Debates of Oct. 20th, 1998

The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion.

Committees Of The House

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made Friday, October 9, 1998, the next deferred recorded division is on Motion No. 17 under government business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 242

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend and repeal other acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Extradition Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Friday, October 9, 1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-40.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion currently before the House, with the Liberals voting yea.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no to this motion unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote in favour of the motion.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present vote yes to this motion.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members present vote yes to this motion.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I would vote in favour of this government legislation.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 243

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Competition Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Friday, October 9, 1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-235.

The question is on the motion. As is the practice, this division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called and those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 244

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 6:36 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the concept for Private Members' Bill C-219 originated in August 1996 at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. One of the resolutions receiving unanimous support was to add a minimum jail sentence when a stolen vehicle is used during the commission of a crime.

My private members' bill amends the Criminal Code so that a 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 the person has stolen or knows has been stolen while committing or attempting to commit an offence, or during flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence. The sentence for such an offence shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person.

This bill puts the police chiefs' resolution into practice. It will clearly serve as a deterrent to those considering these types of criminal acts.

There are three primary motivations for auto theft: one, joyriding; two, transportation for criminal purposes such as breaking and entering, robbery, and drive-by shootings; and three, when a car is stripped for parts or exported to other provinces or countries for sale.

Statistics Canada has reported that motor vehicle theft is one of the few crimes in Canada that has been rising in recent years. Since 1988 auto thefts have grown by 80% with a 9% increase in 1996 alone. About one in one hundred vehicles were reported stolen in 1996, that being the eighth straight annual increase. In 1991 14% of stolen vehicles were used to commit other criminal offences to escape from authorities.

We can assume that the increase since 1991 in total vehicle thefts is directly proportionate to those used for committing a crime. Therefore the problem is obviously much larger today.

Car theft has become a costly nuisance throughout this country. Each year more than a billion dollars worth of vehicles are stolen and there is another quarter of a billion dollars in vandalism that has been done to cars that are recovered. Each province is suffering from this growing problem.

In Toronto alone in a 25-day period in January 1998, there were approximately 900 cars stolen while in 1997 there were 17,000 cars stolen. In Vancouver the records show that 25,077 vehicles were stolen in the city in 1996, an increase of 1,331 from the previous year. The greatest risk of theft was in Montreal where 31,211 vehicles were stolen last year.

Police have referred to the rate of theft in the greater Vancouver area as an epidemic. People are stealing cars almost at will to use for transportation and to commit other crimes. Vancouver authorities recognize that people living there are also increasingly at risk of being hit by a stolen car. Statistics Canada, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the attorney general of B.C. and police officers have recently drawn attention to this threat.

In Vancouver, Brenda Hohn, a 30-year old mother of two, was killed when a stolen Dodge Shadow raced past a stop sign and broadsided her car. Vida Coronado, a 31-year old single woman, who had recently emigrated from the Philippines was killed. Her car was struck in an intersection by a stolen Pontiac Firebird that had run a red light.

ICBC, the province's public insurance agency, undertook a comprehensive study of 28,000 auto theft claims filed in 1995 and the first six months of 1996. It found that one in four Criminal Code offences reported to the police in British Columbia in 1995 involved either theft of cars, theft from cars, or vandalism to motor vehicles.

The increase in auto theft has meant a significant jump in costs for the insurance corporation. About $91.4 million was paid out in claims in 1996, up from $12.6 million in 1987. If the present trend continues, the insurance company estimated the province will pay more than $800 million by the end of the century from direct stolen vehicle losses. If police, court and jail costs are included, the cost of auto crimes will likely exceed $1.5 billion in this single province alone by the year 2000.

Statistics Canada reports that children aged 12 to 17 account for 56% of all stolen cars. Interviews with captured teenage car thieves have determined that those 14 years of age or under had stolen three cars per week in the 12 months before they were caught.

Almost 80% of the cars are stolen for joyriding. Most of the vehicles are dumped after a few hours and are recovered by police in two days. For example, with an estimated 26,194 cars stolen in B.C., the statistics indicate that every day there are about 40 cars being driven by joyriders under the age of 17. Sadly, joyriding often leads to tragedy. A typical headline in the newspaper reads as following. A 16 year old faces a charge of criminal negligence causing death and two charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after the stolen vehicle crashed and killed one of his friends and maimed two others. Police say four youths were in the car when it crashed and rolled at least six times. One youth died at the scene. This headline has been seen in every town across Canada. With cases such as these there is usually no time served for the stolen car.

