Bill S-4 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create offences of identity theft, trafficking in identity information and 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.

Criminal Code

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, yes I do.

That is the impression given by the Minister of Justice since he took office. I believe that his constant talk about being tough on crime is not about lowering the crime rate. He need only look to the United States.

It is obvious that his model is mainly based on that of the Republicans in the southern United States. If he were to carefully examine their results he would realize that it does not work. His goal is to show that he is doing something. I look forward to seeing his initiative for major fraud. I do not believe that the minimum sentences served as a deterrent for Norbourg and Vincent Lacroix, who perpetrated the biggest fraud in Canada to date.

I look forward to reviewing the agenda to be presented by the minister for the modernization of police squads through the systematic use of forensic accountants and true professionals. I think it may be promising because the risk for those who commit fraud will be greater than at present.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in general support of this legislation. It is important to set this in a historical context. This is legislation that is badly need in this country and that need has been identified for the better part of the past decade.

We saw an initial attempt by the former Liberal administration in the 2004-06 Parliament to bring forward this kind of legislation. We saw it reincarnated under the last two Conservative Parliaments and we are finally getting to it now.

Following up on some of the comments of my colleague from the Bloc who just finished speaking, it is important to view this in the context of the focus of the government on other areas of, as the Conservatives see it, reform in sections of the Criminal Code when in fact the areas covered in this legislation should have been given priority. This legislation should have been in our laws. It has been in a number of other jurisdictions, for example, in the United States, England and Australia, for a number of years, well ahead of where we are at this point. In fact, those countries continue to be ahead because there are one or two significant gaps in this legislation in terms of dealing with what every member of the House knows is a serious problem with regard to identity theft.

We have all heard the horror stories. We have heard the estimate of at least $2.5 billion a year in losses as a result of identity theft, primarily of credit cards and debit cards, small personal loans, that area. That is one of the gaps in this legislation and I will spend some more time on it.

We also heard that there is a corresponding value loss with regard to real estate transactions, both in terms of residential and commercial property. We have a similar loss of $2 billion to $2.5 billion a year. This bill does not address that area at all. I will come back to that because there is definitely more work that needs to be done at the federal level in that regard.

The bill is a significant step forward in combatting this type of crime. It introduces some expanded concepts of what official identity documents are. One of the problems police forces, prosecutors and judges have had in enforcing the existing provisions of the Criminal Code is that the code did not cover new developments in official identity documents.

We have expanded what those are significantly. There is a lengthy list in this bill and hopefully in the law when it comes into effect that will make the prosecution of these offences much more effective and efficient.

A second major thing this bill does is it addresses what we know is a huge problem. It involves a way that small street gangs as well as more expansive organized crime gangs get identity documents. They steal them out of people's post office boxes or their residential mailboxes. We have made that a specific crime. It is very clear what the offences are. They involve not only committing the theft but being in possession of the documents stolen.

There is protection for people who would be entitled to obtain documents from people's mailboxes. For instance, if people are away on vacation and their neighbour picks up their mail, the neighbour would not be in breach of the code. That is a major step forward.

I say this because of personal experience. One of my neighbours was confronted with this problem a few years ago. In talking to the police at that time about their investigation. Criminals were targeting systematically specific residences where they knew people were not home during the day, oftentimes where there was only one adult in the family. It was obviously well organized and the criminals were very efficient in gathering that type of personal information, which they then used to commit crimes of fraud and forgery, et cetera.

The third area that is addressed in the bill has to do with identity information. This is a reflection of the need to modernize the code. People involved in mostly more sophisticated organized crime will gather information, as extensive as including DNA samples, in order to establish a totally false identity but with that degree of certainty in order to prove they are somebody else.

We have set out a very long list of what that identity information is. It includes fingerprints, DNA and all sorts of more technologically advanced sampling that we can do than when these sections of the code were made law as much as 100 to 150 years ago. Those are major steps forward in the bill.

From that perspective my party is quite prepared to support it. In fact, we are going to be supporting the passage of this legislation.

There remains problems and I want to deal specifically with the issue of the gap in not addressing the whole issue of identity theft as it affects real estate transactions. I repeat what I said earlier. The amount we are losing in that regard is as significant as the amount we are losing on the other issues that the bill addresses. It is in the range of $2 billion to $2.5 billion a year.

There is no question that there is responsibility on the part of provincial governments to deal with this. For instance, I know from practising law that the law societies across the country have dramatically increased the responsibility of lawyers and notaries to identify accurately the clients who are sitting in front of them that they in fact are the people they claim to be. We have taken that on as an additional professional responsibility.

