Ed Fast

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey North.

I am pleased to add my voice in support of Bill C-26, which would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen our ability to fight auto theft and the trafficking of property that is obtained by crime.

In last November's Speech from the Throne, our government promised a tough approach to serious crimes. Auto theft and other serious property crimes have been a high priority for our government since we were elected in 2006.

The bill before us would create a number of new offences to tackle the trafficking of property gained by crime and the tampering with a vehicle's identification number.

Stakeholders, such as law enforcement agencies, provincial governments, and even the residents of my riding, are deeply concerned about the impact of auto theft on their communities. They have called on our federal government to do something about this serious crime, and this legislation is our response.

While auto theft rates remain unacceptably high, there are a number of remarkable success stories in our fight against auto theft. Let me take a few moments to highlight some of these.

Police services in Winnipeg have developed comprehensive strategies that specifically target those youth who we know commit a significant portion of all auto thefts. The result has been that, in 2007, the Winnipeg Police Service recorded a 33% drop in the number of vehicle thefts.

In the Vancouver area, which I am familiar with, the police have had great success with their bait car program. This is a program that uses police-owned decoy vehicles, which when stolen can be monitored through surveillance and GPS tracking. In some cases, they even include video cameras to actually record the criminal driving off in the stolen car. Again, we have seen a significant decline in auto theft in many parts of our region, including my own riding of Abbotsford. I would be pleased to give members details of a YouTube site that highlights one of these successful bait car arrests.

Insurance companies have also done their part. As many of us know, they are providing financial incentives to those customers who install immobilizers or other anti-theft devices. Again, this initiative is having a marked impact on the number of vehicles being stolen in our communities.

I also want to give credit to the police. They are now using something called automatic licence plate recognition technology, which speeds up their identification of stolen cars as they are driving through the streets of our communities. They have been using that technology in Abbotsford as recently as February of this year.

While effective programming such as these success stories that I have recounted are a crucial aspect of any crime-reduction strategy, any such program must be founded upon strong laws that give law enforcement the necessary tools to fight auto theft and other property crimes.

The creation in Bill C-26 of a distinct offence of motor vehicle theft would send a strong message to would-be thieves that the criminal justice system is serious about fighting auto theft in Canada. Our proposed offence would be a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on indictment and 18 months' imprisonment on summary conviction. There would of course also be a mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment for a third and subsequent conviction, as members have already heard from some of the other parties in the House. This is a balanced and modern approach to a serious repeat offence. That is reflected in the fact that the opposition parties in the House are actually supporting the bill on auto theft.

While not all auto theft is linked to organized crime, criminal organizations play a very significant role in this type of criminal activity. Organized crime groups participate in auto theft in three principal ways. First, they operate so-called chop shops where stolen vehicles are disassembled and the parts are trafficked to mostly unsuspecting buyers.

A second area of activity involves the alteration, obliteration or destruction of the vehicle identification number, the VIN. The VIN is removed from a stolen car to mask the identity of the vehicle. All vehicles in Canada are required to have a VIN number in order to clearly distinguish them from other motor vehicles. Criminal car theft rings typically replace the VIN of a stolen vehicle with one from a legitimate vehicle of the same make and model, thereby altering the vehicle's identity.

The bill contains a new criminal offence of wholly or partially altering, obliterating or removing a VIN number on a motor vehicle. Anyone convicted of tampering with the VIN could face imprisonment for a term of up to five years on indictment or six months on summary conviction, and a fine of not more than $5,000.

The third way that organized crime groups participate is by actively engaging in stealing and exporting late model, and in some cases, high-end vehicles, particularly sport utility vehicles and luxury sedans. The movement of stolen property, especially automobiles, across Canada's international borders is a very profitable enterprise for organized crime.

Indeed, trafficking in property obtained by crime is the lynchpin that makes theft and other property crimes profitable. A complex criminal industry moves these goods from the initial theft to unsuspecting consumers, and in the process, the stolen property often moves through the hands of numerous criminal intermediaries, making tracing of the property and identification and conviction of the perpetrators that much more difficult.

In response, our bill attacks trafficking by creating two new offences. The first would cover the selling, giving, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering of property obtained by crime. The second offence would cover simple possession for the purpose of trafficking. Police would be able to use these offences to specifically target the middlemen that I referred to earlier, who move stolen property through all the links in the chain of a criminal enterprise.

The proposed trafficking offences would carry serious penalties. Trafficking in property obtained by crime with a value over $5,000 would be a strict indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Trafficking in property that is stolen that has a value of under $5,000 would be a hybrid offence with a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment on indictment and six months on summary conviction.

The penalty for simple possession of illegally obtained property is 10 years, and the proposed trafficking offence that the bill addresses would add an additional four years, for a total of 14 years maximum, to reflect the fact that trafficking is a more serious form of criminal activity than simple possession. This is certainly consistent with other 14-year maximum penalties that apply to serious property crimes, such as fraud over $5,000, and possession of counterfeit money.

I also want to stress that the proposed trafficking offences would apply to all illegally obtained property, not just to property obtained by theft. For example, property obtained by crimes such as fraud would also fall under these new penalties. The new offences would certainly cover the various crimes that comprise commercial auto theft, such as the operation of a chop shop and the exportation of stolen vehicles out of Canada.

