Bill C-27 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence of identity theft, of trafficking in identity information and of unlawful possession or trafficking in certain government-issued identity documents, to clarify and expand certain offences related to identity theft and identity fraud, to exempt certain persons from liability for certain forgery offences, and to allow for an order that the offender make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity.

Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this bill, which is now Bill C-28 and was Bill C-27. As has been indicated before, it has been a very long time getting to this point, in fact, several Parliaments and elections, to the point where Canada is pretty much last in the line of modern developed countries that have such legislation.

I listened very carefully to what the member for Timmins—James Bay had to say. He talked about the lack of a broadband strategy on the part of the government and he is absolutely correct. There are many things the current government could have been doing. There are many things that the former Liberal government was doing when John Manley was industry minister.

There are a lot of innovative ideas in the marketplace. For example, a few years ago it was discovered that school boards, some in the United States, were able to set up dark fibre co-ops. In the past the school boards had been under contract with the telcos and were leasing their broadband from the phone companies. They turned the whole relationship upside down. By the school boards doing their own dark fibre builds, they were able to offer gigabyte Internet access and they sold space to the very telcos that they had been leasing from before.

There is nothing difficult about this. The reality is that the fibre can be laid out on the ground or it can be put through the air or through trenches. Trenching is the most expensive way of laying dark fibre.

In rural communities, for example the community of Churchill in my home province, the government does not have any difficulty because the government has crown lands to work with and rights of way at its disposal. A government that is interested in taking the bull by the horns can mandate in very short order that dark fibre be laid over crown land through pipes that the provinces own. It does not have to make the type of effort that private industry has to.

When a private telco wants to lay fibre, it has to negotiate with the landowners. It has to negotiate rights of way. It is a very involved process. The government has none of that to contend with.

Unfortunately, what has happened in this country is that over the years governments have bowed to the pressure of the telcos that want the good customers. As soon as the government tries to develop a proper broadband strategy, the telcos knock on its door and say that the government cannot do that because it is against the principles of free enterprise. The telcos want the right to offer this service in cities and urban centres where they can run the final mile very cheaply to people's homes. They want to be able to offer that to residents and to control the pipes to the hospitals and schools so they can make tons of money, but they do not want to do it in rural areas. They do not want to do it in the north.

That is the conundrum that governments have faced. While they could have taken charge in a more determined way, they have tended to piece off the private companies within their jurisdictions. They have allowed telcos to take some good sections and then the governments are stuck with the less profitable areas.

Even so, I still say that all is not lost. Fibre is cheap. Fibre is not expensive and is easy to build. We had four or five examples of co-ops and school boards in the United States that developed their own fibre. They took the cost of the fibre, turned it around and not only leased out their extra capacity but they still had enough capacity in their system to fulfill their own needs for free and at much faster rates.

What will happen when the final mile is completed and the thick fibre exists, rural hospitals, for example, will be connected. The last time I toured Brandon Hospital, which is in a city of about 50,000 people in my province, it was still sending the electronic imaging for medical tests by bus to one of the smaller hospitals in Neepawa, which I believe is the closest hospital. That should not be the case. Once we have a proper broadband strategy, those images will be sent electronically, rather than being put in a can and sent on a bus to another hospital. They will be able to be sent electronically to the hospital. That is what we are talking about here.

That is what the member for Timmins—James Bay was alluding to when he talked about the broadband strategy that we do not see the government making efforts toward. I am not a big fan of the previous Liberal government but when it comes to issues like broadband, at least there was a pulse in that government. We do not hear anything from the current government.

Let us take a look at the whole area of government online programs. Ten years ago, in 1999, the prime ministers of Great Britain and Australia would put their vision statements on a website indicating where they saw government online programs rolling out and developing over the next 10 years.

I remember putting a resolution before the Manitoba legislature that government programs should be online by the year 2010 and that they should be transactional. It was recognized that there was no point in putting all government information online. There would be tons of information online, some usable, some not, but the true goal was to offer government services on a transactional basis. For example, a student applying for student aid or a student loan would not have to ride the bus from Sudbury to Toronto, for example, to have the privilege of standing in line at a government office to fill out an application.

There was a student aid online program set up in Manitoba, probably 10 years ago, which worked from the very beginning. It worked from the very beginning because it was a low-hanging fruit that dealt with youth. If it had been a program for senior citizens who were less inclined to use computers, it might not have worked so well. However, it worked very well because we were dealing with people who understand computers, who have worked with computers in their daily lives and in school settings since they started school. It was natural for the government to put student aid online. That is an example of a program that worked very well.

Those sorts of programs should have been replicated right across all jurisdictions. We should not be offering them in one province and not in another. The provinces had to get together to talk about whether they could share these programs. I have always said that the national government, rather than individual governments, should pay for one national computer program to be used in all the hospitals across the country. We had software developers in my own province getting a grant from one arm of the government, the Department of Industry, to develop a software program and then turn around and sell it to individual hospitals. The taxpayers had the privilege of paying for a certain software program that was already paid for in part by the taxpayers through one arm of the government to pay multiple times as each hospital bought the program.

That made no sense at all to me. Where was the direction and leadership of the government. There were some signs under the latter part of the Paul Martin government that it was showing some interest in developing programs that could be used on a national basis.

We did encourage the provinces to get together and exchange programs, which worked to a certain extent, but it fell down because of the silo effect. People in their own little silos in their own parts of the government refused to co-operate with anyone else. We would hear arguments that it was contrary to the legislation, that it would need to alter it to the legislation in its jurisdiction or that it did not meet its capacities.

However, there were these off the shelf programs. For example, the Securities Commission in Alberta had a program that Manitoba could simply adapt because it was exactly what it needed. However, we found a lot of silo thinking where people would say that was specialized for Alberta and that they needed to have their own made in Manitoba.

In many ways we find ourselves working against ourselves and perhaps that is why the system is not as advanced at it should be.

A few minutes ago my colleague mentioned consumer legislation. In 2002 in Manitoba, we put together bill 31. I was asked to be the coordinator of it. We had to pull in all the people from four or five departments and we had that typical silo problem. Before we got them together in one room, we heard all the reasons that it could not be done or could never be done. We called them together in one room and asked them what their problems were. In a group environment they did not have a problem.

Therefore, we proceeded with a very big omnibus bill. As a matter of fact, it was designed and crafted under the Uniform Law Conference of Canada suggested wordings and it was the most comprehensive of its type in Canada at the time.

One of the things that got the bill moving a lot quicker was the idea of putting in some consumer legislation. We discovered that there were between one and four states in the United States that had laws that said that if people did not receive their product or service that they ordered on line that the credit card companies would be held responsible to reimburse them. That sounded very intriguing. That was 10 years ago. That was at a time when Internet commerce was still in its infancy and we were trying to encourage it in Manitoba. However, we did not want people to be afraid of it and think that somehow if they bought something on line and they did not get it they would be out their money and would not know how to retrieve it.

In bill 31, we made the credit card companies responsible for any Manitoban's purchases online and if they did not receive the product or the service, the credit card company would be responsible.

Can anyone guess what happened? We went to committee and we heard from the credit card companies. Some of them were not too happy about this but Visa, which is a very big organization, did not put up that much of a fight.

We put forward that particular piece of consumer-friendly legislation and we put forward other pieces of consumer legislation but the reason we brought in this legislation in the first place was to streamline the government and make it more efficient.

We were trying to use the common business identifier. In the old days, the federal government and the provinces were using their own business numbers. We had situations in provincial governments where people were not even paying their PST or GST to the government and, in fact, were in receipt of grants from other parts of the government. This was an intolerable situation and it is something that should never happen.

Therefore, by having a common business identifier and a centralized computing system, we were able to tell if a person had applied for a grant from a certain department and whether the person was in arrears on his or her PST or whether the person owed the taxpayers all sorts of money that he or she had not paid back through taxes. We were trying to put a stop to that. We were also trying to make the system easier to use for businesses so they could file their returns. We were cutting down the paperwork involved in business.

The Conservatives just love to talk about red tape. One of the first things Conservative politicians love to talk for hours about is reducing red tape. The former member for Portage--La Prairie, who was in this House for several years, made his career on cutting red tape in the Manitoba legislature. He also made his career on eliminating the pension plan in the Manitoba legislative assembly. I can tell the House that it was not a very happy group of former MLAs when he moved to the federal scene and proceeded to collect his own federal pension when they in fact had lost their own, but that is an aside.

Nevertheless, the legislation before us today is long overdue. As a matter of fact, we have a danger here that this legislation will need to be re-tweaked. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech in response to some comments by the member for Timmins—James Bay, nothing in this bill involves any criminality.

We just had a case in the last two weeks where Facebook got a judgment against a Canadian guy for $1 billion. He did a huge amount of spamming on the Facebook system and has made a hero out of himself by getting all kinds of free publicity around the world. What has he done? He has simply declared bankruptcy. We could go to all this trouble of finally passing this bill after all these years and find out that it is totally ineffective when we have people running huge spamming operations in this country right under the noses of the authorities and then, when they finally do end up in court and get sued, they just simply declare bankruptcy and are gone or simply change countries.

Clearly, if we are passing legislation now, we should ensure there are enough penalties in here that will make people responsible and try to correct the behaviours that we are seeing.

However, as we indicated, there are bigger issues. This is an important issue and we need to deal with it, but the member for Timmins—James Bay talked about the other areas, such as the broadband strategy that is lacking from the government. The vision on broadband is very vital to this country and especially to the survival and development of rural Canada. There is also the whole issue of government online programs, which we hear nothing about from the government.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking about Bill C-28, Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act. The word “wireless” is important, as we will see later on, given that there are important developments in that area, particularly with 3G, which is becoming more significant.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-28, which was previously Bill C-27 but died on the Order Paper at prorogation. It is important to note that the government is dragging its heels on this file and is taking as long as possible to deal with this problem. However, this new legislation, with a few small amendments, specifically targets unsolicited commercial electronic messages. This bill has been needed and requested by society as a whole for a long time now. Governments, Internet service providers—which I will refer to later as ISPs—network operators and consumers are all affected by the problem of spam.

In this type of bill, it is important to define the terms. What is meant by the term “spam”? Spam can be defined as a commercial electronic message sent without the express consent of the recipient. It can be any text, audio, voice or visual message sent by any means of telecommunication, including email, cellular phone text messaging or instant messaging, whose content is such that it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of the message is to encourage participation in commercial activity. Any electronic message that offers to purchase, sell, barter or lease a product, goods, services, land or an interest or right in land, or a business, investment or gaming opportunity is considered spam for our purposes.

Note that the following types of commercial messages are not considered as spam: messages sent by an individual to another individual with whom they have a personal or family relationship; messages sent to a person who is engaged in a commercial activity and consist solely of an inquiry or application related to that activity; messages that are, in whole or in part, an interactive two-way voice communication between individuals; and messages that are sent by means of a facsimile to a telephone account. This bill does not include them, but we know that faxes can also be a form of spam. Messages that are voice recordings sent to a telephone account are not spam. Earlier, I mentioned 3G technology, which goes through cell phone towers and is becoming increasingly significant.

We must create safeguards for legitimate electronic commerce. It is now essential to our economy. Not only are commercial emails sent with the prior and ongoing consent of the recipient important to electronic commerce, but they are also essential to the development of the online economy. It is quite clear that our commerce is heading in that direction.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that Bill C-28 takes into account most of the recommendations in the final report of the task force on spam.

I would remind this House that the task force on spam was made up of people from government, industry and consumer advocacy groups. So it was a very broad task force whose members reached a consensus after a few months of work. They tabled their report in 2005. This bill has been on the table for a long time. In 2005, the multipartite task force tabled the bill that the government more or less adopted as its own. It was the task force that essentially came up with this bill.

We are very upset that the legislative process has taken so long. The legislation was tabled in 2005, and it is now 2010. Parliament may have been prorogued, but we are not sure the government really intends to deal with this bill quickly. It is quite likely that the bill will be delayed further, because it is hard to know whose interests will be served, so the government does not want to rush this bill through.

The committee study will be an opportunity for many industry stakeholders to come back and update it and for consumer advocacy groups to have their say about the new Electronic Commerce Protection Act. It is a question of updating it—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to join members in my caucus and all parties in the House to support the idea of Bill C-28. It is important to protect consumers and those who are affected by what is really more than just a nuisance, and that is spam.

I should also note that it is probably the first time the word “spam” has been debated so fervently and thoroughly. Most people would compare this to affordable food, but this is in fact a widespread nuisance, a deterrent to the free access of information. Some people use technology not only to create a nuisance, but also to scam people. It is not just about stopping spam; it is also about stopping scams.

We have had enough time with the new technology known as the Internet to understand that there needs to be a balance between access to information, that is, people being able to decide what they want to put online, and protecting people from being abused by the information on the Internet.

It has been mentioned by my colleague from Sudbury that this bill looks familiar. It was around before with one digit less than the one in front of us, Bill C-27, which was in the last Parliament before it prorogued. It is unfortunate that we had to wait so long to get this legislation going, because it is affecting many consumers right across the country. We must also look at how we are measured by our partners: we are the only G7 country without legislation on this matter. Clearly, the time for it is now, and we in the NDP welcome it.

I want to acknowledge my colleague from Windsor West. He has done a lot of work on consumer protection and anti-spam legislation, both on the legislation in front of us and on previous legislation. I want to acknowledge his work and thank him.

The technical term for spam does not roll off the tongue quite as readily as the abuse of electronic messaging systems. This includes most broadcast media, through which digital delivery systems are used to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of this is email spam, the term applies to other abuses like instant messaging. We have seen a lot of that lately by news groups that throw out spam.

Search engine spam is probably one of the most ubiquitous in that it is able to take the information from surfing the net, synthesize it, and throw the history of what one has been surfing back with advertisements and spam. There is software to block it, but that costs money. There is also spam in blogs and something called WikiSpam. There is spam for pretty much every aspect of our online culture these days.

We had this challenge before, and I see it from time to time with our faxes. There is a need to have proper regulation, not only to protect consumers but also to ensure that international scammers are curtailed and held to account. We must remember that this is not just a domestic problem.

Often these spam organizations and boiler rooms are looking for low-hanging fruit. They are looking for jurisdictions where there is not sufficient regulation. It goes without saying that Canada is wide open for this. It is analogous to how people use tax havens: we have not regulated enough to make sure our regulations are adequate for the 21st century.

It is a real problem and a costly one. The longer we have less spam regulation, the more it will cost businesses, individuals, and institutions to deal with it.

Spam results in large cost overheads for major corporations and small businesses. Consider the bandwidth problem and the net throttling that has gone on these last few years. There is less capacity for businesses, homes, and institutions to receive information, because of the spam being carried through the bandwidth. That means there are traffic jams on the Internet, because there is all this extra traffic in spam, which need not be there.

There is the cost of contacting each additional recipient. Once the spam has been constructed and multiplied, it proliferates. Trying to get to the source of it is a cost for people. Instead of chasing down who is spamming them, they could be doing something else.

Generally, there is also a social cost when we consider some of the spam that is put out. Some of it is offensive to families.

My colleague from Sudbury talked about having homes wired up with access to a computer. Some of the spam is offensive, either because of the nature of the spam, the pornographic content, or because certain messages convey values contrary to ours.

This is not just commercial. It is not just about selling us things we do not want. It is also about offensive material that costs us not just financially but socially as well.

Justice

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse has indicated his great interest in protecting his voters.

Two years ago, our government—yes, our government—introduced Bill C-27. It was our first attempt to protect citizens from organized crime and identity theft. This bill has finally been adopted. This long journey, despite the many obstacles put up by the opposition, shows that Quebeckers can only rely on the Conservative Party and our Prime Minister to ensure their protection.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct. Two years ago, we introduced Bill C-27, which was our first attempt to protect Canadians from the growing crime of identity theft.

We had to reintroduce this legislation and I have been calling upon the opposition for months to get this passed. I am pleased to say that we finally got it through the House and Canadians will be better protected from identity theft by giving police the tools they need.

There is only one party and one government prepared to stand up for victims in this country and it is this Conservative government.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, we introduced Bill C-27. This was our first attempt to protect Canadians from the growing crime of identity theft. Unfortunately, that bill was hijacked by the opposition at committee.

We have had to reintroduce that important bill and I have been calling upon the opposition for months to get that passed. It is before Parliament today and is being debated. Let us get it passed.

The point is clear. Canadians know that when it comes to standing up for victims and law-abiding Canadians there is only one party and one government they can count on and that is this Conservative government.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I couldn't agree more that we should get on with this. It is exactly what we said about Bill C-27 before you guys pulled the plug and had an unnecessary election.

A moment ago, you ascribed comments that were mine to Mr. LeBlanc. We had a conference and we don't know who should be more upset. So just to clear that up immediately—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've made an excellent point, Monsieur Lemay, particularly with your comments about bringing our criminal law into the 21st century. When I introduced the original bill, Bill C-27, in Montreal in the previous Parliament, I was asked by a reporter if this was my attempt to get ahead of the bad guys. I said, “Look, I just want to catch up with the bad guys.” This is what we want to do, because the technology is changing so quickly.

It's interesting that you would mention the Americans and the Europeans, because I have been at a number of G-8 justice ministers meetings that include a number of European countries, including France, Germany, and the United States, and this is precisely the area that I raised with them. I said that the extent that we could coordinate and update our laws so they are similar to each other would facilitate everything from the exchange of information to the cooperation between law enforcement agencies, even when it comes to questions such as extradition. As you know, under the Extradition Act we do not extradite somebody to another country unless there are similar types of laws or offences there.

So that was the message that I had to my colleagues, that this is becoming a huge problem in Canada and the United States, and we do work very closely with American authorities. And I raised this with my European counterparts, so work is being done on this. Interpol spoke to the conference on both occasions and they made the very same point, that this is where the future is taking us and we all have to work together.

Criminal Code

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

;

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's second reading debate on Bill S-4, which would amend the Criminal Code to address the serious and ever growing problem of identity theft.

Although introduced in the Senate, the bill's proposed reforms are familiar to hon. members as its predecessor, Bill C-27, which was virtually the same, was introduced in this chamber in the previous Parliament and had received all party support at second reading.

I hope Bill S-4 can similarly receive all party support now and be quickly passed into law. Canadians urgently need the protection it would provide against identity theft, a problem that the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus has estimated cost Canadian consumers, banks, credit card and other businesses more than $2 billion each year and a problem that has enormous personal and psychological impacts on its victims. I should add that oftentimes the victims of identity theft are the most vulnerable Canadians.

Identity crime encompasses the collection, possession, trafficking and use of identity information belonging to another in committing crimes such as personation, fraud or misuse of debit card or credit card data.

For example, it occurs when somebody pretends to be an account holder in a transaction and uses the true account holder's identity to access his or her credit or actual funds. It also occurs when someone acquires and uses the identity of another to carry out otherwise ordinary transactions, such as to rent an apartment or to buy a cellphone, which are then used as part of a broader criminal scheme. In these instances, if the crime is eventually detected, the trail leads back to the identity of the unfortunate innocent person whose identity was stolen. We know that organized crime and terrorism routinely engage in identity crimes to carry out their criminal operations. I doubt that any one of us, within our constituency, cannot name someone who has been the victim of identity theft.

Bill S-4 proposes to create three new offences that will target the preliminary stages of identity crime and will enable police to lay charges, for example, before the crimes of fraud or impersonation are committed.

The first new offence would be called identity theft and would apply to attaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use the information deceptively, dishonestly or fraudulently in the commission of a crime.

The second new offence is trafficking in identity information, an offence that targets those who transfer or sell information to another person with knowledge of or recklessness toward the possible criminal use of the information. This offence targets the middlemen, and that is those who traffic the stolen identity information from one person to another, but who may not otherwise be involved in the fraud or other crimes in which the information is destined to be used. The trafficking of such stolen identity information is often part of organized crime's identity fraud activities.

The third new offence is for unlawfully possessing or trafficking in crucial government-issued identity documents that pertain to other people.

Each of these new offences would carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and would complement existing Criminal Code offences such as fraud, impersonation and forgery that already prohibit the most harmful consequences of identity abuse.

Bill S-4 proposes other new offences that will complement other existing Criminal Code mail and forgery offences. It will create the new offences of fraudulently redirecting or causing redirection of a person's mail, possessing a counterfeit Canada Post mail key and possessing instruments, often referred to as skimming devices, that are used to extract and copy debit and credit card information.

Bill S-4 would also facilitate law enforcement's investigative activities by adding new offences and certain existing offences to the list of offences for which a wiretap order may be obtained.

Importantly the bill would enable sentencing courts to order an offender to pay restitution to a victim of identity theft or fraud where the victim had incurred expenses related to rehabilitating the reputation and credit history.

Bill S-4 also proposes two exemptions to address potential negative impacts on the undercover work of law enforcement. I want to spend a moment on this aspect of the bill, as this issue attracted significant interest in the Senate. It is important that these are clearly understood for what they are and are not.

The exemptions in clauses 7 and 9 have been carefully crafted to permit the police to obtain and use identity documents in a fictitious name to support undercover activities. Concealing the true identities of undercover police officers is a problem akin to a uniformed officer carrying a sidearm. The law exempts police officers from offences that would otherwise by committed by carrying their guns, for example. The proposed exemptions will do the same thing for undercover officers with respect to identity documents.

Some will argue that these exemptions are unnecessary and inappropriate, since it is already a scheme in the Criminal Code that operates as justification for offences committed by the police during a criminal investigation. While it is true that sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code could be used to justify the use of false identity documents by the police, that approach would require each officer to weigh the proportionality of using the documents each and every time he or she relied upon them.

While this is an appropriate test where the police are engaging in conduct that amounts to an offence that has not been specifically authorized by Parliament, it is the government's view that it would be inappropriate to require the police to rely on this scheme for a discreet, pre-defined activity that is clearly in the public interest. It is essential to keep in mind that the proposed exemptions do not give the police the authority to commit identity theft or other fraudulent activities. Any other offences that an officer may be required to commit in the course of a criminal investigation would have to be justified under the scheme contained in the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code.

Lastly, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee, which undertook a thorough study of the bill, amended it to provide for a five-year parliamentary review. This would provide us with a welcomed opportunity to assess the impact of the reforms in combatting identity theft.

Bill S-4 would provide much needed new tools for Canadian law enforcement and much needed protection for all Canadians against identity theft. I urge all hon. members to consider the most vulnerable in their constituencies when they consider the bill. As we all know, many members of our communities have been the victims of identity theft and the psychological impact of having one's identity stolen or misused can be quite profound.

I urge all hon. members to support the bill and support its swift passage.

Truth in Sentencing Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. He mentioned something about a committee to further look at something. I want to talk about some time that I spent with the hon. member on the justice committee in the second session of the 39th Parliament. I remember the day was March 11. Last spring the member and his colleagues, along with the Bloc Québécois, tabled a motion at justice committee that basically rendered that committee into a political stalemate where no legislation was discussed for the remainder of the spring.

The legislation that happened to be there was Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That legislation was never talked about because of the railroading of that motion. Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would have allowed for mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who deal drugs or who use guns in the commission of selling drugs. That motion railroaded Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). Those are the kinds of bills that were waylaid.

Does the member honestly think that his born-again crime-fighting party, the Liberal Party of Canada, has any credibility left at all when it comes to saying the Liberals are actually going to get tough on crime? Why should Canadians trust the member and his party?