All in all, this problem affects every individual in Canada. Some may consider this petty theft but it is a major industry with no recourse for the owner of the vehicle. The insurance coverage for this type of theft costs Canadians almost $500 million annually. For each individual this crime imposes physical, emotional and financial burdens.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that residential, commercial and automobile thefts currently cost insurance companies $2 billion a year in claims. In turn, the insurance industry recovers these costs from consumers of insurance through rate increases and of course higher deductibles.

For example, motor vehicle theft accounted for more than 49% of the amount paid by the auto insurers in comprehensive claims in 1993 on 1992 model cars. Therefore the cost to insurers for auto theft claims increased by 7% from 1992 to 1993.

My goal is not merely the reduction of auto thefts in Canada and saving the insurance companies money. One of the most successful approaches to reducing crime is what I think of as the broken window theory. In other words, if we take care of the little crimes the big ones seem to take care of themselves.

This private member's bill is a perfect example of this theory. If this bill serves as a deterrent, and I think it will, to those using motor vehicles to commit criminal acts, then there should be a direct reduction in the number of deaths, injuries to individuals and the cost for police forces, insurance companies and different levels of government.

As seen in the U.S. in one study, when auto thefts fell in 12 major cities there was no corresponding increase in other major crimes.

Toronto's chief of police has recently established a committee that is trying to obtain a 25% reduction in the number of car thefts. But he also acknowledged that they need assistance from all levels of government.

I feel this private member's bill, which has been made votable, is a good start in helping our police forces fight this epidemic by sending the message that if a person commits a crime using a stolen motor vehicle, that person will serve additional time.

I am particularly pleased that the chiefs of police support this bill and all the policemen I have talked with regarding this bill are quite supportive. I find that a number of people are quite supportive of the idea of consecutive sentencing.

I have tried on a number of occasions in the House to have people consider consecutive sentencing. When I was talking about consecutive sentencing, I was thinking of people like Clifford Olson who I believe should not serve one life sentence but should serve more than that, one for each victim he murdered, and the likes of Paul Bernardo, but nothing ever came of it. There was never any consecutive sentencing that took place.

But lo and behold, one day I went to a courthouse and there was actually some consecutive sentencing. That was the day that Bill Cairns, a grain farmer from Manitoba, was charged on two occasions for selling his own grain across the border. He served 30 days consecutive for each of these vicious crimes. That is how ridiculous it has become, consecutive sentencing for a person who was trying to illustrate the wrongness of a certain law through civil disobedience.

Now with this private member's bill we have the opportunity to send a message loud and clear. I am sure that the members on the government side would be supportive of it because one thing they have said throughout the years I have been here is that preventive measures need to be taken.

I believe a deterrent is one method of preventing crime. This would serve as a deterrent. This would give the opportunity to the justice minister to be very supportive in sending a message loud and clear to the young offenders that this will not be tolerated any longer. Remember that 50% of vehicles stolen are by people under age 18.

Each year too many lives are lost because of vehicles being stolen for joyriding by young offenders. We need to send the message that they will be severely punished for stealing vehicles. This must stop for the sake and safety of all other victims.

Here is an opportunity. We have been waiting for quite some time for changes to the YOA but they have not happened yet. We have heard a lot of good rhetoric and a lot of talk that this possibly could happen.

Supporting this bill would be an opportunity to send a message to young people across Canada that the one activity they have been heavily engaged in that will cease is the stealing of motor vehicles.

In 1992 when I was on the campaign trail I parked my car after an activity in my own garage one night in a small town of 1,800 people. I got up the next morning to go about my usual campaigning details. I threw open the garage door and walked in and for a moment I could not remember what I went in there for. I looked around and asked what did I come in here for. My car was gone. Where did I put that thing?

It is quite an experience. Six days later the car was recovered with 1,800 additional kilometres put on it. The inside had liquor spilled all over. All kinds of drug use went on in it. They really violated it. Even though it was not violent in terms of physical harm, it is quite a thing to happen to people who rely on a vehicle for their use.

It was not investigated at any length to determine who had stolen it. Unfortunately because of all the other problems the police are facing, auto theft is put lower on the scale in terms of spending some time investigating it. Consequently many are not solved.

