6. Auto-theft – Division 35

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Qs & As

Part 4 – Division 35
Amendments to the Criminal Code (Auto theft)

General

Q. What would the proposed measures in the Budget Implementation Act (BIA) do?

• The measures in the Bill propose:
  • New offences targeting auto theft and its links to violence and organized crime;
  • New offences for possession and distribution of a device used to commit auto theft;
  • New offence for laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization;
  • New aggravating factor applicable at sentencing where there is evidence the offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence; and,
  • Additional investigative tools by making wiretap warrants and DNA orders available for auto theft.

Q. What are the objectives of the proposed measures?

• The proposed measures are intended to:
  • Be part of the Government of Canada’s larger strategy to crack down on auto theft with a robust plan to disrupt, dismantle and prosecute the organized crime groups involved.
  • provide law enforcement with new tools to address auto theft and its links to organized crime and violence, including through new targeted offences;
  • signal to courts the need to impose stronger penalties to denounce this type of offending where appropriate, including where there is evidence the offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence;
  • address the use of certain technologies in facilitating auto theft;
  • complement efforts by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to regulate devices used to commit auto theft; and,
  • aid ongoing efforts to enhance the enforcement of money laundering in Canada and support amendments to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime in Bill C-59, the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act.

Q. Are these changes really needed?

• A vehicle is stolen every five minutes in Canada. Auto theft has been described as a national crisis. Provinces, territories, and large urban centres have identified this trend as a growing threat to public safety, particularly due to the increase in violence, carjackings and home invasions related to motor vehicle theft.
• Although the Criminal Code already includes a robust framework to address this type of offending, the proposed measures would strengthen the regime and provide additional criminal justice responses to address the concerns of increased violence, links to organized crime, and involvment of people under the age of 18 in the commission of offences, as well as denounce auto theft.

Q. Why are Criminal Code reforms being included in a Budget Bill and rushed through Parliament?

• Recognizing the significant impact this issue is having on the lives of Canadians, the Government is swiftly taking action.
• Auto theft costs Canadians millions of dollars; the need to act now is without question.
• Combating auto theft at the earliest opportunity is critical, as it not only poses a significant threat to our property and financial security, but it also undermines community safety and contributes to organized crime networks.
• Including these measures in this Bill would allow the government to implement these important changes in the short term.
• The Government has committed to take action to combat auto theft and has been working intensely with industry, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments as well as law enforcement on ways to address this issue.

Q. Were there any consultations on these measures?

• Yes. The federal government has consulted:
  • with provinces and territories, law enforcement and the automotive and insurance industries during the Federal National Summit on Auto Theft earlier this year; and
  • on strengthening the federal Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing during the summer of 2023 indicated support for higher penalties for the offence of laundering proceeds of crime.
  • at the Peel Regional Police’s Auto Theft Summit, which provided another opportunity to hear concerns from law enforcement.
• The Government of Canada will continue to engage on this issue and support its crucial partners in the prevention of auto thefts and recovery of stolen vehicles.

Q. What impact will this have on overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous people in the criminal justice system?

• The Government is committed to addressing systemic racism and discrimination in Canada’s criminal justice system.
• Considering any impacts on Indigenous people, Black people and members of marginalized groups, who are already overrepresented in our criminal justice system, is mandatory and a priority in the development of any law reform, including these measures.

Q. Would the proposed amendments be consistent with the Charter?

• The Government is confident that the proposed changes are consistent with the Charter.
• The potential effects of these proposed measures on rights and freedoms protected under the Charter are detailed in the Charter statement.

Q. What data did the government use as evidence in drafting the offences?

• The government considered a wide range of data sources when developing these measures, including Statistics Canada’s police-reported data and court data and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service on motor vehicle theft and organized crime. It has also received data and information from various stakeholders, such as Industry (e.g., insurance providers), its provincial and territorial partners, municipalities, and law enforcement bodies.

Q. Why was consideration not given to mandatory minimum penalties for the new offences or increasing the MMP for the existing offence of auto theft?