Real estate agents similarly have had quite significant additional responsibilities imposed on them in identifying the purchasers and vendors in real estate transactions.

There is a role for the federal government. There are specific sections now in the Criminal Code that deal with the issue of fraud and forgery with regard to real estate transactions. They are clearly out of date.

One of the witnesses whom we heard from at the justice committee was a witness on behalf of the title insurance associations of Ontario. They tend to be one of the major victims because at the end of the day they oftentimes are the ones who end up having to pay when there has been an identity fraud transaction. The witness clearly pointed out the inadequacies of the existing sections in the code and even had a model from experiences in the United States, which the government has opted not to pursue. I forget which state it was but it was one of the more advanced pieces of legislation which effectively makes that type of transaction an illegal transaction and makes it much easier to get a conviction. It has been very effective in that state which is one of the southern states in the United States. It is something that we need to do.

I intend to pursue that because the indication I have had both from the justice minister and the Conservative Party is that they are not going to be moving on that. They are leaving this responsibility entirely in the hands of the provinces. That is not the role the provinces should be playing, so we will be moving ahead to bring that before the House, hopefully within the next month or so.

It will modernize the Criminal Code so that it deals with the modern criminal activity that is going on. The code clearly is inadequate in that regard.

There is another point I want to raise in terms of the legislation and the way it is worded. I am quite concerned that on identity information there is one section that deals with how that information is used. It is proposed section 402.2 of the Criminal Code, clause 10 of the bill. The term “the reckless use of this identity information” is used. Being reckless is almost like a criminal negligence type of concept; being so reckless that it amounts to a crime.

The Supreme Court of Canada has had difficulty with that terminology in the past, and I am worried that this section may not be effective. I proposed an amendment to it, based on recommendations we had heard from the Canadian Bar Association. That did not get majority support at the committee. The wording is still in there. I caution the government in the course of this speech to monitor this. I think it will pose a problem for our police and prosecutors to get convictions, if the court treats that terminology the same way the Supreme Court has in another major case. That is a problem.

The other one caused me a good deal of concern as well. I credit the Canadian Bar Association for bringing this to our attention. There are two sections which in effect allow a very wide scope of officials to procure false documents. It is in section 7 and then again in section 9. Section 9 is less problematic because it limits the scope of that section to police officers, who are already defined elsewhere in the code in section 25.

Section 25 sets up a regime where it is recognized that from time to time our police officials will be required to break the law. This is a relatively new section. It is only about 10 or 12 years old, I believe, but it has a whole regime of how that is regulated, how it is supervised by senior officers and when it is permissible. It requires reporting to this chamber on an annual basis, in effect, the use of criminal activity to combat criminal activity. I believe it has worked quite well, and I say that from having looked at the reports. Actually, the justice committee did a review of section 25 two or three years ago and came away quite satisfied that it was working very well.

Section 9 exempts police officers from the provisions of the bill, but it does not have the regulatory function that section 25 has. It clearly also exempts them from section 25. I got no satisfaction from the responses we got as to why they were doing that. I believe that the police officials should be regulated by section 25. It has worked. We may want to modify it to some slight degree in terms of the reporting function in particular, but it is a tool that has worked very effectively and allows the police to conduct criminal activity in order to catch criminals, but it has safeguards to prevent it being abused.

The other section, though, was even more problematic, and that is section 7 of the bill. Section 7 basically provides a defence to anybody who provides an identity document “as long as it is requested by a police force”. I do not have any particular problem with that. It also stipulates “the Canadian Forces”. Every single soldier in this country could ask for a forged document. Then it goes on, “or a department or agency of the federal government or the provincial government”. Every single employee of the provincial and federal governments could ask someone to prepare a forged document. They could go to MasterCard and Visa and say, “I want a fraudulent card in this name”. They would not have to give any explanation. They would just have to say that they are a public official, a teacher, a social worker or a worker at the LCBO, in the case of Ontario. All of those are entitled to ask for forged documents. The person can give it to them without having to worry about committing an offence.

Corresponding to that, because of the way the rest of the bill works, the person asking for that document is not, I believe, committing an offence. It is wide open to abuse, up to and including rogue police officers. I am not worried about the police force. I quite understand the need for the police force to have that. I still think police forces should stay under section 25.