I think we need to send a message loud and clear that we are going to impose consecutive sentencing on any members in society who choose to steal a vehicle in the commission of a crime. I hope the support of this bill will be as broad, far and wide in the House of Commons as it is in the public.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, in our view the objectives of the private member's bill now before the House are already well served by the tools provided by common law principles of sentencing and the legislation currently in place.

Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code, makes it an indictable offence for a person to use a stolen motor vehicle while committing or attempting to commit an offence, or during flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence.

A person found guilty of this indictable offence must be sentenced to one year's imprisonment. This sentence must be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

Two mechanisms are currently in place to deal with such a situation. The first is reflected in the common law principles that govern sentencing. On a daily basis judges across Canada impose sentences on offenders convicted of a wide variety of Criminal Code offences, including offences involving the use of a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence. The sentencing process has been repeatedly recognized as an individualized process by courts at all levels in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

This individualized sentencing process allows the tribunal to exercise its discretionary power based on the facts relating to each specific case. The sentences imposed by any tribunal show that the factors taken into account by the courts include aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the seriousness of the offence, the offender's responsibility and the sentences imposed on other persons for similar offences committed under similar circumstances.

The objectives judges seek to achieve through sentencing include: denouncing the illegal behaviour of offenders, deterring others from offending, recognizing the harm done to the victims and the community, isolating offenders from the rest of society if required, and providing compensation to the victims or community. In fact, it is difficult to determine generally what constitutes an appropriate sentence for a given type of criminal behaviour.

The second mechanism which can be used to deal with the situation described in Bill C-219 is legislation put in place by this government, something the hon. member consistently failed to recognize in his speech. Bill C-41, the Sentencing Reform Act, enacted in 1995, provides judges with the first ever statement of purpose and principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code. This statement provides direction to courts on the fundamental purpose of sentencing which is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. The sentencing amendments to the Criminal Code which came into force in September 1996 also identified the objectives which the sentencing of offenders is designed to achieve.

The provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing also set out a number of basic principles that should guide the courts in achieving sentencing objectives.

According to these principles, the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender—the proportionality principle; the courts should take into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances and impose similar sentences for similar actions; excessively long or harsh sentences must be avoided—the totality principle; offenders should not be imprisoned if a more lenient sentence can be imposed; and the courts should consider every possible sentence besides imprisonment that may be justified under the circumstances.

It is within this statutory framework that a sentencing judge would determine the appropriate sanction to impose on an offender who had been charged and convicted of theft of a motor vehicle or who had been charged and convicted of another substantive Criminal Code offence which involved the use of a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following commission of the offence. This statutory framework clearly enables and guides courts in tailoring sanctions appropriate to the conduct of the offender.

Where an offender used a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence, courts would consider this to be an aggravated factor in sentencing and one which would merit the application of the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. If while in flight in a stolen motor vehicle following the commission of an offence the offender posed a danger to the lives or safety of others due to excessive speed, for example, this too would be considered an aggravating factor meriting a harsher sentence.

The sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code also allow the judge to exercise the discretionary power to impose consecutive sentences if necessary. We believe that the current sentencing process is comprehensive and gives all the flexibility required to adjust sentences to the circumstances surrounding each offender's behaviour.

The proposals contained in Bill C-219 are simply not required at this time to address the conduct of offenders using a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following commission of an offence. We already have the tools at our disposal to deal with the situation.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to Bill C-219, every one who, in committing an offence, operates or uses a motor vehicle that he has stolen or knows to have been stolen is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of one year. What is more, it calls for the sentence for this offence to be served consecutive to any other imposed for the same act.

From what has been said in this House today it will be understood that what is involved is auto theft, and the amendment the hon. member is proposing is no doubt intended to remedy a shortcoming. Therefore, we have to see whether there is a shortcoming in the Criminal Code, when it comes to auto theft.

There is a problem, however. We are all aware that there are indeed many thefts of automobiles in Canada and in Quebec, as the hon. member has just said. Unlike other types of crime, it is on the rise. But will the problem be solved by making the penalty stiffer, by adding what the hon. member wants to see added? The answer is no. What is there in the Criminal Code?

Motor vehicle theft is indeed a significant problem, we must agree. But is Bill C-219 the solution? The Criminal Code currently contains a series of measures that apply to auto theft. I invite the hon. member to read section 322. According to it, any person who steals property may be charged with a criminal offence and is liable to up to 10 years imprisonment, if the value of the stolen property exceeds $5,000. And, of course, in the case of an automobile, the value of the property generally exceeds $5,000.