• Crimes involving auto theft pose significant public safety risks and must be treated seriously.
• MMPs restrict a court’s ability to consider individual circumstances in certain cases, potentially leading to overly harsh sentences. The imposition of MMPs has also been shown to lead to systemic delays in the criminal justice system, including on the length of trials.
• The government is continuing to ensure that the courts can impose the right penalty based on the circumstances of the offence and the offender in a manner that reflects society’s disapproval of these crimes, while contributing to a fair, effective and efficient justice system.

Q. Would conditional sentences be available for the new offences?

• Conditional sentences would not be available to the new offences where they are prosecuted by indictment and linked to organized crime.
• Conditional sentences would be available in cases where the court is of the view that a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years is appropriate, that serving the sentence in the community does not pose a risk to public safety, and that imposing a conditional sentence would be consistent with the principles of sentencing, including denunciation.

Q. Do the proposed offences apply to members of criminal organizations operating in Canada but who are located outside Canada?

• Yes, the definition of criminal organization in the Criminal Code makes clear that a criminal organization can be comprised of people in or outside of Canada.
• Moreover, the general rules applicable to party liability (sections 21 and 22 of the Criminal Code), ensure that in addition to those who commit the offence, those who counsel it or who aid in its commission can also be found guilty of the offence committed.
• Canadian criminal offences apply to conduct committed in Canada, including where a person who is not present in Canada is a party to it.

Q. How does Canada’s Criminal Code provisions for auto theft compare with those of other jurisdictions?

• Canada’s approach is similar to those found in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and several states in the United States.
• Many of these jurisdictions address auto theft either through specific auto theft offences or general theft offences.
• Several states in the United States and Australia have specific carjacking offences which would be similar to Canada’s approach in proposing a new auto theft offence and its links to violence.

New Auto theft offences (Clause 369)

Q. Why are you including new offences relating to auto theft?

• Currently, there is an offence for motor vehicle theft in section 333.1 of the Criminal Code.
• In addition, such theft can be pursued under general offences such as theft (under or over $5000) or robbery (where violence occurs).
• The amendments in the Bill create specific offences for theft of a motor vehicle in two circumstances, where the theft:
  • involves violence; or
  • has linkages to organized crime.
• These will provide law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to charge and prosecute these types of offences specifically linked to violence and organized crime.
• The offences will carry significant penalties of 14 years or more of imprisonment, to reflect their seriousness.

Q. Do you have any information on how often the mandatory minimum penalty for motor vehicle theft under Section 333.1 of the Criminal Code is used?

• Preliminary information from Statistics Canada’s court data indicate that only a small number of accused are subject to this mandatory minimum penalty.

New possession and distribution of electronic devices (Clause 370)

Q. What are the new offences related to electronic devices and why are you including them?

• The two new offences are the possession and the distribution of an electronic device that is suitable for committing auto theft for the purposes of committing auto theft.
• The Bill proposes that these offences would have a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 10 years on indictment or a term of 2 years less a day and/or a fine of up to $5000, or both on summary conviction.
• These new offences are meant to address devices used to commit auto theft, such as cloned fobs or relays, as well as their possession and distribution.

Q. Can you give examples of what type of electronic devices would be captured for the new offences of possession and distribution of an electronic device suitable for committing theft of a motor vehicle?

• The new offences of possession and distribution of an electronic device can cover a range of electronic devices.
• One example is a “relay attack” device that usually involves two pieces of equipment whereby the signal broadcast from the automobile key fob is captured and relayed to grant access to and operate the motor vehicle.
• Another example would be a “code grabber/crypto key” device which intercepts the key fob signal and recreates the rolling code or tricks the vehicle into requesting the rolling code to access the motor vehicle.

Q. Does the new offence of possession and distribution of an electronic device suitable for committing theft of a motor vehicle pose a risk of criminalizing legitimate private/commercial uses of these devices?

