Justice Committee on March 11th, 2008

[A voice]

In Canada?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

No, not in Canada.

[William Bartlett]

In Afghanistan, this legislation doesn't cover that.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay, I'm just raising it as a point.

In clause 7 there's a reference to the use of a false document at the request of a federal or provincial authority. Clause 7 of the bill amends section 366 by adding a proposed subsection (5), and it says:

No person commits forgery by reason only that the person, in good faith, makes a false document at the request of a police force, the Canadian Forces or a department or agency of the federal or a provincial government.

What in the world did the department have in mind when it raised this exemption of a government official requesting that somebody forge a document, someone who's not already provided for--just an example?

[William Bartlett]

Most of the documents that an undercover law enforcement officer would use are not produced in-house by the police force. They're produced by the same people who issue the genuine documents. The driver's licence, or whatever documentation is required for an officer's covert identity, is produced usually by the third-party private manufacturers who do this documentation either for government or private entities that are issuing documents.

So this is to cover those. Canada Bank Note, I think, for example, may do this sort of work. But any entity that's producing documents for government, when they're asked to produce a false document--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

By government for use for government purposes.

[William Bartlett]

--by government for the use of an officer's covert identity--is protected insofar as they're not committing forgery in doing that. They're providing a document to a government agency that's requesting it and they're doing so in good faith.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lee, thank you.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

This will just take one--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You're well over your time, sir.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

This will just be a very short question.

The definition of passport in the Criminal Code does not appear to include travel documents or visas. Was it intended that the definition include travel documents and visas? It appears to, but it doesn't make reference to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Bartlett can answer the question.

[William Bartlett]

The definition you find here is intended to bring this definition in line with the passport order, and this is how a passport order defines passport. Visas and so on are attached to passports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I welcome the justice minister back again. It seems like he's had almost as many meetings here as we have as committee members, but that means good things for the country.

I have a couple of questions. Mr. Lee mentioned the passport issue, and perhaps for a different reason. Obviously some work has been done on your behalf and with the Ministry of Finance as we move forward with a new passport in 2011, which will not only have some influence from your ministry in terms of security but will move forward as a 10-year passport rather than a five-year passport. Because the passport is so central when we talk about issues of security and travel, I wonder if perhaps you can comment on the importance of that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I would be glad to, Mr. Dykstra, and you being a member from the Niagara area, with four border crossings, are particularly attuned to all issues in terms of identity documents and passports in light of the western hemisphere initiative south of the border.

That being said, Canada, unlike the United States, Britain, and a number of countries, has continued for many years to issue passports for a period of five years. It creates a number of challenges. It creates a number of opportunities. By having passports that will expire fairly quickly, it allows the government to get new technology into the system a little quicker than if they had to wait 10 years to get rid of an older passport. So that indeed is what the government has done.

With the five-year passport, while there were some advantages in the sense of the technology changes, it was challenging for some individuals. It takes you a while to get the passport issued. You really don't have it for five years; it's four years plus. Even in my own constituency of Niagara Falls, I've had a number of senior citizens who have indicated to me that they'd like to have had that for 10 years. They're away; they're travelling, and to be constantly having to update it presents some challenges to them.

That being said, this is a security measure, and you'll see that the provisions recently announced in Parliament make specific reference to increasing the security provisions of those passports. That goes hand in hand with increasing the period of time from five years to 10 years. I'm sure you advise your constituents, as we all do, that whether we like it or not, this is becoming an important document that people have to have. People who travel by planes know this, but increasingly now those who cross international borders by car are coming to the realization that they have to have this. This has been something that's been in process for quite some time, and it's an important document.

There are specific provisions within this legislation that I was very pleased to have in it. There are different provisions that call upon you to come up with an explanation for what you're doing with other people's passports or other government-issued documentation. And why shouldn't the onus be on you? We're careful. In fact, in the example I gave in my opening remarks, I said, as we all have done, a parent might be handling three or four or five passports if they have all their children with them. Well, they have a legitimate reason to be crossing an international border with a number of passports in their possession because of course they have their family with them. But quite apart from something obvious like that, we do want to put an onus on you to explain what you're doing with government-issued identification. So as I say, there are slightly different provisions and tests with respect to government documentation than with other information. But I think that is as it should be.

So I appreciate your comments and your question on that. I hope my comments underscore how important that document is for a number of reasons.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am sorry I had to leave.

As my colleague says, the Bloc Québécois, with its reputation for being reasonable, obviously supports this bill. It's a wanted pregnancy, one that was long awaited. It's also shared paternity that you cannot claim exclusively for yourself.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Congratulations.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

It's shared paternity, given that your colleague had also tabled a private member's bill. However, we would like to know why the definition of “identity information” is not the same as for “personal information”. What is the meaning of this need to draw a distinction between the two?

As you know, there is a definition in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. In the bill that you are proposing, the definition of “identity information” is based on the Criminal Code. However, these two definitions are different, but are probably meant to serve the same purpose.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll let Mr. Bartlett speak, but first of all, Monsieur Ménard, I'm very pleased that you and your colleagues, Madam Freeman and others, are going to be supporting this legislation. As I say, I think it will be very well received. The next time you're in Montreal and speaking with members of the Montreal police force, I think they will confirm what I've said to you, that this particular bill will be well received by them and will be of great assistance to them.

As you indicated, there's a slightly expanded definition. I think Mr. Murphy pointed out some of the differences between PIPEDA and what we have here, and perhaps to enlarge on that, I'll ask Mr. Bartlett to make a comment.

[William Bartlett]

The PIPEDA definition is intended as a privacy protection and covers information that is simply about someone. It could be information about their shopping preferences or whatever. What we're dealing with here is a more specific focus on information that actually identifies the person, the sort of information that could be used to then personate them or commit fraud using their identity information. It's specifically crafted to cover only that information that actually identifies the person, as opposed to simply information about the person. It's a different purpose, a different focus.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to come back to a question Mrs. Freeman raised.

This bill is wanted. I have read documents that said that impersonation, or identity theft in Canada, costs billions of dollars, to say nothing of the other consequences. Obviously, the most widespread form is cloned credit or debit cards. This is a real nightmare for the people this happens to, and it's an entirely legitimate concern.

But this raises the following question. There's the public information dimension, which we will have to talk about when the bill is passed, and there's the procedural dimension, which is related to the investigations, which will be up to those who will be laying charges and who could end up requesting additional resources. According to your bill, a trust will provide for the hiring of 2,000 police officers. I imagine that one-third of those resources will be allocated to Quebec. Your public safety colleague is responsible for that file.

Don't you get the feeling that apart from the charges that may be laid by police officers, it all has to do with investigative techniques? How do you think this bill is going to make it easier to lay charges and prosecute criminals?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, I think the resources and the will are already in place. I've had law enforcement agencies tell me that they uncover these things now. Their frustration is that the law isn't there. It's not a question of finding them. They get tipped off sometimes, outside of the country, that this information is being transferred, and when they zero in on it, they're very frustrated that in some cases, in many cases, they're not covered by the present Criminal Code.

I think this will be welcomed. I think the investigation techniques...and in terms of getting the message out, a couple of charges on these things will get the message out.

You and others were quite concerned about video piracy, for instance. We managed to pass through this committee and through the House of Commons a very short bill on that. What I've been told is the message got out really quickly that this country will not be a haven for those individuals who want to steal other persons' intellectual property.

I think the message will get out that this country isn't a safe haven for this sort of activity. Again, a couple of charges get laid.... We found that out with child porn. You get a few people charged with this and then the word spreads to people who are in this business.