Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of the hon. member for Wild Rose on Bill C-219.
A portion of this bill adds a minimum sentence when a stolen vehicle is used during the commission of a crime. That would be logical to anybody except a lawyer, especially a criminal lawyer. We just heard that from the other side.
Bill C-219 would amend the Criminal Code so the person is guilty of an indictable offence and must be sentenced to one year imprisonment if the person operates or uses a motor vehicle that a person has stolen or knows that it has been stolen while committing or attempting to commit an offence or during the flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence.
The sentence for such an offence shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed. What is wrong with that?
It boggles my mind. I just heard the hon. member from the other side arguing or debating about the theft of an automobile. If one was a little more expensive than another then another law would apply. That sounds to me like one law for the rich, those who can afford an expensive automobile, one for those who cannot afford such an expensive automobile.
Is this justice in this member's eyes? Theft is theft whether it is worth $100 or whether it is $20,000. To the person who loses that vehicle it is theft. One law should apply, not two or three to go up on the scale of the value.
A $500 car may be as valuable to me as to somebody who could afford a $30,000 car. I have to use a vehicle to get to work. I need that in order to supply a paycheque in order to feed my family.
It is as much of a value to me as the $30,000 car is to the other person. Why should there be a difference in sentencing just on that?