Let me conclude. Bill C-26 again shows that our Conservative government is serious about fighting all kinds of crimes. Property crimes, especially auto theft, cause serious economic and social harm to Canadians. As a former victim of auto theft, I can speak from personal experience of the sense of violation that one feels when one's car is stolen and vandalized. Canadians will simply not tolerate this kind of activity anymore.

I ask my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-26 and pass it as quickly as possible. As chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will certainly do everything I can to expedite the bill's passage.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague is going to be supporting the bill. I am anxious to see what kinds of amendments he brings forward. I am afraid he is going to remove the mandatory minimum sentence of six months that the bill now provides for.

In my neck of the woods, which is British Columbia, we have serial car thieves who are convicted, not once, not twice, not 10 times, but 50 and 100 times for stealing cars. They are in and they are out, and they are in and they are out. They are not getting the time they deserve.

I noticed the member referred to the fact that his party, the Bloc, supports maximum sentences. Of course they do. No one ever gets sentenced to the maximum, or even close to the maximum, except when it comes to murder; that is usually life in prison, if it is first-degree murder.

I want to ask the member specifically, as a colleague of mine on the justice committee, whether he is proposing to remove the mandatory minimum sentence of six months from this bill. I hope not. I trust he will be sensible enough to persuade his colleagues to leave that in, because the residents of British Columbia are demanding that we crack down on these serial car thieves, who are a real nuisance and a terror in our communities.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his speech and for his work on the justice committee. He and I are both members of that committee and, even though we are often on opposite sides of issues, it is nice to see that from time to time we can actually make common cause work toward the betterment of our Canadian society.

One of the questions I want to ask him has to do with an experience we have had in British Columbia. I, too, speak to our mayors on a regular basis, my mayor, George Perry; the mayor of Langley, Peter Fassbender; the mayor of Mission, James Atebe; and Dianne Watts from Surrey.

One of the strategies that our police force has actually implemented is the bait car program. The bait car program sets up vehicles that are obvious targets for theft. They are rigged with GPS units, tracking devices and, from time to time, even with a video camera. Police have been able to nab thieves because they are going after these high profile automobile targets. They have had considerable success in reducing auto thefts throughout the Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions.

I would ask the member if there has been some exploration of using a bait car program to reduce the incidents of auto theft in his province.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention but I want to call him on something that he mentioned in his comments.

First, he justified the harmonization based on the fact that it is a more efficient use of taxation and the processing of tax dollars and, second, that harmonizing the GST and the VAT or PST would make it more effective in terms of reducing the overall tax rate, yet it is the position of his party and his leader that taxes should be raised.

As members know, it is his party that suggested that the GST should be increased again from the reductions that we as a Conservative government have implemented. It is also his party that came forward and suggested a carbon tax. It is also his leader who very recently suggested that taxes in Canada are supposed to go up, not down.

How does the member justify that patent hypocrisy to, on the one hand, say that it is more efficient to harmonize the GST and PST because it will lower the overall tax rate and yet, at the same time, suggest that taxes in Canada should be increased, whether it is carbon taxes or the GST?

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very eloquent intervention on this issue and for explaining to us essentially what GST and PST harmonization involves.

I think, generally, Quebeckers simply want to be treated fairly and consistently.

My question for the member is, could he provide us with an assurance that our Conservative government will actually treat Quebec consistently and fairly, as it has some of the other provinces that have harmonized their GST and PST?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member and his Bloc colleague before him, I was amazed at their willingness to attack law-abiding farmers and duck hunters. They talk about sustaining a completely ineffective, horrifically expensive gun registry, but at the same time, yesterday at justice committee, the Bloc members actually moved to remove mandatory minimum penalties for those who are committing drive-by shootings in our communities.

How can they justify that?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed hearing my colleague's remarks. I also enjoy his participation on our justice committee. I sense there is perhaps a better working relationship on the committee this time around, and I appreciate that.

I want to take issue with one of his comments. He said that our Conservative government did not care for prevention when it came to crime and to the issues of drug dealing and drug use in Canada. In fact, in 2007 our government introduced a $10 million fund to specifically address the issue of prevention and to provide the kind of education to those youth who perhaps could find themselves getting into a life of crime. We also provided an additional $32 million for drug treatment in Canada.

I challenge the member to perhaps correct his statement and acknowledge that our Conservative government took steps that the previous government never did.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his prescient remarks and for his support for dealing with guns in a responsible manner.

One thing that has confused me is that over the years the opposition has supported this ineffective, expensive gun registry, yet it has also opposed our efforts as a government to implement mandatory minimum sentences for gun-toting, violent criminals in our society. I would invite my colleague to remark on whether he sees that as being inconsistent and whether he is as puzzled as I am with this inconsistent approach to trying to address violent, gun-related crime in our communities across Canada.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Thursday, March 26, your committee has considered Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), and agreed on Monday, April 20, to report it without amendment.

[National Defence, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the waters off the Horn of Africa have become extremely dangerous with pirates attacking merchant and other ships.

In 2008 the International Maritime Bureau estimated that there were 111 pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia. Canada has ships in the Gulf of Aden as part of a NATO anti-piracy mission.

Could the minister tell the House what we are doing to help the international effort to combat pirates in the waters off the coast of Somalia?