The bill misidentifies the issue in current law and blurs the distinction between theft and conversion. And I'd like to go on to explain that currently there is a distinction in law between theft—the permanent taking of any property, including a vehicle—and conversion, the temporary taking of a vehicle. The offence of conversion exists specifically because it can be difficult to prove an intent to permanently deprive someone of their vehicle—the issue at the heart of this member's bill. Misidentifying the issue in the bill tries to broaden the definition of robbery so it includes temporary theft of a vehicle rather than simply adding in an aggravating offence for carjacking, which would probably be a better way of going about it. This blurs the obvious line between theft and conversion, is untidy, unclear, and potentially applies beyond motor vehicles, which creates a whole new class of problems that the courts would probably have to deal with. The approach taken by the amendment is simply just far too broad. It redefines robbery in all cases, not just as carjacking, as the intent of this bill wants to do. 