Derek Lee

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Madam Chair, the hon. member seemed to have a negative view of the anticipated new funding for the armed forces in that the new capital amounts made available will not be coming on stream for three or four years down the line. Would he not acknowledge that it is simply out of the question and the government cannot for any government department simply turn over a big bag full of money and expect that department to recruit immediately and acquire equipment immediately? Would he not agree that the whole process of acquisition of appropriate armaments and equipment for the armed forces requires a process of evaluation of requirements and it takes one or two years to even get there?

The member himself has just attempted to castigate the government for doing sole sourcing to get the equipment quickly. The whole process of recruiting new people for our forces and acquiring equipment, no matter what he or I do, is actually going to take many years down the road.

I am not so sure his complaint about a delay in the funding was well placed. That funding will be going in right at the time it is going to be needed for these procurements and new recruiting. Would he agree with that?

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is possibly true that previous legislative drafts tried to do that. The view of the government now is that it does not want to try to fix something if it is not broken. To import something called a standard of farming might seem to have merit except that the standard is going to change over time.

I will say to my hon. friend that I tried to create an urban-rural template, but most of the urban people who go hunting and fishing do it rurally, even though they are urban dwellers. I would lean toward not trying to enact a new standard, as he suggests.

Because the Criminal Code is not being changed very much by this, I would point out, the animal rights activists could actually attempt to undertake prosecutions now. It is not happening in a large way, so if we are not changing the code very much except by adding the “brutally and viciously killing” section, then the problem my hon. friend raises about an onslaught of private prosecutions could happen now even without these amendments.

I think the bill is headed in the right direction, but his advocacy for a standard of farming might well have further discussion at the committee stage.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make a few remarks in connection with Bill C-50 before the House at this time. It is noteworthy, as other speakers have mentioned, that this issue has been before the House for a number of years. It has proven to be very difficult legislation to get right and to get through the House and the Senate. The Senate has been one of the obstacles, I think, in getting this through.

Originally the legislation became tangled up in a couple of omnibus bills and at some point we all recognized that the bill, even by itself, was troublesome and difficult. Fortunately, the bill now stands on its own and I think the government has taken the view that rather than trying to rewrite the whole piece, reinvent a good portion of the wheel, that it would go back to basics and has essentially in this legislation reused the language that exists in the Criminal Code.

There has been some modification to the language and some rewriting but essentially the government is of the view that for the most part the legislation is simply restating what is already in the Criminal Code. There are some notable exceptions to that and those exceptions are the main point of debate, or at least they should be.

I think all or most of us in the House can agree that there was a need to modernize the language, to update the legislation and to legislate tougher sentences. The trick, given the dynamic that is out there across Canada in the various communities, is to get that piece correct. The principal dynamic that I think has been the biggest obstacle is that we have a rural-urban divide here. Some of the push for this new legislation has come from urban areas and part of the urban politics include what some have referred to as animal rights activists. That is not necessarily a pejorative term, and it perhaps is not to the people who are looking out for our animal friends all across the country, but they do want firm legislation that protects animals from pain and unnecessary death. The problem is not their objectives at all. It is perhaps how they carry on their work. In rural Canada we have people who have been taking care of animals and who have been the experts in animal husbandry for centuries and doing it without much of a problem and they provide the food for our tables. They have been serving our country and serving open mouths around the world for centuries and taking care of animals.

The rural perspective, the farm land perspective on cruelty to animals, would be just fine but when we begin to measure what happens on the farm, whether it is a big production or a small production farm, and we combine that with those who I will call the animal rights activists, we end up with disagreements. As we go to legislate, while almost everyone agrees on the principle that we had to modernize and beef up the sentencing, the actual definitions become very important. The people on the farms want to ensure that when we as legislators pass the new law that we do not adopt a definition that will interfere with their families' abilities on the farm to take care of their animals and to slaughter the animals in the ordinary course as they might do for food and as they have been doing for centuries, whereas from the urban perspective we have individuals who, for what they believe are excellent reasons, do everything they can to reduce the killing of any animals by humankind and certainly they want to reduce suffering among animals caused by any source.

Everyone in that morality plight that I have just described is actually doing a fairly good job right now, but as we legislate, these differences in perspective are coming out and our challenge in the House is to find some legislation that satisfies both and everyone in the middle as best we can.