If the value of the property is under $5,000, section 334 of the Criminal Code applies. Under section 334, the individual will either be found guilty of a summary offence, and sentenced to a maximum of six months' imprisonment, or a $2,000 fine, or found guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

In section 335 of the Criminal Code, the law makers have provided that individuals may be found guilty of a summary offence if they took possession of a motor vehicle without, however, intending to steal it. The House will recall that we discussed this amendment to the Criminal Code very recently, with respect to Bill C-209.

In my opinion, the amendments proposed by the member for Wild Rose do not add anything new to the existing legislative framework. Finally, I think the member's bill is based on false premises. Bill C-219 implies that it is now impossible to lay charges of theft under section 322 of the Criminal Code if the offence contributed to the perpetration of another offence.

There is no sign of a regulatory vacuum in this regard at the present time. An individual may be charged with several offences, including theft under section 322 of the Criminal Code.

With his bill, the member seems to consider that stealing a motor vehicle is a more serious offence if the vehicle is used to commit another offence. The member believes that regulating this specific offence would ensure more equitable treatment of the offender. I do not agree.

Excessive regulating does not solve all the problems. By systematically regulating the multiple aspects of an offence, we would restrict the courts' discretionary power. In my opinion, Bill C-219 would unnecessarily restrict that discretionary power, which has so far served justice very well.

The courts were given this discretionary sentencing power because they are the ones that analyze the evidence relating to a case. With this discretionary power, a judge can impose a sentence that is fair and appropriate.

For example, before imposing a sentence, the judge may take into consideration the fact that not only did the individual steal the motor vehicle, but that he also used it to commit another offence. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice provided a very good explanation of how this discretionary power is used by the courts when imposing a sentence.

Moreover, the courts can, under section 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code, order that sentences be served consecutively. Again, nothing indicates that the specific case referred to in the bill would not be subject to that procedure. Nothing justifies amending the Criminal Code to require consecutive sentencing in this case.

While car theft is a major crime in Canada, the Bloc Quebecois does not think that the member's proposals will correct the situation. Systematic coding of all facets of an infraction is no guarantee of better legal processing. Contrary to what the Reform members appear to think, criminal law is weakened when we try to anticipate every eventuality in an inflexible legal provision.

There is no other area of law where evidence is as important and where circumstances play such a preponderant role. I think quite sincerely, especially for this type of offence, that the courts in Quebec and Canada already apply the sections of the Criminal Code extremely well and there is no need for us to intervene in this field of jurisdiction.

I can hear the member speaking, and he does not seem to agree with my position. I believe that everyone here and our viewing audience will understand that we will not reduce the number of car thefts merely by creating a specific section on it. It is a matter of supply and demand and, unfortunately, there are many car thieves who make their living this way.

It is unacceptable. However, the Criminal Code, as it stands, contains provisions that can and must be applied to reduce car theft as much as possible, and the amendments proposed in Bill C-219 are not going to resolve the problem. We have everything we need in the Code to resolve it.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.

I commend the hon. member for Wild Rose. Although we may not always agree on the remedies in the justice system, we do agree that there are many problems in our justice system. We do agree that the Liberal government is not always there for Canadians to strengthen the Criminal Code and toughen provisions when needed.

I would also like to indicate that I will miss his lively, passionate and straightforward intervention at our justice committee meetings. He was a very valued member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is not to take away from any of the current members from the Reform Party, but they will be hard pressed to replace this very unique and legendary member for Wild Rose.

As mentioned by previous speakers, the bill would amend section 334 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the amendment is to classify those found guilty of operating or using a motor vehicle that a person has stolen or knows has been stolen while committing an indictable offence during flight or committing or attempting to commit an offence as indictable offences.

The sentence for such an offence would be a term of imprisonment for one year. It would also require that the sentence be served consecutive to any other punishment if it arises out of the same set or series of events that contributed to the conviction for the first offence. All of that is to say in common parlance that there would be greater emphasis placed on an offence that was committed while using a stolen vehicle.

I think the hon. member's intentions are to act as a greater deterrent for such offences. I disagree with the comments of the previous speaker when he seemed to indicate that there are existing Criminal Code provisions that address this problem. They may address the problem if enforced but the reality is that we need to put greater emphasis if it is to have a greater deterrent effect.

I commend the hon. member's efforts in this regard and I am supportive of the bill. This is a positive measure that the member for Wild Rose brings forward because it addresses two key areas in which there is need for improvement to our Criminal Code.