Justice

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc for all the work that he has done on this issue. We all owe him a debt of thanks on this issue.

This bill is similar to Bill C-27 that we introduced in the previous Parliament, but we are not able to get it out of committee because of the tactics of the opposition. I hope that changes. Canada needs new ID theft legislation, like this one.

This is one more step in our fight against crime in this country, and it should have the support of all members of the House of Commons.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member raised the question about the justice committee. At the justice committee, the meetings have not been adjourned by the Conservative chair. It is the Liberal vice-chair who has refused to call votes and who has adjourned the meetings. It is not the Conservative chair, so the fault lies there.

The Liberals do not want to conduct the business there either. The only motion they are willing to consider is one that has nothing to do with legislation whatsoever. They wish to have another one of their side show legislative committee inquiry Star Chambers.

However, in the process what bills do those members not want to deal with? What bills are they obstructing? They obstructing Bill C-25, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is long overdue, something which Canadians want to have dealt with, something that was referred to the committee. They want to study something else instead. There is Bill C-26, drug penalties, which has been there for some time and something with which Canadians want dealt. They would rather study something else instead of that. There is Bill C-27, identity theft, again is other legislation. Three items of legislation are before that committee. We would like to see them out of that committee and into the House so we can pass sit.

Guess what? The opposition parties, in their ongoing campaign to delay and obstruct our justice agenda, our getting tough on crime agenda, continue to find excuses to delay that, including having their Liberal vice-chair adjourn every meeting and not allow it to proceed on to the important business of that legislation. That is the problem. It is that kind of delay and obstruction that resulted in over 1,400 total delays to our justice bills in the first session of Parliament.

It is those kinds of delay and obstruction tactics that make it necessary for us to seek the kind of permission, which the rules contemplate, for additional hours because we have a tremendous amount of work to do, a very full legislative agenda. It just seems that some do not want to show up to do that work.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

The committee has not had a formal meeting since March 11 where any legislation has been discussed. We have Bill C-27, Bill C-25, Bill C-26, not to mention the number of private members' bills. Before March 11 the committee had been meeting extra hours just to get through the legislative backlog.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay.

You've introduced Bill C-27, which is an act to deal with identity theft through the Criminal Code. I'm wondering if there are other things we could do to the Privacy Act that might address some of the concerns that are perhaps left unaddressed or are perhaps not properly dealt with through the Criminal Code. There might be some avenues that haven't been appropriately addressed. Sometimes the Criminal Code can be a blunt instrument. There might be other ways of assisting with the changes to the Privacy Act that you're trying to accomplish. I'm wondering if you or your colleagues have any suggestions along those lines.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I think both ideas are good. All right, I'll ask the chair to proceed on both those fronts.

Ms. Stoddart, I have questions on three different subjects: identity theft, national security, and data matching.

On the issue of identity theft, you probably know that the government has introduced Bill C-27. It is designed to amend the Criminal Code so as to crack down on identity theft. You noted in your own report of 2006-07 that there are other ways to help prevent identity theft. Your report refers to “Privacy Act reforms requiring stronger protection of personal information held by government institutions”. I'm wondering if you could briefly expand on what you mean by “stronger protection”. How would you suggest we amend the Privacy Act to prevent identity theft?

[Christopher Kyte]

Under Bill C-27 there was a proposal to license importers, and unfortunately it wasn't prominent. It wasn't a big thing and didn't stand out there.

It's time to have these kinds of tools. In most other countries you have some accountability over your importers. Each plant is registered, and if you have recall problems or unsanitary conditions, you lose your licence. But if you're bringing product into the country and there's no control over your behaviour....

In the United States sometimes when they have price wars or there's product that's getting close to the due date, they want to divert that product out of their own market. So if they can get it into the Canadian market, then that brings the price levels up in the United States. We've seen that with ketchup and a whole bunch of farm products.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Nonetheless, if the Liberals and Bloc want to take the vote in my absence, that is their prerogative. As chair, it is my job to protect the committee for its stated purpose under the routine Standing Order 108(2). It's an important purpose.

I can understand the need for firm and fair criminal justice legislation. That is what I have spent my career doing. My life's work has been dedicated to the pursuit of justice. We have Bill C-27, which is an important piece of legislation that will protect Canadians from identity theft. I want to see it passed.

We now have a backlog of very important business to process by this committee. We have not dealt with confirmation of the nomination of the Director of Public Prosecution with Bill C-27, as already mentioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. I'm going to give you a grand opportunity to fulfill all those very words you just spoke to me, that you feel I neglected. However, before I do, for the record I will go through my original statement on the ruling, for the benefit of the committee and those listening today.

I have to say that I'm more than troubled by the insistence of the opposition in introducing this motion. It flies in the face of what this committee should be about doing, and they know it. However, for the record, this is it.

As observers of this committee will note, this committee is meeting for the second or third time in public to discuss committee business. We have now had five consecutive meetings in which certain members of the committee insisted on pressing their point before we could do the work that this committee has already agreed should proceed.

In three of those meetings, witnesses who travelled across the country were unable to testify because of the opposition's antics. It is my opinion that these actions do not show proper respect for the witnesses. I will not allow the witnesses at my committee to be treated in this manner; hence there are no witnesses here today.

Now, I have been blamed, to put it mildly, both here and in the media for ending these meetings. This is simply not true. Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, page 829, makes it clear that when a chair of a committee is not available, a vice-chair--which would be you, Mr. Murphy--is fully authorized to take his or her place and conduct the committee's business. When I left the room, the meeting did not end. Either of the vice-chairs who were in the room were free to preside over the vote and were certainly free to preside over the hearing of the witnesses on Bill C-27.

But that is not what occurred. Instead of taking the vote or continuing our Bill C-27 study, the vice-chair simply adjourned the meeting, leaving the witnesses high and dry. I can only assume--

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm in a bit of a bind with the motion and the amendment at this moment, because I have tabled amendments with the committee that I would like to have an opportunity to see discussed at committee. My understanding is that if we vote for this amendment and this motion, it would make the clause-by-clause consideration redundant, and those amendments wouldn't be considered. That being said, should my amendments fail, I would support a motion that called for us not to report this bill back to the House, and I would support the amendment put forward by Mr. Abbott.

On the amendment, I don't believe it's fair to link the discussion of Bill C-10 with the consideration of Bill C-327. I don't think it does justice to the work of Mr. Bigras on this issue. Although it was part of the context when we heard the debate on Bill C-27 and the concerns about Bill C-10 and censorship, I think it is unfair to link the two of them in this way, as Monsieur Coderre suggested in his original motion.

So I would support Mr. Abbott's amendment and the motion, but only should my proposed amendments fail. I think it's important that we look at these amendments, Chair, because I think we heard from many witnesses that the issue of violence on television is important to many people. Mr. Bigras has already indicated who some of these organizations are, and we've heard from some others. From listening to these witnesses, we know that there was also a concern that nothing we do be seen as censorship. I think if you consider the amendments I have proposed, you'll see that I've been very careful to remove any references that might support censorship in the original bill and to replace them with suggestions that are in place through some informal mechanism of adoption by the CRTC when it comes to codes of standards and ethics by the broadcasting industry, but that also emphasize what we heard from many witnesses, the need for media literacy or media awareness education, and it adds that to this legislation.

I think it is possible to find something helpful from this bill, and I want to commend Mr. Bigras for being so persistent in bringing this issue forward, because it is something that is of concern to so many Canadians and to so many people around this table. But I would like to see us have the opportunity to discuss the amendments.

So Mr. Chair, given that long preamble, I'm going to support Mr. Abbott's amendment, but when we get back to consideration of the main motion, I'm going to propose that we table it, so that we can consider the amendments that I put forward. And should they fail, I'll be the first person to move that we remove this amended motion from the table so that we can consider it after that process.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On Mr. LeBlanc's point, we have witnesses who have come from away, and this is exactly in line with what I heard the Speaker say in his ruling, when he talked about disruption of committee, when he talked about the majority or minority on a committee trying to distract from what is our duty.

Our duty before us today is to study a piece of legislation, Bill C-27. We have witnesses who have travelled to bring testimony on Bill C-27. It would be a shame if we didn't first allow for witness testimony. The opposition inevitably knows where this type of challenge is going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order, this being Tuesday, April 1, 2008.

The orders of the day are before the committee: the order of reference of Wednesday, January 30, 2008, for study of Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

On a point of order, I'll hear Mr. LeBlanc.

Ways and Means Motion No. 10

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know they like to come and talk but not bother to vote. At least they could let other people talk sometimes. I will make the best effort to continue, notwithstanding the interruptions.

In terms of the question, the Minister of Finance has been clear that that intention reflected in the ways and means motion will also be carried forward in the budget implementation bill. The ways and means motion corresponds exactly to what will be in the budget implementation bill. It is not a question of dealing with the statutory measure through the ways and means motion. It is a question of dealing with it through the budget implementation bill and creating, through the ways and means motion, the authority to do that and proceed with that.

On the other questions that were raised yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you heard submissions from the member for Pickering—Scarborough East in which he argued that the government's ways and means motion tabled yesterday was out of order based on the rule of anticipation. He argued that the previous consideration of Bill C-253 made it impossible to now consider the ways and means motion.

Marleau and Montpetit observes at page 476:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

In fact, if we read on, they go on to observe that it is even stronger than that. The rule of anticipation is not just “no longer strictly observed” in the Canadian Parliament, it never really was. Also at page 476, they write:

While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons.

I would repeat and underline, “it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons”.

They go on to conclude:

Furthermore, references to attempts made to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are not very conclusive.

Simply put, the argument posed by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East might succeed were he in the British House of Commons but it cannot succeed under Canadian parliamentary practice. There is no barrier to considering a different item touching the same subject matter, and most certainly the budget bill and this Bill C-253 cannot be considered to be two bills similar in substance.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada clearly sorts out the Canadian rule at paragraph 655, found on page 198. It states as follows:

A bill is in order when substantially different from another bill on the same matter previously disposed of during the session.

That rule applies clearly to the situation at hand. The budget implementation bill is substantially different from another bill previously disposed of during the session, that being Bill C-253. In fact, the difference is so great that the government opposed Bill C-253. It is introducing and obviously supports the budget implementation bill.

Clearly, it is substantially different, not just in its breadth of subject matter but also in the substance of its effect.

The ways and means motion and budget bill are significantly broader than Bill C-253, applying to a wide range of taxation and fiscal measures. They are also substantially different in the impact they will have on the finances of the public treasury and the effect they will have on the narrow question of how RESPs operate.

In addition, and putting it another way, the ways and means motion in part is reversing a decision the House made with respect to Bill C-253. The precedence for proceeding this way is as follows. At page 496 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

The House may reopen discussion on an earlier decision...only if the intention is to revoke it;

Standing Order 18 basically says the same thing.

Beauchesne's Citation 592(1) states:

A resolution may be rescinded and an order of the House discharged, notwithstanding the rule that a question, being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again....

Technically indeed, the rescinding of a vote is the matter of a new question; the form being to read the resolution of the House and to move that it be rescinded; and thus the same question which had been resolved in the affirmative is not again offered, although its effect is annulled.

There have been examples of orders being rescinded, revoked and discharged that could be found in Journals of May 7, 1898, page 269; August 1, 1942, page 708; November 22, 1944, page 923; November 24, 1944, page 927; and December 23, 1988, the House adopted an order revoking an order with respect to the sittings of the House which can be found at page 80 of the Journals of that day.

Therefore, repealing, rescinding and revoking a previous decision of the House is considered a different question.

Rule 655 of Beauchesne's can be seen to be definitive in determining that a ways and means motion and a budget bill based upon it are properly in order before the House. The roots of the rule in Beauchesne's, let us call it the Canadian rule, go back to just after Confederation.

A ruling of the Speaker on June 4, 1872, is exactly on point. The question the House was considering was an effort to legislate that one could not sit both in the House of Commons and in a provincial legislature at the same time, but two different efforts to do the same thing in a slightly different way were allowed to be considered in the same Parliament. This was found acceptable by the Speaker, who overruled an objection raised by the MP for Bothwell, who had argued, “that the principle involved in the bill is precisely the same one as the one voted on before”. More particular, he argued, “it proposes to deal with the same subject, and disqualify as candidates for election to the House of Commons the same class of persons”.

The Speaker found that was a “technical argument and that substantially the questions were different”.

As an aside, it is fascinating to read those Journals to see Sir John A. Macdonald's name listed among those voting in the majority at that time on that question in favour of the measure opposed by the Liberals of the day. It is also fascinating to see on the same day the vote on amendments from the Liberals seeking to ban any shareholder in the Canadian Pacific Railway from standing for Parliament, a discriminatory and unfair measure that the House wisely rejected that day.

However, returning to the main point, that ruling in 1872 is the anchor for the Canadian rule, different from the British, that a substantially different bill can deal with the same subject matter previously disposed of during the same session, which is exactly the case here.

The Canadian rule has been reaffirmed in many Speakers' rulings in the years that have followed. On February 24, 1971, Speaker Lamoureux restated the rule quite conclusively. He stated:

There is, therefore, in my view nothing procedurally wrong in having before the House at the same time concurrent or related bills which might be in contradiction with one another either because of the terms of the proposed legislation itself or in relation to the proposed amendments.

Related bills yet in contradiction with one another and, thus, substantially different, therefore, are entirely in order, just as is the case here.

In another decision on June 8, 1988, the Speaker reviewed all the relevant precedents and concluded as follows:

...I must declare that the practice of one bill amending another bill still before the House or not yet given Royal Assent is an acceptable one.

Again, this applies exactly here. Bill C-253 has not yet been given royal assent and the ways and means motion on budget bills seeking to affect it are acceptable under this rule.

The essence of the Canadian rule on those matters can be summarized by saying that the Speaker is never empowered to block such bills through a rule of anticipation. It is a question for the House of Commons to decide.

As Speaker Fraser ruled in 1992:

The Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons has not been given any specific authority over the form or content of omnibus bills.

Mr. Speaker, you are not empowered to do what the member for Pickering—Scarborough East is asking you to do by ruling on the content of the ways and means motion and the budget implementation bill. It is up to this House to pass judgment on the content of the motion and the bill.

I will re-emphasize once again that in a minority Parliament it is fully within the power of those members in opposition to pass that judgment contrary to the will of the government if they see fit to do so. They are seeking not to do so and seeking, instead, Mr. Speaker, to have you do that for them.

For the integrity of the government's fiscal plan, the government believes that if Bill C-253 becomes law, then it must be repealed in order to implement the provisions of the budget. We are talking about $900 million to $2 billion in lost revenues annually for the federal government and $450 million to $1 billion in lost revenues annually for provincial governments.

When the House adopted Bill C-253, it had not yet seen the detailed proposal that is contingent on repealing an earlier proposal. I see nothing procedurally wrong with the proceeding on the matter. One recent example is Bill C-27, the identity theft bill, which includes a coordinating amendment that would effectively replace the provisions of Bill C-299, a private member's bill currently before the Senate on identity theft, with the provisions in Bill C-27.

Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide. Speakers have consistently ruled that they do not have the authority to divide a bill and the question of the contents of a bill is best left as a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Speaker, the final authority I would draw your attention to is the ruling of Speaker Fraser on November 28, 1991. It concluded, as well, that these issues are matters for the House to decide. The bill in question in 1991 was Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada. It proposed to amend, under certain conditions, a bill that was at second reading, a bill that had just received third reading, two other bills that were at third reading and two bills that were at committee.

The Speaker noted:

The legislative process affords ample opportunity for amending proposed legislation....

Speaker Fraser's observations in 1991 are a worthy guide to your role here, Mr. Speaker.

He concluded that:

It is the duty of this Chair to safeguard the rights of the Members and the House to make fully informed decisions on the matters before it....

He continued:

The legislative process offers ample opportunity....

Then he goes on to review the options and scenarios, such as amendments, refusal, approval, further study and more, but ultimately he concludes:

All of these avenues offer Members full remedy to this conditional approach to legislating should they object to it. That decision rests with the House.

I repeat that key conclusion: that decision rests with this House.

The authorities are clear. Beauchesne's states the Canadian rule authoritatively:

A bill is in order when substantially different from another bill on the same matter previously disposed of during the same session.

Yes, the ways and means motion and the budget implementation bill do, in small part, touch the same subject matter as Bill C-253, but they are substantially different: different in scope, different in breadth of issues, and different in the substance of what they seek to do on the limited subject matter that they do have in common.

That difference in substance renders the ways and means motion and budget bill in order and properly a question to be decided by this House, not, with the greatest of respect, by you, Mr. Speaker. It may not be the British way, but it is the Canadian way from the time of Sir John A. and the days when he represented the fine constituency of Kingston in this House, which you represent today.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Minister and officials.

First, I would like to underscore the relevance of the introduction of this bill, because it responds to the emergence of a major problem both here in Canada and elsewhere. As the minister so aptly put it, different types of criminals have a hand in identity theft, including organized crime networks. Currently, organized crime networks from Ukraine, Russia and other countries have taken over the identity theft network here, in Montreal and Vancouver.

Given the international dimension that identity theft has taken on, is the federal government cooperating with other countries to combat this problem? To what extent does Bill C-27 deal with the transcontinental nature of identity theft? Could the minister give me an answer?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister 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.

[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.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

I don't think the Bloc plans to propose any amendments. Does the opposition intend to move some amendments to the cruelty to animal bill? No.

Does the government intend to move any amendments? No.

Tomorrow, the steering committee is meeting to discuss billsC-25 andC-27. We would also ask that those who have not yet done so submit their list of proposed witnesses.

Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you, colleagues. It would be appropriate at this time to move an adjournment motion. So moved by Mr. Petit.

The meeting is adjourned.

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I arrived here just over two years ago and my introduction to the House was Bill C-2 which dealt with accountability. I became used to that member's empty, misleading rhetoric to the Canadian public after he said that the government would have an accountability act with regulations and with teeth. It is now two years later and there is still no teeth in the legislation. It is the same thing.

I want to ask him some questions on his tackling violent crime speech today. If there is a Juno award for the best role in a dramatic fictional series, he should get it because he is a tremendous actor.

If the close in age exemption had been part of the legislation proposed by the member for Wild Rose, red rose or any rose whatsoever in the past 13 years, is it not true that there would have been consent from that party down there and from this party here? Is it not true that we would have a sensible age of consent law? It is absolutely the truth. I defy him to tell the Canadian public that the Liberal Party and that party over there would not have passed it along with his party sitting over there.

Why did he and his government lump Bill C-27 in with this tackling crime bill, which is patently unconstitutional, along with other bills that everybody consented to? Why did the Conservatives put a poison pill in their own bill? It is because they do not want this bill to pass. They did not want the last ones to pass so they pulled the plug on Parliament because they were afraid of the environment. Those members are afraid.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a member on the government side, I believe from the Ottawa area, who seems to be very active in my discussion and my speech. I suggest that if he knows so much about the issues we are talking about, he might want to explain to his constituents why he approved his own government's obstruction of its own legislation. He should go back to his riding and explain why 14 and 15 year olds are still vulnerable to predators for over a year now. Why? it is because he and his government wilfully obstructed their own legislation.

I suggest that he might want to address that in his own riding rather than attempt to destabilize the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. He has been here long enough and he should know that I am able to drown out and block out nonsense.

Bill C-27 had one improvement to the dangerous offenders system that we find again in the dangerous offender section of Bill C-2. What was that? It was that somebody who has already been deemed a long term offender and who commits a breach of the conditions ordered by a judge or who commits another serious crime will automatically go before a judge as a dangerous offender. That was an amendment by the Liberals.

Is it simply that the government is so incompetent that it did not understand how the dangerous offender system and long term offender system actually operated? By the way, the long term offender system was actually brought in by a Liberal government n the late 1990s.

Is the government simply incompetent or is it wilfully incompetent?

I repeat, is this government simply incompetent or is it wilfully incompetent?

I talked about the prorogation of Parliament. In proroguing Parliament, the government killed the age of consent bill, the bail reform bill, its mandatory minimums bill, the impaired driving bill and the dangerous offender bill. Then when the government brought Parliament back with the new throne speech, it announced to great trumpeting and chest beating that tackling crime would be a major plank in its policy, its agenda and action plan. What did it do?

The government could have reinstated those bills where they were, which was in the Senate. If the government were so concerned about the Senate possibly taking too long to deal with it, it could have brought in a motion, as it did last Friday, giving a deadline to the Senate for dealing with the age of consent bill, the impaired driving bill, the dangerous offender bill, the mandatory minimums bill and the bail reform bill. It did not do that.

Therefore, one again has to ask if it is shear incompetence on the part of the government or wilful incompetence.

My parents raised me, and I am sure many people in the House, if not all were raised the same, to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, my grandmother also used to say, “The first time is a mistake. The second time is a bad habit”.

The first time the government did not take up the Liberal offer in October 2006 to fast track the age of consent bill, to raise it from 14 to 16 years old, one could say that was a mistake. However, when it again refused to take it up in March 2007, that was no longer a mistake. That was a bad habit.

When the government decided to kill the age of consent bill by proroguing Parliament in the summer of 2007, that was not a mistake. I have come to the conclusion that the government's incompetence is not shear incompetence, but it is wilful incompetence.

Then that begs the question. What would be the reason, the justification, for a government to be wilfully incompetent? I am not at a point where I can answer that. While I developed the—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this morning's debate. Throughout 2007, I was the justice critic for the official opposition. And throughout 2006, I served as deputy House leader of the official opposition, which is also my current role.

Thus, since the Conservative government's Speech from the Throne in 2006, I have been listening to the Conservative rhetoric, which I have weighed against the actions put forward by this government.

The motion we are debating today is:

That, given the government has declared the passage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as a matter of confidence, and, that the bill has already been at the Senate longer than all stages took in the House of Commons, and that all aspects of this bill have already been the subject of extensive committee hearings in Parliament, and that in the opinion of this House the Senate majority is not providing appropriate priority to the passage of Bill C-2, a message be sent to the Senate calling on the Senate to pass Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, by March 1, 2008.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General is applauding. Well, I wonder. The Minister of Justice made a big point about how in the 2006 throne speech the Conservative government made tackling crime a priority. It is one of five priorities of the government. Let us look at the record of the government prior to when it prorogued the session that began in the winter of 2006 after the 2006 election. Let us look at that record.

The Liberal record is that we supported the vast majority of the Conservative government's justice bills. The fact is that the Conservative government has needlessly delayed its own legislation. The fact is there has been no opposition obstruction, not from the official opposition, not from the Bloc Québécois and not from the NDP. The only obstruction has been from the government. Let me give an example.

The government talks about the age of consent legislation. In the previous session, the age of consent legislation was Bill C-22 . It is now found in this new tackling crime bill, Bill C-2.

Bill C-22, the age of consent legislation, was originally tabled by the government on June 22, 2006, some four and a half months after the government came to this House and opened Parliament with a throne speech. The House adjourned for the summer months one or two days later. I do not have the exact date with me but at the most, it was two days later. We came back on the third Monday in September 2006.

Did the government then move second reading of the age of consent bill? That is the bill that would raise the legal age of consent from 14 to 16 years. The government had an opportunity, its very first opportunity to move second reading. For Canadians who are listening, no one but the government can move government legislation from one stage to another.

