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.