One of the things that may assist us in the event that matters do end up in court is the discretion of the judge. There may in fact be differing perspectives, rural and urban. One of the rather ugly urban perspectives has to do with the scenario of a person conspicuously torturing and killing a domestic animal or pet. These ugly incidents often end up in newspapers, magazines and in the electronic media, and the public says that we, in Canada, have to do something to prevent that from happening and where it does happen, to firmly respond.

I suppose it is a little bit unfair to say that part of the resolution here will lie in the hands of a prosecutor and a judge, but at the end of the day, those two perspectives may have to be managed by the courts, the prosecutors and the judges.

I say that, acknowledging right up front, that we do not want our social problems to be managed by judges. Judges are there to resolve conflicts and to make decisions about guilt or innocence. It is unfair to ask our judicial community to be the arbiters of everything that goes on in society. However, I do offer the judicial process, at the end of this, as being a kind of spill safe mechanism to ensure that community standards and community perspectives are brought to bear in dealing with these portions of the Criminal Code.

I want to dwell briefly on the language of the provisions. As I said earlier, the bill, for the most part, continues language and concepts already existing in the Criminal Code. The offence of causing unnecessary pain to an animal stays the same, give or take, but the sentence is increased from the current six month maximum to a five year maximum. This upgrades the sentence into what we call a hybrid offence where it may be summary conviction or indictable, depending on the discretion of the prosecutor, but the maximum sentence goes up to five years.

There is a new provision that I will not read from the statute, but it involves brutally or viciously killing an animal. That offence also has a five year maximum and it too is a hybrid offence.

The concept of causing pain by negligence or allowing pain to happen by negligence, certainly wilfully, has an increased sentence as well. That would be a sentence of two years maximum. That would keep it as a summary conviction offence.

I note that the bill is only four pages long. In terms of a piece of legislation around here, that is relatively small.

The issues that I have attempted to address, the issues that colleagues around the House are attempting to deal with, all revolve around setting a threshold that it will be a criminal offence and defining it in a way that it will not impair the ability of our farmland communities to raise livestock and produce food the way they have always done so well for us.

We are looking for the magic solution. In my view, at this point, I think the government has come forward with a good vehicle and I am prepared to support it. At the same time, I am also interested in any debate that ensues and its disposition at committee should it pass the House at second reading.

[Islamic Foundation of Toronto, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous efforts of the Islamic Foundation of Toronto, Canada's largest mosque, in responding to the earthquake in Kashmir. To date, the foundation has raised $414,000 to aid in the recovery of the region. Of course, with matched funding, that amount effectively doubles.

However, there is more. Within six days of the disaster, the foundation sent a team of four doctors into Kashmir to help treat survivors. Dr. Akram Syed, Dr. Asif Pathan, Dr. Sayz Malam and Dr. Khuram Sher have been on the ground for over three weeks now, often hiking into the more remote parts of the region to treat those cut off from the main lines of assistance.

These young Canadian men, along with our community that supports them in the middle of Ramadan, stand as a testament to the best that we as Canadians aspire to be. We are proud of them and wish them well in their work in Kashmir, and a safe return.

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's bill attempts to address a matter of some frustration for constituents when their member decides to leave a particular caucus and cross the floor. However, the bill fails to hit the nail on the head. I understand its purpose and many of us here have some sympathy for the purpose. The fact is in the House none of us has a party membership, per se. We have caucuses.

We have talked about members who have left the party caucus, but it does not mean they have ceased to be a member of the party. Members who have left their caucus to sit as independents may well retain their party membership. In addition, I sit with the Liberal caucus, but I may have let my membership in the Liberal Party expire, although I have not. Does that mean under the terms of the bill that I have ceased to be a party member? I do not know. This is a curious thing.

I also want to point out that clause 2 of the bill deals with the concept of a member leaving a political party, which is problematic as I have just pointed out. We never know when the party membership does or does not exist around here because we do not publicly record it. In clause 3 of the bill, the criterion is not the leaving of the political party. It is the decision by the member to leave the political party. How does one know when there is a decision to leave? How does one know when one has really ceased to be a member of the party because the parties do not register anything here?

There also is the concept of caucus expulsion, which is not addressed in the bill. The caucus decides to remove a member from caucus. That is against the will of the member often but it happens. That member could still remain a member of the particular party. He or she simply ceases to sit with the caucus. How is that covered here? It is not clear. As I said, the member could stay as a member of the party and sit as an independent.

