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

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

moved that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions. At the Commons justice committee, we did not see this bill in as great an amount of detail as the Senate did. He will know from the changes made to the previous identity theft Commons bill in the last Parliament, some significant and important changes were made. As parliamentary secretary, I would think he would want to say that this shows the Senate justice committee does good work and has provided us a good document from which to work.

Lawful excuse was mentioned as a reason why identity theft might not be charged as either summary conviction or indictable. Besides the police officer exception, what does he envision might make up that lawful excuse?

The interception of private communications in clause 3 is a very good thing. It gives law enforcement officials the tools they need in this electronic age to enforce this law. Why is the government not heeding attorneys general like Wally Oppal from British Columbia who wanted this kind of power extended throughout the code to fight their war on organized crime and the drug industry, which the parliamentary secretary sometimes suggests is the government's war too? Why will there not be more measures for extending the interception of private communications? Why has the government not worked quicker and with more dispatch in this regard?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee. As he knows, we had the opportunity in the House to consider the previous bill dealing with identity theft.

The Senate and Senate committee took a very thorough look at this bill, and I want to thank Senate members for the input they provided. We feel this is a strong, appropriate bill.

I will speak to the lawful excuse that has been raised. We have to understand that by and large this bill is about protecting Canadians from identity theft. We know that is a growing problem.

Using the example of undercover police officers, in order to do their work, sometimes they have to have a false driver's licence or identity. This is to protect them in the course of their duties. We do not want them to have to go through the other Criminal Code exemption provisions in order to be able to conduct their undercover work. We feel the police should be provided that exemption within the bill so that undercover officers can use those documents.

The bill is largely about tackling a very serious problem. I feel that our government has been responsible in bringing this bill forward. It is something I am sure the member has heard about from his constituents. I have certainly heard from mine about the serious impact of identity theft.

On the broader issue of organized crime, our government has been targeting the root of the organized crime problem. We have been dealing with the issue of identity theft, gang violence and mandatory penalties for serious gun crimes. We have been dealing with some of the things that fuel organized crime, like the trade in drugs and also auto theft. In fact we have also dealt with the very serious issue of the human trafficking of minors that organized crime participates in.

Step by step we have been taking a very serious and direct approach to organized crime. As the Minister of Justice has said many times in the House, we are just getting started. We will continue with this agenda to make Canada and our communities safer and provide balance with our justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the issue of lawful excuse. When I first looked at this provision, it caused me a good deal of concern as to why we would be doing this for this specific crime. There is the general section in section 25 of the code. Why would we not have amended section 25, if that was necessary, as opposed to creating a new section in this part of the code under identity theft?

If we are doing it with regard to identity theft, in how many more sections of the code are we going to use this specific type of lawful excuse, as opposed to using the more general one with the protections it has against potential abuse? That caused us a great deal of concern when we first passed section 25 with regard to lawful excuse, and it continues to be of great concern to the justice committee.

I am wondering whether we are now going to see a series of amendments to the code in other criminal offences and why would we do that as opposed to simply amending, if necessary--and I have some doubts about whether it is necessary--section 25.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee.

Part and parcel of an undercover police officer's role and his or her ability to infiltrate an organization is the use of a false identity. A police officer can obviously not use his or her own identity. This bill recognizes that specifically.

The code does provide for lawful excuse for police officers to be able to conduct undercover activities and to do things that would otherwise be unlawful, for example, in order to infiltrate criminal biker gangs, organized crime. The Criminal Code needs to provide for that because our police need the protection of the law as they conduct their activities.

In the case of identity theft, we feel it is more appropriate to have a specific exemption in place so the police will not have to avail themselves of section 25 every time undercover activities are conducted. That is why that very narrow exemption is in place.

What makes the bill even more workable is that it attempts to target those who prey on the most vulnerable, those who, unbeknownst to a Canadian, would steal his or her identity and rack up charges in that individual's name or use it to conduct organized crime offences.

Canadians want to be protected from identity theft, and this bill would help to do that. It would help to get at the middleman who is in possession of identity theft material. When it comes to identity theft, it would expressly allow the police to do their good undercover work. I think Canadians understand that. It is the right approach and a comprehensive approach to this issue.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for commending the Senate justice committee, both this time and two weeks ago, for the great work it is doing.

Is there a role for Internet providers in working with the police to help solve identity theft crimes?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of identity theft has become more complicated as technology increases.