This does not require approval by a senior official in the department or provincial ministry. Anybody can ask for a forged document. I received no satisfaction. It is problematic. I agree with the government that this section has to be monitored.

As I said earlier, we are going to support the bill because the rest of it is badly needed, but section 7 is wide open to abuse. We need to monitor it very closely.

We have needed what is covered by the bill for the better part of seven years. Police and prosecutors have been telling us how badly they need this provision. It is a shame that we have given priority to other amendments to the Criminal Code and put this on the back burner. We badly need to get this done, get it through, and get it into place, so our police and prosecutors have the tools they need to prosecute these offences.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has dealt extremely well with the issues.

As he indicated, theft would come out of mail boxes. These would be specific crimes. Organized crime and smaller criminal elements are intrusive and invasive in the manner by which they defraud individuals.

The House is concerned about the elderly. As immediate kin provide less support to elderly people, they become more dependent on institutions through estate probate, through guardianship and so on.

My colleague has indicated which officers of the Crown and the province would have access to information in a probate situation. Are there mechanisms that would protect those who are virtually wards of the court? I am speaking in particular about the elderly with no kin and who are totally under the protection of government institutions through estate law, through trusteeship and guardianship. Would the same degree of checks and balances protect them in a situation like that?

The member talked about the law society and the real estate sector, but I am speaking more in terms of the invisible accountability that exists to protect seniors through probate, through the courts, and through a series of checks and balances to ensure fraud would not occur and that they would not be taken further advantage of.

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

Madam Speaker, the answer generally would be yes. In a situation involving probate, where someone has passed away, the executor or trustee of the estate would have the same protection, so if somebody was trying to impersonate that person, they would have the same protection. That would be as equal an offence as if they were trying to impersonate the deceased person. Yes, that protection is there for them.

In terms of the situation where individuals are still alive and someone is operating under a power of attorney or a court order and authorized to take over control of their assets because they are no longer capable, the protection would extend to the trustees and the attorneys in those circumstances.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, coming from the Northwest Territories, one of the big concerns that I have with identity theft is of course the inter-family aspect. Perhaps this was alluded to by the previous questioner, but there is a potential in the system for elder abuse. Very often in society, people within a family are taken advantage of in the short-term when their credit cards are taken and used where they should not be used. These types of things go on inside families.

How practically would this law protect people within that realm and yet not put it to a point where family relationships are disrespected? There is a fine point of law here that is not always black and white, but grey. Using his knowledge, I would like my colleague to comment on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I would have to say that this bill does not address that issue. Generally speaking, this is a bill that deals with identity theft occurring at arm's length by strangers.

The type of problem that my colleague is asking about is much more common. I saw this in my own practice repeatedly. It occurs in one of two ways. Individuals have themselves authorized by way of powers of attorney to take control of the assets of the elderly person, or they have been appointed by a court to do that and then they abuse that fiduciary relationship. That is controlled by other sections of the Criminal Code and, quite frankly, more so by common law in the civil courts.

The other situation, and I think he was making some reference to this, is simply where the abuse amounts to extortion, threats or actual violence against elderly persons to force them to sign a cheque or sign over assets under that kind of duress. These amendments to the Criminal Code do not address that area at all.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that this is another great example of a case where the horses have already escaped from the barn. In fact, the Liberals had a majority government here 10 years ago. They had ample opportunity to deal with this issue.

We were quite aware in those days that the banks were looking at a smart card system. They were looking at phasing that in and they actually had figures, which anybody could get, that indicated the cost of the problem. Every year, the losses due to identity theft regarding credit cards were going up and up, and yet the banks were ignoring it because it was simply a cost of doing business.

This encouraged the fraudsters because they basically knew that they could get away with it. My colleague talked about the real estate industry. We are talking about $2 billion to $2.5 billion on the credit card side and even more on the real estate side. This bill does not deal with that.

When is the government going to come to terms with this issue and not wait another five years before it deals with the real estate side of it? That is an even bigger developing issue. Once the fraudsters know that they can get away with it, they get even more organized and more determined. They do more and more of it. We must put a stop to this.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a quick anecdote.

I was actually sitting on a credit union board in that period of time when we were looking at enhancing the security of both debit cards and credit cards. The member is dead on with his comments about the large banks simply seeing this as an expense of doing business.

What that meant to them was that they passed on that expense to the consumer. It is part of the reason we have somewhat higher interest rates, both on our credit cards and consumer loans.