At the end of all of this, constituents have the ability to make judgment on what the member has done in the following election. Granted the electoral term is a maximum of five years, usually an average of four. In a minority government scenario it could be a lot less. In this Parliament we could end up with a two year term. In previous Parliaments they have run three and a half to four and a half years. However, the electors always have the ability to make the judgment.

I am not sure I agree with members who say what we do around here is not democratic. Everything we do here is democratic. Canada is a democracy. I sometimes get uncomfortable when members say, “If you do not do this my way, you are not being democratic”. We are democratic. We can change the rules from time to time.

Using the perspective of the member's bill, it may be that some of us will get our head around this. It may be that there will be a mechanism available to deal with the issue of members crossing the floor. That is slightly disconnected from the issue of whether a person is a party member. Crossing the floor, leaving the caucus, sitting as an independent, joining another caucus are all concepts that will have to find their way into legislation.

Also, there may be some constitutional underpinnings for members of Parliament and for constituents that may have to be addressed as well.

The privileges of Parliament are constitutional. It may be, and I am leaving this as a thought, that simple passage of a statute that undermined the constitutional privileges of a member of this place or the constitutional rights of electors to place a member here in a federal election maybe should not be undermined by a statute that simply says when a member ceases to be a member of a party or changes caucuses. I am just throwing that out there, that a simple statutory amendment might not have the ability to rearrange certain basic fundamental constitutional concepts, which we rely on here all the time and which are often not recognized, but underpin our Canadian democracy.

I leave those thoughts on the record. I congratulate the member for making a really good faith attempt to address a matter which I think concerns a lot of Canadians, when members cross the floor.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think that was a pretty good commercial for the Yukon and I will just let it stand as is.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have many occupations and trades represented among the members of the House of Commons but I am not aware whether we have any diamond cutters among our membership.

As I understand the remarks of my colleague from Etobicoke North on whether the Kimberley process involves somehow marking the diamond or not, I understand the Kimberley process to be a procedure, not one that involves the cutting or marking of the diamond, but rather a certification on paper or some other medium that accompanies a bundle of rough diamonds.

The Kimberley process is one which says that a bundle of rough diamonds comes from a location that is secure from diversion, the black market and the blood diamond trade. It is not actually a process of marking the stones. If it were to be that, I think we had better get some experts from the diamond cutting trade, because I have a funny feeling that those who cut diamonds for the jewellery market would be falling over now, thinking that the Canadian Parliament might be considering marking their precious diamonds in some way with “made in Canada” or a word mark.

I do not think that is what is involved here. I am pretty sure it is not and that the diamonds will be clean. There may be a few that have the signature of the designer somewhere buried in them by laser or otherwise, I do not know, but the future will tell.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, of course Scarborough—Rouge River is the place I would love to see the diamond trade centre develop, but I thank the hon. member for going through the list of the locations of the diamond mines. I did refer to northern Canada as where the diamond play was happening and I made a side reference to northern Ontario, but clearly the list shows several provinces and the whole northern piece of Canada, Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the development of an industry. I am pretty sure that not all of us have our heads around this yet. It will involve collaboration with provincial and territorial governments and the federal government. At some point the private sector is clearly going to have to step up to the plate with or without the suasion of the various governments in Canada to try to enhance prospects for development of a domestic diamond trade centre. That has future exciting prospects.

For the time being we are simply regulating the transport and the packaging of the rough diamonds. We have a long way to go before the other develops, but I thank my colleague for mentioning these things.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks to this bill. It is not a big bill. It is quite short and there seems to be a fair consensus in the House in support of it. However, I would like my remarks to be taken as constructive in providing some context for the bill.

There are two or three perspectives that I would like to address. The first is the issue of regulation of a trade. Essentially the bill puts in place legal components that would in part regulate the diamond trade. It is being done for good reason, but we should recognize that it is a regulation. We are putting in place an obstacle to what would otherwise be a free trade in a commodity.

We ought to recognize that we do this in government only reluctantly or for good cause. I repeat the words sometimes used by the Prime Minister, that if government does not have to be involved, then it should not be involved. In this case there are international dynamics at play that cause us to respond and offer this legislation to regulate the diamond trade.