It would toughen the criminal sanctions for those individuals who use a stolen vehicle to assist in the commission of their criminal act. This would be a welcome change because it punishes criminals additionally for the additional step that they have taken, namely having stolen a vehicle to commit another offence.

The use of a stolen vehicle is as much a crime as any other criminal act and it can be punished separately. In this instance I assume the hon. member is intending that there be a special section of the Criminal Code that singles out and punishes that specific act.

The second area of the intended amendment proposed in section 334.1(2), which is very much a truth in sentencing provision, ensures that the sentence imposed on the criminal, namely the driver, would be served consecutively, that is it would not be simply dealt away which is often done in criminal proceedings in a plea bargain. The sentence would be cumulative. It would be served consecutively as opposed to concurrently.

This would send a strong message to the thousands of Canadians who lose their vehicles through theft or someone who would commit a robbery and forcefully take their vehicles. It would bring about greater accountability. It would certainly send that message to the criminal element.

As a crown attorney I had occasion to prosecute cases involving stolen vehicles. I can say, just as in any other instance when a person has their property removed, this is particularly offensive to individuals. Oftentimes the theft of a motor vehicle is a very personalized type of crime. People for obvious reasons attach a great deal of importance to their vehicle as a mode of transportation. When that vehicle is stolen and often damaged or never recovered, the person is greatly inconvenienced. There is also that psychological feeling of invasion that a person experiences when their property is taken or damaged, similar to when a person's home is invaded.

The purpose of the hon. member's motion is to amend the code to put greater emphasis on this type of offence, and I believe it is a positive one. I would therefore hope that there is support for the motion. I would hope that the Liberals who vote on the motion are the Liberals who chose at second reading to support Bill C-284 brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I certainly hope the Liberals who vote on Bill C-219 are not the same submissive bunch that we saw voting in the House earlier today on the motion to have legal funding for students at the APEC inquiry. That seemed to very much echo an earlier vote that we saw in the House with respect to hepatitis C.

It is unfortunate but there are times when we can literally see the welts rising on the backs of backbenchers in government when these types of check your conscience issues are brought forward in the Chamber.

Legislation no matter how well meaning will go nowhere without the ability to implement and enforce it. I would therefore like to outline some of my concerns with respect to the government's persistence in underfunding a host of law enforcement issues.

The solicitor general has often stated publicly that public safety is a strategy and a priority of the government.

As we have all learned in recent weeks, the words of the solicitor general can become somewhat meaningless. Indeed, there is one thing the solicitor general does do that we all have recognized and that is he likes to talk much more than he likes to act.

Instead of talking, the solicitor general could also do a lot to demonstrate his commitment to public safety by supporting legislation such as the initiative brought forward by the member for Wild Rose and by paying greater attention to what our police community is telling him. Quite bluntly, police officers are getting the shaft from this Liberal government.

According to information revealed by the government's own organized crime committee in April, the national police service needs an additional $200 million over the next four years or it will functionally expire. That will have an impact on every part of this country.

We have already seen a situation which has evolved where large detachments of the RCMP are underfunded. Even worse, the force's overall budget for the fiscal year is $10 million short to date and the RCMP cadet program has been frozen for the rest of the year.

Sadly, I have been repeatedly warned that the solicitor general is listening but not acting. This government has for many months displayed a callous and reckless attitude in taking its approach toward the fundamental law of principles. This is a time when the Liberal government seems oblivious to the negative consequences of the government's disbanding of the ports police, as we saw in Halifax and Vancouver, and we are seeing an increasing amount of drug smuggling and illegal contraband material coming into Canada through our ports. Yet this decision was made and followed through against the wishes of many in the community who knew what the ramifications would be.

The solicitor general and the Liberal government decided to cut $74.1 million from the RCMP's organized crime budget for this fiscal year according to the government's own estimate documents. This is not leadership on providing resources to our law enforcement community. It is quite the contrary. That is a 13% cut in just one fiscal year of the overall dollars spent by the RCMP.

The RCMP is not the only police force that feels the effect because municipal and provincial police forces inevitably are forced to pick up the slack. Many of these forces are already burdened by the abandonment of the ports police and are struggling to fill the void left by this government's acts.

During the summer both the solicitor general and the RCMP commissioner toured this country, gingerly mentioning the need for increased resources. It is almost like having two undertakers worrying about the appearance of a corpse after it has been buried.