The government tables its bill under parliamentary rules, House of Commons rules. It moves first reading and the motion is automatically deemed to have been adopted. The bill then goes on to the order paper and it stays there until the government moves second reading. We waited through the month of September 2006 and into the month of October 2006. The government did not move second reading.

That is the same government with a Minister of Justice and Attorney General who says that he is concerned, who says that victims, particularly our children who are victims of sexual predators, are among the Conservatives' first and main priority, and the government did not move second reading on the age of consent bill in 2006.

What did the Liberals do? Because that was a bill that we supported unconditionally, our House leader, who speaks on behalf of the official opposition, offered to fast track it.

Again, for those who do not understand the rules of procedure of the House of Commons, and possibly some of the government members who may not understand the rules of procedure of the House of Commons, the Standing Orders, when there is a majority in the House of Commons, whether it be the government only, or the government and another party, the government can fast track a bill.

We offered to fast track the age of consent legislation in October 2006. The government did not take us up on the offer. It ignored our offer. It did not even deign to officially respond to our offer. However, what this did was bring pressure to the government and several days later the government finally moved debate at second reading on the age of consent bill.

For a government, a Prime Minister, a Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, his parliamentary secretary and every single Conservative sitting on the government benches in this House of Commons to say that children, our children, are a priority and then to refuse to fast track the age of consent bill is unconscionable.

That bill could have been law by December 2006. We would have now had 13 months of better protection for our children and that government refused. This is what the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is not telling the Canadian people. That bill could have been law.

Let us look at another bill that we find in Bill C-2. Let us look at the bill about which the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada attempted to eloquently dis the official opposition. That bill used to be Bill C-35, regarding reverse onus on bail for firearm related offences.

That bill received first reading on November 23, 2006. Guess what? It sat. The government did not move second reading debate through the end of November 2006, the entire month of December 2006 and the entire month of January 2007. That government did not move second reading of the bail reform bill until February 13.

Is it not a coincidence, that is a bill which we offered to fast track. That is a bill that could have been law. It could have been law for over a year now, and that government did not take us up on it.

That is a government that sends ten percenters into ridings of my colleagues in Manitoba, in Ontario, in British Columbia, claiming that the Liberals are obstructing the government's justice agenda. The government obstructed its own agenda.

I have to ask myself the following question: is this simple incompetence on the part of the government or is this government being wilfully incompetent?

Is that pure incompetence on the part of the government or is it wilful incompetence in delaying its own legislation?

Those are just two things that we find in Bill C-2 which could have been the law for over a year now had the Conservative government actually been truthful to its claim about victims being its main priority. Had that been the truth, the government would have taken the Liberals up on our offer to fast-track the bill and the age of consent would have been 16 years old December 2006 and reverse onus on bail for firearm related offences would have been the law over a year ago.

However, it gets even better. The government says that the Senate has now had Bill C-2 longer than all stages in the House. The government is counting on the fact that most Canadians will not know the parliamentary agenda and calendar. Bill C-2 was sent to the Senate on December 12, 2007. Parliament adjourned December 14, 2007. Parliament did not resume until Monday, January 28, 2008. The government tabled this motion claiming that the Senate was wilfully obstructing the government's tackling crime agenda.

Had the government been so concerned with Bill C-2 and so concerned about victims and about getting the legislation that it claims is the cornerstone of its priority and agenda, why did it not table a motion last fall for a message to be sent to the Senate informing the Senate that when it receives Bill C-2, we expect it to be reported back to us by x date? The government had all the authority and power to do that last fall but it did not.

Again I must ask whether it was mere incompetence. Is it because the government after two years still does not understand the Standing Orders, which is what we call the rules of this House? Is it wilful incompetence? The government understands full well the authority and powers it has under the House of Commons rules but chooses not to use them in the hopes that most Canadians will not know that it is the government that is actually obstructing its own agenda.

Let us talk about another obstruction. I mentioned how most of the bills, except for Bill C-27, which is the dangerous offender piece of Bill C-2, had already moved through the House and had been referred to the Senate late May, early June, late June of 2007. The Senate only had a couple of days, according to the parliamentary calendar, before Parliament adjourned for the summer. We were scheduled to come back the third Monday of September 2007 but the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, or in his incompetence or in his wilful incompetence decided to prorogue Parliament.

What does that mean? Under the rules and procedures and Standing Orders, it means that every piece of legislation in front of the House of Commons or in front of the Senate automatically dies. The government killed its own age of consent bill, its reverse onus on bail bill and its impaired driving bill, which is interesting because that is the bill we supported wholeheartedly.

I wonder if MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, understands that if the impaired driving bill is not the law today it has absolutely nothing to do with the official opposition or with the Liberal senators, but has everything to do with the government's own decision to obstruct its own legislation, not to move its own legislation through the House of Commons in a timely fashion and then to prorogue and kill its own legislation. That legislation could have been the law for almost a year now had the government not wilfully obstructed its own legislation.

Let us take the dangerous offenders bill. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada talked about how that legislation would ensure that Canadians who commit violent, egregious crimes will not be free on the streets because of the changes that it brought to the dangerous offender system.

One of the things that the government is not telling Canadians is that the way the system worked before the government brought in Bill C-27, the crown prosecutor had full discretion as to whether he or she would apply for a dangerous offender hearing. The government has done absolutely nothing to change that with its tackling crime legislation. The crown will still decide. It does not matter if it is someone who has committed heinous crimes one time, been sent to prison, served the sentence, comes out, does it again, is found guilty and serves another sentence, the crown can still decide whether it will apply for a dangerous offender hearing.

What was the Liberal response to that? The Liberal response was that there should automatically--

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first Thursday question of the year, I want to formally welcome everyone back to the House of Commons. Hopefully, we will be even more productive in 2008 than we were in 2007.

Judging by the first sitting day, I think we will be.

So far, the House has passed Bill C-8, on railway transportation, and Bill C-9, on the settlement of investment disputes.

Moreover, Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act, and Bill C-27, on identity theft, have been referred to committee.

This is a rather good start.

We hope to keep up that level of productivity by quickly passing our legislation to strengthen the security certificates process, which started debate at report stage today. That is of course Bill C-3. We now have a House order to assist us in facilitating that debate. We will continue to debate the bill until report stage is completed.

While all members of the House do not understand the importance of the bill, I believe that the official opposition does. I hope that we can work together in a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship to have it passed before the date identified by the Supreme Court of Canada as the date by which it would like to see the law passed, February 23.

Following Bill C-3 tomorrow we will continue with the unfinished business from this week, namely Bill C-33, renewable fuels; Bill C-39, the grain act; Bill C-7, aeronautics; and Bill C-5, nuclear liability.

Next week will be a safe and secure Canada week.

Debates will continue until the bill is passed by this House.

After that, we will debate Bill C-25, which would strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory minimum penalties for producers and traffickers of drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children. We also hope to discuss the Senate's amendments to Bill C-13, on criminal procedure.

Finally, in keeping with next week's theme, I would suggest that my hon. colleague opposite explain to his colleagues in the Senate the importance of quickly passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act, the bill which is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians across the country, and which was the number one priority of the government throughout the fall session of Parliament and which passed this House last fall. It has already been in the Senate longer than its entire time in the House of Commons, yet the Liberal dominated Senate has not even started committee hearings on the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

While the elected accountable members of the House rapidly passed the bill, which I would like to remind everyone was a question of confidence, unfortunately it looks like the unelected, unaccountable Liberal dominated Senate is up to its old tricks again of delaying and obstructing in every way. Let me be clear. This government will not stand and allow Liberal senators to obstruct, delay and ultimately kill the bill. The Tackling Violent Crime Act was quickly passed in the House and Canadians expect the Liberal dominated Senate to act in the same fashion and pass it quickly.

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I join in extending praise to the government on this specific bill, Bill C-27. All parties support this bill. We will see if amendments are required after committee consideration. It is, of course, the prerogative of committees to decide whether or not they want to make amendments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to whom I offer my congratulations on his new baby, has to recognize, however, that there will likely be amendments as a result of the serious work we do in committee.

For the rest, our colleague from Yukon is right: the government's reform of the Criminal Code and most of its proposals were rather ill-advised. We need only think of conditional sentencing and the many bills providing for minimum sentences, even though all the studies show that these are not effective punishments. There is certainly cause for concern.

The Bloc Québécois, in conjunction with all the other opposition parties in some instances, has called on the government to take a more balanced approach to fighting organized crime.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues and the staff here on the Hill a happy new year. After all, one can do so until the end of January. I hope that 2008 will be a productive year for all parliamentarians. Who knows what the future holds?

Bill C-27 is very important because it deals with a new kind of crime. Everyone was familiar with old-fashioned crime—theft of goods. Everyone knew about organized crime rings and gangs. You all know how hard Parliament had to work in the early 1990s to develop new legislation and move away from conspiracy provisions to make gangsterism a new offence. Everyone here is familiar with traditional crimes concerning offences against the person.

However, a new kind of crime—identity theft—is surfacing, and it is very worrisome. Identity theft is an economic crime. One in four Canadians has been a victim of identity theft or knows someone who has been a victim of an offence related to identity theft. The most common of these crimes is the fraudulent use of a personal identification number.

When people withdraw money from a bank, there are more and more organized crime rings that can access their PINs and, unfortunately, empty, steal from or appropriate their bank accounts. We know that this can cause major headaches for victims, not to mention damage their credit rating.

I would like to share some relatively recent numbers that illustrate just how big this problem has become. For example, in 2004, an estimated $50 billion was involved in identity theft in the United States. In Canada, this phenomenon is just as worrisome. If my information is correct, we are talking about approximately $50 million. Identity theft is therefore a very serious phenomenon. We need to define new offences to deal with it, and that is the purpose of the bill before us.

What are the most serious forms of identity theft? Here are some examples: theft of credit cards or debit cards, whether they are used in bank machines or credit unions; redirecting mail, that is, taking someone's mail and sending it somewhere else; pretexting, that is, pretending to be someone who is authorized to obtain the information. This can include telemarketing. We learned from recent news reports about people who claimed to be representatives from the Red Cross, soliciting by telephone, pretending to sell first aid kits. Such offences are becoming more and more common: pretexting in the context of telephone solicitation by marketing networks.

In addition to credit card theft, redirecting mail and pretexting, there is also hacking into computer databases. In fact, there are specialized networks capable of searching software programs and networks to steal data.

We know, for example, that even within public services such as the Régie de l'assurance maladie, the Régie des rentes du Québec and others, there are fraud artists who are able to extract information and use it for completely illegitimate purposes.

Another offence is the use of skimming devices to capture credit and debit card information, and stealing someone's PIN, something that we would never have imagined a few years ago. When we went to our credit union or bank to pay our bills, withdraw money or make deposits, we naturally thought we were in a secure environment. However, people routinely spy on seniors, in particular, and try to steal their PINs.

In a program I was watching on an English language channel, I even saw people in shopping malls and other public places stealing purses, like the one the hon. member for Québec left here. If I were not such an honest person, I could take the hon. member's credit card and PIN, and try to reproduce them for illegitimate purposes.

There are also networks in shopping centres. Someone will distract a person in a public place by engaging that person in conversation while two, three or four other people steal the person's wallet. One member of the network will claim to have witnessed the crime and will talk to the person, who is clearly shaken and emotional. The witness will give the person a telephone number, supposedly for a centre where you can report theft. This centre is bogus. A tape recorder has been used to record a voice as if the centre were real. The person who calls has to give his or her PIN, social insurance number, address and personal information, which completes the theft that is in progress. This happens in public places such as grocery stores, arenas or busy places where an organized group of three, four or five people can carry out such an operation.

So there is identity card theft, redirection of mail, false pretence, hacking into data banks, using sorting devices to gather information, stealing PINs by spying on people in financial institutions and, obviously, computer theft. These are examples of modern ways individuals and networks can use to access personal information. This is why we have to be increasingly vigilant about sharing information about ourselves. We have to be increasingly vigilant and shed the reflex to give out such information.

The government has introduced a bill that creates three new offences. Bill C-27 mentions obtaining and possessing identity information. That is the first new offence. Section 347 of the Criminal Code already prohibits the use of false pretence or forgery for unauthorized purposes. These offences have been on the books for a very long time. But the government is proposing three other offences, including obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use the information deceptively, dishonestly or fraudulently in the commission of a crime. This is a new offence that will be added to the Criminal Code, and we support this.

The second offence is certainly the most interesting with respect to what is currently happening. It concerns trafficking in identity information. This is an offence that targets those who transmit or sell information to a third party knowing that or being reckless as to whether the information will be used for criminal purposes.

The third offence is the unlawful possession or trafficking of certain government-issued identity documents that contain information about other persons.

These are three new offences introduced by C-27 and we will certainly support this bill. We support it because the issue of identity theft is of great concern. In committee, we will hear and obtain the opinions of our fellow citizens. We believe that we must do more. We are urging the government to consider the possibility of strengthening this bill.

We must recognize that the fight against identity theft is not just a matter for criminal law. The former Information Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, appeared before the committee dealing with information issues. This is the same committee that deals with ethics, which has been in the spotlight of late owing to the Schreiber-Mulroney affair. I do not wish to dwell on this matter but I must at least comment on these events.

Last night, I read the report by the former rector of McGill University who outlined for the government and the Prime Minister a certain number of scenarios, including first listening to the testimony of parliamentarians who will continue their work. The Bloc Québécois has the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I believe that my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin also sat on this committee.

There is, of course, cause for concern when a former prime minister, someone who held the highest ministerial and public office in this country, accepted money for making representations while he was still a member of Parliament and under circumstances that remain unclear.

While provisions concerning lobbying were added to Bill C-2, the fact remains that we have had a code of ethics since 1985 at least and that, in light of various ethical concerns, such action might appear suspicious. The presumption of innocence applies to everyone of course. The former prime minister has the right—it is his prerogative—to clear these things up; still, one can wonder, if only because this former prime minister did not report until 1999 income received in 1993. All this is fueling a climate of suspicion which, unless the record can be set straight, might tarnish the office of prime minister.

I will be following, with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We can count on the dynamic member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to put the most pertinent questions. We will recall that the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was voted parliamentarian of the year on the Club des ex show broadcast on RDI between Christmas and New Year's. I think that it is very wise to recognize the energy and professionalism of the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I will close by saying that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the person responsible for access to information, was clear that the issue of identity theft, which is a growing phenomenon in Canada, cannot be fully and satisfactorily resolved through criminal law alone. She invited us to adopt civil sanctions as well. I will read what she said in committee on May 8, 2007:

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply.

We know that in criminal law the standard is not balance of probabilities but proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard.

The Commissioner added:

And so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

There needs to be a causal link between an offence, harm and the consequences. The Commissioner added:

[They] are very easy to prove and easy for citizens to understand.

She was talking about civil sanctions and gave the example of small claims court. Such courts exist in Quebec. I do not know whether they exist in other provinces. They are courts where one can submit a claim before a judge without the need to be represented by a lawyer. Matters that are important to a person are considered more quickly than in superior courts, where they may not be considered as important.

The Commissioner went on to say:

Small claims courts may provide a more easily accessible deterrent to the growing industry of ID theft. This means, of course, that I think the federal government has to work closely with the provinces, because a lot of what happens in terms of ID theft falls within provincial jurisdiction.

I get worried when cooperation between the federal government and the provinces comes up. The federal government has sometimes flexed its authority and completely ignored the will of the provinces.

For example, take the recent statement by Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, who is also president of the treasury board and an MNA in west Montreal. Like previous finance ministers and all the premiers in the National Assembly, including Bernard Landry, she is opposed to creating a national securities commission. We know that this is an area the provinces can regulate. We therefore do not see the need for a national commission.

The same thing is true of the Kyoto protocol and the manufacturing and forestry crisis. It is quite something to hear all the premiers join together in condemning the federal government's insensitivity in offering $1 billion in assistance. This is very little, considering what is needed.

Of course, what is most upsetting about the federal government's strategy is that it does not take into account where the job losses have occurred. In a case like this, you cannot simply distribute money on a per capita basis.

The Prime Minister says that each province will be guaranteed $10 million, and each territory, $3 million. Yet central Canada—Ontario and Quebec—accounts for nearly 60% of all the manufacturing job losses—57%, in fact, if memory serves.

Quebec, which has invested billions of dollars to help its industry, will therefore get $276 million. Yet the federal government will have an estimated $24 billion surplus for the next two years. Consequently, $1 billion is simply not a serious offer when the Canadian economy is in crisis and central Canada—Quebec and Ontario—is being hardest hit.

The information commissioner invited the federal government to exercise its prerogative by using point 27 in section 91 of the Constitution, which enables the government to legislate on criminal matters. However, she said that Canada cannot combat identity theft without using civil law measures. This is the responsibility of the provincial governments, especially the National Assembly, because Quebec is the main jurisdiction where civil law is in force.

My time is up. I do not believe anyone has a question, but I will be happy to answer questions if there are any.

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to present a petition concerning dangerous offenders. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Specifically, they ask parliamentarians to expedite the passage of Bill C-27, on reverse onus for dangerous offenders, so that corrective action can be taken against convicted criminals who continue to pose a danger to the health and safety of Canadian families.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and speak to Bill C-27. I remind the House that the Bloc supports this bill in principle.

Identity theft is a very serious issue to us. The Criminal Code must be modernized—we are in favour of that—in order to take this reality into account. I am often obliged, as an MP, to wrestle with these painful cases that land in our offices. Often they involve people who do not know much about accounting, people who do not have the knowledge to detect the dangers lurking in a text or people who simply have difficulty reading.

Unfortunately, in my riding—and I assume in many others—there are a certain number of people who are illiterate. The government should put more emphasis on this issue so that these people have a chance to understand texts. Identity theft cannot possibly be completely prevented if we do not work on these other things, on society as a whole, and especially on illiteracy.

In fighting identity theft, it is imperative to establish a good working relationship with other governments at various levels. We need agreements with foreign governments, especially the U.S. and the Government of Mexico.

A case was reported to me in my riding of someone who had his identity stolen nearly a year and a half ago. It happened in the United States. This Canadian still has not got his papers back. It is a very complex case that leads me as well to say that it is imperative for the government to have some agreement procedures. We need places where these people can go and tell their story, be heard, and taken in hand by people who know how to help them.

Turning to the police is not an ideal solution for these people. The police do not necessarily believe them and may think that they are hallucinating. At times, the stories are so incredible that we believe the individuals are making them up and have fantastic ideas. However, this is not the case. These are real situations. Something particular may have happened. It may not have been theft but it could be how the theft starts. The individual's identity is in another city where someone else is passing themselves off as that person. There are some fantastic stories and these people have to be able to turn to a public agency, set up by the government, that will listen to them and look after their cases.

In general, it is questionable whether the current Conservative government will enter into agreements with other governments. That is too bad because we need such agreements. Now that people travel a great deal and often own property in other countries—I am referring to the United States in particular—, we cannot just pass a law that applies to our country and say that it protects our fellow citizens. We know very well that many of our seniors spend winters in the United States. When they spend six months down there, they run the risk of being cheated, of losing their identity and returning here to try to recover it. The Canadian government says that it does not have an agreement with the United States and that it cannot enter into one.

If we truly wish a law such as this one to protect all citizens it must provide for reciprocal agreements, particularly with the United States, and, in my opinion, also with Mexico. I wonder how this government will do that.

We absolutely have to have diplomatic meetings involving government officials—these things can be arranged—we have to bring in harmonized legislation and we need international cooperation between public entities.

In addition, we will have to inform—some people say “educate”, but I prefer the word “inform”—the people so that we can reduce the number of victims who are not even aware of the theft going on. We have to inform them of their rights and the dangers involved in signing papers, in their work habits and in buying things on the Internet. We know that more and more people are buying things on the Internet. I should add that this phenomenon is increasing greenhouse gas emissions because goods bought on the Internet are always shipped by air.

We also need to draft regulations that provide a better framework for how companies manage, store and use information. We have to ask companies to cooperate with us. Even if we come up with a very nice piece of legislation to deal with this criminal activity, without the cooperation of private enterprise, we will not be able to enforce it.

We will also have to come up with measures that enhance the uniformity and security of the processes involved in issuing and verifying identification. In other words, we should stop issuing identification left, right and centre. We really need secure identification that proves the actual identity of the holder and is very difficult for others to use. None of that is in the legislation. However, officials from the various departments should think of ways to do this, or else the legislation will be useless.

The creation of a single organization to deal with cases of identity theft could help people who need it. Such an organization should be created because it does not yet exist.

With respect to the bill, of course, one could point out that the federal government does not have a very good track record when it comes to managing its own personal data. That could do with significant improvement.

I would like to provide an overview of identity theft. Identity theft is the deliberate substitution of one person's identity for another's. It can also mean the sale of something that does not belong to the seller.

A moment ago, my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber gave the example of houses, homes. In fact, the scope of the law should be broader, because we could also talk about selling cars or any kind of vehicle that does not belong to the vendor. This is even more common in the case of motor homes or recreational vehicles. We are not talking about small amounts here, we are talking about $150,000, $200,000, $500,000 or even a million dollars, that will be handed over to someone who drives away in a vehicle on wheels that the person who sold it did not even own. In other cases, the vehicle may be lumbered with debts, but that detail is not known because the papers do not disclose it.

I have lived in England. Over there, the ownership history of a vehicle follows it for its whole life. In other words, I bought a 10-year-old vehicle and I knew who all the previous owners were, and I was going to know all its future owners until the end of the vehicle’s life. That way, all of the owners were going to know that I had owned it for a period of time.

These kinds of things could and should be included in a bill like the one being proposed. When this one is studied by the committee, we will have to assess it from all these perspectives. And this is my opportunity to say that it will be important to examine what is done elsewhere.

I just gave an example that relates to England.

I know this, because last week I spoke with some parliamentarians from Japan when I was taking part in an Asia-Pacific parliamentary meeting in New Zealand. Japan has its own unique laws, precisely because that country has protected itself against crime, against petty crime. The Japanese have laws that we should take an interest in and that offer examples for us. They have worked on those laws.

Why would we not do a broader survey to observe what is done in the major countries in this area? All countries are currently asking themselves questions. We cannot say that Canada is in the vanguard in this kind of law. We might therefore look elsewhere instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, obviously, before saying that we will write our own law in our own little corner.

Earlier, my colleague was talking about the American legal framework. I do not think that the Americans have the best laws, but you will note that they have laws that contain excessively harsh penalties. Imposing heavy penalties is an idea worth considering. I believe that the first offence is $7,500 and the second rises to $75,000.

But we still have to catch the fraud artists. We cannot get carried away with the size of the fines, without knowing whether we will find the resources or will have the support needed to actually identify the people committing the frauds.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is well-equipped. Sometimes it takes hours to find a person who has committed identity theft. Sometimes it takes years. It is not easy to catch these people. There should be organizations that can track them down more efficiently.

Like my colleague, I recognize that we should not rely solely on a law—that would be very narrow-minded.

We need to revamp the entire Criminal Code because the offences it covers were mostly defined back when people had a more traditional notion of right and wrong. As you know, several years ago, when a person's honour was at stake, people did not conduct dishonest transactions. It was also a matter of honour to keep one's word, which is not necessarily the case today.