We, on this side of the House, look for comprehensive approaches to tackling crime. We have been steadfast in our work on the criminal justice file. We have to be able to work with Internet service providers, the police, provincial attorneys general and other investigative bodies to tackle this serious problem.

The member raised the Internet in his question, which has been used to exponentially increase the instances of identity theft. In the past, a driver's licence or other important personal information would have been physically stolen, but that information can now be stolen via the Internet, so we need co-operation from all quarters.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill S-4 today.

I have been here for three and a half years or so, and it seems that we deal with issues that are important to Canadians sporadically and cyclically. This is not the first time I have risen to speak on identity theft legislation. It is not the first time we, as a Chamber, have considered it. It just seems to be a shame that after three and a half years Parliament has not tackled identity theft. Prorogation is one thing that comes to mind.

We have to come together, as parliamentarians, to pass legislation that works in making Canada a better place. We do not need lawyers or members of Parliament or professors to tell us that Canadians at the Tim Hortons on St. George Boulevard in Moncton or Quispamsis are concerned about identity fraud, identity theft.

They may not use those terms, but they know what it is if they are offered a free cruise by some company in the United States if they only put $200 on their credit card and then they have their Visa racked up to its limit. They know what that is. That is good old-fashioned hucksterism, old-fashioned theft, which one only admires. They want us to respond in a modern way to a modern problem which, at its roots, is a very old way of just tricking people. This bill is one that we are pleased to recommend.

Again, all too often we do not recognize the good work of the Senate. On the Senate justice committee, we have les éminences grises, many people who have years of constitutional legal experience. Clearly they have brought to bear amendments or changes to this bill that were needed from the previous bill, which was introduced into Parliament in the last session before the pin was pulled. Some of those examples are modernizing our definition of what constitutes an identification card.

The last clause of the bill says that there shall be a five year review of this legislation. Now many of us, and I know the member for Windsor—Tecumseh would agree, think that the Criminal Code in general should go through a comprehensive review. We seem to be adding layer after layer to the code without any real and thoughtful revision or compilation of its true essence.

In this act, and it seems to be a trend in a number of acts, there is the suggestion that every five years there would be a full review of how we are doing with respect to identity theft or identity fraud. As members know, we did a similar thing with respect to anti-terrorism legislation. We think there should be such a mechanism for the designation of organized crime as well.

In its first proposed subsection, this bill has a hybrid offence, which means summary conviction or indictable. There are some offences that will be below a mandatory limit. If we only went with indictable or serious offences, we might lose a lot of the minor offences that happen every day with respect to identity fraud.

This is not a case where we are just going after the big pilfering of accounts. This bill is designed to catch, as I mentioned, the rack up of $200 on somebody's Visa bill. That would be a summary conviction offence. That part is good.

Discretion is a word we use on this side quite a bit. Discretion should be inherent with judges and prosecutors so they can mold the law to the factual situations they see in our communities every day. Hooray that the Conservative government allows discretion in this bill for prosecutors to proceed by way of summary or indictable offence.

The offence itself states that anyone “who, without lawful excuse, procures to be made, possesses, transfers, sells or offers for sale an identity document that relates” to another person is liable for the crime to a term of up to five years in jail.

The identity document is something else that the Senate added to the debate by further specifying what it should be.

Clearly, these are documents that we know of every day. We see them used every day and there is reticence in the minds and hearts of people as to whether they should be handing over their social insurance number, driver's licence or health insurance card. There is a timidity about giving information that identifies a person, particularly to businesses, but also to government. This includes birth certificates. Death certificates were added. One might ask how it could be identity theft if a death certificate is taken because the person does not exist any more. Clearly, it is an issue of identity fraud, where somebody plays on the personage of an estate or of a dead person.

Also included are passports, citizenship documents and employee identity cards. An expansion allowed by the Senate takes into account that employee identity cards sometimes have so much information behind them, either encoded on them but more likely behind them in terms of the application, that they are almost more valuable than a social insurance card or a driver's licence. It is a very modern suggestion to add it to the list.

Before getting into the guts of the bill, I want to talk about the difference between identity fraud and identity theft. The last bill in the Commons took the approach that we should be more concerned with identity fraud rather than just identity theft. To the average person and to the judge interpreting our laws, identity theft might just say that one is stealing somebody's person, who they are legally, for a bad purpose.

