Evidence of meeting #19 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

William Bartlett  Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

I would like to call to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this Tuesday, March 11, 2008. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, January 30, 2008, are to consider Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to identity theft and related misconduct.

Appearing before our committee, I'd like to thank the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Rob Nicholson; and from the Department of Justice, Mr. William Bartlett, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; along with Mr. Christopher Ram, legal counsel, criminal law policy section. Thank you all for being here.

Minister, you have the floor.

Excuse me, there's a point of order.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

This won't take long.

At five o'clock, are we to stop and discuss committee business, given that there's a vote at 5:30?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Committee business will be brought forward approximately 10 minutes prior to end of the session, so we will stop at about 5:20.

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

That is not enough. Considering how important the motion is, I think we should stop at 5 o'clock.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Before we get into any further discussion of this, what's the desire of the committee? Is it 20 minutes?

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

I think we did agree to an hour and a half for the minister's testimony. That's all.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

I don't remember that discussion. How about just having a saw-off here? We'll use the last 15 minutes for the discussion of committee business.

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Or 20 minutes?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Mr. Comartin.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

We're going to have to stop by 5:25. The votes are at 5:30.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

That's understood.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

If you're going to give this 15 minutes, we'll have to break at 5:10.

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

It is going to take twenty minutes. So we should stop around 5 o'clock.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

All right. So we'll make it five o'clock.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Minister, you have the floor.

3:30 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be here on Bill C-27, the identity theft bill. It has received widespread support. I've been quite encouraged by the response we have had to the bill, and why not, Mr. Chairman? We are trying to catch up with changes in technology. There have been very many rapid changes, as you know. Our job is to try to stay on top of them.

I was in Montreal a couple of months ago and indicated the government's intention to introduce a bill on identity theft. One reporter said to me, “Is this your attempt to stay ahead of the bad guys?” I said, “Look, I want to make sure we catch up with the bad guys.”

What happens is with changes in technology...you've got wording that's been in the Criminal Code since 1892, in some cases--and it wasn't new in 1892, as I like to point out to people; it was adopted then.

Our challenge as legislators is to try to make sure that the legislation stays up to date. In fairness, we've always had a number of identity-based offences. Those offences that are in the Criminal Code include impersonation, forgery of identity documents, and secondary offences such as fraud. We also have some offences to protect specific forms of identification, such as the Canadian passport.

This bill makes changes to modernize these long-standing offences, but its main focus is the creation of new offences that focus specifically on abuses of identification and identity information. These new offences do not depend on whether other crimes are committed with the information, and they can be applied before the offenders have a chance to misuse it.

We believe this is important for several reasons. First, it recognizes that in the modern era, identity crimes generate a couple of groups of victims. The harm to victims of secondary offences has always been addressed by such offences as fraud, but there is also harm to those whose identity has been misused and misappropriated. Reputations, creditworthiness, and even criminal liability may be affected. False information can spread quickly, and we should realize it's not just across Canada but across international borders as well. These victims suffer harm whether or not other crimes are committed with the identity information. That damage, as I'm sure you're aware, can be very difficult to correct.

The bill recognizes these victims in two ways. The new offences criminalize the actual taking and trafficking in victims' identities, which means the police can investigate and intervene at an earlier stage, without waiting for offenders to actually use those identities for other crimes.

We are also proposing an amendment to allow the cost of repairing or restoring identity to be included in restitution orders.

Second, the proposed new measures will close gaps created by new technologies and new crimes.

Physical documents are property and taking them is theft, but simply copying electronic information is not addressed by traditional property offences. In serious cases, digital identities have been taken en masse and then criminally trafficked as a new form of illicit and valuable commodity. Credit card information is skimmed directly from cards or taken from databases and sold internationally, using e-mail and the Internet.