Everything that has been done to make it easier for people to complete payment transactions has also made it easier for some to steal people's money and identity.

In France, people used to use cheques all the time. People used them a lot because they were difficult to forge. Here, people hardly ever use cheques anymore because they are not secure. Yet we know that credit cards have caused so many problems around the world. The law should force companies to make their credit cards secure because they have the means to do so. It would mean extra fees, but society as a whole would benefit tremendously. Credit card holders who are prepared to pay the price could demand secure credit cards. That would really help the market.

The legislation should be broadened so that we can really see the big picture and not rely solely on educating people, even though that is very important.

The government must also ensure that this legislation, if passed, creates agencies and rules that would require private enterprise to do something about truly minimizing this plague. The word “plague” is quite appropriate here to describe something spreading at a phenomenal rate. People are no longer sure how to use their identification. It has become too dangerous.

There are agencies that could help educate people. They may not be able to help in terms of detection, but they can help in terms of education. These agencies should receive help to educate the public. The target population consists of older persons and the illiterate. Certain groups of people are isolated and somewhat gullible. They could be reached through the community groups that represent them. This education should be available all across the society, not just in the schools. That is how we can fight back against this plague.

As I said, it is important for the measures to focus on enhanced security and standardization in the card-issuing process everywhere. And the number of identification cards in circulation could possibly be reduced. Every person carries around roughly 10, 15 or 20 cards with their name on them. If we want to halt this plague, then a card holder should be using no more than one or two multipurpose cards. That is something to consider for this legislation. We must not look at this legislation based on the past and on simple plastic identification cards. We have to think about the future. What is on the horizon for identification? We have to listen to people. There are experts who work in this field. If we do not know the whole story, we will not have legislation that is still current in five years.

This is very important because the rate at which secure identification cards are being developed makes us think that if we pass a law based on the present and the past, we will not have a law that will prevent future identity thieves from running rampant.

This will be very interesting legislation to review in committee because it is quite broad and applies to so many things, so many individuals and so many types of fraud. This is something that should provide a great deal of relief to the public.

We cannot rely on legislation and congratulate ourselves by saying now that we have good legislation the problem is solved. It is a rare case, but clearly one where legislation alone will not solve anything.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to one of the fastest growing criminal threats to Canadians: identity theft.

My constituents in Newton—North Delta and all Canadians have good reason to worry about identity theft. The cost of losing personal information can be crippling and can affect victims for years to come.

People can be repeatedly victimized before they know. They might not know they are a victim until they apply for credit or start receiving calls from debt collectors. However, by then it is often too late. Their credit has been destroyed and it is hard to restore it. Victims encounter many difficulties restoring their reputation and recovering their losses. Many are left traumatized.

Identity theft has many victims. When a person's identity is stolen, commercial and financial institutions may cover the losses and governments may be tricked into providing documents or benefits.

Identity theft can take many forms, from credit card abuse to fraudulent real estate transactions, even impersonating someone to commit a crime. Thieves can take over bank accounts, obtain loans, transfer land titles and more. They can gather personal information in many ways, from mail theft to high tech computer hacks. It is not hard to find websites offering credit card data for sale or even hard drives with personal information for sale on eBay.

Identity theft often leads to even worse crimes. Our police have seen a growing trend of identity theft being used to further other types of crime, from fraud to organized crime. Gangs like identity theft because of the low risk of detection and the chance of high rewards. New technology has made it even easier to collect personal information and for criminals to cover their tracks.

Identity theft affects more and more Canadians. Seventy-three per cent of Canadians are concerned about becoming victims of identity theft. Twenty-eight per cent say that they were or someone they know was a victim. Last year almost 8,000 victims reported losses of $16 million and even more cases go unreported every day. Identity theft is estimated to cost Canadian consumers and businesses more than $2 billion a year.

The Liberal Party is proud that it created cutting edge laws to protect consumers' privacy eight years ago. The member for Calgary Centre-North wrote that this legislation “continues to merit its long-standing reputation as a world-class model for the protection of personal information in the private sector”.

The idea is simple: criminals cannot steal from people what they do not have. By making companies collect only the information they need, their data is less valuable to thieves. We also required companies to adopt safeguards for sensitive information.

Unfortunately, companies do not always comply. There are too many stories of the over-collection of personal information and inexcusable security breaches. Worse, companies do not have to inform consumers if their data is compromised. Canadians may not find out that their personal information has been stolen until it is used for a theft.

As the representative of my constituents in Newton—North Delta, I am committed to fighting crime and the causes of crime. We have to both encourage people to obey the law and punish them if they do not.

I have spoken with seniors in my riding and they tell me that it is not enough to punish crime. They say that we need to stop crime before it happens. They have a better plan to fight crime than the government.

Crime is a complicated problem and simplistic solutions do not get the job done. We need a comprehensive and effective approach to every aspect of fighting crime: prevention, catching criminals, convicting them and then rehabilitating them. We must put more police officers on our streets, more prosecutors in the courts , and more tools in the hands of the police.

I have been imploring the government to do more. The City of Vancouver has put more police on the streets of Vancouver than the Conservative government has put across this whole country. That is not enough.

To prevent identity theft, we must change private sector privacy laws to force companies to notify consumers when their personal information gets stolen. Breach notification will empower consumers. If a person's social insurance number gets into the wrong hands, the person deserve to find out about it so the person can avoid becoming a victim. This would also cause businesses to take the security of their customer's information more seriously. National breach notification would put Canada ahead of the United States where over half of all states have these laws.

Canada also needs to implement the recommendations of the federal task force on spam, recommendations that have been ignored by the present government. Spam clutters the mailbox of every Canadian and can trick people into revealing personal information. Canada has fallen behind. We are the only G-8 country without anti-spam legislation. Of the top 10 worst countries for originating spam, Canada is number six.

Bill C-27 would make it an offence to obtain, possess or traffic in other people's identity information if it is to be used in a crime. While there are already offences in the Criminal Code that cover the misuse of someone else's personal identity information, there are no offences to cover the steps that lead up to identity fraud: the collecting, possession and trafficking in identity information. Bill C-27 addresses this gap and I support this.

However, Bill C-27 does not do enough. It does not require data breach notification. It does not help the victims recover their reputations. It does not fight the growth of spam. It does not fix the rules on the collection of personal information by the government and private enterprise. It does not criminalize pretexting when a fraudster tries to obtain personal information about an individual by posing as him or her or someone authorized to have this information.

Experts agree that the government has not done enough. Philippa Lawson, the director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, said, “if the government is serious about this issue, we expect to see much more in the way of law and policy reform The Privacy Commissioner said that “the federal government must develop a broad-based strategy for tackling this type of fraud”.

The government has not shown Canadians that it believes its own rhetoric and introduced better accountability and stronger systems to protect their personal information.

The way forward is clear. The police need more resources to investigate identity theft and capture criminals. We need more police devoted to white collar crime. Our police need more training to keep up with criminals. We need to fix the lack of coordination between different government departments, the provinces, law enforcement and the private sector. We need basic education to teach Canadians about identity theft and how to avoid it.

Bill C-27 is a useful first step but if the government is serious about fighting identity theft it will need to do a lot more for Canadians.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today in the House. This is the first time I have spoken since returning after the holidays. I hope that all my colleagues had a happy time with their families and took good advantage of it. I hope that 2008 will be a good year for all of us and for our fellow citizens and that it will bring us the wisdom we need to make the right decisions in Parliament and see this government take the major change in direction that is so badly needed.

In regard to Bill C-27 on identity theft, we know already that the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle. In fact, identity theft is one of our particular concerns. This crime is becoming increasingly common, in part because of the advent of new technologies that make it easier and more attractive. Therefore we need to modernize the Criminal Code to take the reality of identity theft into account.

We in the Bloc think that it is not enough simply to amend the Criminal Code. Concerted action is needed by the various levels of government as well as prevention and public education activities. As is often the case with this government when it comes to legal issues, it seems to think that just passing a law and saying that something is bad and criminal and must not be done will be enough to reduce this kind of crime. We know, though, that everywhere in the world where this kind of approach has been taken, whether in regard to identity theft or crime in general, such as crimes committed with a firearm, just increasing sentences and changing the Criminal Code to create more serious offences is not enough, even though it is sometimes necessary and helpful.

Although we support this bill and consider it justified and appropriate, we want to emphasize at the same time that it does not suffice and that we need to work together with other governments. Although the Criminal Code is a federal matter, there are issues in the civil and commercial areas that are under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the government will have to work together with others.

Unfortunately, the current Conservative government has a rather disappointing history of not working together very well with the provinces. We need only think of its plan to help the manufacturing and forestry industries that was so criticized by the governments of Quebec, Ontario and several other provinces. It was developed without any consultations with them and without taking their requests into account.

Insofar as the reform of federal institutions and representation in the House and Senate are concerned, the government has succeeded in uniting everyone against it since virtually all the provincial representatives are opposed to what has been proposed.

There is also the example of the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. Here too, the Government of Quebec, among others, hoped to work together with the federal government on achieving its objectives, but the reality was quite the opposite.

We are very concerned, therefore, about this. We will continue to pressure the government and emphasize the importance of working together with the provinces. In contrast to what some Conservative members have implied, this legislation will not solve the problem. It is one more tool, which is a good start but will not solve the problem. More action will be needed.

By this I mean educating the public to reduce victimization and introducing regulations to better govern the management, storage, disposal and transfer of information between companies and individuals.

We are faced with new technologies and new realities, primarily because of developments in informatics. We will have to take them into account and put in place measures to achieve greater consistency and security in identity document issuance and verification processes. As well, the federal government will have to set an example. Its record on protecting personal information and preventing identity theft is very poor. That must change. I would like to start by talking about this.

My colleagues have talked a great deal about the purpose and mechanics of the bill. I may come back to this later, if I have time. But first, I wanted to talk about how important it is for the federal government to set an example.

In my opinion, this is the best thing a government can do, and it is the least a government can do. It seems to me that when we are asking people and businesses to make an effort to protect Canadians' identity, we have to lead by example if we want to have any credibility and if we do not want those people to laugh at us.

I would like to point out some problems that already exist. With this bill, the government is proposing to penalize people who fraudulently use identity documents such as social insurance cards, the famous SIN we have talked about so much today. Yet this same government is not doing enough on this front.

In June 2006, the Auditor General said the government “had not done enough to safeguard and strengthen the integrity of the SIN”. In June 2006, there were 2.9 million more social insurance numbers in circulation than the number of Canadians who qualified for one. This is extremely disturbing. There are 2.9 million too many social insurance numbers circulating in Canada at present, or at least there were in June 2006.

The bill makes it illegal to falsely impersonate a peace officer or public officer. We completely agree. Of course a person cannot impersonate a public officer or peace officer, especially for fraudulent purposes. However, in December 2004, the media reported that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, could not account for all of its uniforms, of all things. From January to September 2004, CATSA had given out approximately 75,000 uniform items to about 4,000 screening officers. Out of these, a total of 1,127 pieces were reported lost or stolen, including 91 badges, 78 shirts, 32 windbreakers and 25 sweaters, all of which had the agency's logo on them. To give you an idea, that is 1,127 pieces out of 75,000—almost 2% of the pieces for 4,000 officers, which comes out to more than one article for every four officers. We do not think this is a problem at the officer level in particular. It is likely an inventory problem.

According to the CBC, some of these uniform items were offered to the highest bidder on eBay, an online auction site. Imagine this: the legislators in this House pass an act to prohibit citizens from falsely impersonating a peace officer or public officer. That is all well and good, but at the same time, among the thousands of CATSA uniform items are the 91 badges, which are similar to the badges police officers show on television. They show a badge to identify themselves, but these badges are being sold on eBay.

It is urgent that we plug these holes. We can pass all the laws we want; however, if it is so incredibly easy for people to make false representations, we will not solve the problem.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on this important piece of legislation.

It seems that as fast as we lawmakers create laws and rules and all the rest of it, the folks out there who have criminal minds are able to find ways around everything we try to do. Introducing Bill C-27 is a step in the right direction. I would expect that after it has some time at committee it will come back as a much stronger, more effective piece of legislation after all of us have had chance to comment, to try to beef it up and to stay one step ahead of the bad guys who are clearly out there trying to cause problems.

The proposed legislation would create three new offences. All of them will be subject to five year maximum sentences, including the following: to obtain or possess identity information with intent to use it to commit certain crimes; trafficking in identity information with knowledge of or recklessness as to its intended use in the commission of a certain crime; and unlawfully possessing and trafficking in government-issued identity documents.

In discussions with local police departments and others, they tell us that it is one of the fastest growing crimes around the world and that no one is safe from it. It is so easy to have our documentation copied and returned back into our wallet. We do not even know that someone has stolen it. By the time we find out, who knows if we have a mortgage on our house that we did not have before? A variety of other things can happen too.

However, we need additional Criminal Code amendments that would help to create new offences of fraudulently redirecting or causing redirection of a person's mail, possessing a counterfeit Canada Post mail key, and possessing instruments for copying credit card information. We need these in addition to the existing offence of possessing instruments for forging credit cards. It is so easy to copy any of those keys and get into someone else's mailbox and clean out that mail, including cheques or any other documentation that would give credibility to whatever the thieves have in mind.

While our party supports the efforts to combat identity theft, we feel this legislation could be stronger. At the end of the day, it comes up short, which is why I welcome the fact that this is going to committee. Each and every one of us will have an opportunity to strengthen this and to work together on something that all parliamentarians clearly care about.

The key problem I have with the legislation is that it does not do anything to prevent identity theft. As I said earlier, it is very easy for people to copy documents. The question is, though, how do we prevent it? New technology on our driver's licences and on a variety of other documents means that they are getting harder to copy. The legislation does not talk about prevention, but I would hope that by the time it comes back from committee it would cover off the issue of prevention and make the bill a better bill.

Law enforcement agencies all across Canada have been very clear on this issue for some time. They need modern tools to deal with what is a growing concern for Canadians. They need the tools of the 21st century. Unfortunately, we are always slower at doing that than the criminal minds are.

However, to respond to some of these concerns, my Liberal colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-416, Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, which would actually provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to combat and prevent identity theft. My colleague across the way has also introduced a private member's bill. I hope that with all of these things combined we will be able to give the law enforcement officers the tools they need. They clearly will know how important the issue is for all of us.

As important an initiative it is to catch the criminals, we need modern new laws, especially to protect the most vulnerable in our society, children and seniors. A week does not go by that we do not read or hear a very sad story about a senior who found out that he or she now has a $400,000 mortgage on a home because someone was able to steal his or her identity. We can just imagine the stress that individual would be under. He or she would be feeling very vulnerable and needing help. We are just catching up to try to do that.

To do that, a Liberal government would make the following changes to the Criminal Code, which again would strengthen our tools.

To protect Canadian children, we will strengthen the laws that prevent Internet luring, something that is of concern to all of us in this House and which we are all working on in a variety of ways. The previous Liberal government passed laws that helped protect children from Internet-based predators, but more needs to be done. New laws are needed to address explicit online conversations initiated by adults with the intention of gaining the trust of a child and luring him or her into being abused.

To protect our precious Canadian seniors, we need to act on the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner to address the problem of identity theft. There were almost 8,000 reports of identity theft in the past year, resulting in more than $16 million being lost, much of it taken from vulnerable seniors.

Let us think for just a moment about seniors who get statements in the mail telling them they owe $70,000 to some company they do not even recognize. Let us just imagine the panic that would set in for those individuals. We can imagine what it is like when someone suddenly finds out there is a $400,000 mortgage registered against his or her house but has never seen any of that money and knows nothing about it.

All of us should think for a few minutes about how we would feel upon being notified of that and finding out that someone has stolen our identity. All of these things are carried on in ways that have created huge problems. People have to get a lawyer. Their children are upset. All of these problems are caused by what has happened and a lifetime of hard work and savings can vanish in an instant when someone's identity is stolen.

We need tougher laws to prevent this kind of crime. That is where I believe we are all heading in the House with this bill and the others that we are all concerned about.

However, we also need to change some of the private sector privacy laws so that companies are forced to notify customers whose personal information gets leaked. We continually hear about how easy it is to have a credit check done on someone. Once people are doing that, they have our social insurance numbers and our driver's licence numbers and it is very easy to make a phone call and find out more information about us and to build a case to move into stealing our identities.

If our personal information gets into the wrong hands, we deserve to find out about it so that we can avoid becoming victims of identity theft. When a credit agent gets a phone call, he or she should call back and confirm the identity of the person calling for the information and probably should get some photo ID from the caller. The information should not just be given out over the phone. That is extremely unsafe. This kind of change would finally cause businesses to take the security of their customers more seriously.

Often when giving a Visa card in a store, customers are very sloppy about it. They will sign the invoice and leave it sitting on the counter. Someone easily can take that Visa or Mastercard number and go about building themselves that identity to use for their own purposes. Businesses also have a responsibility here.

We also need to look at implementing recommendations of the federal task force on spam, recommendations that so far have been ignored. Spam is clearly the weapon of choice for identity thieves, who use phony emails to trick people into revealing personal information.

We heard one of our colleagues make mention of his office receiving an email confirming a purchase that he had made online and confirming his credit card information. He did not have a credit card with that particular company. Clearly it was just a trap. An innocent senior or someone who is vulnerable could call in to say that the card number was not real and then could give out the correct number. There are all kinds of ways of tricking people into giving out information. It certainly is the weapon of choice.

Canada is the only G-8 country without anti-spam legislation. A Liberal government clearly would change that. Unfortunately, this should have been done already, and we all recognize that, but it is hard to make changes as fast as is necessary in order to stay one step ahead.

We all know that the Conservatives' crime policies are more about scoring political headlines than making our streets safer.

That being said, I am very happy to support this bill to go to committee so that the opposition and all of us in the House can have the opportunity to strengthen and to work at improving this legislation.

We can only build a strong Canada if Canadians feel safe in their communities. It is not just about street safety. It is a about a multitude of areas that many people within our country feel vulnerable and are looking to us as parliamentarians to do a better job.

The Liberal goals of prosperity, social justice and sustainability are not achievable if people cannot be confident that they and their children are protected.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise on Bill C-27, an bill that seeks to protect Canadians from identity crime.

At the outset of my speech, I do want to particularly thank the Minister of Justice, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the entire department for all their work on this issue. I had an opportunity to work on it with respect to a private member's bill that was unanimously adopted by the House in the last session. I was very pleased that the government did bring forward a much more comprehensive piece of legislation on identity theft in general.

The reality is that technology has made financial transactions virtually instantaneous, but it has also made personal information more vulnerable to misappropriation and misuse. Identity information has in reality become a commodity. It is easily acquired and can be instantaneously transferred from one person to another.

Identity thieves can use stolen personal information to open credit card and bank accounts, redirect mail, rent vehicles, obtain government benefits and even secure employment. When this happens, unsuspecting victims are left with unpaid bills and bad credit. Thousands of Canadians are victims of identity theft every year. Many of them contacted me in the course of preparation and adoption of my private member's bill.

In November 2006 an Ipsos Reid survey indicated that 73% of Canadians are concerned about becoming victims of identity theft and 28% said that they or someone they know has already been a victim of identity theft. In 2006 almost 8,000 victims reported losses of $16 million to PhoneBusters, the Canadian anti-fraud call centre. Many more cases are thought to go unreported. The PhoneBusters numbers likely represent only the tip of the iceberg as they do not include reports made directly to local police agencies, or all the incidents that go unreported for one reason or another, nor do they include identity thefts that have not yet been detected.

The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus has estimated that identity theft may cost Canadian consumers, banks and credit card firms, stores and other businesses more than $2 billion annually.

Credit card losses in Canada were reported by the Canadian Bankers Association to have reached nearly $300 million in 2006. Losses from debit card fraud approached $100 million in 2006 according to the Interac Association.

It is already a crime to fraudulently use another person's identity information and Bill C-27 strengthens the protections against identity fraud. But Bill C-27 also gives the police, prosecutors and courts new tools to catch, prosecute and punish those who commit identity crime by creating new offences that allow the police to intervene at an earlier stage of criminal operations before identity fraud or other crimes that actually cause financial or other harms are attempted or committed. These provisions will help stop criminal activity before Canadians fall victim to identity fraud.

Let me explain how the bill will accomplish its objectives. There are two phases to identity crimes. The first is in preparation where identity thieves gather and exchange personal information about others for later fraudulent use. The second phase is where identity thieves actually use that information to commit identity fraud.

Until now, only the second phase, the actual identity fraud, is a criminal act. Bill C-27 criminalizes the first stage by creating new offences for identity theft. These new offences will let the police intervene at the earliest stages when identity information is collected and transferred for the purpose of committing identity fraud. In this way, criminalizing identity theft will help prevent identity fraud and the victimization that ensues as a result.

Bill C-27 criminalizes identity theft because identity theft enables identity fraud. Before someone can commit identity fraud, he or she must obtain another person's identity information. This information, such as a credit card number or bank account number, is not considered to be property within the meaning of the theft provisions in the Criminal Code currently. For example, an unscrupulous salesperson who surreptitiously retrieves the information from a bank card or credit card during a purchase, a process which is known as skim and clone--something that happened to me--cannot be charged with theft because no physical object was stolen and the card holder has not been deprived of anything other than the ability to control the flow of the information. This is not subject to the current law on theft.

Other common ways of collecting identity information are going through another person's garbage, a practice known as dumpster diving, or catching a glimpse of account numbers or personal identification numbers of the person next to them, a practice known as shoulder surfing.

Another way for identity thieves to gather information is called “phishing”. Identity thieves send unsolicited emails that look like they are from a bank, credit card company or other merchant. The unsuspecting recipient is asked to provide his or her account numbers and passwords. The information is then sent straight back to the identity thief.

It is important to remember that identity information is not always obtained clandestinely. Identity thieves can get a potential victim's name and address from the phone book. They can browse social networking sites like MySpace or Facebook or gather other personal details that have been posted by users.

Social networking sites encourage users to share their birthdates, hobbies, interests, friends and addresses. In the wrong hands this seemingly harmless personal information can be used to perpetuate identity fraud.

Identity theft is a necessary step on the road to identity fraud. That is why Bill C-27 proposes to get tough on those who traffic and possess identify information for the purposes of later committing an offence involving the deceptive use of someone's identity. To this end, it creates three new offences.

First, Bill C-27 would make it an offence to possess or obtain, without lawful excuse, certain government issued identity documents. This new offence targets those who have official government documents with false information or who, without excuse, have the official documents of another person.

Official government documents are particularly useful to identity criminals because they are used to obtain other identification and access to government services. Criminalizing the simple possession of official documents, without lawful excuse, is at the outside of the criminal law power. However, the danger of having these documents fall into the wrong hand warrants these steps to protect them. It will be clear that people who hold these cards on behalf of family members or for legitimate business purposes are not committing an offence. Only where there is no lawful excuse for the possession will an offence be made out.

It is not only government documents, however, that need to be protected. Bill C-27 would create two offences that would target unlawful conduct in relation to identity information, whether or not the information was captured in an official identity card or document.

The first of these offences prohibits the obtaining or possessing of another person's identity information with the intent to perpetuate identity deception. Identity information is defined very broadly and includes anything that can identify an individual.