• No. The offences require the possession or distribution to be linked to a criminal intent. For example, an intent to commit motor vehicle theft or that the person had knowledge that the device has been used or intended to be used to commit a motor vehicle theft offence. Absent the necessary intent, possessing or distributing an electronic device suitable for committing motor vehicle theft would not be an offence.

Laundering Proceeds of Crime offence (Clause 371)

Q. What is the new proceeds of crime offence?

• The Bill proposes a new offence of laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit or, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. It proposes a maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment on indictment.

Q. What does proceeds of crime and laundering mean?

• Under section 462.3 of the Criminal Code, proceeds of crime is defined as any property, benefit, or advantage obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence.
• Laundering proceeds of crime is dealing in property that was obtained or derived from the commission of a designated offence with intent to conceal or convert the property.
• Activities associated with motor vehicle theft can include concealing the profits obtained from stolen vehicles to fund other forms of serious crime like the trafficking in drugs, people, and firearms.

Q. Why was there a need to create a new proceeds of crime offence if there is already one in the Criminal Code?

• Criminal organizations frequently rely on specialized money laundering networks to launder their proceeds of crime including from motor vehicle theft – to facilitate the use of their proceeds in the legitimate financial system and to further engage in criminal activity.
• Under the Criminal Code, the existing offence of laundering proceeds of crime is a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment if prosecuted by indictment.
• Creating a new offence for laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization with a higher penalty demonstrates the Government’s denunciation of this type of conduct. It would signal to the courts the added seriousness of the offence of laundering proceeds of crime when connected to organized crime.
• Having a separate offence with an increased penalty can also disrupt or dismantle specialized money laundering networks that work on behalf of organized crime which can then negatively impact criminal organizations by making it more difficult to fund their operations.
• It would also provide a new tool for enforcement and prosecutors to respond to the significant problem of money laundering related to organized crime.

Q. Do you have any data on laundering proceeds of crime under subsection 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code, including with regards to a criminal organization?

• Data reported by police for the years of 2018 to 2022 indicate that police carried out a total of 255 investigations into the laundering of proceeds of crime involving organized crime groups where laundering proceeds of crime was the most serious offence. Laundering proceeds of crime by organized crime groups accounted for about one-fifth (19%) of all laundering of proceeds of crime incidents [investigated by police, according to police-reported data] during the five-year period (1,375 incidents from 2018 to 2022).
• With respect to sentencing, 92 cases of money laundering resulted in a conviction between 2017/2018 and 2021/2022, of which almost half (46%) resulted in a custodial sentence. More than one-quarter (29%) of the convictions resulted in a conditional sentence, while 14% resulted in probation and 10% resulted in an unspecified sentence.

Q. How will the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 (Bill C-59), if implemented, impact the new offence for laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization?

• The proposed amendments in the Fall Economic Statement (Bill C-59) aim to address challenges associated with prosecuting third parties who engage in laundering proceeds of crime; to modernize seizure and restraint of proceeds of crime provisions; and, to clarify that production orders for financial data are available for digital assets such as cryptocurrency.
• The amendments in Bill C-59 if implemented would be applicable to the new offence of laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization.

New investigative tools (wiretap and DNA provisions (Clauses 368 and 373)

Q. What are the new investigative tools in this Bill?

• The amendments would ensure that auto theft offences are eligible for DNA and wiretap warrants, which would facilitate the investigation and prosecution of these offences.

Q. What are the amendments to section 183 meant to do (Clause 368)?

• The amendments to section 183 would allow law enforcement to seek an authorization for a wiretap to investigate offences where auto theft or laundering proceeds of crime for a criminal organization is suspected. This is consistent with the current ability for law enforcement to seek wiretaps for auto theft (section 333.1) and laundering proceeds of crime (section 462.31) as well as other serious offences.

