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.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I know Mr. Comartin had one quick question.
Minister, could you indulge Mr. Comartin?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Could Mr. Bartlett stay? I want to follow up with the question we were cut off on.
Mr. Minister, has there been any progress by the government on the whole issue of regulatory responsibility by the federal government in the situation where databases have been stolen or misplaced and the responsibility of the person or corporation holding that database to advise people that their personal data had been stolen or lost or that it may be in somebody's hands...? In effect, Mr. Rajotte tried to address this in his private member's bill.
I know it isn't your department; it's probably Industry. Is there any progress being made in placing additional legal responsibilities on the holders of the databases if that happens?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Well, you've raised a very interesting and important question, Mr. Comartin. And you're quite correct that it would be within my responsibilities as Minister of Justice. But I'd certainly be glad to pass those comments and your concerns on to the responsible minister, with your admonitions that the government should move on that.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
If the minister wants to leave, that's fine, unless Mr. Bartlett is going with him.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Again, thank you very much, and I wish you well in your deliberations. And again, I'm absolutely confident this will be well received by your constituents and people right across this country.
Thank you very much.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Concerning that scenario we were dealing with, the housebreaking tools, let me give you this scenario. We have somebody who claims, “Look, I just came across this briefcase. It has all this data in it. I didn't steal it, but I've got it.” I'm not sure we'd get a conviction under subsection 402(2) in those circumstances.
4:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, if all you've got is that the person has a briefcase with one person's information in it, then presumably if that's all there was, perhaps you shouldn't be getting a conviction for possession of identity information in circumstances giving rise to the intent that you might use it. And in fact, that might be true. It might be true that they've simply found a briefcase.
But if they have a briefcase with identity information relating to 50 people in it, or if you investigate and find that the briefcase was stolen, for example, and that person fits the description of somebody who might have stolen it, you may actually have physical theft of the briefcase.
What you're stating is the very reason why we require the showing of some evidence of at least circumstances that suggest they have the intent to use it for a further offence. You could well have a case where somebody loses a briefcase, somebody finds the briefcase, and they've acquired it quite innocently.
Now, have they made any efforts to return it, and so on? All of these might be relevant circumstances, but if all you had was simply the person and the briefcase belonging to somebody else, there might well be that sort of innocent explanation.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I certainly appreciate the insights we've had here.
I have a few questions in regard to this legislation. I'm just wondering about this. The way the Criminal Code is currently laid out, we have an offence for murder, but we have another offence for attempted murder.
When I'm reading through this documentation, I don't see anything here that.... I see a few words about attempt, but it's attempt after they've already procured or garnered some personal information. I don't see anything in here that actually would result in investigators being able to lay a charge if someone is even attempting to procure or steal or collect personal identification. All the offences seem to deal with the information once it's already in their possession--for example, “Every person who, fraudulently and without colour of right, possesses, uses, traffics in or permits”. But there is nothing in that subsection 130(3). And as I go through, there are a few other clauses in here where it talks about nefarious activities once the information is actually collected, but there doesn't seem to be anything that addresses an attempt.
I'm very, very much concerned, coming from a bit of an IT background, about the ability to hack into information systems or the attempt of hacking into information systems to collect information. I know there have been several cases in recent months where large retail stores have lost large amounts of credit card information or have had large amounts of credit card information taken from their databases.
That brings up another whole can of fish I really don't want to get into right now, which is whether or not it's ethical for companies to keep credit card information they don't really need, because the transaction can happen without them keeping the credit card.
But on the attempted part, is there anything in the changes that are proposed here, or is there anything else in the Criminal Code that would allow an attempt at garnering this information to be considered an offence?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, attempts are dealt with generally in section 24 of the code. Whenever there's an offence, there's also an applicable offence of attempting to commit that offence, and then there's case law that's built up around that. You have to take certain steps to effect your intent. It can't be just a matter of pure intent. But if you have the intent to commit an offence and you take steps to do so--and the case law is quite full in terms of what those steps are--then you have the offence of “attempt to commit” whatever offence you had the intent to commit and had taken steps to commit.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you very much.
That was my main question, Mr. Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes, I was going to ask the minister--and Mr. Bartlett, you can perhaps answer this--what are some of the more typical examples? I know you can't comment on anything that's ongoing, but people have certainly raised to my attention a number of high-profile cases of widespread identity theft. We're not talking about, in some cases, small-scale operators, but about something that is very well organized, very internationally connected, and in many instances hard to track down.
When this bill is passed, how are things going to change? What's the impact going to be on the ability of, for example, the police to combat identity theft today versus after this is passed? Obviously, there are provisions in this bill that are new, but in the overall objective of tackling identity theft, how is this improving on the current situation?