In addition, it explicitly includes a range of key pieces of information, such as name, date of birth, biometric information, financial account numbers, crucial alphanumeric identifiers issued by a range of authorities. This new offence targets those who have information about others, but who intend to use it to commit an offence that involves fraud, deceit or falsehood.

The second new offence also targets the illegal flow of identity information. This offence, however, goes after those who profit from supplying identity information to others, but do not themselves use it to commit offences. This offence prohibits trafficking in identity information, where the person knows or is reckless as to whether the information would be used to perpetuate an offence.

Each of these three new offences targets a separate aspect of the early stages of identity fraud. They are all dual procedure offences and punishable by up to five years in prison.

One concern in criminalizing the deceptive use of identity is to ensure that we do not inadvertently prohibit the use of undercover identities by police and other agencies. Toward this end, Bill C-27 contains two exemptions for the benefit of law enforcement.

The first exemption allows police officers engaged in undercover work to obtain and use forged documents in the course of their duties. The second permits document issuers, who sometimes are called upon by various government agencies to produce false documents for use in undercover operations, to continue to produce those documents without fear of prosecution for forgery. These two exemptions ensure that the new protections against identity crime will not hinder the legitimate work of law enforcement.

Bill C-27 would make other amendments to existing offences in the Criminal Code. All of these either supplement existing offences or clarify or expand their scope.

Additional Criminal Code amendments will create a new offence of fraudulently redirecting or causing redirection of a person's mail and a new offence of possessing a counterfeit Canada Post mail key. There are already certain Canada Post and mail related offences in the code, but the addition of these two new offences to complement the others are necessary because mail fraud continues to be a technique commonly used by identity thieves to get valuable personal information.

The bill would also create new forgery offences to complement those already in existence. Currently, it is a crime to make a forged document and to use a forged document as if it were in fact genuine. The bill would add to these new offences of trafficking in forged documents or possessing forged documents with the intent to either traffic or use them. These amendments should cover off all possible situations in relation to the handling of forged documents so there should always be a chargeable offence.

The legislation also proposes a few clarifications to the personation offence. We are proposing to rename the personation offence “identity fraud”. Personation is somewhat of an historical term that seems out of place in our modern world. More important, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty over what the terms “identity theft”, “identity fraud” and “identity crime” mean from one context to another. By renaming personation as “identity fraud” and by introducing preparatory offence for “identity theft”, we hope that this would at least bring some uniformity to the discussion about these issues in the Canadian criminal law context.

A few other more technical amendments will clarify that the offence of unlawfully possessing or using debit card data includes the PIN, or personal information number, of the bank card and will clarify that it is a crime to possess instruments for copying debit card information, devices known as “skimming” machines.

Bill C-27 gets tough on identity criminals, but we must not forget that thousands of Canadians are victims of identity crime.

Bill C-27 would allow a judge to order that a person convicted of identify offences be required to provide restitution of reasonable costs associated with the rehabilitation of the victim's credit rating and identity. This restitution power would supplement the existing restitution provisions, which allow for an order of restitution in respect of actual financial losses. It would help victims recover the costs associated with restoring their identities, in addition to whatever direct financial losses they suffered as a result of a fraudulent use of their identities.

I am sure all members of the House are concerned about the growing threat of identity crime. I know that I certainly am. That is why I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-299. I want to thank all members for unanimously supporting that bill to go to the Senate, where it currently is.

I am very pleased that Bill C-27 would create new offences for possession and trafficking in identity information.

Bill C-27 would get tough on those who perpetrate identity crime. The government is responding to the demands of Canadians to do more to combat this problem. However, the identity theft problem will not be solved by government action alone. There are simple precautions that all Canadians can take to minimize the risk of falling victim to identity crime.

Prudent Canadians should take steps to protect their identity information. Experts of all types suggest: shredding all documents with personal information before putting them in the recycling or garbage; not clicking on links in unsolicited email messages; using automatic bill payments or secure online banking sites; only carrying essential identity documents in a purse or wallet; carefully reviewing all bank card and credit card statements and following up promptly on any unusual or unfamiliar charges; and contacting Visa or Mastercard or whatever institution with respect to travelling overseas that might result in payments. All these steps should be taken by Canadians in order to be prudent in the protection of their information.

Finally, some Canadians may want to take advantage of credit monitoring services that watch for signs of identity theft. Early detection of identity theft is crucial for minimizing the repercussions of the crime.

Identity theft and identity fraud are serious crimes. By tightening the identity fraud provisions of the Criminal Code and introducing new identity theft provisions, the bill would provide police, prosecutors and the courts the tools they need to combat identity crime.

Certain elements of the legislation are rather technical and complex. The criminal law has never before criminalized the acquisition of information that is, in many cases, in the public domain and widely and freely shared by millions of Canadians. The criminal law must ensure that this information is not used fraudulently to the detriment of others.

I believe all members are equally concerned about these problems. I also believe all members will be supportive of the approach we have taken. I ask all members of the House, as I did for my private member's bill, to stand in unison, support the bill and ensure that there is greater protection for Canadians with respect to their personal information and take some real action on identity theft.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-27, dealing with identity theft.

In May 2007, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertook a study on identity theft. At the time, we began to hear witnesses and look at this issue, because it is a serious problem. This issue directly affects individuals, but it also has an impact on our cities, our nation, our country, and even at the international level.

In fact, Canada is the only G-8 member that has not yet legislated against spams, which are often used for identity theft purposes. Some countries point to Canada as a haven for spammers. So, it was time to take action in this area.

It goes without saying that the Bloc supports the principle of the bill. As I just mentioned, identity theft is a very serious issue. We have to modernize the Criminal Code to reflect the reality of identity theft.

When she appeared before our committee, on May 8, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said that, in her opinion, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which was implemented six years ago “is not a tool that, alone, enables us to combat this phenomenon, even if this legislation imposes restrictions on the collection of data. The safeguard principle permits the secure and confidential holding of personal information. It also makes it possible to limit the time during which information may be kept, as well as the number of persons who have access to it.”

However, as Ms. Stoddart pointed out, this is not enough, and this is why an act on identity theft is a welcome initiative.

According to Ms. Stoddart, concerted action by the different levels of government is required. The Bloc Québécois is not alone to say so. Let me quote her again. She suggested that “the federal government has to work closely with the provinces, because a lot of what happens in terms of ID theft falls within provincial jurisdiction”.

Provincial jurisdiction does not mean only certain fields of responsibility. We are really talking about the jurisdiction of the provinces or that of the Quebec nation, because Quebeckers have jurisdiction over the management of their fields of responsibility. Ms. Stoddart gives the example of those people who have had their houses sold out from underneath them. That is something that falls entirely within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Generally speaking, this Conservative government appears to be incapable of working in cooperation with Quebec and the provinces. Examples of this would be the aid package for the manufacturing and forestry sectors and the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that amending the Criminal Code will not be enough to eliminate identity theft. More measures will have to be put in place by governments, including: public information to reduce victimization; regulations to provide a better framework for the management, storage and disposal of information by companies; and measures to ensure greater standardization and security in the process for issuing and verifying identity documents. The federal government has a crummy track record in terms of the management of personal information. It will have to set an example, but I will come back to that later.

The purpose of this bill is to curb identity theft, that is the unauthorized use of personal information generally obtained for criminal purposes. Information such as someone's name, date of birth, address, credit card number, social insurance number or any other personal identification number can be used to open a bank account, apply for a credit card, get mail redirected, sign up for cellular phone services, rent a vehicle, equipment or premises, or even get a job.

Bill C-27 creates three new basic offences, and all of them carry a maximum penalty of five years.

The first one involves obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use it in a misleading, dishonest or fraudulent fashion to commit a crime.

The second offence, which involves trafficking in identity information, targets those who give or sell information to a third party, while being well aware that this information could be used for criminal purposes, or while not caring about it.

Finally, the third offence involves the unlawful possession or trafficking in government-issued identity documents that have the information pertaining to another person.

Some witnesses confirmed to the committee that, under the Criminal Code, a person who copies—in a convenience store, a grocery store or some other business—a credit card or an automated teller card, does not commit an offence. Right now, it is very difficult to charge such a person for using personal information.

Bill C-27 will correct this situation. From now on, individuals in a business who copy a credit card or an automated teller card when someone gives it to them for a few moments will be liable to prosecution under the provisions of Bill C-27.

Bill C-27 also includes other changes to the Criminal Code. It creates a new offence for directly or indirectly redirecting someone's mail, for possessing a copy of a Canada Post key, and also additional forgery related offences, such as the trafficking in and possession of forged documents with the intent of using them. The bill also redefines the offence of personation with the notion of “identity fraud”; by specifying the meaning of the expression “fraudulently personates any person”; by adding the offence of possessing instruments for copying credit card data, in addition to the existing offence of possessing instruments for forging credit cards.

As I was saying earlier in reference to those individuals working in businesses who might copy a credit card or an automated teller card, this will now be an offence.

In addition, the bill introduces a new power that would enable the tribunal to order the offender, as part of the sentence, to make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity, such as the cost of replacement documents and cards and costs related to correcting their credit history. This is extremely important because many people come to our constituency offices and complain that they have been victims of identity theft and are having a hard time recovering their identity. Sometimes they complain that it costs them a lot of money to recover their identity.

Obviously, because the exception proves the rule, there are exceptions. The bill before us provides for two exemptions that would protect people who create false documents for secret government operations, as well as public servants—law enforcement officers—who create and use secret identities in carrying out their duties, from court action for identity fraud.

Identity theft is a very worrisome problem. According to Public Safety Canada, identity theft is now one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada and the United States. In 2004, identity theft cost over $50 billion U.S. Identity theft costs consumers, banks and retailers a lot of money. In 2002, the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion to identity theft.

In 2006, the Ontario Provincial Police's PhoneBusters program—an anti-fraud call centre created in January 1993 by the OPP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Competition Bureau—received 7,800 calls from victims of identity theft who declared personal and business losses amounting to over $16 million. However, PhoneBusters recognizes that these statistics do not provide a complete picture of the situation. The organization believes that the number of calls received represents but a small fraction—perhaps 5%—of the actual total. According to PhoneBusters, payment card fraud, which is a major element of identity theft, accounted for 42% of identity theft incidents reported in 2003. According to the RCMP, total losses due to credit card fraud amounted to $200 million in 2003.

In addition to these financial losses, victims of identity theft suffer damaged credit ratings and compromised personal and financial records.

In a 2003 study, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reported that victims of identity theft spent an average of $500 million U.S. to recover their identity and restore their credit rating.

According to a 2006 Ipsos Reid poll, one Canadian adult in four—24%, in fact, or about 5.7 million Canadians—said he or she had been a victim of identity theft—4%—or knew someone who had been a victim—20%.

This Civil Code must be dusted off. The offences currently in the Criminal Code were defined for the most part at a time when the traditional concept of “property” applied. The problem with identity theft is that personal information is not considered property. In applying the provisions of the Criminal Code, if it is impossible to establish a direct causal link with an economic loss or another serious injury, it becomes very difficult to prove that someone committed a crime such as identity theft.

Roughly 40 provisions of the current Criminal Code could apply to identity theft. For example, subsection 342(3) of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to possess and traffic in credit or debit cards and related data for the purpose of using them or obtaining services provided by the card issuer.

The provisions on forgery apply to people who knowingly make false documents in order to use them or pass them off as genuine documents.

A person who uses a false document, knowing that it is forged, in order to defraud another person, can be charged with fraud and uttering forged documents.

Offenders who assume a false identity for economic or other gain—for example, to avoid being linked to criminal offences—can be charged with identity theft.

Simple possession and collection of personal information are not crimes under the Criminal Code.

In a letter dated November 21, 2007 to the member for Hochelaga, the Minister of Justice stated that he intended to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code in order to solve the problem of identity theft. I stress the word “solve”.

The minister is a bit too enthusiastic. The bill is a step in the right direction. However, the Criminal Code is an unwieldy instrument for fighting identity theft: the rules of evidence are strict. Other measures will have to be put in place to effectively fight identity theft.

The Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has on several occasions called for amendments to the Criminal Code in order to more effectively fight identity theft, and she also recognizes that this tool is not very effective. She stated,

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply, and so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

There is one requirement for Bill C-27: the federal government must work closely with Quebec and the provinces. Once again, the Privacy Commissioner maintains that the real solution to the problem of identity theft lies in civil procedures:

Civil sanctions that are very easy to prove and easy for citizens, for example, to take to small claims courts, which may provide a more easily accessible deterrent to the growing industry of ID theft. This means, of course, that I think the federal government has to work closely with the provinces, because a lot of what happens in terms of ID theft falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that amending the Criminal Code will not be enough to solve the problem of identity theft. Other measures will have to be put in place by governments: education campaigns—I spoke of these earlier—to reduce victimization in particular; regulations to provide more stringent oversight of how businesses manage, store and dispose of information; and measures to promote greater uniformity and security in the process of issuing and verifying identification documents.

But this government is incapable of collaborating with the provinces. Some of the solutions for combating identity theft rest with the provinces under the constitutional powers in relation to property and civil rights.

This government seems to be extremely reluctant to collaborate. Examples of this abound. The present Conservative government refused to collaborate with Quebec and the provinces on bringing forward a real plan to assist the forestry and manufacturing industries. The Conservative government rejected a series of unanimous requests by the National Assembly out of hand, requests that included honouring the Kyoto protocol, abandoning its plan for a single securities commission, a plan rejected by all of the provinces except Ontario, abandoning its reform of Parliament and reversing its decision to scrap the court challenges program.

The Conservative government succeeded in upsetting all the provinces with its reform of how the seats in the House of Commons are allocated. Senate reform has upset a majority of provinces. Equalization payment reform has been a bitter pill for Quebec and Ontario and the provinces with offshore oil resources.

So the Conservative government, which should be working with the provinces to combat identity theft, has instead retreated to its corner and made a few changes that are necessary but that have a limited effect on the problem in question.

The government seems to be in more of a hurry to give the impression that it is doing something than in developing a coherent strategy for effectively combating this plague.

And then, before handing the provinces new responsibilities for enforcing the Criminal Code, did it so much as make sure that they had the resources to enforce the new identity theft provisions?

This is the federal government, which is supposed to set an example. Even though it has a sorry record when it comes to managing personal information, it will have to set an example. The federal government is proposing to penalize people who use identification documents such as social insurance cards fraudulently. This is the same government that is not doing enough to protect and strengthen the integrity of social insurance numbers. In June 2006, the Auditor General estimated that there were 2.9 million more social insurance numbers in circulation than the estimated number of Canadians aged 30 and over.

Bill C-27 makes it an offence to falsely represent one’s self to be a peace officer or public officer. In December 2004, the media revealed that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority had lost control of its uniforms. From January to September 2004, CATSA issued about 75,000 uniform items to its 4,000 or so screeners. Of those items, a total of 1,127 were reported lost or stolen.

Examples of mismanagement of personal information by the federal government abound. The federal government wants the public to believe that it is taking the question of identity theft seriously, but in its own actions it ignores the problem.

The Bloc Québécois supports the amendments to the Criminal Code, but also calls on the federal government to adopt exemplary practices in this area.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many respects Bill C-27 is classic in the sense that it is a reflection of the difficulty in modern times, and even to a somewhat lesser degree historically, of our legal system, in particular our criminal justice system, keeping up with advances in technology and in society of a scientific nature. We have seen what has become known as the crime of identity theft proliferate significantly over the last 10 to 15 years.

We heard today some figures from the Minister of Justice on not only what that costs the financial sector in particular, but also individuals. We are now into the billions of dollars. It is a situation in our society where we have to take it into our hands to try to exert a much greater control over this issue.

There are various ways of doing that, and Bill C-27 addresses a partial strategy and no more than a partial strategy.

My party has always looked at anti-social, criminal behaviour as an issue to be addressed by way of prevention to the maximum. Then, if we cannot prevent the anti-social or criminal behaviour, we move into the criminal justice arena and provide legislation that creates crimes and punishment that flow from the breach of the legislation. That is the approach we take whenever we address an issue like this.

There is no question that the provisions of Bill C-27 are all necessary. The NDP very much intends to support the bill. When it gets to committee, we will be looking at ways to see if there is any manner of strengthening it.

We have heard from police forces, including the RCMP and local police forces, of the need for these provisions, which are all amendments to the Criminal Code.

To be very clear and not in any way mislead the Canadian public, these provisions are all reactive. They are to be used when the crime has already been committed, whether it is creating some new offences around identity theft or renaming the personation section to identity theft and identity fraud, or attacking, and this is very important, the production of data and making that a crime. All those are important sections to deal with that conduct, but again I emphasize it is after the fact. It is after a crime has been committed and individuals in our society and institutions have suffered negative consequences.

We have heard the horror stories in that respect of the way it grossly disrupts the lives of people when their identities are used fraudulently in a criminal fashion. It causes them great financial losses in a lot of cases. It also puts them through the emotional turmoil while they rebuild their identification. Dealing with the debt that has been accumulated in their name can cause great havoc to the individual.

On the institutional side, it is humongous, and the minister has mentioned financial losses. It is very disruptive. The bill is important from that perspective.

When I questioned the minister earlier today, I raised the fact that the government had not brought forward any proposals and certainly no legislation to prevent access to databases to regulate the security around those databases, whether it was by way of policy within the federal government, or by way of legislation, or regulatory functions under other legislation, under our consumer legislation, our privacy laws and our access to information laws. There are a number of other laws where we could implement a regulatory framework that would prevent easy access to our databases.

Imagine people of a criminal bent wanting to steal the identities of people. They can do that by following people around, or collecting their mail, or watching them at debit machines, or going to their place of work, or stealing their cheque book. There are a number of ways to do this but they are only getting one person's identity. It is an endeavour that has to take place and we know it happens. There is an alternative to that. What happens more and more and why we see this huge increase in identity theft is that organized crime targets databases to get the personal identifications of thousands of individuals in one fell swoop.

Recently I talked to some of our local police in the Windsor area about this. What happens is that data is sold on the Internet, kind of an eBay purchase, to other individuals who will then use that personal identification to take money out of bank accounts, use credit cards, the whole gamut of criminality that goes on. Those trades happen on a regular basis. Getting access to a large database is important for that network of trading to function.

I heard my colleague from the Bloc mention the need for international cooperation. A good deal of this is happening in countries, for example, in central and eastern Europe that have recently broken away from the Soviet empire where there are not strong enforcement mechanisms. I am told a good deal of that trading goes on in those countries.

There is a whole series of other work that needs to be done. In the overall volume of crimes around identity theft, I would argue they are more significant. If we can shut down that trading network, if we can shut down access to large databases, if we can get international cooperation to do that in other countries, we will be much more effective in shutting down large numbers of these crimes as opposed to going after the individual who steals another individual's identity.

Again, I am not downplaying the importance of the bill. It is necessary, but the government needs to step up to the plate and get serious about dealing with those other areas.

Other committees have looked at this issue. The industry committee has looked at it. The committee responsible for the privacy legislation has also looked at it. Recommendations have come to those committees of how to deal with some of these problems, where we focus almost exclusively under those legislations and amendments to legislation and the regulatory functions under those legislations to prevent access to these databases.

This would go a great distance, but the government seems to be much more concerned about this bill exclusively. I suggest it is a mistake to limit its focus just on criminalizing this behaviour. I am not downplaying the importance of it, but it is nowhere near enough. In fact, it is the smaller part of the problem.

The solution to this problem lies much more in creating security around our databases and international cooperation to enforce policies along that line, rather than this more simple and limited approach to the bill.

As I have indicated, the NDP will support the bill at second reading. When it gets to committee, we will look at ways to see if it can be strengthened.

In that regard, I have heard some concerns from members of the Bar about the wording in some of the sections. The bill would make it a crime to be found in possession of a substantial body of personal identification coupled with a reasonable inference of intent to commit a crime. “Reasonable inference” is used elsewhere in the code, but in a somewhat different context. There is some worry about whether that wording will provide, because of its vagueness, enough of a defence for that section to be used to acquire convictions.

We will need to look at this type of wording at the committee to see if there is any way we can strengthen it. We hope to hear from both our prosecutors and our police forces to see if there are any additional suggestions they have to perhaps augment the bill and strengthen it some more. Unless we see ways of strengthening it, I am quite convinced the justice committee will approve the bill, hopefully with some minor tinkering, and send it back for third reading and final approval in the House.

I hope also that in the course of the hearings before the justice committee more information will come out about the need for other endeavours that will be more productive and prevent more of these crimes. If so, we also may be able to recommend to the full House additional work that needs to be done.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at second reading of Bill C-27 , An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

I believe it is important to debate this matter. With the development of new technologies, we are all confronted, at one point or another, with a situation where we have to identify ourselves by using personal information. For example, we use PINs when doing our banking at an ATM. Just imagine the amount of personal data and the number of financial transactions circulating on the Internet every day. Do we know how businesses and governments manage their immense data bases that contain our personal information? These issues affect everyone, without exception. Our personal information is recorded, catalogued and stored somewhere.

Attempted identity theft is a common occurrence. A thief could find a useful document in your mail. He could use it to pass for you and commit crimes in your name. Scam artists steal names, addresses, and birth dates that they use to apply for loans and credit cards or to open bank accounts in your name. Imagine the damage they could do using your name, not to mention the serious consequences for your reputation and self esteem.

That is why identity theft is a security issue that cannot be ignored. This type of fraud will only grow with the passing of time. Those watching us surely know someone who has been a victim of identity theft. It has disastrous consequences for the victim. It can even lead to misunderstandings with the law because fraudsters can commit crimes and use the identity of their victims. How does an individual whose identity has been stolen prove to the police or government organizations that they were not the one who committed the crime of which they are accused? It is an almost impossible task.

Bill C-27 would curb identify theft by cracking down on the unauthorized collection and use of personal information for illegal purposes. This includes the possession of several private identifiers, such as a name, address, social insurance number, or any personal number that could be used to obtain a service. Bill C-27 would create three new offences that could be punishable by a maximum of five years in prison.

The first offence deals with obtaining and possessing identity information to commit a crime. The second deals with trafficking this personal information and targets individuals who sell or deliberately hand over this information to a third party, knowing that it could be used illegally. The third deals with individuals possessing or trafficking another person's government-issued identity documents.

I remind members that thieves obtain personal information in different ways. Some use direct means, such as highly sophisticated phishing techniques. The RCMP says that criminals also use e-mails or websites that look official, but falsely represent legitimate businesses, financial institutions and government agencies. The goal is to obtain sensitive, personal financial information by phishing the person who receives the e-mail. The public must constantly be vigilant against this type of fraud. This is why people must always be careful when giving out their personal information. They should also find out how their information will be used, why it is being collected, who will view the information and how the information will be protected.

Getting back to Bill C-27, it makes several changes to the Criminal Code in order to curb identity theft. It also creates offences for redirecting mail, the possession of a counterfeit mail key, the possession of instruments for copying credit card data, and the possession of or trafficking in counterfeit documents. In addition, Bill C-27 clarifies the meaning of “personating a person” and renames the offence of “personation” to “identity theft”. It gives the courts a new power to order that, as part of the sentence, the offender make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity.

Finally, the only people exempted are those who make false documents for covert government operations or who allow public officers to create and use covert identities in the exercise of their duties—meaning here law enforcement personnel.