Q. What do the amendments to the DNA part of the Criminal Code do (Clause 373)?

• The purpose of taking offender DNA samples is to add them to the DNA databank for comparison against unknown samples in subsequent investigations to identify suspects.
• The Bill would ensure that a court must make a DNA order when offenders are convicted of the two new auto theft offences and the new laundering proceeds of crime for a criminal organization offence. The amendments do this by adding these offences to the definition of “primary designated offence” in the Criminal Code.
• However, sentencing courts would retain discretion not to issue a DNA order where the offender demonstrates that the impact on the offender’s privacy or security of the person would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.
• The Bill would also ensure that courts have discretion to make a DNA order for the new offences targeting the possession and distribution of an electronic device for the purpose of committing auto theft by including them in the definition of “secondary designated offence” in the Criminal Code.

Q. Why do courts have the discretion to make a DNA order for the possession and distribution of an electric device for auto theft offences?

• The offences for which DNA orders are mandatory capture some of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code (e.g., murder, manslaughter) with the highest penalties (see section 487.04 of the Criminal Code). The discretion to impose a DNA order for these hybrid offences was intended to allow for a DNA order when appropriate considering the circumstances of each case. Listing these offences as “secondary designated offences” would ensure that a court may order a DNA warrant whether the offences are pursued by indictment or summarily.

Aggravating Factor (Clause 374)

Q. What does the amendment do?

• The amendment would add a new aggravating factor a judge must consider upon sentencing where there is evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence.
• This provision would provide clear guidance to sentencing courts to consider imposing more severe penalties on offenders who involve youth in the commission of an offence.
• The broad application of this aggravating factor is intended to signal to the courts that this type of behaviour – using youth to facilitate crimes – is unacceptable.

Q. Can you give examples of what this might capture? Does it only involve auto theft?

• Depending on the type of offence, a young person’s degree of involvement in the commission of the offence can vary. The proposed aggravating factor would help address instances where there is evidence an adult has used their influence to involve a person under the age of 18 in criminal activity. Being “involved” would capture situations where a young person is susceptible to criminal liability for the offence by being a party to the offence.
• For example, in the context of an auto theft offence, an organized crime group, which can include street gangs, may involve young persons by having them steal a vehicle. The young person would not have to be a part of the organized crime group or even associated with the organized crime group for this aggravating factor to apply.

Q. Will this aggravating factor apply to proceedings under the Youth Criminal Justice Act?

• No. The YCJA has its own sentencing framework, which recognizes the specific circumstances of youth.
• Exceptionally, where a young person receives an adult sentence, the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code would apply.

Consequential amendments (Clauses 375-377)

Q. Could you explain the consequential amendments?

• A consequential amendment is a change or modification made to a law as a result of another legislative change. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the legal framework remains coherent and consistent after the primary change has been enacted. They may be minor adjustments or more substantial revisions depending on the nature of the primary change.
• The Bill makes consequential amendments to three federal statutes and would add:
  • the two new auto theft offences and the new laundering proceeds of crime for criminal organization offence to the Canada Business Corporations Act schedule, which lists Criminal Code offences for which there is obligatory disclosure by corporations of information to investigative bodies;
  • the new offence of laundering proceeds of crime for criminal organization to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to ensure that the provisions of that Act, which rely on that definition, incorporate the new offence; and
  • The Criminal Code offence of laundering proceeds of crime may be pursued against a person who engages in laundering the proceeds of crime obtained or derived from offences committed under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. However, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act includes provisions to require that the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada or Deputy Attorney General of Canada be obtained prior to commencing such proceedings, and to stipulate that such proceedings can only be conducted by the Attorney General of Canada or counsel acting on their behalf. Consequential amendments to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act are proposed to include the new proposed money laundering offence within the relevant provisions of this Act.

Q. What is the effect of the coordinating provision (Clause 378)?

• The amendment coordinates this Bill with Bill C-59, the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023.
• It would ensure that amendments proposed to section 462.31 through Bill C-59 will also apply to the new offence in subsection 462.31(2.1) (laundering proceeds of crime for criminal organization) should the affected provisions in both bills come into force.