It would have been a time for the government, not so much under the Criminal Code but under the industry department, under commercial activity in this country, for that responsibility to have been imposed because it was not done voluntarily by our financial institutions. They did not end up bearing the costs. We, as consumers, ended up bearing the costs.

We could have done that quite a number of years ago. The technology was there. I was sitting on those boards more than 10 years ago and the technology was already there at that point. We are just starting to see it at this stage.

There has been a misdeed here on the part of both the banking institutions in this country and the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to indicate to the House my support for Bill S-4, as I think all members of the House have indicated today and previously. I do not recall very much dissent, although some caution is urged in relation to one or two sections of the bill.

The bill has been a long time coming. I guess it is pretty clear on the record that we are at third reading stage. Somebody offered earlier today to expedite its passage but it would be pretty tough to expedite it much faster than the speed at which it is already going. I do not know whether I am the last speaker but at some point today the debate will end, the House will adopt the bill and it will be over. I congratulate all those who wanted to expedite it because they will get their wish.

As members have said, the concept behind the bill has been in the drafting stage for about 10 years. There were complexities that did delay it in the early years. There was a bit of a moving target with respect to personal information. This is an area of evolving legislative activity. I think it was the intention of the original drafters that we get a good definition of what “personal identity information” is, and the bill has a pretty good definition, which I will get to later in my remarks.

I recall going through the bill very carefully at the justice committee one or two Parliaments ago. The bill, however, was always pre-empted by a parliamentary dissolution. It was not that nobody wanted to see it pass. It was always a problem of Parliament ending in a dissolution before the bill was fully passed.

However, there is a section that has created an offence involving the possession of a Canada Post mailbox key. This type of key is the one postal workers use when they distribute and pick up mail on the street. All Canadians are familiar with those big post boxes and those big keys that the postal workers use. I think the original intention was to create an offence for anyone who was in possession, without authority, of one of those keys.

Now, that makes sense. Why did it take us 100 years to get to this point? I am not sure. Maybe it is because the post office always did a pretty good job of keeping control of its keys. However, it has become a problem, which is the basis for this proposed offence. I think this has been expanded to include possession of any key that would open a post box receptacle, which means my post box key and the keys of everyone here. There are probably millions of post box keys across the country.

I think somebody has thought this out, but it is not an offence just to be in possession of somebody else's post box key. There needs to be an intent to use it fraudulently or to commit an offence described in the section. However, had I had such an opportunity at committee, I would have scrutinized very carefully the implications of creating a new offence that made it an offence simply to be in possession, with a fraudulent intention, of something that is so common. I could say that if we are going to make it an offence to possess someone's little mailbox key, then why do we not make it an offence to possess somebody's house key? The house has much more value than a post box. Here we may have unwittingly treaded into a territory that we have not thought through.

However, in any event, it is in the bill and I will not object to it but my gut tells me that down the road, at some point in time, there will be a case and a fact scenario that will raise potential issues with respect to somebody's possession of a simple mailbox key. I am not talking about the big post office key. I am just talking about an ordinary residence or apartment building mailbox key. We all have them.

I am very pleased to see that in the bill we grappled with and nailed by definition the concept of credit card and debit card in a way that would allow police and authorities to clearly identify an offence when it happens. Up to now, a credit card was just a piece of plastic with some information printed on it but we all regard credit cards as something more than that. It is our access to credit, cash or whatever. Up to when we started amending the Criminal Code, that little piece of plastic was just a piece of plastic. The bill, essentially, completes the initiative to place an intrinsic legal value on the information contained on the credit card. Credit and debit cards have magnetic strips with personal information, credit information, digital information and now they also have chips, with who knows how much information, but all intended to better secure the credit realm, if I can put it that way.

Also, the bill gets into the issue of identifying and defining the personal identification number, the PIN, that is a necessary partner to some types of credit or debit access, either person-to-person or machine-person-to-machine. That would be helpful for the police as they carry out investigations. For example, if there is a reason to arrest somebody who is suspected of being involved in a fraud or a crime and that person was in possession of what appeared to be PINs, up to now, those numbers would just be numbers and it is actually not an offence to be in possession of a bunch of numbers. However, if they could be identified as personal identification numbers to be used in association with credit and debit transactions, it is a new offence, and that is a good thing.

Up to now, when there was theft from the mail, the police, authorities and prosecutors always had difficulty trying to figure out who was the owner of the mail when it was stolen. Certainly when it is in the possession of the post office, there were offences dealing with theft from the mail from the post office, but what if the post office had not taken possession of it yet or what if the post office had already delivered it to a residence? After it has been delivered by the post office to a box sitting outside a front door somewhere, is that theft from the mail or is it theft from somebody in the house? What if the name on the letter does not match the name of the owner of the house? These were always problems.

