Mr. Chairman, I am going to be making a motion. I will move the motion first and then speak to it. I move:
That clause 20 be amended by striking out the word "five" and substituting the word "one" and in paragraph (2) by striking out the word "five" and substituting the word "one".
Mr. Chairman, the division between what is commonly known as theft under and theft over has been a demarcation in the courts which really sends a message to the community. It was not that long ago when theft under and theft over was $50. We then moved it to $200. Now in the percentage increase we are operating with the division of $1,000. I can just imagine the message that is going to send to my community when theft under procedures are going to be dealt with by theft under $5,000.
I can understand from the criminal justice administrative point of view the desirability of perhaps doing this to alleviate the procedures of proceeding by indictment, but it is not just the experts who own the criminal justice system. There is the educative role of the symbol of the message that the law sends to the community as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. This amendment seems to be out of sync with the community mood and what is appropriate at this time.
I do not hear anything in the community that is suggesting that we have a real problem in the courts at this point that we must make this significant move from theft under $1,000 to theft under $5,000.
I question the basis as to what problem it is trying to solve. However, I also point out the serious message that it sends in a softening of the law to the community. I hope to hear from other members on this point.