Q. When would the proposed measures come into force (Clause 379)?

• The proposed measure would come into force 30 days after the day on which this Division of the Bill receives Royal Assent.
• This timing would provide provinces, territories, and law enforcement some time to implement these changes.

Overview

Part 4 – Division 35
Amendments to the Criminal Code (Auto theft)

The proposed measure has five components. First, it would create two new motor vehicle theft offences for circumstances where i) violence was used, threatened, or attempted against any person, and ii) where the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Second, it would create two new offences targeting possession and distribution respectively of certain electronic devices that are suitable for committing motor vehicle theft, where the possession or distribution is for the purpose of committing such theft. Third, it would create a new offence of laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. These new offences would carry significant maximum penalties ranging from 10 to 14 years imprisonment. Fourth, the proposed measure would create a new aggravating factor applicable at sentencing where there is evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence. Finally, the proposal includes amendments to provide additional investigative tools and consequential amendments related to the investigation and prosecution of these new offences.

Responding to Government Commitments

The proposed measures reflect the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada’s public commitment, which was reiterated at the National Summit on Combatting Auto Theft (February 8, 2024) and at the Peel Region Auto Theft Summit 2024 (March 20, 2024) to review the Criminal Code and advance amendments to strengthen the motor vehicle theft regime, especially where thefts are committed by violence (e.g. carjackings) or for the benefit of a criminal organization. They would also respond to calls from police for higher penalties for motor vehicle theft to more clearly denounce such conduct. These new measures would also seek to more clearly denounce conduct by offenders who have involved persons under the age of 18 in a crime.

Policy Objectives

The objective of this proposal is to address the rise in motor vehicle theft, especially violent and organized crime related thefts. The proposed measures are intended to: denounce this type of offending while providing law enforcement with new tools to investigate motor vehicle theft and its links to organized crime and violence; signal to courts the needs to impose stronger sentences where there is evidence the offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence; provide courts with the ability to impose higher or more severe penalties upon conviction for motor vehicle theft, where appropriate; introduce new offences to address the possession and distribution of technologies that facilitate motor vehicle theft; aid ongoing efforts to enhance the enforcement of money laundering in Canada and support amendments to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime in Bill C-59 (the Fall Economic Statement); and complement efforts by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to regulate devices certain used to commit motor vehicle theft.

Amendments to Existing Legislation

Criminal Code

The proposed measures modify the Criminal Code as follows:

• The definition of “offence” in section 183 would be amended to add references to subsections 333.1(1) (motor vehicle theft), 333.1(3) (motor vehicle theft when violence used, threatened, or attempted), 333.1(4) (motor vehicle theft for criminal organization), 462.31(1) (laundering proceeds of crime), and 462.31(2.1) (laundering proceeds of crime for criminal organization) to that definition, which would permit wiretap investigations for these offences.
• Section 333.1 would be modified to create two new subsections (333.1(3) and (4)) that would provide for the new offences of motor vehicles theft where violence is used, threatened, or attempted against any person, and where the offence is committed at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with a criminal organization, respectively.
• A new section 333.2 would be added consisting of five subsections: subsections 333.2(1) and (2) would provide for the offences of possession and distribution of electronic motor vehicle theft devices, respectively; subsection 333.2(3) would provide punishment for these new offences as a maximum of 10 years imprisonment by indictment or two year less one day and/or a fine of up to $5000 upon summary conviction; subsection 333.2(4) would provide discretionary authority for a sentencing court to order the device be forfeited upon conviction for either of the new offences; and subsection 333.2(5) which would preclude such forfeiture where the device is the property of a person who was not party to the offence.
• Section 462.31 would be amended to create a new subsection 462.31(2.1) providing for the new offence of laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Subsection 462.31(3) provides an exemption for peace officer to engage in laundering activities for the purpose of an investigation or in the execution of their duties. The peace officer exception would be amended to include a reference to the new subsection 462.31(2.1) to permit a peace officer to engage in laundering activities for a criminal organization for the purpose of an investigation.
• Paragraph 462.48(1.1)(f) (disclosure of income tax information) would be amended to add references to subsections 462.31(1) and (2.1) to permit the Attorney General to make an application for disclosure of tax information to investigate laundering proceeds of crime.
• Section 487.04 at the definition of “primary designated offence” would be amended to add subsections 333.1(3) (motor vehicle theft when violence used, threatened or attempted), 333.1(4) motor vehicle theft for criminal organization, and 462.31(2.1) (laundering proceeds of crime for criminal organization) to provide for mandatory orders (subject to exception) authorizing the taking samples of bodily substances for the purpose of DNA analysis (DNA orders) from persons convicted of these offences.
• Section 487.04 at the definition of “secondary designated offence” would be amended to add subsections 333.1(1) (motor vehicle theft), 333.2(1) (possession of device for purpose of committing theft), and 333.2(2) (distribution of device linked to theft) to provide for discretionary DNA orders for persons convicted of these offences.
• Section 718.2 would be modified to create a new subparagraph 718.2(a)(ii.2), providing for a new aggravating factor addressing the involvement of a person under the age of eighteen years in the commission of an offence.