I suppose I could ask why it has taken us 100 years to figure this one out, but the answer is that in the good old days, in the early 1900s, maybe there was not so much theft from the mail. Maybe it was not a big problem. However, the police and prosecutors have identified it now as a weakness in public security. We have managed to clarify that so mail that is sitting delivered to a house, a residence or in a box, not only is the key somewhat protected but so is the mail and that will allow better police enforcement.

I want to raise a concern, as my friend from Windsor—Tecumseh did earlier, about the exemption of public officers from prosecution when they use a forgery technique in their work for public safety.

The exemption is somewhat circumscribed. The alleged offence, and only an alleged offence because it says they are exempt, must be committed for the sole purpose of establishing or maintaining a covert identity for use in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment. As my friend pointed out earlier, the term “public officer” is quite a broad definition. One wonders why this particular exemption could not have been folded into section 25 or subsection 25(1) of the Criminal Code where there are statutory exemptions from prosecution for police or public officers in the course of their duties.

The most common case one thinks of is the work of an undercover police officer who assumes a false identity for the purpose of a covert undercover investigation. Citizens accept that. However, under section 25 of the Criminal Code when a public officer commits an act that would otherwise be a criminal offence, there must be a record of it and a justification for it in writing. The exemption claimed by the officer and agreed to by the police force that he or she is a part of is recorded in the House. A report is introduced in the House every year that describes each and every instance of exemption of a police officer from prosecution when an act is committed that would otherwise be a criminal offence.

One wonders why we would not require this type of exemption in this bill, clause 368.2, to be included in similar reports. Some people will say that there is just too much police and public officer covert activity going on and that instead of having a small volume filed in the House of Commons, the report would be 12 or 24 inches thick. That is possible, which is why I wanted to put it on the record and join my friend who spoke earlier on this as raising a possible concern.

The public should be much more satisfied that the bill has managed to bring in protection for a whole lot of personal identity techniques and information, which I will read for the record. The identity information protected includes: a fingerprint, voice print, retina image, iris image, DNA profile, name, address, date of birth, written signature, electronic signature, digital signature, user name, credit card number, debit card number, financial institution account number, passport number, social insurance number, health insurance number, driver’s licence number or a password.

I wanted to get those on the record because so many people routinely use all of those things. I wanted the record to show that this legislative amendment captured all of those things and gave people at least some protection under the Criminal Code. It does not mean that there will not be thefts of identity. It just means that the code identifies these things as protected items and, if they are stolen, used or misused, the prosecution will be easier and more focused.

Will it deter the bad guys? We do not know. The bad guys will always be out there looking for a chance to steal and plunder, although we hope there are fewer and fewer of them out there, but at least this amendment attempts to capture all of the things we have become used to as personal identity items.

The bill has a sentencing component. I am very pleased it does not engage in this mindless political posturing of throwing the book at those convicted with mandatory minimums. The bill quite properly proposes sentencing ranges for those convicted of these offences. Sometimes it is up to five years, or it is up to 10 years, or it is by indictment or it is by summary conviction, but the sentencing ranges look appropriate.

As we have always done in our Canadian justice system, and in most justice systems in the modern world, the decision making on sentencing is left to informed judges. I wanted to make this point because a number of the criminal law amendment bills we are looking at in this Parliament, and in the previous Parliament, all seem to have as their objective the rewriting of the sentencing regimes. In some naive way the proposers of the bill think that by tweaking the sentencing, we are going to get a safer country. I do not understand this.

I have had a close-up look at the Canadian justice system. I have been privileged to be in the House for many years. I was on the justice committee for 15 years. I had the privilege of seeing the criminal justice system up close, and it was not always pretty. I saw it working reasonably well. It is not like there were never any mistakes.

I cannot accept that by throwing a mandatory minimum sentence into a particular offence, we are suddenly going to have a reduction in the number of offences. The criminals out there, the would-be criminals, the maybe criminals do not know what the sentence is for any particular crime. In fact, I challenge anybody here today, any member of the House, to get up and tell us what the sentence would be for a particular offence, even under this bill. One could not know. The reason is we have provided for sentencing ranges. When people are convicted, they do not know what the sentence will be until the judge finally decides.