Bill C-27 is intended to keep up with today’s realities because in the near future the identity theft problem is only going to get worse. It is imperative, therefore, to update the Criminal Code and adapt it to current realities as well as possible. According to the Department of Public Safety, identity theft has become one of the fastest growing kinds of crime in Canada and the United States.

I should emphasize, though, that we should be concerned not just about the increase in this kind of crime but also about the costs that we collectively incur as a direct result of this illicit activity.

The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that in 2002 alone, consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion as a result of identity theft. According to the RCMP, the total losses due just to credit card fraud in 2003 amounted to $200 million. The complaints filed with the Phone Busters program of the RCMP and the Competition Bureau provide a good example of the social cost of identity theft. Just in 2006, more than $16 million were stolen from Canadians by fraudsters. Phone Busters estimates, though, that this is still just a small percentage of the real losses due to fraud, perhaps about 5%.

Considering individual human beings, we must remember that victims of identity theft are often left with a compromised credit rating and a messy personal and financial situation. Everyone is affected, without exception.

I remember an Ipsos Reid poll in 2006 according to which one-quarter of Canadians or about 5.7 million people said that they had been victimized by identity theft or knew someone who had been. These figures are very telling and clearly demonstrate the need to update the Criminal Code.

However, we are faced with a fundamental problem: Criminal Code offences were defined at the time with the traditional notion of property. The big problem with identity theft is that personal information is not considered property. To apply the provisions of the Criminal Code, there needs to be a direct causal link with an economic loss or serious harm.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove that a crime has been committed in the case of identity theft. Although some 40 provisions of the Criminal Code can apply to identity theft, the fact remains that the simple possession and collection of personal information does not constitute a crime. In this case, the Criminal Code becomes a cumbersome tool for fighting identity theft. Its evidence rules are quite strict as well.

On May 8, 2007, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, summed up the legal problem with identity theft quite well at the Standing Committee on Access to Information. She said:

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply, and so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

Bill C-27 is obviously a step in the right direction to updating the Criminal Code, but I want to reiterate that part of solution would definitely come from concerted action involving the different levels of government, private organizations and the public. Other measures will have to be implemented to effectively fight identity theft, since this is a broad issue that goes beyond the government's capabilities.

For example, the Privacy Commissioner suggested using civil sanctions instead of the Criminal Code for two main reasons: proof is easier to establish, and the procedures are easier for the public to understand.

Appropriately, the commissioner gave the example of small claims court, which could offer easily accessible ways to discourage the growing industry of identity theft.

However, the idea presupposes that the federal government will work closely with the provinces, because much of what is happening in the area of identity theft comes under provincial jurisdiction. I would remind this House that a number of solutions to the problem of identity theft are in the provinces' hands, because they have constitutional authority over property and civil rights, specifically under section 92, subsection 13, on property.

However, this minority government still has a long way to go in this area. True to form, this government, which should be working with the provinces to combat identity theft, preferred to make a few changes to the Criminal Code that do little to address the problem. Before giving the provinces new responsibilities for enforcing the Criminal Code, did the government make sure they had the resources to enforce the new provisions on identity theft?

The government should try leading by example when it comes to protecting and managing personal information. The federal government is proposing to penalize people who make fraudulent use of identity documents such as social insurance cards. Yet in June 2006, we learned that the Auditor General estimated there were 2.9 million more social insurance numbers in circulation than the estimated number of Canadians aged 30 and over. It makes you wonder.

What is more, in September 2003, six computers were stolen from the Laval offices of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, including a laptop containing personal information on 120,000 taxpayers and 600 federal taxation employees. I am dismayed by the government's behaviour, which tells me that a number of practices need to be reviewed.

Several federal departments and agencies are interested in identity theft, but these efforts do not seem to have produced a concerted strategy for dealing with this enormous problem. Nonetheless, identity theft is an issue that the federal government cannot tackle on its own, but this should not stop the federal government from developing a more focused strategy for channeling its efforts.

It would also be worth having better definitions of the concepts that identity theft involves. Although the subject has received a great deal of attention from the media, academics, enforcement agencies and government, there is still debate over the definition of identity theft. The term is used to include everything from simple cases of fraud when someone forges a cheque or uses a stolen credit card to purchase goods to very sophisticated cases of “synthetic identity theft” where the impostor creates a new identity using a combination of actual information and fabricated personal information.

Similarly, we do not have a clear idea of the sources of the personal information being used. Some studies have suggested that much of the information comes from within organizations; other studies claim that identity theft is usually perpetrated by people who are known to the victims. Media stories about large scale data breaches in which laptops have been lost or hackers have been able to gain access to credit card information have become commonplace, but we do not have a clear picture of how often these data breaches result in identity theft.

I would nonetheless point out that Canada has privacy legislation that places limits on the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by the private sector. It requires organizations to protect the information they collect. There are several provisions in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) which, if the organizations covered by the Act respect those provisions, can significantly reduce the risk of identity theft.

That Act also imposes limits on how long organizations engaged in commercial activities should retain personal information. By getting rid of information they no longer need, organizations reduce the risk of identity theft. But the destruction process must involve more than throwing paper records or hard drives into the nearest dumpster, as we have seen happen.

I would conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-27 on second reading so that it can be sent to committee. Nonetheless, I, like my colleagues, strongly believe that merely amending the Criminal Code will not be sufficient to solve the identity theft problem.

Other measures will have to be developed by the various governments to combat this problem. One that we are proposing is that the public be educated in order to reduce victimization. Educating people about how to protect themselves against identity thieves is another key element to fighting this kind of fraud. As well, strengthening the regulations to provide more stringent oversight of how personal information is managed by businesses can only be a good thing.

As a final point, measures to promote greater uniformity and security in the process of issuing and verifying identification documents seem to be essential.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

On March 14, 2007, the Liberal leader made a major speech in Toronto on fighting crime encouraging the government to bring forward legislation on identity theft and committing that a Liberal government would do that if the Conservative government did not.

It has long been a policy of the Liberal Party to strengthen provisions to prevent identity theft and we will be supporting any provisions that will do that. Hopefully, through that and with the debate today, we will make Canadians who are not aware, who are not part of the almost 10% who have already been victimized, of the jeopardy they are in and the protection they should take for themselves, and also the provisions companies, small and large businesses, should be taking to protect themselves and Canadians from identity theft.

If a criminal steals one piece of mail there can be enough information in it to have serious ramifications down the road for a Canadian citizen. Therefore, everyone needs to be more vigilant today than ever before because this new type of crime can affect people far worse than if someone were to steal all the money one happened to be carrying one day or to steal one's wallet.

Criminals need very little information to inflict tens of thousands of dollars of damage on a person. They basically need a name, address, maybe birthdate and sometimes a social insurance card. With those pieces of information, all sorts of damage can be inflicted upon people costing them thousands of dollars. People should be very vigilant because that is not very much information and criminals can get it easily.

Most Canadian citizens have given that information to dozens of other people for many reasons. The information is all over the place. People need to take care to protect their information because as soon as criminals have a little bit of information like that they use it to apply for bank accounts, credit cards, social insurance numbers and false drivers' licences. It can have terrible consequences for people. Perhaps 9% of Canadians, one in ten of our friends, have already had this occur to them in some way or another at great expense and inconvenience.

Sometimes it is even more sophisticated. Some criminals will impersonate people in order to use their medical plans to get medical benefits. Once again, that can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. Some criminals are using it to commit mortgage fraud. They will impersonate a person to get a mortgage for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for which the person being impersonated could be responsible. I had a constituent suggest that people applying for such a mortgage should have their picture taken. I would be curious as to the minister's response to that suggestion.

The theft may not be committed directly on the person who is victimized. It could come from one's workplace which has detailed information about its employees. The information could be taken from some other workplace where information was submitted for a good reason. It is very important to us that the information is protected by companies and that they are very careful about access to an employee's personal information.

Criminals are getting people's information off the computer through Internet hackers. They are getting it from mailboxes, garbage left outside, country mailboxes, dumpsters and from recycling bins.

Criminals can get even more sophisticated. If they cannot get the information in that way, they might send out a spam email that looks totally appropriate. They might tell the person that there is a problem with his or her bank account and ask the person to fill in a little bit of information. An unsuspecting person may fill in the information and then the criminals would have the person's bank account number and other personal information.

A sophisticated case happened here in Ottawa where people set up a phoney job ad. When people answered the ad they were asked for a resume which contains the birthdate, social insurance number and address. Instantaneously the criminals had all the information they needed to steal tens or hundreds of thousands dollars from Canadian citizens. They then used that information to apply for credit cards, drivers' licences or SIN numbers and could leave a person responsible for all sorts of damages for money and inconvenience.

If Canadians are not aware of this they should be. It is so prevalent that it now has an official name, “phishing”, where criminals will ask someone for his or her bank account number because of a problem with the person's account. This has been done to hundreds of Canadians.

The telemarketing PhoneBusters is an organization that deals with this problem because it is so big. It suggests that there has already been over 7,800 identity thefts in Canada costing $16 million. It estimates that is only 5% of what is actually happening.

As I said, 9% of Canadian have already been touched by this type of crime.

I ask Canadians to please protect themselves, to be very careful about protecting their birthdate and social insurance number . People do not need to carry their social insurance card with them everywhere they go. It is not needed that often. They should keep their SIN card and birth certificate locked up in a safe place. They should not give out their mothers' maiden name indiscriminately. They should know exactly to whom they are giving their information and for what reason. They should review their credit reports annually to ensure they have no outstanding bills that they did not know about because they did not incur them.

There was a case in England where there were people on the street being interviewed for some survey. People were asked for some personal information that a criminal would want and nine out of ten people provided that information. I would ask Canadians not to be naive about what can happen and to be very careful with their personal information.

Facebook contains a lot of information, and I hope everyone will join my Facebook account, but I would ask Canadians to be very careful not to give out personal information that criminals could use on areas like a Facebook account or a personal website.

When one is asked to go to a website for something, it might appear very legitimate, like a big bank or a major corporation that has a good name, but it could easily be a counterfeit website. Criminals make up counterfeit websites. They put in a company logo and when Canadians log on they get these pieces of information, which is all they need.

The minister was asked what effect this would have on companies that are not protecting people's information. I would implore Canadian companies, small and large businesses, to ensure they are taking the right provisions to protect Canadians. If nine out of every one hundred Canadians are being affected, those could be their employees. If the information comes from their company, they could be sued for thousands of dollars.

There was a study done that suggests that it costs businesses 15 times more to deal with the problems caused by information being stolen from them or having escaped from them inadvertently. That is 15 times more in costs to companies ultimately to deal with all those problems than had they encrypted the information in the first place.

Individuals managing companies or individuals at home must remember that information, such as their birthdate, social insurance number or address, is like cash. To criminals, this information is worth far more than the cash in their pocket. This information must be protected.

The thousands of individuals who have gone through those types of incidents can contact www.phonebusters.com or they can call the toll free number 1-888-495-8501 if they feel a criminal has taken their information. For a much more detailed outline of what steps individuals and businesses should take, they can go to the Privacy Commissioner's website.

Over and above individuals being more vigilant at home and businesses being more vigilant, we need tougher penalties to deal with the people who are stealing this kind of personal information for criminal purposes.

A December 2007Vancouver Sun article told the story of a woman who had her driver's licence and cheque stolen from her mail. The cheque was cashed in September 2006 but nothing else happened until April 2007 when another cheque went missing and was subsequently cashed. Bank accounts were opened in her name and charges were incurred. MoneyMart was after her for fraudulent cheques that had been cashed. More than $2,000 worth of Shopping Channel goods were purchased on her husband's credit card. This person spent countless hours dealing with credit bureaus and, to date, is still fighting charges on the Capital One card. She had to have all her mail forwarded to her work address which is not convenient because she will be starting maternity leave soon. After doing a lot of legwork, she obtained a photo of the thief but she and her husband are still having problems.

Not only does a person have to pay thousands of dollars of debt that was built up by the criminal but an incredible amount of time is involved in trying to clear his or her name.

At the airport I spoke with a person whose cheque had been misused and the person could not get on the plane. Once people get into these kinds of problems, they get blacklisted and are not allowed on planes. We all know how long it takes to solve those types of problems.

Some people can use another person's name to rent an apartment and then use the apartment for producing drugs or for hiding stolen goods. When the deception is discovered, the criminal vanishes and the innocent person becomes the criminal and becomes faced with huge complications trying to clear his or her name, which is an awful process.

As I said, we in the Liberal Party support the provisions of Bill C-27 because we want people who steal identities to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Suggestions have been made that more things need to be done and we will also be pursuing those.

I would like to quote from an editorial in The London Free Press on November 25, 2007:

'It's not enough to make these activities criminal,' Philippa Lawson, director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa told CP.

'Criminals will always find ways to take advantage of innocent citizens,' Lawson said. 'We need to take other, equally important steps such as creating incentives for companies and governments to take appropriate security measures, empowering individuals so that they can more effectively protect themselves, enforcing data protection laws, and assisting victims recover their financial reputations'.

We will be pushing for even more strength in this legislation. As I said, close to a year ago our Liberal leader brought this forward and encouraged the government to act on it.

It has even occurred to a member of this House, the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin. There is an article in the paper. Again this is the reason we are pushing so hard for this. His identity was stolen last year and someone racked up more than $6,000 in charges before a collection agency came calling. It took months to clear his name and his credit card record, although he is expected to jump through hoops as the result of his social insurance number being red-flagged by the government.

One distressing thing that he suggested in the article was that the government would not be accepting much in the way of amendments to this law. It was a little distressing in that there have already been suggestions from police and other organizations of things that need to be done. It is distressing that we cannot strengthen the protection for Canadians regarding identity theft, if as members of the committee that is what we hear and there are suggestions. Hopefully, the member was not speaking for the minister, but I did not get a chance to ask that question.

I will quote from a speech given in Toronto on March 14, 2007 by the leader of the Liberal Party:

To protect Canadian seniors, we will act on the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner to address the problem of identity theft. There were almost 8,000 reports of identity theft in the past year, resulting in more than $16 million being lost, much of it taken from vulnerable seniors. A lifetime of hard work and savings can vanish in an instant. We need tougher laws to prevent this type of crime.

Another recommendation is that we need laws implementing the recommendations of the federal Task Force on Spam—recommendations that have so far been ignored by the Conservatives. Spam is the weapon of choice for identity thieves, who use phony e-mails to trick people into revealing personal information. Canada is the only G-8 country without anti-spam legislation, and a Liberal government led by me will change that.

This bill would create three new offences, all subject to five year maximum sentences: obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use it to commit certain crimes; trafficking in identity information with the knowledge of, or recklessness as to its intended use in the commission of a certain crime; and unlawfully possessing and trafficking in government issued identity documents.

Also the Criminal Code amendments would create new offences of fraudulently redirecting or causing redirection of a person's mail; possessing a counterfeit Canada Post mail key; and possessing instruments for copying credit card information, which the minister mentioned in his speech, in addition to the existing offences of possessing instruments for forging credit cards.

We want to go even further to make sure that the police have the technical ability to investigate this type of crime with all the modern electronic means available to them. As the minister said, we want to catch up. I was glad the minister said he would look at the bill. I was sad that he did not say that he would endorse it right away to help the police, but hopefully that will be the conclusion he makes.

I would like to discuss further at committee whether the penalty should be stronger if the identity theft is related to organized crime or terrorism. It should be very significant.

In conclusion, it has been our policy for a long time to support stronger provisions in this area. At committee we want the police and other expert witnesses to provide evidence. If there is any way we can strengthen the bill, we will be looking at that too.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code on the subject of identity theft.

This bill follows through on the promise made by the government in the Speech from the Throne to fight identity theft.

It also furthers the government's larger agenda of tackling crime and making our communities safer.

There is no universally accepted definition of “identity theft”, but it is generally understood to refer to either or both the acquisition or the use of identifying information of another person to perpetrate fraud or another related crime.

In most cases, the impersonation of someone else to obtain something of value is the goal of identity theft, as in the case of credit card fraud when someone pretends to be the cardholder in a transaction. In more serious cases, a criminal impersonates someone else to accomplish a more sophisticated fraud, such as real estate title fraud or mortgage fraud. We have seen this very recently in the province of Ontario, where by impersonating a property owner, a criminal sells or takes out a mortgage on a property and then disappears with the proceeds. The true owner then is left to struggle to retain title and perhaps also to fight with the mortgage lender to avoid the liability of that debt.

Sometimes impersonation is not committed for the purpose of using someone else's identity to obtain something of value, but rather to conceal the criminal's own identity. For instance, some criminals maintain and use the identities of others for run-of-the-mill transactions that are themselves part of a larger criminal scheme. For instance, they may use an innocent person's identity to rent an apartment in which they plan to manufacture drugs or from which they intend to sell illegal contraband. When the crime is detected, the trail can lead back to the innocent person who was unlucky enough to have his or her personal information stolen and used to protect the guilty. There may be little in the way of a trail leading to the guilty persons themselves.

Identity theft is not new, but it has certainly mushroomed in modern society. Our world is different in ways not imagined by earlier generations. Information itself has become a commodity. It opens the door to goods, services and places. In this new world, people are mobile and commercial transactions can happen across borders via technological means rather than direct human verification in near instantaneous timeframes.

New technologies have complicated the task of authenticating identities in yet an additional way. The very same technological innovations that have increased the speed, efficiency and convenience of our transactions with governments and the private sector have simultaneously created new opportunities for fraudsters and other criminals. This is because massive amounts of information are now stored in computer systems. Unless appropriate precautions are taken, the information stored in this way is vulnerable to being accessed and copied and effortlessly transferred in many cases across the border for criminal purposes.

We also know that identity theft has been linked to organized crime and also to terrorism. Identity theft is useful in both of these contexts as a method of revenue generation. It is also a method of identity concealment, which I also spoke about, that allows organized criminals and terrorists to avoid raising suspicion or being detected by authorities, especially in cases where their true identities are already known to law enforcement and other agencies.

While we do not have complete statistics on the cost of identity theft, it has been reasonably estimated that this costs Canadians approximately $2 billion a year. The cost of credit card fraud alone for the year 2006 was estimated by the Canadian Bankers Association to be close to $300 million and debit card losses were close to $100 million in that same year. These numbers have been going up incrementally over the last decade or so.

It is unmistakable. Identity theft hurts businesses, governments and individuals. Aside from the financial repercussions, individuals whose identities have been stolen report, not surprisingly, distress, anxiety and depression in terms of the effort involved in rehabilitating their reputations and credit histories and recovering lost property. They also report a significant emotional impact of having had their identities used by another person.

In the rare cases where the identities of innocent people are used to shield a criminal's identity, the victims must also struggle to demonstrate their lack of involvement in the criminal's scheme in order to protect themselves from suspicion of criminal responsibility.

In short, identity theft is both a crime in itself and a tool for the facilitation of other crimes. For offenders, it offers the potential for high financial risk coupled with a low risk of detection. Over the last 15 years, it has grown in frequency and seriousness and the criminal law has not kept up with these changes.

When I first announced that we intended to make these changes in Montreal, a reporter asked me if this was my attempt to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. I said that we just wanted to catch up with the bad guys. This is the challenge that we have in the Criminal Code as technology continues to change. The time has arrived for the government to improve the Criminal Code and to ensure that it fully meets the needs of Canadians today.

Let me focus on those particular problems that we have identified.

First, members would understand that there are obviously some significant challenges vis-à-vis terminology in this area. The terms “identity theft”, “identity fraud” and “identity related crime” are bandied about regularly, yet none of these terms have a precise or universally understood meaning. They are no terms that are currently defined in the Criminal Code and so the phrase “crime of identity theft” can immediately generate uncertainty as to exactly what is meant. One of the objectives of the bill is to bring some clarity to these terms in the context of the criminal law.

It may be helpful to first appreciate that there are two phases of an identity crime. The first is the collection of information and the second is the actual use of that information in connection with a crime.

Our criminal law addresses many of the situations where people actually use the identity of other people or some of their identity information in the commission of an offence. It is helpful to characterize this form of conduct as identity fraud, the focus being on the actual fraudulent use of an identity.

The crime of personation, for instance, directly targets the fraudulent impersonation of someone under certain circumstances. Specifically, a person commits the crime of personation when he or she personate someone else with intent to obtain property, another type of economic benefit, or even with intent to gain an advantage that is not economic in nature, or with intent to cause a disadvantage to any person. The Criminal Code also contains offences which prohibit the making of false documents and the use of those documents to deceive someone.

There are also offences in relation to the misuse or misappropriation of credit or debit cards and even the unlawful possession of certain types of credit or debit card data. All of these offences are punishable, as they should be, by up to 10 years imprisonment.

Another crime that frequently applies to an identity theft situation is the offence of fraud. Where the value of the fraud is over $5,000, the offence carries a maximum term of 14 years.

There are already strong sanctions in the Criminal Code for the actual use of another person's identity, but there are limitations. Most important, our Criminal Code does not currently criminalize the early phases of identity crime operations which involve the acquisition and transfer of the identity information for a later fraudulent use.

Unless people commit some other existing crime in the course of acquiring the information, such as the theft of a wallet or misuse of a computer system, they cannot be stopped when they gather or trade sensitive, personal information that subsequently gets used in crimes. This means that where the police find people in possession of comprehensive dossiers on individuals, including all manner of identifying information, they may be unable to lay a charge or even to seize the data. Likewise, where people set up shop of acquiring that information and then selling it for a profit, knowing that it might be used in the commission of a crime, there may be no chargeable offence.

We can group together various aspects of this early stage of an operation under the term “identity theft” as contrasted with “identity fraud”, which refers to the actual subsequent use of the information.

It is time for our criminal law to catch up with the criminals, and this is what Bill C-27 does.

First, it would create three new offences that would be directly target the identity theft stage of a criminal operation. All of these, I should point out, are punishable by up to five years in prison.

The first new offence would make it a crime to acquire, obtain or possess another person's identity information in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the information was intended to be used deceptively or fraudulently in the commission of a crime.

This offence directly attacks those people who, as a first step to a later crime, hack into a large corporation's computer systems to obtain customer information, or who send phony emails out tricking people into providing their personal information to them, or who dive through, incredibly enough, people's garbage cans looking for discarded credit card information or utility bill information. It would also make a criminal out of the person who receives identity information from someone else for later use to commit a crime.

A complementary offence would be created for those people who set up business as information traffickers. These people are not involved in the ultimate criminal use of the information, yet they provide the tools necessary for the criminals to engage in their crimes. The bill would therefore make it a crime to transfer or otherwise provide to another person the identity information of a third person, where the trafficker would know or would be reckless about the future criminal use of that information.

For both these offences, the legislation would create a broad definition of identity information which covers all types of information that could be used for criminal purposes. The definition includes name, date of birth, address, biometric information, various forms of alphanumeric identifiers, such as driver's licence numbers, passport numbers and financial account numbers, and any other information capable of being used in that way.

An important feature that members should notice here is that these offences are directed at the mishandling of information. This means it will not matter whether the information is contained in an official identification document, or it is copied or stored in some other form.

Another situation that the police are concerned about is the situation where they find people in possession of numerous cards or documents, which are commonly used for identification purposes, such as driver's licences, health cards and social insurance cards. It may be obvious that these documents were intended for criminal use, but there may be no chargeable offence.