Consequential Amendments

The proposed measure would amend the Schedule of Offences to the Canada Business Corporations Act to include the new motor vehicle theft offences at subsections 333.1(3) and (4), and the new money laundering offence at subsection 462.31(2.1) to provide for obligatory disclosure by corporations bound by that Act of information in the corporation’s register of individuals with significant control to the relevant investigative body to investigate these new offences.

The proposed measure would amend subsection 9(3) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) to include reference to the proposed new money laundering offence. Proceedings may be brought for laundering the proceeds of crime under the Criminal Code where it is alleged that the proceeds were obtained or derived from the commission of an offence under the CAHWCA. However, subsection 9(3) of that Act requires that proceedings for offences listed in the provision, including the Criminal Code offence of laundering proceeds of crime, can only be commenced with the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of Canada, and those proceedings may be conducted only by the Attorney General of Canada or counsel acting on their behalf.

The proposed measure would amend subsection 2(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act at the definition of “money laundering offence” to include the new money laundering offence at subsection 462.31(2.1) to ensure that the usage of that term through that Act will include the new offence.

Coming into Force

The proposed measures would come into force 30 days after the day on which this Division of the Budget Implementation Act receives Royal Assent.

Key Messages

Part 4 – Division 35
Amendments to the Criminal Code (Auto theft)

• The Government of Canada recognizes that motor vehicle theft is a growing and serious concern that affects communities throughout the country. The Government is committed to taking action to keep people in Canada and their property safe. Combatting auto theft requires all levels of government, as well as partners in industry and policing, to work together in a coordinated and focused way.
• Over the past few months, the Government has been reviewing the concerns and challenges identified by provinces and territories, law enforcement, and the automotive and insurance industries regarding the rise of motor vehicle theft.
• The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada made a public commitment to review the Criminal Code and advance amendments to strengthen the motor vehicle theft regime, especially where thefts are committed by violence or for the benefit of a criminal organization.
• Although the Criminal Code already has strong measures to address motor vehicle theft at all stages of the crime, more can be done. This is why amendments to the Criminal Code were proposed in the Budget Implementation Act (BIA), which would respond to the rise in motor vehicle theft, particularly where violence and organized crime is involved.
• The amendments would target:
  • Links between motor vehicle theft and organized crime or violence, including carjacking, by creating new offences criminalizing this behaviour with maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment.
  • Sophisticated auto thefts by creating new offences criminalizing possession and distribution of certain devices that facilitate auto theft, where possessed or distributed for the purpose of committing motor vehicle theft punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
• The amendments would also address:
  • Laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization by creating a new offence targeting the laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization punishable by 14 years imprisonment.
  • The involvement of youth in crime by creating a new aggravating factor applicable at sentencing, where there was evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence.
• In addition, the Government of Canada is proposing measures that would allow specified offences to be investigated by wiretaps, and, when someone is convicted of these new offences, it will be mandatory or discretionary for courts to order the offender to provide a DNA sample depending on the seriousness of the offence under the Criminal Code.
• These changes will assist law enforcement in their investigations to address motor vehicle theft using violence or specific technologies and its links to organized crime and violence, provide courts with the ability to impose higher sentences where appropriate, and address the problematic use of young persons by organized crime groups in the commission of auto theft and other crimes.