If we do not know what the sentence is, how could those would-be criminals out on the streets know what the sentencing would be? In their mind, as I have always seen it, it is binary in reaction to the criminal justice system. Either they are going to get their deterrences, or they are going to get caught or they are not. It is not about what the sentence is. They do not get out their little calculators and calculate what the sentence is before they hop into the car. Their whole view of this is whether they are going to caught. If they think they are going to get caught, they are not going to do it that night. If they think they are not going to get caught, they might.

I do not understand the mentality that urges upon the House that if we suddenly put in a whole bunch of mandatory minimum sentences, all those bad guys will know what the sentence is and they will stop their criminal activity and we will be safer. I just had to get in that sentencing issue.

I am pleased to have had a chance to talk about the bill. It looks like we are going to have ourselves an identity theft bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's presentation was excellent. He dealt with some of the shortcomings of the bill. One particular area he neglected to mention was the whole issue of the real estate exposures, which the member for Windsor—Tecumseh talked about as being an area that was missing from the bill.

We are looking at $2 billion to $2.5 billion in real estate losses in the country alone. It is certainly increasing rather than decreasing. Would the member agree with the analysis of the previous member and does he see this as a possibility with this bill or would it require a separate legislative initiative?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a good question and I think there is a good answer, but it may not be the answer the member wants to hear.

First, the member is not talking about people selling worthless bags of dirt dug up from fields. What he is talking is fraud in real estate transactions. Real estate transactions and the whole jurisdiction of real estate is provincial. The management of those transactions, the verification of the documents and the procedures are all provincial. Up to now that has been the case in securities matters. Those are provincial transactions and they regulate them.

When it comes to fraud, the Criminal Code has a fairly robust and very old fraud section. Therefore, all the illegality in fraud, to which I think the member is referring, will be currently covered by the Criminal Code fraud provisions. However, we do not have to say it is a fraud involving real estate, or involving securities, or involving currency, or involving the sale of bananas, or apples, or goats or horses. It is a fraud.

Therefore, there is Criminal Code coverage for it, but in terms of those who would falsify a mortgage in a land transaction, those offences, the false document presented to a provincial land registry, whether it is a mortgage, a deed or a transfer of land, those are covered. It can also be a federal offence.

However, I accept that there is not a specific Criminal Code section that says that if one does a fake land transfer, it is a special Criminal Code offence, buy it would be a Criminal Code fraud.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take the floor for this interesting debate on Bill S-4. First of all, certain things need to be said. One is that the Criminal Code has always trailed a little behind the social problems that people have experienced, are experiencing and will continue to experience. Having been a criminal lawyer for 30 years, I have seen some changes. Identity theft is the best example. If someone in this House or elsewhere is listening to us and is not aware of the fact, right now you can be prosecuted for a criminal offence if you steal someone’s telex or telegram. As far as I know, the telex and telegram have been long gone from Canada. But they are still in the Criminal Code. There are some pretty anachronistic things in the Criminal Code, which definitely needs to be amended to bring it into step with 21st-century needs, and identity theft is one of them.

For those listening to us, we should explain a little about what constitutes identity theft at present. Today, on October 20, 2009, identity theft means deliberately assuming someone’s identity—not too complicated, so far—or the identity of another person—this is where it gets complicated—generally for the purpose of committing fraud. At the moment, that is what has to be demonstrated. For example, many sections of the Criminal Code refer to forgery and uttering forged documents. The stealing of cheques does not constitute a criminal offence. If I take them and do nothing with them, I am not committing a criminal offence. It becomes criminal only if I use them. Of course, it is a criminal offence to steal someone’s cheques, but if the cheques are not used the offence is less serious. So at present, in the Criminal Code, we have what is called forgery and uttering forged documents, for example, taking a cheque and endorsing it. This used to be a regular occurrence on the first and fifteenth of every month. It was quite flagrant. A person would go to all the mailboxes, collect the cheques, endorse them and cash them. This is what was called forgery and uttering forged documents.

Today this is no longer the case. Why not? Because we have direct deposit. We do business with the federal government, the Quebec government or the government of some other province, and what does the government do? It deposits the money it owes us directly into our bank accounts. Employment insurance is a very good example. The employment insurance benefits to which a person is entitled are deposited directly into their account. And yet, here too there was and still is a theft problem. It is a very serious problem, and I will return to it in a few moments, with some figures. This is a problem that now exists. Someone lines up behind us in the credit union, the Royal Bank, the National Bank or any other bank. He watches us enter our PIN, because everyone now enters a PIN, a personal identification number. So what does this person do? He watches us enter our number and he remembers it, because today people remember numbers. In that way, with a duplicate of your card—procured illegally, of course—he can empty our bank account. That is the identity theft problem.

