Bill S-9 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 3, 2010
- Debated in principleMay 25, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 7, 2010
- Passed the second chamberNov. 5, 2010
- Became lawNov. 18, 2010
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- John D. WallaceSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Serge Ménardnotes Parliament ready to adopt such a bill for years and need to adapt law to evolved crime
- Brian Murphystates Liberal Party will support the bill going to committee
- Bob DechertHe speaks positively about the bill's new offences targeting auto theft and property crime.
- Bernard BigrasStates the bill is needed to address organized crime and give the Criminal Code more teeth.
- John McKayStates his party will support sending the bill to committee for study.
- Anita NevilleShe states she speaks in support of the bill despite frustration with delays.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 4 May 2010, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime) (Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act) in the Senate and it was given first reading. The bill amends the Criminal Code • to create a separate offence of "theft of a motor vehicle", which would carry a mandatory prison sentence of 6 months for conviction of a third or subsequent indictable offence; • to establish a new offence for altering, destroying or removing a vehicle identification number (VIN); • to make it an offence to traffic in property obtained by crime; and • to make the possession of such property for the purpose of trafficking an offence. In addition, these amendments would provide for the application of customs powers to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to identify and prevent stolen property from leaving the country.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,594 words introduced, 1,554 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with only minor renumbering and formatting adjustments. Core offences for motor vehicle theft, VIN tampering, trafficking, and related customs powers remained identical.
- Adjusted publication authority line at end.
Before: “Published under authority of the Senate of Canada”
After: “Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses defined terms, fixed dollar thresholds, numbered penalties and explicit exceptions to mark the new offences. A few phrases still rely on open-ended standards that could require case-by-case argument.
Open to argument
“without lawful excuse”
The phrase supplies no objective test for what counts as lawful.“for a legitimate purpose, including a modification of the vehicle”
The qualifier 'legitimate' invites subjective debate over permitted repairs.
Clear-cut
“minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months in the case of a third or subsequent offence”
The rule supplies a clear numerical trigger and fixed term.“if the value of the subject matter of the offence is more than $5,000”
A bright-line dollar amount separates penalty ranges.“vehicle identification number" means any number or other mark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing it from other similar motor vehicles”
The definition is closed and functional.
Discretion. Section 13 leaves the coming-into-force date to the Governor in Council; no other regulatory powers are created.
Challenging the law itself. The mens rea and 'lawful excuse' language could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter s. 7.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons could dispute the 'knowing' element or the scope of the VIN exception, but the numerical and definitional provisions limit the room for argument.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.