Clause-by-Clause

Part 4 – Division 35
Amendments to the Criminal Code (Auto theft)

Subclause 368(1)

Subclause 368(1) would amend subparagraph (a)(liv.1) of the definition of “offence” in section 183 of the Criminal Code to allow law enforcement to seek an authorization for a wiretap to investigate the two new motor vehicle offences in subsections 333.1(3) (motor vehicle theft when violence used, threatened or attempted) and 333.1(4) (motor vehicle theft for criminal organization) that are proposed in this bill. These changes are consequential to the proposed enactment of these new offences. Currently, the Criminal Code authorizes wiretaps for the existing motor vehicle theft offence.

Subclause 368(2)

Subclause 368(2) would amend subparagraph (a)(lxxxiii) of the definition of “offence” in section 183 of the Criminal Code to allow law enforcement to seek an authorization for a wiretap to investigate the proposed new offence in subsection 462.31(2.1) (laundering proceeds of crime for criminal organization). This change is consequential to the proposed enactment of this new offence. Currently, the Criminal Code authorizes wiretaps for the existing money laundering offence.

Clause 369

Clause 369 would add two new offences to the Criminal Code relating to motor vehicle theft. Subsection 333.1(3) would prohibit motor vehicle theft when violence is used, threatened, or attempted against a person. Subsection 333.1(4) would prohibit motor vehicle theft committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Both new offences would be indictable offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Clause 370

Clause 370 would add two new offences to the Criminal Code. Possession of an electronic device suitable for committing motor vehicle theft would be prohibited under subsection 333.2(1) where the possession is for the purpose of committing motor vehicle theft. Making, repairing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, distributing, or making available such a device, without lawful excuse, would be prohibited under subsection 333.2(2) where the person knows the device has been or will be used to commit motor vehicle theft. Subsection 333.2(3) makes clear that these offences would be hybrid offences with a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, when proceeded with on indictment or two years less a day or a fine of $5000, or both, when proceed with by summary conviction. Subsection 333.2(4) would provide courts with discretion to order forfeiture of the device if a person is convicted of either offence and for disposal of the device by the Attorney General. However, subsection 333.2(5) sets out a limitation such that forfeiture may not be ordered if the device is the property of a person who is not a party to the proposed offences.

Clause 371

Clause 371 would amend the Criminal Code to enact a new offence of laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization in subsection 462.31(2.1). The penalty for this new indictable offence would be a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years. An existing exception in subsection 462.31(3) for peace officers or persons acting under their direction to the existing laundering proceeds offence for investigative purposes would also be amended to include the new offence.

Clause 372

Clause 372 would amend the French version of paragraph 462.48(1.1)(f) to add “un acte criminel” (meaning “indictable offence”), alongside the reference to “une infraction” (meaning “summary conviction offence”). This approach ensures that paragraph 462.48(1.1)(f) captures the new proposed offence of laundering proceeds of crime on behalf of a criminal organization, which is a pure indictable offence. Including both terms in the French version will ensure that a court may order the disclosure of tax information in an investigation into laundering proceeds of crime on behalf of a criminal organization, where the proceeds of crime were obtained or derived from the commission of one of the offences referred to in the provision. This ambiguity does not arise in the English version, where the term “offence” captures both summary conviction and indictable offences.