But that is only a small part of it. People can steal credit cards from the mail, when mail is redirected, for example. They take the mail and then there is false pretence or intrusion into data banks. How often have we seen this in recent months? They use a scanning device to collect the information on credit cards.

What does that mean? Some people were becoming experts. We have to be careful when we hand over our credit cards in a business and an imprint is taken. When it is printed, an imprint of the credit card is taken. Some places, there are three copies. We get the original copy back, the one on top, but there are two other copies underneath. We have to watch those other two copies. An honest merchant will tear up the second part and use the third copy for deposit. Thieves get the imprint from the second part with the help of accomplices in the business. Some people had become so expert that they were able to get the imprint. What do they do once they have the imprint and they know the name of the card owner shopping at the business? They watch the person and note down their personal identification number, their PIN. When they have the PIN, they empty the bank account.

They do not just empty the bank account. The problem is that with the PIN they can get a lot of things. That is why people are told not to give out their social insurance number. Someone who steals your identification cards today, for example your social insurance card, your health insurance card, your driver’s licence, or even your passport, can steal your identity. Those items are worth a fortune.

What does that mean? We do not realize it until someone tells us there are two people with the same name walking around with the same identification. Each one should have different identification. It is like fingerprints: they are supposed to be different. Someone who steals another person’s identification can do a lot of things. They can steal, borrow and defraud.

My former colleague from Hochelaga who is no longer here, Mr. Ménard, drew the government’s attention to this by presenting some revealing figures. It is becoming big business. In 2004, the costs associated with identity theft exceeded $50 billion a year. I repeat: the costs associated with identity theft every year exceeded $50 billion.

In Canada alone, the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that in 2002, consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion because of identity theft.

In 2006 it got even bigger. PhoneBusters, created in 1993, is an anti-fraud call centre. Generally, we receive the centre’s telephone number with our credit cards. It is often written on the back of the card, but it is best not to just leave it there, because if your card is stolen, that information is not very useful. Put it somewhere else. It is a telephone number to use to report that a credit card has been stolen or that someone is trying to use it. In Ontario and several other places in Canada, PhoneBusters received 7,800 calls reporting identity theft in 2006 alone.

It had therefore become urgent that attention be given to this problem, which causes billions of dollars of losses every year, not just in Canada, not just in Quebec, but everywhere in the world.

When we look at the legislation, we note that the United States started attacking this problem in 1988. In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we had an opportunity to hear from a variety of experts on identity theft. It was extremely interesting, and we learned a lot. In terms of insurance, for example, incredible frauds have been committed. We have to find a way to deal with such fraud. How? One way to deal with it is Bill S-4, which concerns identity theft and will amend a number of sections of the Criminal Code. I do not want to list all the sections, but I consider clause 10 very important. The subheading will now be "Identity Theft and Identity Fraud", and it will have an impact on sections 400, 402, 402.1 and so on. The nomenclature will be entirely different.

And what does it involve? I will try to provide a quick list. The new section explains identity theft. It is simply the theft by an individual of a person's name, address, date of birth and written signature, electronic signature or digital signature. I will translate that into plain language for those watching. A written signature is not complicated—that is when we sign. Increasingly—and this is why the bill makes up for dozens of years of lost time—many people authorize an electronic signature. All MPs in this House have what is called an electronic signature, but how many businesses have also established the principle of the electronic signature? If someone steals it, that will be illegal. Obviously, there are social insurance numbers, health card numbers, drivers' license numbers, credit card numbers and debit card numbers as well. For those watching, it is not simply the theft of the plastic card that is dangerous, it is the transmission of the number. How many times do we make calls, visit eBay or do business with someone in a store? We simply give our credit card number over the phone. Is there anyone in this House who has not ordered chicken from St-Hubert barbecue or Checkers or pizza? What do we do? We give our credit card number over the phone. That is becoming very dangerous. We must make sure when the delivery comes that the correct number appears on all the documents we are asked to sign.

The new section 402.1 also includes our passport number, user code, password, fingerprints or voice print, retinal image, iris image and DNA profile. I think this is a good thing the government has done. We are moving forward. We are moving forward in time and are anticipating what is coming.