Criminal groups have also learned to specialize and to cooperate with one another. One may steal or fabricate information; another may produce physical or electronic documents for sale; the end users of the identities then commit other crimes with them. In transnational schemes, offenders can carry out key functions on websites offering the open sale of false identities in countries where legislation or law enforcement is weak.

The proposed amendments respond to both these problems. For the first time in Canada, we are proposing a definition and offences based on the underlying concept of identity information. These will apply to taking or copying the actual information itself and not just documents containing the information.

Adding specific offences also means that every stage of the process is addressed, including obtaining information, making illicit documents, trafficking in both the documents and information, and illicit use of the documents or information. This is the aspect of this bill that I have had law enforcement agencies across this country point out to me as a step in the right direction, because it's a complete package that we have to talk about. We have to get everybody all the way along. This ensures that the criminal law applies, even if only part of the scheme takes place here in Canada. I think that's very important.

Third, from a more practical standpoint, the new offences enable law enforcement agencies to become engaged in earlier aspects of the criminal enterprise, and I think this is what they like so much about it. These new offences will provide additional deterrence focused specifically on identity crime. They will provide an additional tool against criminal activity, including major frauds, crimes related to immigration, smuggling of immigrants, trafficking in persons, money laundering, organized crime, and terrorism.

And fourth, identity-related crime, as you know, is an expanding problem at the international level. Credit cards may be copied or skimmed here in Canada and that information can be transferred abroad in minutes. Long before the cardholder or card issuer is even aware that the information has been compromised, it can be used to commit crimes and fraud in other parts of the world. The government has been actively engaged in raising this issue in international fora for some time. A few other countries have enacted identity crime offences or are considering them.

By bringing forward these amendments, Canada will be sending a strong signal to other countries that we take the problem seriously and that we are committed to doing something about it. The proposed maximum sentences for the major offences also ensure that the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which Canada ratified in 2002, will allow us to seek mutual legal assistance, extradition, and other forms of international cooperation in cases where an offence is transnational in nature and involves a criminal organization.

I would propose to leave some of the more technical amendments for your questions, of course, but let me now turn to what I believe are the key amendments in this package.

The first of these would form a new section 56.1 and would criminalize the procurement, possession, transfer and sale or offering for sale of specific physical identity documents. At present, simply possessing or trafficking in another person's identity documents is not a crime, and we believe it should be, subject to the appropriate exceptions. We have thought very carefully about those exceptions, and you'll see them listed in the bill. I think they all make sense.

As an added safeguard, the offence also allows for other lawful excuses of a more general nature. For example, a person caught trying to enter Canada with a collection of different passports might trigger an investigation, but obviously a parent in possession of a child's passport would have a lawful and reasonable excuse.

The second key amendment expands the existing offence of uttering forged documents. This would now include trafficking in forged documents and the possession of forged documents with the intent to traffic or use them. This is subject to the definition of document, which includes both physical and electronic documents.

The third key amendment and a most important change in this package is composed of three elements: the establishment of a new definition of identity information; a new offence of identity theft; and the modernization and expansion of the old offence of personation, resulting in a new offence of identity fraud.

Existing criminal law does not extend to merely taking or copying personal information or trafficking in it as an illicit commodity unless other offences are committed with it. The proposed new identity theft offence deals primarily with obtaining or possessing identity information in circumstances that show intent to commit one of a series of other related offences.

A similar offence will be established to cover trafficking in such information, knowing or believing it will be used for one of those same offences. To address the problem of false identity information being used to deceive others, the proposed offence of identity fraud focuses on the misuse of identity information for an improper purpose, such as evading criminal liability or to gain some advantage for the offender or to disadvantage the victim. This is an expansion of the existing personation offence, adding scenarios related to the offender's misuse of the information in ways other than actual impersonation.

Finally, in proposing these amendments the government realizes that officials from legitimate investigative agencies often must conceal their identities or impersonate others in the course of undercover investigations. To address this, legitimate investigative agencies are excluded from the new offences for otherwise unlawful conduct undertaken in the course of their duties or employment.