To remedy this situation, the bill would create a new offence for unlawfully procuring, possessing and trafficking in specified government issued identification numbers belong to or containing information of other people or containing fictitious information. These documents are crucial tools for authenticating identity in the course of a wide range of interactions between citizens, the government and the private sector and for obtaining additional documents. They are easily misused by criminals and they must be better protected.

The bill would also amend existing provisions in the Criminal Code to create a complete package of criminal laws addressing identity theft.

First, the bill would complement the existing set of forgery offences by adding new offences of trafficking in forged documents and possessing forged documents with intent to use them or traffic in them.

It would also add new offences for fraudulently redirecting or causing the redirection of a person's mail. This one I like as well. We can see how easy that may be to start to redirect somebody else's mail to another place so that information can then be gathered up and used improperly. We make it a crime to possess a counterfeit Canada Post mail key.

In addition, the bill would make clear that the offence of fraudulently acquiring, possessing, trafficking and using debit card data includes the debit card PIN number, or the personal identification number.

The law also would be clarified to ensure that it would be an offence to possess instruments for copying debit card data, which are known as skimming devices, in addition to the existing offence of possessing instruments for forged credit cards. Again, this is an attempt to update the Criminal Code.

The offence of personation will be amended to make it clear that it is a crime to use another person's identity to evade arrest or prosecution.

Another clarification will help courts understand that personation can be an ongoing, multi-transaction occurrence, a true “identity takeover”, or a simple case of fraudulently using someone's information just one time, such as a single fraudulent credit card purchase.

Also, we are proposing to rename the offence from personation to “identity fraud” to better highlight its significance and to contrast it against the preparatory stages of identity theft.

We are concerned about the victims of identity theft. To help address the impact that identity theft has on victims, this bill would amend the restitution provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that, as part of the sentence it imposes, a court can order the offender to pay the victim reasonable costs associated with the rehabilitation of that individual's credit rating and identity.

It is appropriate at this time to commend certain members of the House who have brought this matter forward. My colleague from Edmonton—Leduc has brought forward Bill C-299. It was originally drafted to address one aspect of identity theft, which is called pretexting. Bill C-299 passed third reading in the House on May 8, 2007 and is awaiting second reading consideration by the Senate.

In the world of identity theft, pretexting is the technique of using deception of one kind or another to get people to reveal personal information about themselves. Because Bill C-299 only deals with pretexting and not with other methods used by identity thieves to gather personal information, we are proposing that it be repealed, if it should be passed, when this legislation comes into force.

When Bill C-299 was before the justice committee, it was evident that all committee members were deeply concerned about the problem of identity theft and were motivated to act collectively to build consensus on an effective solution.

We all appreciate the efforts of the member for Edmonton—Leduc and I would like to take the opportunity as well to thank a couple of other members of the House. The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells have also previously tabled private members' bills in this area. Their combined efforts have helped educate all members of the House on the problem of identity theft.

I indicated there are limitations in the current criminal law. We intend to update and extend the use of the criminal law to keep up with the changes of technology that have taken place in this country. I urge all members to support this bill and get it enacted as quickly as possible.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the member was asking, but we do take seriously the protection of the personal information of Canadians and protecting them from the possibility of identity theft.

We know it is of great importance in this electronic age, which is why we introduced Bill C-27. It would create the new Criminal Code provisions for the unlawful possession and trafficking of personal information and government documents of another person.

I hope that has answered his question, if that is what he intended with the question. We definitely created the new Criminal Code provisions for unlawful possession and trafficking of personal information. I hope the hon. member will encourage his colleagues to vote in support of this initiative as well.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest this afternoon to hon. members and I would like to thank the members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc and, of course, our member for Windsor—Tecumseh for their thoughtful comments.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh has had 27 years experience as a lawyer and understands the system. Therefore, I have full confidence in him when I ask him what he thinks of this or how should we do that. He always has very good answers that have been well researched.

I want to let everyone know that when we talk about crime prevention and the justice system, we are doing that from very well researched sources and very thought out policy. I want to make sure that people are aware of that.

On the other hand, I did not have a chance today to listen to any members from the Conservative Party, which is probably a good thing.

Before we came back, people in my riding were asking about this crime stuff. They wanted to know what we were doing and what was going on. I basically said that the government had postponed the session and I then explained the whole idea of prorogation. I said that it did not make any sense and that it was a waste of money. I told them that everything that had been done will need to be restarted again. I said that all the work will need to be rekindled again and all those wages for the committee will need to be paid again. As a matter of fact, the agriculture committee just went back to work this week.

This is a symptom of what has happened and the whole idea of a delay. As my colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh said, at least four bills were already in the process before the delay and two bills may even have been law today. We might have had a couple of good crime bills, which everyone had worked on together and other parties had a chance to make amendments. We could have been going forward but instead it is almost as if we are being held, and I hate to use the word, hostage.

I heard arguments today that if we do not support the bill why did we vote for it. A lot of us voted for the bill because we felt that there was no alternative. Some good amended bills, which were worked on, discussed and should have been law, are part of this package and we should not delay them any longer.

We are at the stage now where we have this omnibus bill and we are in the process of debating it. I want to make it clear that I agree fully with what my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh said about Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders bill, which is that we tried to amend one part of it relating to dangerous offenders upon a third conviction and would place the reverse onus on the convicted person to prove that he or she should not be considered a dangerous offender. Apparently there will be challenges and problems with it but the bill will be passed and I guess we must to live with it.

I would like to share with the House an article from the Penticton Western News, which touches on my riding and on the riding of the Minister of Public Safety. The editorial, “Legislation plays on public fears”, states:

Canadian jurisprudence -- once an example of moderation -- is changing for the worse. This is the conclusion we draw from the Tackling Violent Crime Act now winding its way through the House of Commons.

I might add that this is not some kind of a left wing newspaper that is always constantly attacking government policy or the mainstream way of life.

It goes on to state:

This broad, sweeping piece of legislation threatens to inject Canada's legal DNA with alien elements that may not only be unconstitutional, but also unconscionable because they fan private fears by exaggerated public threats.

We have seen this topic discussed among members of the opposition parties today.

The article goes on to state:

While the provision to raise the age of consent to 16 is a welcome measure to bring Canada in line with the rest of the developed world, the rest of the act -- which actually includes five bills -- is nothing short of demagoguery.

Its tough language implies that we live in a crime-ridden society, when nothing could be further from the truth. National crime statistics have declined to the lowest levels in 25 years.

Other members have mentioned the United States, our neighbour to the south, which has an incarceration rate of over 700 people per 100,000 people, the highest incarceration rate in the world, followed only by Russia with something like over 400 people per 100,000, and China. The Canadian rate is something like 100 people per 100,000 people.

When I ask people whether they would feel safer in a country that has an incarceration rate of 700 per 100,000 or in a country like Canada which has an incarceration rate of 100 per 100,000, they obviously say Canada. Something is not quite right here.

The article goes on to state:

Yet, in spite of all the available evidence, [the] Prime Minister...has convinced many that our streets and communities are indeed not safe. What we need instead, he argues, are tougher penalties for criminals and more prisons to hold them for longer, if not indefinitely. Once again, this approach contradicts all the available evidence about the effectiveness of long prison sentences.

While criminals need to be punished, they also need to undergo rehabilitation, so they will not return to their old ways once they are out of prison.

Yet this government has failed has failed to support such programs, prompting complaints from guards, whom one might expect to support a larger prison system.

The article goes on to state:

But that is not the worst part of this act. It creates an unnecessary atmosphere of fear, paranoia and suspicion.

Earlier, the NDP agenda was discussed. It is based on the same philosophy as the Bloc Québécois', that is, that prevention and protection must be emphasized alongside punishment. Together, these three fundamental principles are effective at fighting crime. This bill, however, is only about punishment.

I would like to pick up on the article about the report “Unlocking America”, which my hon. colleague talked about earlier. The article reads:

Due largely to tough-on-crime policies, the Unlocking America report says, there are now eight times as many people in U.S. prisons and jails as there were in 1970.

In fact, the U.S. states with the lowest incarceration rates generally have the lowest crime rates, it says.

I asked that question earlier and I would like to ensure this is on the record. The article goes on to state:

U.S. taxpayers now spend more than $60 billion a year on corrections, says the report. “The net result is an expensive system that relies much too heavily on imprisonment, is increasingly ineffective and diverts large sums of taxpayers' money from more effective crime control strategies.”

Interestingly enough, the government promised to increase the number of officers on the police force. We have not seen those numbers so far and yet the government is willing to build more prisons with our money to put more people in jail. Something here does not make sense.

The article continues:

Much of the burden has fallen on disadvantaged minorities. Blacks and Latinos make up 60 per cent of the U.S.'s prison population. According to the report, eight per cent of American black men of working age are now behind bars. “In effect, the imprisonment binge created our own American apartheid,” it says.

My hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh gave me an interesting statistic. He said that as far as dangerous offenders go in our country, although 3% of our population is made up of first nations people, in the dangerous offender category, 20% of the prisoners are from first nations communities. There is something not quite right. The danger is that if we implement a lot of the provisions of this new act, this will increase even more.

In talking about the United States, the report states:

“At current rates, one-third of all black males, one-sixth of Latino males and one in 17 white males will go to prison during their lives. Incarceration rates this high are a national tragedy.”

U.S. prisoners receive sentences that are twice as long as British prisoners, three times as long as Canadian prisoners and five-to-10 times as long as French prisoners, the report says. “Yet these countries' rates of violent crime are lower than ours.”

Since the early 1990s, U.S. crime rates have fallen sharply and are now about 40 per cent below their peak. The report says it's “tempting” to conclude that this decline occurred because incarceration rates soared during the same period.

However, this is not, according to the article, true. It states:

“Most scientific evidence suggests that there is little if any relationship between fluctuations in crime rates and incarceration rates.”

In fact, in many cases, crime rates have risen or fallen independent of imprisonment rates, it says.

What are we to conclude as we debate this bill? The first conclusion, in summary, is that we have wasted time. A lot of these bills could have been in effect now but, as I mentioned earlier, we have been held hostage, for lack of a better word. If we support part of this bill, then we must vote for the whole bill. If we see a flaw in Bill C-27 that has not been corrected, then we must leave it up to the courts to do it.

I believe I have expressed the concerns that I have and the concerns of a lot of citizens in my riding.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this bill. It is a bill that has a number of problems as well as a number of positive elements. I want to take us through this kind of bizarre situation where we are being forced to accept the bad in order to get the good. That is the problem with an omnibus bill. If a whole bunch of things are put into legislation, we have to take the bad with the good.

It is even more bizarre in this particular situation when the government has threatened that it is a confidence motion. Canadians being told that they have to accept this bill with all the bad in it or there will be an election even if they do not want one.

I am going to go through the problematic parts of the bill as well as the good parts and explain how, in spite of our efforts to get a number of provisions through that could have been law by now, they have been held up a number of times by the Conservatives.

This bill is a compilation of five old bills. I will go through each of the particular clauses of the bill and mention some of the good and bad parts.

I will start with Bill C-27, which is really the only part of the bill that had not been through the House before. The rest could have been law now had the Conservatives not used the mechanisms they did in proroguing the House and in not bringing back the rest of the bills at the stages they were in Parliament.

The minister suggested today in committee that he was concerned or upset about the problems I had with this part of the bill. Of course, the problems came from concerns that experts had with Bill C-27. The minister should be concerned. When he brings forward a bill that many experts say has a very high probability of being unconstitutional, he should be concerned.

Let us look at the parts of the bill the experts were talking about. First, they suggested it could possibly be unconstitutional as related to section 7 of the charter. Under the old system, there were four reasons, I think, which my colleague brought up today, whereby a person could be declared a dangerous offender. Under the old system, the Crown or the prosecutor would say for which of the four reasons one would be a dangerous offender.

Now, under the reverse onus, they say people are guilty until they prove why they should not be categorized as dangerous offenders, but they do not specify which of the four items they mean. In spite of my colleague's efforts to get this into the bill, there is no explanation as to which of the four items the prosecutor or the Crown thinks makes a person a dangerous offender. It is like putting the onus on people to defend themselves when they do not know what the charge is or what the reason is or what they have to defend themselves against.

The other item in this particular part of the bill that the expert said contradicted a number of points government members were making is that the government says this is only for the most vicious of vicious criminals, only for the most dangerous offenders, but the expert legal witnesses once again outlined how the offences in the bill could easily lead to people who are not the most dangerous of dangerous offenders being caught in this particular mechanism inappropriately.

The third problem, which was not brought up specifically that I can remember, although I am not sure if it was brought up by the experts, is the whole philosophy of proportionality in the justice system. According to the theory or principle of proportionality, the penalty should match the crime in severity. It should be a reasonable match. If, under the mechanisms I just mentioned, people are given a life sentence for what are not the most serious offences, there would certainly be a good chance of going against that principle.

When we talk about taking away people's liberty for the rest of their lives, it is a very serious matter. If Parliament has erred in that area, I recommend that the courts look at that aspect of cases. Indeed, many of the legal expert witnesses said that would actually be the case.

I also said I would talk about some of the good elements in this section. There is a clause whereby the Crown has to say in court whether it will proceed with a dangerous offender hearing. There actually was an amendment from the NDP. I did not quite understand why that would be taken out, because I thought it was a good element in this part of the law. It would stop someone from falling through the cracks. It stops a procedural missing of that opportunity. The prosecutors have to say whether or not under the evidence they are going to proceed. Certainly when there is a potentially dangerous offender we would not want the opportunity to fall between the cracks.

Let us go on to the second element that is pushed into this huge omnibus bill: mandatory minimums. Of course we have supported some mandatory minimums, but certainly not to the degree that is in the bill. Once again, expert after expert came to the committee and showed how mandatory minimums, under certain extreme circumstances, indeed could easily make Canada a more dangerous place, not a safer place. We would have criminals who are learning from other criminals. They are less adjusted. Of course people always forget that virtually all of them come back to society so in essence we would be making Canada a more dangerous place.

That was not just evidence during committee. Let me repeat what was in the Ottawa Citizen today to corroborate that. The article states:

Most legal experts agree with retired judge John Gomery's criticism of new mandatory minimum sentences being proposed by the...government, calling them simplistic and likely to produce unjust outcomes.

Also, in the same article, Ed Ratushny, law professor at the University of Ottawa, called the growing reliance on mandatory minimums to fight crime “simplistic and naive”.

In the same article, William Trudell, head of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, said, “What it says is, 'we don't trust you, judge'.”

In the same article, David Paciocco, a former crown prosecutor, said that apart from the human misery they impose, mandatory minimum sentences generate huge costs for taxpayers.

Once again the government seems to be ignoring any sense of respect for the committee process. I have never seen such a barrage of complaints against bills as there was against Bill C-10 and Bill C-9 , yet where were the amendments from the government? They were non-existent in terms of trying to bring in a just law based on the knowledge that we received at the committee stage.

Once again I will talk about the good parts in that old Bill C-10. There were new offences. One was an indictable offence for breaking and entering to steal firearms. There was an indictable offence for robbery to steal a firearm. We certainly agree with those two, but the mandatory minimums were pushed through in the last Parliament by the Conservatives with the help of the New Democratic Party and were certainly in excess of what we believed was appropriate.

Going to the third of the five bills included in this new version, it was Bill C-22, which would increase the age of consent from 14 to 16. It is another example of a bill that had passed the House already. The delay was incomprehensible to us. Parliamentarians wanted to get it through. Why did the Conservatives, either the justice minister and/or the House leader, delay the bill on three different occasions? On October 26, we offered to fast track seven different bills, I think, including this bill. Yet the bill was debated at second reading on October 30 of that year and did not go to committee until March 11, which was 11 weeks later. The government totally ignored our offer of fast tracking.

The second time, the government delayed the age of consent bill by proroguing Parliament. I do not know if there has been a time in history when justice was set back so far by a prorogation of Parliament. Which department had more bills stopped when Parliament was prorogued, more than any other department? It was the justice department. What a way for the government to slow down its own agenda needlessly.

Some of these bills are those that the minister kept saying today in committee he so wanted to get through quickly. Then he prorogued Parliament. Once again, a number of those bills easily could have been through by this time.

The third time the Conservatives delayed the age of consent bill by not reinstating it. It had already been through the House. It could have been reinstated to where it was instead of going back to square one and being thrown into an omnibus bill with problems from other bills that had not yet been debated, particularly Bill C-27. That component of it could actually have slowed down and sabotaged something that people wanted to get through Parliament.

Finally, in what seemed to be even a fourth method of trying to stall the age of consent bill, the Conservatives started suggesting that a lot of bills would be confidence motions. Fortunately they have withdrawn this, I think. So they were trying to find some way of getting an election, when once again all the bills on the order paper would die and we would lose the age of consent bill.

I want to go now to the fourth part of this bill. It is related to impaired driving. This is another bill that has already gone through committee. Again, it could have been reinstated. After a prorogation of Parliament, bills can be brought back with the consent of Parliament to the stages where they were, so four of these bills could have been brought back in far more advanced forms. Some of them could have been through now.

Of course they would have been through if we had not prorogued Parliament and if the Conservatives had not slowed down the process, but the Conservatives could have brought these bills along faster and put them through instead of putting them into a huge bill where any one of a number of things could slow them down.

It was the committee's duty to spend time in committee and call witnesses to go over the items that they had not yet dealt with in those parts of the bills, particularly Bill C-27, which had not been through committee yet, and of course it was good to do that because of the very serious reservations that were raised in committee during those hearings.

Once again, I would highlight some of the good parts of the old bills. In this one, the impaired driving bill, one of the good parts is that it will make it easier to catch people who are impaired not only by alcohol but by drugs. We are making advances in making the streets safer by being able to have a mechanism for detecting and keeping off the roads people who impair themselves by the use of drugs. As members know, we already do that in relation to alcohol.

However, once again there is a questionable part in that section. In trying to close a loophole, the government added a section which suggests that only scientifically valid defences can be used as evidence. At what other time would a person go to court and only be allowed to use scientifically valid defences? When people go to court, they hear all sorts of witnesses on various things, and now the government is limiting their defences in this particular bill to only scientifically valid defences.

We also heard some disturbing testimony about the occasional lack of rigorous maintenance of machines used to determine abuse and about there being no regular schedules and no independent evaluation, all of which brought up concerns that should be dealt with by committee.

Members can see, with the number of concerns that I have talked about so far, and I have only done four of the five sections, that there are a number of major concerns. People's rights could be taken away. Constitutional rights could be abrogated. People could not bring evidence forward because it would be prohibited by a section of this bill.

This is a major undertaking so it is very important that the committee does its work and is not rushed, yet when I asked the justice minister this morning whether he believed in the committee process where we bring forward witnesses and then make some changes, he assented and said that he did believe in the committee process.

However, last week when the youth justice bill was in committee for one day the House leader complained that opposition parties were stonewalling. There was only one day for the committee to hear from all the witnesses, the minister, and departmental officials.

This particular bill is going to affect youth and the public in very serious ways. The Nunn commission did a comprehensive review of the bill and made a number of recommendations. The government took only one and then added something that did not come from that report at all and will totally change the way youth are sentenced.

Did the House leader expect one day of committee debate to be sufficient? When he was asked about this, he said it may not have been sufficient, but he would know on the quality of the debate. That is pretty weak.

The government House leader did not put in the bill the recommendation of the Nunn commission regarding the protection of the public to sentencing. One would think that victims in Canada would want to be protected. The public wants to be protected. A major recommendation was left out of the youth justice act, and yet the government House leader thought it was so simple that it only required one day of committee debate.

All parties in the House have to deal with the serious situation of the serious omissions and the things that have been put into this legislation without any rationale. We will find out from the witnesses their concerns about that.

Old Bill C-35, which dealt with reverse onus for bail and firearms, has been incorporated into this omnibus bill. Liberal members agree with this. We have been trying to rush it through. It could have been through a lot faster. Problems were raised in committee. There is the potential charter issue again about reverse onus.

In Canada, the general philosophy is that one is innocent until proven guilty. There are an uneasy number of provisions, as Bloc Québécois members mentioned this afternoon, where the onus is being reversed. The Conservatives are saying to Canadians that one is guilty unless proven innocent.

What do the experts have to say about reverse onus? What do the experts have to say about making this serious abrogation of a fundamental principle of Canadian law?

The experts have said that this reverse onus is not needed because it is going to make very little difference. This section has serious consequences. For the serious offences listed, where individuals would be denied bail, they are already being denied bail in the court system. This part of the bill would have little effect.

Liberal members have a number of problems with Bill C-2, but we do support its good elements. We certainly have problems with the way the Conservatives have forced bad things on Canadians by putting all the old bills into one omnibus bill.

We have problems with the Conservatives saying that we have to accept this bill, including the bad parts, or there will be an election. That is not a good way to develop policy. That is not a good way to get the trust of Canadians. Not allowing any amendments and not allowing any changes after having heard from knowledgeable experts is not a good way to develop legislation.

Motions in amendment

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was mentioning, as parliamentarians we have to be cognizant and not pass bad legislation. We have to ensure that we do not interfere in the justice process as well.

These bills were thoroughly debated when they came before committee. Bills have to be handled properly if they are to get through Parliament. If they are to be handled properly, they have to be prioritized. It appears the Conservatives have no priorities. They only want to create a hodgepodge of stuff.

On October 26, 2006, the Liberals offered to fast track a package of justice bills through the House. These included Bill C-9, as it had been amended, Bill C-18, the DNA identification legislation, Bill C-19, the street racing legislation, Bill C-22, the age of consent legislation, Bill C-23, the animal cruelty legislation and Bill C-26, respecting payday loans. This offer effectively guaranteed that the Conservatives would have a majority to pass the legislation.

On March 14, the Leader of the Opposition added Bill C-35, the bail reform legislation, to the list of bills the Liberal caucus would fast track. Despite this offer, it took the Conservatives until May 30 to get the bill through committee. If the Conservatives were so keen on being hard on crime, as they have claimed, they should have taken this offer.

According to a report entitled “Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America’s Prison Population”, produced by the JFA Institute, the tough measures, which the government claims it is bringing through its omnibus bills, are costly and pointless. The report says that due largely to tough on crime policies, there are now eight times as many people in U.S. prisons and jails as there were in 1970, yet the crime rate today in the U.S. is about the same as it was in 1973. There is little evidence that the imprisonment binge has had much impact on crime.

As legislators, we are supposed to be here to pass good legislation, not bad legislation. We are here to debate and to amend. Amendments were proposed to the bills and the members of the Conservative Party on the committee did not want to pass them.

It is important that we reflect on what these bills talked about.

Bill C-10 talked about minimum penalties. It proposed five years for a first offence and seven years on a second or subsequent offence for eight specific offences involving the actual use of firearms, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery, extortion and when the offence was gang related or if a restricted or prohibited firearm such as a handgun was used.

The bill was brought to committee and the committee made the necessary amendments. The committee still has very grave concerns that the bill needs to be properly documented and it has to be properly put in place so legislators know the intent of the legislation.

There is the creation of two new offences, an indictable offence of breaking and entering to steal a firearm and an indictable offence of robbery to steal a firearm. There is no difference with the version of Bill C-10, which passed through the House, and the language used in Bill C-2.