In 2007, my colleague Réal Ménard from the riding of Hochelaga called for this, and the government responded that it was not necessarily urgent. Today it realizes that it is extremely urgent and that considerable losses have occurred and are still occurring.

There is going to be a new section. Obviously, mere possession of someone's name and address is not illegal, but the definition of identity information in clause 402.1 will apply to a new offence. The bill creates a new hybrid offence that involves the transmission, making available, distribution, selling or offering for sale, or possession of another person’s identity information.

Basically, having someone else's name, address and phone number is okay because we all have that kind of information on our contact lists, no matter which political party we belong to.

But if a person has someone else's social insurance number, personal identification number or credit card number, the prosecutor will assume that he or she obtained these documents illegally and must prove that the accused trafficked in identity information about another person knowing that it would be used to commit a crime based on fraud, deceit and lies.

I believe that the House should vote in favour of this bill. This clause will ensure that any person who takes an individual's information without authorization, illegitimately and illegally, faces the legal consequences.

For the benefit of the House, my colleagues and the people watching us, once wallet and identity theft occurs—say someone steals a woman's purse—it costs the victim around $500 to recover her identity. Getting a new passport, new identification cards, new driver's licence and so on will cost the victim about $500.

But there are worse consequences. It is no secret that some companies investigate individuals. Take Equifax, for example. What does this company do for people? It establishes their credibility, their financial power.

When a business conducts a credit check, it generally contacts a company like Equifax or Crédit Nord-Ouest, which collects, stores and keeps information. Now, when a person's identity is stolen, the incredible effort it takes to notify these companies is completely disproportionate to the crime that has been committed. When someone's belongings are stolen and their identity is used to commit fraud and theft, that honest person will unfortunately have to go through a very long and difficult process to have the poor credit rating removed from his or her file at the credit company.

This extremely important bill is very timely as we enter the 21st century. Identity theft is an insidious crime that destroys a person's identity. Often, people who are victims of identity theft have a very hard time proving that they are not thieves or fraudsters, because someone has used their identity, even though they had no right to do so. That is illegal, and it was high time the government took action.

The question was asked earlier, and I am going to answer it. Companies even testified that they wanted minimum sentences. We objected strongly, and we are going to continue to object strongly to minimum sentences. Why? Because we are going to start by implementing this bill.

I hope that this House will vote quickly in favour of this bill and that it can be implemented very quickly. Once it has been analyzed, then perhaps some thought can be given to revising the potential sentences. But we should let the courts do their job and ensure that anyone who commits such an offence receives a fair and appropriate punishment.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you gave me a signal a few moments ago, so I will just say in closing that we feel it is important that this bill has finally reached this House. We hope it will be passed quickly so that we can implement it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have already admitted that the bill has been 10 years in coming; in fact, we needed it about 10 years back. The legislation is only part of the problem. The real problem, and I think the member alluded to it, is the area of preventing identity theft in the first place. The real way to prevent that is to deal with the whole issue of the smart card programs. The member talked about biometrics, whether it is a fingerprint or an iris scan. Three or four years ago, the British government was using the biometric iris scan process at Heathrow airport. I am not sure how successful it has been, but it is being done. Fingerprints are another biometric that can be put on a smart card.

The whole issue here is that the government has to encourage industry to start rolling out the smart cards. The government has to roll out its smart cards as well and get card readers in the police cars and wherever the readers need to be so that the cards can be read. Through that process, which is going to prevent people from stealing identities in the first place, we are going to solve the problem.

The legislation is great. It is 10 years overdue. Let us get it passed. The bottom line here is that the government has to play a role in encouraging the technological development of the smart card system in Canada. By the way, it has been around for 10 years; we are just very slow to develop it.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. If I recall correctly, he testified before the committee. I would like to repeat for the benefit of the House what he was told at the time. He was told to speak instead to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, once this bill would be in effect. We are only laying down the framework for future legislation to fight identity theft. As far as prevention is concerned, it is clear that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology should be the one studying this matter.

But, I would like to seize the opportunity to invite people who are watching right now to be cautious with their identification numbers. People should not go around sharing their PIN and showing it when they are at the bank. That must be done in private. People are too quick to share their PIN with certain individuals. A PIN is a secret number, and the same thing goes for passports. The public must be invited to be more cautious, and I think this bill will do that. We are clearly putting in place something which will be used for the next 10 or 15 years. This process has been going on for 10 years, and it is now time for this bill to be adopted.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had wanted to include, in this bill, a measure to make things tougher for identity thieves, what specific measure would he have come up with?