The proposed exemptions do not change the status quo or extend new investigative powers. I want to be clear about that. They merely ensure that our capacity to ensure the law and protect Canadians is not adversely affected by the changes we are proposing.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary of the legislation.

I am here with the officials to respond to any questions or comments you may have.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

We will go to questions. Go ahead, Mr. Murphy.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here. It's nice to get back to some black letter law and discuss what I think is a very good initiative, Mr. Minister.

I think some credit has to go to a member of Parliament, Mr. Rajotte, whose private member's bill we discussed. It's somewhat fresh in my mind.

Not to be overly protective of backbenchers and private members, I see there is a provision in this law that seems to suggest that if another piece of legislation, Bill C-299, comes into effect, this legislation will kill it.

We were aware at the time that there were some gaps in it. Are you satisfied that Bill C-27 covers everything that Bill C-299 was going to cover? I am just going from memory, but it seemed to me there was a fair amount of nervousness from the private investigating community and from other communities with respect to what they could and couldn't do.

Do you think Bill C-27 makes things better with respect to what we identified as gaps at previous hearings?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

I know Mr. Bartlett has a few comments on this, but let me start by acknowledging your comments.

I certainly did comment before the House of Commons that my colleague and yours, James Rajotte, was one of the inspirations behind this bill. His bill is more limited, as you know, than this particular piece of legislation.

I can tell you that I discussed this with him and indicated that we'd be coming forward with this. He is completely supportive of this because it incorporates the principles of his bill and expands it. He was quite understanding of that.

In answer to the second part of your question, about whether we have encapsulated some of the issues raised, I think we have done that. I know Mr. Bartlett wants to make a comment on that, and I will let him do that, but we looked very carefully at his bill when we drafted this one. Again, I think this one goes considerably further.

Mr. Bartlett, would you comment?

3:45 p.m.

William Bartlett Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The primary focus of Mr. Rajotte's bill was on what's called “pretexting”, a particular means of gathering identity information for the purposes of particular offences that were spelled out in the bill.

Bill C-27 goes well beyond that in terms of the means that might be used to gather the identity information. It's any means, as long as the purpose is to commit an offence involving fraud or some form of deception, so it's a broader range of offences that they might then put that information to.

It's also somewhat broader in terms of passing that information on. Mr. Rajotte's bill was limited to passing it on for money, essentially; this measure involves passing it on whether you're charging or not, or if you know or believe or are reckless as to whether the person you're passing it on to might then use it for an offence involving fraud or deception. It deals with all the major objectives of Mr. Rajotte's bill in a somewhat broader way.

I think, as the minister has said, when Mr. Rajotte's bill was being dealt with in committee, there was a recognition that the bill was fairly narrowly focused and that government legislation might come along, deal with it in a broader way, and subsume it.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

I do have a question, because I recall as well that some of the issues surrounded the definitions of information.

I see in this bill—and I'll sort of can it here for you, or for me, maybe—first, “identity information”, which is in the legislation and in the Criminal Code, “means any information...commonly used...to identify...an individual”. I'm cutting out a bunch of words. It includes biological or physiological, of course, but it's any information commonly used to identify an individual.

In PIPEDA, the definition is “information about an identifiable individual”, but then, importantly, “does not include the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization”. So, essentially, what Bill C-27 does is use “personal information” from PIPEDA and add—am I right or not?—the name, title, business address, or telephone number of an employee of an organization. If I recall, that was one of the problems with Bill C-299.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

You got it right, Mr. Murphy. Well done.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Thank you.

Do I have much time left?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

You have time for another question.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

The pretexting was one of the other questions that came up. I know Mr. Rajotte's bill dealt primarily with that, and now you're subsuming all that.

I did address the private investigators' investigation element. Would their concerns be met? I guess we'll find out, perhaps, but would their concerns be met by Bill C-27?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

I think they are.