Identity fraud dips in and out of the idea of the entire theft of the identity. It suggests a broader definition, which would encompass all of the stages involved in the crime, such as acquiring, collecting and transferring personal information as well as the actual use of the information. It is much like car theft, a bill that we dealt with earlier today. There are typically many players in the stages of identity theft. It is not a situation where someone leaves a Visa card behind at a store and then someone else tries to use that Visa card at another store. That is clearly a case of identity fraud and identity theft for the purpose of the next purchase.

We are talking about wholesalers of information who gather up student ID cards. We have some students as pages. Mr. Speaker, you probably do not recall as well as the pages do about being a young person at Queen's or U of T and nonchalantly giving all of one's information to the registrar. What if that is privatized? What if it is a private group of companies that amass that information, take those partial identities and sell them to Maclean's to sell magazines?

What if that information is intercepted along the way and used for an improper purpose? It would be very difficult to find out how that happened. The young student might say that he or she has only ever given all of that information to Queen's University, so he or she will blame the university, but that may not be the case at all. The person along the way might be an errant secretary, data information analyst or whomever. Anyone involved in the acquiring, collecting or transferring of the information is hooked by this legislation.

Calls for the amendment to the code in this regard have been going on for some time. Papers have been written for some time on the issues of identity theft and identity fraud. One of the best papers talked about the most fraudulent uses of personal information by identity thieves. Initially, until we took it to this level, this law did not deal with the collection, possession and trafficking of the information. We feel that with the additional offences added by this bill, this is now addressed and adequately covered. We are here in 2009 talking about it.

Identity theft is a serious criminal activity. We have reviewed the bill. Between the speech of the parliamentary secretary and my opening comments about the basis of the bill and the documents that are included in the definition, we know that we have a strong bill. People in the community might ask why it is so urgent. Identity theft and identity fraud are a serious and lucrative industry. How do we as lawmakers have any evidence of that?

The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus has estimated that identity theft costs Canadian consumers, banks and credit card companies, stores and businesses more than $2 billion annually. Two billion dollars used to be a very meaningful number until deficits were running into the area of $50 billion. Two billion dollars use to be the annual cost of a major national program. As I say, $50 billion has probably diluted the meaning of $2 billion, but we know that this is a very serious set of criminal activities. As I mentioned, it is the unauthorized use, collection or trafficking of information. This is the pitfall.

Mr. Speaker, you are an established person, well known in Canada, and you may think this would never happen to you. The worst thing you could do to prevent that from happening to you is to pretend that it cannot happen to you. It is never too late to learn how to safeguard yourself from this type of fraud.

There may be many people in the Canadian public who may think they are protected, because they use a chartered bank, they have known their bankers forever, they have only had one credit card in their lives, they pay their phone bills at city hall, they do everything they can to keep their transactions as discreet, one to one, even personal. According to Louis Robertson, head of the RCMP's Criminal Intelligence Analytical Unit at the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre, identity theft is now probably the most important problem for Canadian consumers.

In 2006 there were 212,000 Canadians who were victimized by identity theft, and their losses, in the use of identity as well as credit card manipulations, ran over $15 billion. Somewhere, depending on whether one subscribes to what PhoneBusters did on a call-in basis of $2 billion, or the RCMP with the $15 billion figure, is the reality about the figures three years ago.

As far as Canadians feeling that they are gripped by identity theft, there was a survey conducted by the McMaster eBusiness Research Centre, MeRC, on behalf of the Ontario Research Network for Electronic Commerce, ORNEC, which was designed to determine the nature and extent of identity theft and fraud so that lawmakers would know that they had the evidence to bring in a bill like this one.

The survey itself, with over 3,000 valid responses, suggests that 6.5% of Canadian adults, or almost 1.7 million people, were the victims of some kind of identity fraud in the last year. Over 20 million hours and more than $150 million was spent to resolve the problems associated with these frauds.

The issue is that this is costing the economy of Canada more than just the money that is pilfered and taken away from Canadian consumers and taxpayers. The survey also counts the millions of hours spent trying to recover the data that was lost and create new data. Anyone who has ever lost his or her wallet knows that it is a nightmare to replace all of the things in it.

More than half of the frauds that have occurred to the Canadian public involve nothing more than unauthorized purchases made with credit cards. That is certainly something we hear about quite often.

If we eliminate credit card fraud as the most popular or well-known instance of fraud with respect to identity, with the incidence rate and costs quoted above, the number of victims is reduced to 700,000, but they still spent 12 million hours, not the 20 million hours, but 12 million hours and more than $110 million of their own money to resolve the problems.