What we need is a real commitment to law enforcement in this country, not just talk about it and that includes talk in this Chamber. This government has to bring in legislative initiatives if we are to see real concrete improvements.

I applaud the member for Wild Rose for taking such an initiative. It is quite disturbing to think that this government would not embrace such a positive initiative on his part.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here this evening to address Bill C-219 proposed by the hon. member for Wild Rose.

Unlike the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I am not here to talk about funding, lack of funding, deficits or cuts.

I would first like to applaud the member for the concern he has brought to Canadians about the problem of automobile theft. However, like the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I am an attorney. One of the first things I learned in law school is that before one cites one part of the act one should read the entire act.

I would like to support the parliamentary secretary for justice and also the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. I will not repeat what they have said. However, I would first like to look at the legislation itself to let Canadians know that the Liberal government and the Criminal Code as it exists today protect us.

The hon. member's bill provides for a new indictable offence. He talks about the use of a stolen motor vehicle and its relation to any offence.

Bill C-219 is proposed to be put in as section 334.1 of the Criminal Code which is immediately after section 334 which deals with the punishment for theft. We have talked about that already today.

Punishment is twofold under section 334. If my car, which is an old car and is ready for the junkyard, is stolen and it is under $1,000 the person who steals that car has committed an offence but it is under $5,000 so it is a summary conviction offence. If the car of one of my neighbours up the street, a brand new car, is stolen and it is worth more than $10,000 it is subject to an indictable offence. Our Criminal Code does take into account the seriousness of the offences.

Immediately after 334.1 comes 335 which deals with what we commonly know as joyriding. This is one of the things the hon. member raised, the problem of joyriding and the fact that a lot of young people tend to take cars for joyrides.

What section 335 talks about is taking a car without the consent of an owner. The hon. member's bill talks about using. Does that mean without consent? Does it mean with consent? What does it actually mean? I think when we are drafting legislation we need to look at the language very carefully. Under section 335 the act of joyriding is a summary conviction offence, not an indictable offence.

The hon. member mentioned that we have a lot of youth crime. Perhaps I have missed something but youth crimes are dealt with under the Young Offenders Act and punishments for youth are dealt with in the Young Offenders Act. I do not quite see how Bill C-219 would deal with the alleged problem we have with 14 year olds.

We look at this bill as trying to get all people involved as parties to an offence. Under section 2 of the Criminal Code any person who actually commits an offence, does anything to aid a person to commit an offence or abets any person committing an offence is guilty of an offence.

In addition, persons who have a common intention to carry out an offence or what could end up an offence are also guilty of an offence. So already the person who happens to be using the car while an offence is being committed, but we are not sure if that is indictable, summary, or hybrid, is already taken care of.

The other thing that Bill C-219 tries to address is attempting to commit an offence. Canadians will think it is a good thing we are doing something to get those people who are attempting to commit an offence but again this matter is dealt with in section 463 of the Criminal Code. Once again it makes a distinction between indictable offences and summary conviction offences.

If a person is attempting to commit a crime that is an indictable offence then an indictable punishment will apply. If they are attempting to commit a summary conviction offence then a summary conviction penalty will apply.

Bill C-219 talks about flight following the commission of an offence. Section 23 of the Criminal Code already deals with punishment where a person has attempted to commit an offence and then is an accessory after the fact. Moreover, if the person is an accessory after the fact to murder then that is an indictable offence.

It is terrible when people are killed, as the hon. member pointed out, but the Criminal Code already deals with these provisions.

Under section 249 the dangerous operation of motor vehicles is dealt with. It does not make any distinction whether the car has been stolen, whether it is owned, whether it is with consent or without consent, whether the person is under or over 14. It deals with punishing people who dangerously operate any motor vehicle.

If that dangerous operation of a motor vehicle involves bodily harm there is also a more serious offence and should that dangerous operation of a motor vehicle end up causing death, those provisions are dealt with strongly.

I commend the hon. member for his concern about automobile thefts but the provisions are already present in the code. I concur with my colleagues on sentencing. The whole area of sentencing must be looked at within the act itself.

Under section 718 of the act the purpose and principles of sentencing are clearly established for all Canadians to see. Many issues are dealt with and perhaps the most important one, as my other colleague said, is accumulative punishment which is something that should be left to the discretion of the court.

In light of these comments and concurring with the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, I urge members not to support Bill C-219.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

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?

[An hon. member]

A Liberal law.