The question to be asked is why then group this in an omnibus bill? No one on the government side seems to give us an answer. All the members do is repeat their mantra that they are hard on crime. However, as I pointed out, the U.S. crime policy, which they so desperately want to follow, fails the system. It does nothing right.

Bill C-22, which was the age of protection bill, proposed to raise the age at which youth could consent to non-exploitative sexual activity. The age would be raised from 14 to 16 years of age and the age of protection of 18 years would be maintained for exploitative sexual activities.

Through amendments, the committee brought about a five year close in age. This was not there when it was proposed by the government. Therefore, another question arises. What happened to the good amendments in the mandatory minimum penalties in the age of protection?

What about Bill C-23, which was criminal procedure? According to the Official Languages Act, the committee ensured that there were changes to the bill. We said that a person who was a French-speaking person, if he or she were in court, should get a French counsel. It is important to protect language rights. In a country that has two official languages we have to protect minority rights as well. Why is this bill not mentioned at all?

Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders. It would provide that an offender who was serving a long term supervision order in the community and who was violating the conditions of the order would be guilty of an offence and the crown could choose to hold a dangerous offender hearing following convictions.

That was originally proposed by the Liberal justice critic. The bill would expand the possible sentence available to a judge following a finding that an individual would be a dangerous offender. The judge could now impose a long term supervision order or simply impose the sentence for the offence for which the offender had been convicted in addition to the previous option of detention in prison for an indeterminate period, which was previous available.

The Conservatives love to introduce bills. They want to take credit for a lot of things and make it on the six o'clock news. If something does not make the six o'clock news, like Bill C-23 because it was protecting minority language rights, they do not bother.

The last bill I will speak about is Bill C-32, the drug recognition experts to conduct roadside sobriety tests. It is good to promise all sorts of things, but there is no funding. When we do not have funding, how will we get these experts? For example, in Seacow Pond where would we get a person who is an expert?

It is very important that when we prepare bills and we make promises, those promises have to be kept. We have to provide the legislators with enough resources.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the bill that amends the Criminal Code and makes consequential amendments to other acts. As you know, I come from a region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where the crime rate is very low. Still, I want to take part in today's debate to raise an issue that is a major source of concern for people in my region and in my riding.

It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois worked actively and positively in committee to improve some of the provisions of Bill C-2. Incidentally, I want to congratulate in particular the hon. member for Hochelaga, who did a great job at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and also the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for her contribution.

Based on what we heard from a large number of witnesses, it is obvious that many Quebeckers and Canadians want some changes to the current justice model.

The committee's consultation process and the message conveyed by our fellow citizens showed two things. First, a large part of the population is concerned about the current justice system and, second, it does not want an American type of justice system.

We believe that the American justice system has produced disastrous results. The Bloc Québécois deemed appropriate to propose a series of amendments to Bill C-2. Unfortunately, the Conservative government kept none of the six amendments that we proposed, even though some of them enjoyed the unanimous support of the public security ministers in Quebec and in the provinces. It is unfortunate that the Conservative government does not take into consideration the fact that this is a minority government.

I would like to briefly mention the six amendments that reflect Quebeckers' values. In my region, the Minister of Labour, who represents the riding next to mine, said that Bill C-2 reflects the public's will. The Minister of Labour should have said, rather, that Bill C-2 reflects the ideology of the minority Conservative government. That is what he should have said first and foremost.

The Bloc suggested, therefore, that parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served should be abolished. We should also put an end to virtually automatic statutory release after an inmate has served two-thirds of his sentence. The Bloc proposed another amendment as well to the effect that there should be a formal evaluation by a professional of an inmate’s overall risk of re-offending.

In addition, the Bloc suggested that onus of proof should be reversed in the case of criminals found guilty of the offences of loan-sharking, procuring, robbery, fraud over $5,000 and counterfeiting in order to facilitate the seizure of assets that are the product of crime.

We also said that the police needed better tools to deal with the problem of street gangs, especially longer warrants for investigations carried out by means of tailing with a GPS.

It should be against the law to wear any symbol, sign or other mark identifying the wearer as a member of a criminal organization that has been recognized as such by the courts.

Finally, we should eliminate the rule that the time spent in pretrial detention counts double when sentences are determined. Sentences should be deemed to have started on the first day of detention, rather than when sentences are passed.

The minister labour thinks that Canadians want new justice legislation. I agree with him to the extent that the Bloc supports the principle of these changes. This does not mean, however, that Quebeckers and Canadians agree with everything in Bill C-2. When bills are introduced, some changes can be made without changing them completely. We need to adapt to the realities of life in Quebec and Canada.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 in principle and takes crime very seriously. However, when five bills are amalgamated into one, it is only to be expected that some doubts will arise. The Conservative minority government has a duty not to play partisan politics with an issue as important as the justice system.

The Bloc Québécois believes that what really needs to be attacked first and foremost are poverty, inequality and exclusion. They aggravate the frustrations and crime in our communities if not dealt with by the government on a priority basis.

The Bloc Québécois knows very well that many changes must be made to the current justice system and that some adjustments to the Criminal Code are essential. The government has a duty to take action and use the tools at its disposal to enable Quebeckers and Canadians to live safely and peacefully.

The measures introduced must have a positive impact on crime. They must be more than rhetoric or a campaign based on fear. We must avoid copying the American model, which yielded much less positive results than anticipated.

Crime has been steadily decreasing in Quebec, as it has in Canada for the last 15 or so years. Statistics Canada recent stated that in 2006, the overall crime rate in this country hit its lowest in 25 years. Quebec had its lowest homicide rate since 1962.

Unfortunately, there will always be crime in our society. We can never fully eradicate all crime. But statistics show that the current approach should not be discarded in favour of the US model. This means that we must look for improvements while keeping an open mind about the realities facing Quebeckers and Canadians.

In the past, Quebeckers have relied on individualized justice based on a judicial process that is flexible and suited to each case, with positive results. The homicide rate in Quebec is one of the lowest in Canada and is four times lower than in the United States.

Bill C-2 brings together old bills that we largely supported, such as Bill C-10, Bill C-22, Bill C-27, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

Justice is an important issue, and this model must truly correspond to the realities facing Quebec and Canada.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Quebeckers and my constituents from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord do not want a justice system based on the U.S. system.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree almost entirely with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. Of course, these bills have already been discussed in committee. I do not know why the government decided to bring back Bill C-2. Perhaps it is because the Conservatives need another excuse to get in front of a television camera, as part of their repertoire; who knows?

On the other hand, some improvements have been made to these pieces of legislation. My hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River will talk about the improvements in Bill C-27 a little later. Some of the amendments that were initially rejected by the government now have its support. We worked on these proceedings with all the diligence and hard work worthy of this Parliament and I am proud of our work.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup was right when he said that this is almost entirely a political exercise on the part of the Conservatives, who are serving their own interests through television, but it is not a political exercise that serves the interests of the Criminal Code, the justice system or the social equity of this country.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, at report stage of Bill C-2, to deliver some comments to the omnibus crime bill.

I have had the experience of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and also the legislative committees that were involved with the former Bills C-10, C-22, C-27, C-32, C-35 and C-23, which is not part of the omnibus bill.

I speak with experience at least with respect to the bills and I understand how we came to be here today to speak about what the bill contains. A lot of discussion took place in the debates of the House and in committee with respect to the direction we should take with respect to our criminal justice.

It is important for us, as parliamentarians, to consider what we do when we amend the Criminal Code and its corollary acts. We are dealing with the Criminal Code. It is an organic document. It changes with the times. It is copied and exemplified by one of Canada's justice ministers and prime ministers, Sir John Thompson, from eastern Canada. It has certainly changed with the times as has our society.

In the 1890s the crimes that were top priority might have been things like cattle and horse theft, murder and some common ones. However, with the changing times, we have seen a proliferation of gang related violence, e-crimes, things that would not have existed at the turn of the century.

The point of raising that is as our society changes and the code changes, we owe it to this place, to the committees, to the law enforcement official, which include prosecutors, policemen, probation workers, corrections officers, people in the correction system and judges, quite a fraternity of people involved in the criminal justice system, to say that we looked at these various laws. We looked at how Canada was changing and at the end, we did the very best we could to keep track of what tools would be best to tackle the new problems that exist in society. It is not as if we are inventing new aspects of law. Many of these bills represent an evolution or a progression of laws that already exist.

Just briefly on the guts of the bill, if you like, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, which is now part of C-2, was of course dealing with the mandatory minimum provisions which were increased by the introduction of this bill, but they were not increased as much as the government had wanted them to be originally.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the opposition Bloc Québécois critic on the committee as well as the Liberal members on the committee who fought very hard to have some sense reign over the debate with respect to the evidence that was adduced at the committee hearings regarding the efficacy of mandatory minimums in general.

A review is in order. Mandatory minimums existed before the Conservative government was elected. Mandatory minimums were in place for serious crimes with the known aspect of repeat offenders and with some hope, which studies will show one way or the other, that there might be a deterrent and a safety to the public aspect of mandatory minimums.

At least on this side we joined with the Conservatives who, I would say, were very sparse in their acknowledgement that mandatory minimums existed before they came into office, but we joined with them and said that these are good tools for the law enforcement agencies and good tools in the realm of criminal justice.

It is a matter always of how far we go. How far do we go in disciplining our children? Do we take away their favourite toy? Do we ban them from seeing their friends for two weeks? Are we less severe or more severe? Many of us are parents and we deal with this every day. It is our form of the justice system that rules in our own house.

With respect to mandatory minimums, it is a question of calibrating to what extent the mandatory minimums are useful, to what extent do they work, and to what extend should they be increased, if at all.

During the debate process we were very successful in getting the government to get off its basic premise, which is if it is good for the six o'clock news and sounds robust, steady and law and orderish, then it has to be good in the Criminal Code. That is where the slip from the cup to the lip occurred, where it was obvious 90% of the witnesses were saying that the severe mandatory minimums that the government side were proposing would be inefficacious.

We can be as tough as we want, but if it does not work, if it does not make society safer, then we have not posited a good solution to the problems that face our community, and that was the case when we looked at mandatory minimums.

The happy medium that exists in Bill C-2 I think will be borne out, but it is very important to remember that this is an organic process and we could be back here some day soon, perhaps, looking at mandatory minimums in general.

How more timely could it be than in today's Ottawa Citizen, a report called “Unlocking America” is reviewed. In this report, it makes it very clear that the mandatory minimums, one of the many tools used by the American government from the 1970s on when it was felt that the rise in criminal activity was abhorrent, was not as effective as the Americans would have hope it would have been. It left the United States with 2.2 million people behind bars, more than China. The nine authors, leading U.S. criminologists, said that they were convinced that they needed a different strategy.

I am happy to report that as a result of the efforts of the NDP, Bloc and the Liberal Party in general at committee, we did not go as far as the Conservative government wanted to, which was close to where the United States had been which now New York State and New York City admits, is ineffective.

The three effects of imprisonment, and emphasis only on imprisonment, at the cost of crime prevention dollars, if you like, Mr. Speaker, is that the heavy, excessive incarceration hits minorities very hard. In the United States, 60% of the prison population is made up of Blacks and Latinos.

We heard evidence at our committee that there is a preponderance, an over-exaggerated percentage, of first nations and aboriginal people in our jail system, according to their population, which is deplorable. It is overwhelming and undisputed that the negative side effects of incarceration outweigh the potential. That is the two bits on Bill C-10,

On the other bill, Bill C-22, the close in age exemption, was never brought up. Despite all the rhetoric from the government, nothing would save Bill C-22. The issue of sexual consent being given by a person of tender years has never been put forward by any member of the opposition while the Liberal Party was in power.

The close in age exemption was never put in there, so for members of the opposite side to say that finally we dealt with the issue of sexual exploitation of 14 year olds is simply not accurate. The close in age exemption, five years between a person of the age specified, will save many relationships that should not be criminalized.

Lastly, I noted that Bill C-23 was not included in Bill C-2. I have to wonder why.

I live in Acadia. And Bill C-23 included many improvements with respect to choosing the first language of prosecutors during a trial. French is the language spoken by most people in my province. That element was very important to us in Acadia, but the government overlooked this fact.

Why did the government turn its back on the francophone people of New Brunswick in this country?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue. When I was interrupted, I was saying that the fight against organized crime had been a Bloc Québécois issue for a long time. I was citing the example of the anti-gang bill that I tabled in 1995. I also recalled the initiatives of the member for Charlesbourg who had worked on taking $1,000 bills out of circulation and who had presented the bill to reverse the onus of proof for proceeds of crime. That bill was passed unanimously in this House.

Bill C-2 before us may be considered a compilation of all the legislative measures initiated by the government since coming to power in February 2006. It contains five measures, including former bill C-10, which caused a great deal of difficulties. In fact, that bill established mandatory minimum sentences for offences involving firearms.

It also contains the former Bill C-22, which invites us to no longer talk about the age of consent, but the age of protection. It increases that age from 14 to 16, and has close in age clauses. The Bloc was worried about this. More specifically, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie clearly expressed our view to the media. We did not want young people who attend the same school and have non-exploitative sexual relations to be subject to charges. That is why a close in age clause, with a five-year age difference was established for 13 and 14 year olds. They may have non-exploitative sexual relations with young people of a similar age, on condition that the age difference does not exceed five years.

Bill C-2 also contains a former bill that also provided for reverse onus of proof at the pre-trial hearing stage. If a person commits an offence involving a firearm, the reverse onus of proof applies and that person, who could of course be released by a justice of the peace, must show that he or she is not a threat to society.

Lastly, Bill C-2 also incorporates the former Bill C-27. I discussed this with the member for Repentigny, and we found that this is the measure we have the most difficulty with. Even so, we will support this bill, but we would have liked this measure to have been reworked. These provisions reverse the burden of proof for individuals who have committed a third offence from a designated list.

Despite all that, we believe that the bill is reasonable and that it merits our support. However, we wanted to see greater discretion for the Crown. What makes us uncomfortable is our belief that the government is addressing the wrong priorities for justice. We wanted to see a plan to fight poverty or to address the bail and parole systems, particularly the accelerated review process. We also wanted to address the issue of individuals wearing colours and logos recognized by the court as representing criminal organizations.

We cannot have a balanced vision of justice without considering the causes of delinquency and the ways to ensure that everyone in our society has a fair chance.

Right now, the Bloc Québécois is especially committed to seniors and to addressing the guaranteed income supplement and the retroactivity issue. I would like to thank the member for Repentigny for his excellent work on this file. I am sure that my colleagues will join me in thanking him for all of his hard work.

In conclusion, we will support Bill C-2, but for the record, we were hoping for some adjustments. Nevertheless, we will support this bill.

Motions in amendment

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for West Nova was not on the committee as this went through. I do not know if he knows much of the history of that part of the bill, which deals with the dangerous offender designation. When the bill was originally introduced as Bill C-27, the spokespersons for his party spoke very strongly against it, along the same lines of what our amendment intends to do, which is to ensure it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Then at committee that same spokesperson, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, heard the same evidence I heard from all the experts, all the people with legal backgrounds, with the exception of justice officials and the minister, that this would not pass muster as far as the standard set by the charter.

Is his party's unwillingness to support the amendment motivated entirely by the fact that this is a confidence motion or is there some other reason why it is opposed to it?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the ruling on this amendment indicating that it is within the proper scope of the rules and admissible.

The amendment deals with the specific section of a very large bill, an omnibus crime bill, and specifically with that part of the bill that deals with the dangerous offender designation in the Criminal Code.

Just quickly, the balance of Bill C-2 encompasses five separate pieces of legislation that were before this House in the previous parliamentary session. The dangerous offender section at that time was Bill C-27. It has now been incorporated into Bill C-2.

We had commenced work on that in a special legislative committee prior to prorogation. The prorogation by the government of course ended that bill, as it did the other four, three of which by the way were in the Senate, and the fourth one was out of committee at report stage in the House.

So now, because of what I think is a very foolish decision but a very political decision on the part of government, we are having to go back through all of those four bills and we have wasted a significant amount of time.

The government is historically very proud to stand in this House and accuse the opposition parties of delay. Of course, what has happened here has been entirely on its desk and it is something of which the Conservatives should be ashamed.

To come back to Bill C-27, as it was then and now that part of Bill C-2, the dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code has a history going back in this country to 1978 at which time it was incorporated.

I do not think there is any disagreement about this no matter which political party one belongs to, that there are individuals in our society that we are not able to cope with in terms of rehabilitating them. They commit serious, oftentimes heinous, violent crimes against other residents of Canada. When we use our traditional attempts to deal with them by way of prison terms, oftentimes psychiatric or psychological treatment programs, they are not successful.

Our psychiatrists, our psychologists and our best experts admit there is a very small number of individuals that we simply, as a society in terms of our psychological and psychiatric treatment modalities, are not able to treat and rehabilitate to the point where they are no longer a risk to society once released from our prisons. The dangerous offender section was introduced into the Criminal Code to deal specifically with those individuals.

Based on some very good research from the Library of Parliament, since 1978 we have had 384 individuals, up until the spring of 2005 so it is a bit more now, all male, designated as dangerous offenders. It is interesting to note that of those 384, 333 as of April 2005 were still in custody, still in prison. Only 18 had been released and were on parole. The balance of approximately 33 died in prison. I think this is the point that we need to recognize.

This designation, unlike a conviction for first degree murder and a life sentence, is in fact a life sentence in the 90 percentile of the cases. These individuals never get out. It is a recognition that we are not capable of dealing with them. They stay in custody, in prisons, for the balance of their lives and literally, as I have said, die in prison. That is what we are dealing with when we are dealing with a dangerous offender designation.

As I indicated earlier, there are no women who have been designated, up until April 2005. There are a couple of applications outstanding against women currently.

One of the other points that I would make that comes out of the research done by the library is that a full one-fifth, 20%, of all the individual criminals who have been designated are from the aboriginal population, from our first nations.

There is no question, and we see this more when we look at statistics in the United States, that subgroups within our society often times are individuals who are more targeted and receive greater punishment.

I am not going to suggest for a minute that the designations in those cases were inappropriate; they may or may not have been. However, that is the reality, given that our aboriginal population in this country is roughly 3% of the population but slightly over 20% are designated as dangerous offenders.

We know that this is a section of the Criminal Code that we would use, obviously, very sparingly. The issue of the constitutionality of this section has been to the Supreme Court on a number of occasions and reviewed also by a number of our appeal courts at the provincial level.

The message that comes out very clearly is that it is to be used sparingly, that it is to be used with extreme caution, that the individuals who are confronted with this are to be given the greatest amount of doubt as to the usage against them because of the consequences.

I want to repeat that the consequences in more than 90% of the cases are that these individuals, once designated as dangerous offenders, will stay in prison for the balance of their life. They will never get out.

Faced with that, if we look now at the bill that is before us, Bill C-2, the government has introduced into clause 42 a provision for a reverse onus. For those in the public who do not have a law degree and do not fully appreciate this, that is saying, under these circumstances, to the individual criminals, “If you meet this criteria, you have to prove to the judge who is hearing the case for the designation of dangerous offender why you should not be held in custody in prison until the rest of your life”. That is really what they will have to do.

That flies in the face of the charter. This section will not survive a charter challenge. Under those circumstance, and Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling that I have only a minute left. I thought these were 20-minute sessions. No. That is unfortunate because I had a lot more that I wanted to say.

My amendment, pure and simple, would delete the reverse onus from this bill because it would not survive a charter challenge. We are going to have tremendous litigation on this and at the end of the day one of our superior courts, or even the Supreme Court of Canada, will strike this section down. The amendment would take care of that right now and we could save all that trouble.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is very early in the session, so it is difficult to anticipate the legislative debate agenda.

In fact, were I to have said two weeks ago what we would be debating today, I would not have been able to anticipate what we are debating today. I certainly would not want to mislead the House, so I have restricted my comments to those of which I can have some certainty.

This week, the government has continued its efforts to tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians. We sent our bill to improve the security certificates process to committee. That bill is, of course, an important part of our plan to protect Canadians against threats to their safety and security.

This week, we have also introduced three important new pieces of legislation to make our streets and communities safe and secure. The first, Bill C-25, strengthens the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We started debate on this bill yesterday. We hoped it would have passed by now, but apparently the opposition has returned to its old tactics of delaying and obstructing our tough on crime agenda, and are in filibuster mode now. As a result, we will continue to debate this young offenders bill today.

The second bill, Bill C-26, imposes mandatory prison sentences for producers and traffickers of illegal drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children. We hope to start debating this bill very soon.

Finally, we introduced Bill C-27 to deal with the serious and complex problems resulting from identity theft.

These three bills are important elements of our action plan to make our communities safer and to fight crime.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage debate of the tackling of the violent crime act. The proposed bill will better protect youth from sexual predators and society from dangerous offenders. It gets serious with drug impaired drivers and toughens sentencing and bail for those who commit gun crimes. The bill has passed committee and we hope it will continue to swiftly move through the legislative process.

Next week's theme builds on what we have been doing this week. The theme will be getting the job done on justice and tax cuts.

We plan on completing debate on the violent crime act, at report and third reading stage, next week.

Once this bill has been passed by the House, we will continue with debate of Bill C-26 to provide for concrete measures to deal with drug traffickers.

To continue to provide the effective economic leadership that Canadians have come to expect from our government, we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. The budget implements parts of budget 2007 and the fall fiscal and economic update. Among the tax relief items included, are the cut to the GST, reductions in personal income taxes and business taxes. We hope to call that at the earliest possible opportunity, with the consent of the other parties.

If time permits, we will call for debate this week on Bill S-2, the Canada-United States Sales Tax Convention Act, 1984. Next week, if time permits, we will call for debate on our bill to crack down on identity theft.

Next week the government will demonstrate that we are getting the job done on justice and tax cuts for Canadians. We are moving forward with important legislation that will make all communities safer and we are giving all Canadians tax cuts that will contribute to the long term prosperity of the country.

Criminal Code

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, organized crime and rapidly evolving technologies are making identity theft easier than ever.

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice introduced legislation aimed at addressing this growing problem. Bill C-27 is the third in a series of new tackling community crime bills tabled by the justice minister in just three short days.

Could the minister explain how this bill would help combat identity theft, one of the fastest growing crime problems in Canada.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Douglas Hoover]

I think there's always a concern that new provisions based on interpretation could result in unintended consequences. We always try to look carefully at that. I can suggest, based on the comments in committee on Bill C-27 by the Canadian Bar Association, that we have taken full consideration of all comments regarding procedure and substantive aspects of the bill. Again, we're confident that disclosure is in fact fully covered in the case of the presumption on a third conviction.

[Douglas Hoover]

We meet regularly with the Canadian Bar Association, which provides us with feedback, and did so on former Bill C-27, which is again, as you are aware, replicated in Bill C-2. There are also perhaps more informal consultations.

I attempt to familiarize myself with case law, points of view of both defence and crown. The mandate of Justice Canada is not restricted to the position of crown; it is also to ensure that all aspects of the justice system work fairly and evenly for both sides. We're not necessarily an adversary in development of legislation. I think we've had this in mind in developing these procedures. We're confident that the current procedures in regard to disclosure are adequately safeguarded in these provisions.

Again, I would reiterate one final time that the suggestion by members of the committee regarding additional disclosure is something that, by raising it in this committee, we will take a more serious look at in the time we have in the future to do so.