Regulating a trade is a negative normally. It creates an obstacle and it increases the cost to those who participate in that economic activity. We regulate cigarettes. We raise revenue with cigarettes. I think of propane gas tanks. There are regulations that govern propane gas tanks and certifications. This means that we cannot buy and sell propane gas tanks without a certification, and that slows down the trade. That particular certification is done for a public safety reason. If we allow the trade in defective tanks sooner or later there will be an explosion, a defect, an accident and an injury and/or death.

I want to reflect that in my remarks today. Although it is a regulation, we are doing it for what we believe to be a very good reason and doing it in concert with the international community. We also recognize that when we regulate a trade or a commercial activity, it could induce a black market. Often in our commercial history, the creation of a regulation induces a black market to develop. In this case the regulation is intended to circumscribe and constrain a black market in diamonds.

Therefore, the goal we are seeking to achieve in this case is to constrain the movement of rough diamonds, which are sometimes called blood diamonds, blood stones, that have been used to finance civil war or insurgency principally in Africa. However, most of us know that diamonds have been used for decades and maybe centuries, or parts of centuries, as a means of financing many things.

Let us take a look at the civil war and insurgency issue. Diamonds are used because they are small, compact, carry a lot of value and are not heavy. I suppose those who work in the black market could put their resources into gold but it is very heavy. They could put it into currency, but currency is usually in bills that are marked and traceable. There are other commodities that could be used, but diamonds have a lot of value and they are compact and portable. They can be moved around and bought and sold internationally because they have those values both in industry for industrial purposes and in the jewellery and fashion field.

The background in some countries involved insurgents who had taken over diamond mines, or stolen diamonds from mines or stocks of diamonds. In Africa where the mines exist, they used those diamonds to finance an insurgency. Maybe some of those people think of themselves as freedom fighters, but the bottom line is that these insurgencies have proven very difficult to constrain. As other colleagues in the House have pointed out, there have been thousands and thousands killed and maimed in the insurgencies.

The diamond is not the problem. It is the people who black market and sell the diamonds and buy the guns and the bombs who are the problem. Nevertheless, the diamond is the vehicle.

The international community, including Canada, a few years ago decided that there should be a process to certify and track diamonds used commercially. The process they developed was called the Kimberley Process. At the end of it, they agreed that a Kimberley Process certification should accompany rough diamonds as they are bought and sold on the wholesale or commercial marketplace.

The term “Kimberley” I think relates to a very famous diamond mind in South Africa. South Africa was a huge producer of diamonds. Perhaps it was number one at some point in world history, and it may still be. South Africa clearly was involved in development of these new rules.

Canada has subscribed to the Kimberley Process. We do that for good reason. We have observed the death, destruction, utter chaos and desperation of peoples involved in some of the insurgencies in the countries such as Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Republic of Congo and the multi-year insurgency in Angola. Most of these conflicts have not been fully resolved up to now, but some have happily.

Progress is being made by the people in those countries, with the assistance of the international community. In doing our part, we have introduced this legislation to enact the legal components necessary to regulate the diamond trade for the purpose of preventing this black market, which produced wealth and resources for these civil wars.

In the meantime, Canada has itself become a major diamond producer. We did not plan this. Fortunately, we have a very wealthy country and we have found diamonds. This is mostly in northern Canada. However, I understand there is the possibility of a play in northern Ontario now. Canada will have to be very certain that, under the Kimberly Process, our house legally, our rules and laws, are in order and are suited for the purpose of regulating the commercial trade in rough diamonds.

I make reference to remarks of other colleagues, as we look at the development of the diamond mining industry in Canada, that we should be taking public policy decisions provincially and federally that will enhance prospects for development of an orderly diamond cutting or design trade, whether it be in the north or in one of our cities in the south. Most of us would like to see something substantial happen with diamonds in the north. Wherever the trade is developed, we hope it will come with the economic multipliers that are associated with development of an industry like this.

Last, I want to go back to what I regard as the basics of the bill rather than the context. The bill itself adopts rules or definitions which allow the government to legally support the Kimberley process which I mentioned earlier. It allows the minister to adjust the definition of rough diamonds and to allow for developments in the industry later and to avoid any unintended obstacles to the development of a diamond mining trade, a diamond centre trade, jewellery design here in Canada. That is very important. As we legislate now, we should all recall that when we pass a law we actually write it in stone and it cannot be changed unless we rewrite the law later.

