight interpretation of this definition, it would exclude provincial licence plates.

[Carole Morency, Acting General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Perhaps I can add to that.

If you look at where the VIN appears on the vehicle, it appears in a number of places and it appears for the purpose of actually identifying that part of the vehicle or the vehicle as a whole. The licence plate, which is issued under a provincial regulatory and legislative framework, is used for different purposes as opposed to identifying the different bits and pieces that go into making the vehicle.

So a literal interpretation of the definition of VIN would not include a licence plate, because a licence plate is not offered for the purpose that a VIN is.

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

But a licence plate is a “number or other mark placed on a vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing it from other similar motor vehicles”. You may say it is not, but whether it's numbers or letters, it is a mark--at least it is a mark--and those numbers and marks are placed on a motor vehicle precisely for the purpose of distinguishing it from other motor vehicles, because every licence is different.

The officials seem to be very assured about this. I am not. But I'm willing to stand down here and let officials respond. Colleagues may want to ask more on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

One more response, and then we'll move on.

[Paula Clarke]

I have just one more point to make.

I'm not an expert on licence plates, but a licence plate is used to trace a given vehicle--not necessarily based on its make or model--to an owner. It's the process of identifying the person who owns the car.

The vehicle identification number is the process of saying this car, for instance, was made in this factory, it is this make and model, and it is this year. It specifies that this 2008 Chevy Uplander is different from a physically similar 2008 Chevy Uplander. They are seemingly identical--but different.

Again, the VIN is used to trace the identity of the car, whereas the licence plate is used to link the identity of the owner with the car.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Just to confirm, licence plates can also be transferred from car to car. It's not specific to a car except for a temporary period of time.