Subclause 373(1)

Subclause 373(1) would amend the definition of “primary designated offence” in paragraph 487.04(a.1) of the Criminal Code to include the two new proposed offences of motor vehicle theft when violence used, threatened or attempted and motor vehicle theft for a criminal organization. Paragraph 487.04(a.1) sets out a list of offences for which an order, authorizing the taking from an offender of samples of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, is mandatory upon conviction, discharge, or a finding of guilt under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Under existing subsection 487.051(2), an order would not have to be made for a listed offence in paragraph 487.04(a.1) if the person establishes that the impact of the order on their privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in taking the sample.

Subclause 373(2)

Subclause 373(2) would amend the definition of “primary designated offence” in paragraph 487.04(a.1) of the Criminal Code to add the new proposed offence laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization as new subparagraph (xiii.1). Paragraph 487.04(a.1) sets out a list of offences for which an order, authorizing the taking from the offender samples of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, is mandatory upon conviction, discharge or a finding of guilt under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Under existing subsection 487.051(2), an order would not have to be made for a listed offence in paragraph 487.04(a.1) if the person establishes that the impact of an order on their privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in taking the sample.

Subclause 373(3)

Subclause 373(3) would amend the definition of “secondary designated offence” in paragraph 487.04(c) of the Criminal Code to add the existing motor vehicle offence in subsection 333.1(1) as well as the two new proposed offences of possession of a device for the purpose of committing motor vehicle theft and distribution of a device used to commit motor vehicle theft. Paragraph 487.04(c) sets out a list of offences for which an order, authorizing the taking from the offender samples of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis is discretionary upon conviction, discharge, or a finding of guilt under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Clause 374

Clause 374 would amend paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code to add a new aggravating factor to the list of existing aggravating factors that courts must take into consideration when imposing a sentence. The new aggravating factor at subparagraph 718.2(a)(ii.2) would require a court to take into consideration evidence that an offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence. This aggravating factor would apply to adult offenders or to youth who receive an adult sentence. Codifying this aggravating factor would signal to the sentencing court Parliament’s view on the gravity of this type of criminal conduct, which can negatively impact on young persons who may be vulnerable to be taking advantage of by more sophisticated criminal actors.

Clause 375(1)

Subclause 375(1) is a consequential amendment. It would add the new proposed motor vehicle offences to section 1 of the Schedule to the Canada Business Corporations Act. The Schedule lists Criminal Code offences for which obligatory disclosure by corporations bound by that Act, of information in the corporation’s register of individuals with significant control over that corporation (as defined in section 2.1 of that Act), to investigative bodies to investigate these new offences.

Clause 375(2)

Subclause 375(2) is a consequential amendment. It would add the new proposed offence of laundering proceeds of crime for a criminal organization to section 1 of the Schedule of offences to the Canada Business Corporations Act. The Schedule lists Criminal Code offences for which obligatory disclosure by corporations bound by that Act, of information in the corporation’s register of individuals with significant control over that corporation (as defined in section 2.1 of that Act), to investigative bodies to investigate this new offence.

Clause 376

Clause 376 is a consequential amendment. It would add the new proposed offence of laundering proceeds of crime for a criminal organization to the definition of “money laundering offence" in subsection 2(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to ensure that the provisions of that Act, which rely on that definition, incorporate the new offence in subsection 462.31(2.1).

Clause 377

Clause 377 is a consequential amendment. It would add the new proposed offence of laundering proceeds of crime for a criminal organization to subsection 9(3) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Subsection 9(3) of that Act ensures that proceedings for offences listed therein related to property or proceeds obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of an offence under that Act, can only be commenced with the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada or Deputy Attorney General of Canada and can only be conducted by the Attorney General of Canada or counsel acting on their behalf.

Clause 378

Clause 378 is a coordinating amendment with Bill C-59, the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 to ensure that amendments proposed to section 462.31 through Bill C-59 will also apply to the new offence in subsection 462.31(2.1) (laundering proceeds of crime for criminal organization) should the affected provisions in both bills come into force.

Clause 379

Clause 379 sets the coming into force of the Division, other than Clause 378, as the 30^th day after the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent. Clause 378, a coordinating amendment with Bill C-59, the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, will come into force upon Royal Assent.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page