The statute we are adopting here, as we understand it, allows the minister in future years to adjust that definition to exclude from the term “rough diamonds”, the basket definition, certain other types of diamonds which will have greater definition and which should not be included. I assume that same approach is being used by our other international partners in the Kimberley process.

As I said, the bill will fulfill Canada's international obligations. The bill will have a positive impact on those elements of the diamond trade which were financing on a black market basis the insurgencies in those countries and in others.

I will close if I may with the hope that the regulation we are putting in place will not impair orderly, lawful development of the diamond trade either in Canada or elsewhere. I know that the bill reflects Canada's continuing engagement internationally in an effort to assist other countries to protect themselves from the kinds of insurgencies and civil wars that the black market diamond trade has given rise to in the past.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-64, a government bill aimed at combating the involvement of organized crime in the theft of motor vehicles by making it an offence to tamper with a vehicle identification number. I will simply refer to that as a VIN for the purposes of my remarks today.

This important bill was inspired, as has been mentioned earlier, by the late Chuck Cadman and a private member's bill brought forward by him, namely Bill C-287. Of course, while Mr. Cadman would not have claimed to be the originator of the thought, he certainly was the promoter of the initiative to make the act of changing the vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle a criminal offence.

In summary, Bill C-64 would make it an offence without lawful excuse to alter, obliterate or remove a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle under circumstances that gave rise to an inference that this was done to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle.

It is proposed that anyone who commits this offence would be liable, if proceeded with by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or would be prosecuted by a summary conviction procedure. By virtue of section 787 of the Criminal Code, people convicted under the summary conviction provisions can face up to a maximum term of six months or a $2,000 fine.

As previously indicated, Bill C-64 was inspired by the original private member's bill. That private member's bill would have made it an offence for anyone without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon the person, to alter, deface or remove a vehicle identification number. That particular bill provided that if proceeded by way of indictment, the prison term would be five years maximum and if by summary conviction the similar six months' imprisonment or $2,000 fine.

Therefore, there are real similarities between this and the private member's bill. However, there are a couple of differences.

First and foremost, the private member's bill placed what is known as a persuasive burden on the accused person to prove the existence of a lawful excuse for tampering with a vehicle identification number. Therefore, that bill required an accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had a lawful excuse. That is called a shifting onus or shifting burden in the Criminal Code. We generally do not do it very much at all because it shifts the burden to the citizen to prove that he or she had the right to do what they did. That is not the way we generally prosecute our citizens.

There is a fundamental element in our criminal justice system that an accused person will not be convicted of a criminal offence if they raise a reasonable doubt. Therefore, under the private member's bill a person accused of VIN tampering would face the prospect of a conviction, even though they may have raised a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

Therefore, Bill C-287 and the reverse onus provision raised significant charter and other criminal justice considerations.

Instead, the government bill, Bill C-64, borrowing very heavily on Mr. Cadman's bill, would require an accused to raise the defence of lawful excuse based on the usual test in criminal law for raising defences, namely, the test of raising sufficient evidence on each element of the defence for it to be considered by a judge or a jury.

By adopting an offence which would not on its face attract charter litigation, we are contributing to the utility of this offence as a prosecutorial tool. We understand now, after many years of the charter, that to place a real conspicuous charter issue into a new Criminal Code provision would place the Criminal Code at considerable risk as a prosecutorial tool with it facing considerable amount of litigation. I think all members would agree that we want to ensure that the laws we pass can and will be used with reasonable utility for years to come by prosecutors and police.

In addition, Bill C-64 would require that the alteration, obliteration or removal of a vehicle ID number would be done under circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable inference that it was done to conceal the identify of the vehicle. This element was not included in Bill C-287.

The purpose of this element of the government bill is to distance the offence from those people such as legitimate auto wreckers or mechanics who may, in the course of their work, alter, remove or obliterate a vehicle ID number. This consideration was made as it would have been bad policy to craft an offence under which a large body of legitimate workers could have been caught under its scope, just on the straight wording of the section.

I think all members would agree that the manner in which the government bill addresses this issue is sound. I hope that is the case on this side of the House, but not on the other side.

Various key justice system stakeholders have called upon the Government of Canada to enact such an offence for vehicle ID tampering.

First, the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft, which is a multi-stakeholder group established in May 2000 representing stakeholders mainly from police, community and the insurance industry groups, released a report in March 2003 entitled “Organized Vehicle Theft Rings”. This report, among other proposals, recommended the creation of a distinct vehicle identification number tampering offence in the Criminal Code.

In addition, in August 2003 the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to create a Criminal Code offence specifically prohibiting the alteration, obliteration or removal of a vehicle ID number.

Finally, the Canadian Association of Police Boards in 2000 passed a resolution calling upon the federal government to enact legislation to combat theft in their communities, which would include the creation of that type of Criminal Code offence.

I am pleased to say that we have answered all these calls with Bill C-64.

In 2004 there were nearly 170,000 motor vehicle thefts in Canada. This translates to a rate of roughly 530 vehicle thefts per 100,000 people. I am pleased to note a slight decline in the rate since 2003. In that year it was 550 vehicles per 100,000.

In order to compare certain provincial rates with the national rate, in 2004 the rate of motor vehicle theft in British Columbia was 889 per 100,000, a significant uptake. In Manitoba it was 1,364, a significant increase above that of the national average. On the other end of the spectrum, Prince Edward Island had a rate of 187 and Ontario was 337.

Despite these variations in the rate of theft from province to province, the crime is still all too frequent in Canada. That is why, in addition to the current bill before the House, the Government of Canada also is committed to examining the issue of motor vehicle theft more generally with our provincial and territorial partners.

In this regard, on January 25 at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice meeting, as brought forward by Nova Scotia, all ministers agreed to send the matter of Criminal Code amendments affecting motor vehicle theft or organized motor vehicle theft, increased penalties and reckless driving to senior officials in each of the provinces for further study. Therefore, the federal-provincial-territorial officials are now working collaboratively on assessing whether a separate Criminal Code indictable offence is needed to deal with this category of auto theft and whether current penalties are appropriate.

In assessing whether the government bill would truly add an additional useful tool for our law enforcement, I should outline the existing ways that motor vehicle theft and related offences are dealt with under the code. I do this so we can see how relatively weak the current code provisions may appear.

The code addresses the crime of motor vehicle theft predominantly through its theft provisions. If offenders are convicted of theft over $5,000, they would be subject to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. In addition, those who engage in motor vehicle theft and related crimes are often charged with the offence of fraud. This offence carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment on indictment.

The offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent, otherwise known as the joyriding offence, is a straight summary conviction offence. Therefore, an offender faces a maximum six month term of imprisonment or a fine of $2,000 or both once convicted.

As other speakers have noted before me, the offence of possession of property obtained by crime is particularly relevant to those who engage in vehicle identification number tampering. Since there is currently no Criminal Code provision against VIN tampering, those who engage in this activity are often charged with the possession of property offence. The punishment for that offence, if the property is valued over $5,000, is 10 years imprisonment on indictment.

All too often those who commit motor vehicle theft flee when approached by law enforcement. In doing so, these offenders, if they are driving when they flee, endanger the lives of innocent third parties, law enforcement officials and even themselves. If no one is injured as a result of such a flight, then the offender would face up to five years imprisonment. In the event that bodily harm results from that flight, the offender faces up to 14 years imprisonment. Finally, if death were to unfortunately result, the offender faces a maximum term of life imprisonment.

I think all members would agree that these existing offences provide a wide range of tools and sanctions, and will be complemented by the addition of a new VIN tampering offence. The broader issue is whether the code currently brings to bear sufficient focus on the whole range of auto theft and organized crime auto theft offences. The FPT officials who are working on this now will bring public policy focus there.

I also am encouraged by recent changes brought forward by my colleague, the Minister of Transport. New regulations regarding the mandatory installation of vehicle immobilization devices have been noted as leading to the significant reduction of motor vehicle theft, especially in cases of younger offenders. I look forward to a time when perhaps all vehicles manufactured in Canada will have these important anti-theft devices installed.

I think all hon. members can agree that the creation of a Criminal Code offence for intentional alteration, obliteration or removal of a vehicle identification number can serve many purposes.

First, it fills a gap in the Criminal Code in a meaningful way. Second, it provides a new tool for police and crown prosecutors in the investigation and prosecution of organized vehicle theft. Finally, it responds to the call of key justice system stakeholders to enact such an offence, while at the same time honouring the commitment of our colleague, the late Chuck Cadman, to those and other justice system issues by bringing forward a legislative reform that was advanced by the honourable and distinguished member who so sadly is no with us any longer.

I would therefore ask all members to join me in supporting this important Criminal Code amendment.