Most victims, 57%, did not know how their personal information was accessed, but when they did know, the identity fraud was most often associated with a business transaction conducted either in person in 25% of the cases, or online in 15% of the cases. This is exactly consistent with what I said earlier. People who are careful about their identity issues try to keep their business transactions discreet and personal, but it is actually more often the case in personal business conducted, that is 25%, than it is for online purchases. That is an important thing for Canadians to be aware of.

This bill captures anyone along the chain involved in taking personal identification information.

Debit card skimming made up 13% of the fraud incidents. Twenty-five per cent of all cases of identity fraud were committed by someone known to the victim. This survey found that to be the case. They were not known by the victim in 7% of the cases.

Very few of the cases of identity fraud were reported to the police, only 13%, or to credit reporting agencies, 6%, or to PhoneBusters, .5%. This indicates that perhaps there is an embarrassment factor. People also might realize, as many people do, that there are inadequate legal provisions to cover the instance, which is the reason we are enacting this law.

If one were to go to police authorities before this law came into effect, the police authorities might well say that this is a civil matter. How often do Canadian citizens hear from police authorities that the fight over the loss of money between the card holder or bank customer and the bank or credit card company is a civil matter and it will not be investigated? That is why there is such low reporting. We hope with this law that there will be more reporting because, frankly, the police will have a better tool to work toward the elimination or the curbing of identity theft and identity fraud.

In closing, the Canadian consumer can protect his or her personal information from physical theft in a number of ways. The government has been adept in some quarters in publicizing a message, at least outside this House, so I would call on the government to take up this campaign of advising and educating members of the public on how to protect themselves from identity fraud and identity theft. It would be disingenuous to suggest that this law is going to eradicate all identity theft and identity fraud.

This is what Canadian consumers can do. I think that the government should lift provisions from this speech for a public education campaign that could be a companion to this bill. These suggestions are from the survey of 3,000 people, of what are the most effective means of protecting one's identity and what have proven to be effective.

Seventy-nine per cent shred financial documents or important documents all or most of the time. Many use a locked mailbox all of the time, or most of the time. Many keep sensitive information in a secure location, such as a locked box or a drawer, all of the time or most of the time.

Many have eliminated or reduced the number of identity documents that they carry with them. How many people do we know who, because of loyalty programs, credit cards, identity documents needed for almost any club, association, building or job, have two wallets or in some cases a wallet so big that it is the size of a desk? One idea is to get rid of unnecessary identity documents.

Many have stopped receiving mailed account statements or have reduced the number of mailed statements that they receive.

Canadian consumers take the following measures to keep their personal information from prying eyes or unauthorized access. One has to do with securing one's information, and one of them has to do with security at the workplace or at a social event where information may be spied upon.

Never or rarely give information over the phone to people claiming to do surveys or offer promotional goods and services, unless one is a Liberal and is asked by a reputable polling agency what one's view on the next election might be. I highly recommend not doing that.

Make sure no one is watching when using an ATM or debit card machine. The public would be wise not to give credit cards to waiters or gas station attendants in the absence of the card holder himself or herself.

Those are just some of the things that consumers can do.

In summary, this is a good bill. It is a shame we did not get at it earlier. It should give law enforcement officials the tools to fight identity fraud. We should be thinking in terms of identity fraud, not just identity theft. We should put out a public education campaign to make sure people do not do things that put them in jeopardy. We should give the Senate a pat on the back for making this bill better.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made an excellent presentation.

I would like to ask him a question, but I am not sure that he has the answer. The question has to do with lawyers who are increasingly having problems with clients who present a false identity to get mortgage loans. I would like to know whether or not the mortgage loans aspect is part of the scope of this bill. Does he know the answer?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is when I should say I am a lawyer. I am not a real estate lawyer and never was. However, I know the mortgage corporations and land title companies are very vigilant with respect to identity issues. I do know as well that law societies across the country are very vigilant about issues regarding identity.

I have not experienced this, but I have read about it. When it comes to land titles systems, most jurisdictions require that each document of identification for an individual be on the registry, which is a bit anomalous and bit hard to explain. I understand that some people, particularly in provinces like Quebec, have a religious birth certificate and a civil identification document, which may be very different in name. In most land titles systems both documents must be registered to ensure there is no confusion, there be absolute certainty who an individual is and there not be fraud.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as an experienced member of the justice committee, I would like to ask the member to comment on this.

The parliamentary secretary gave a good outline of the bill and we are all in favour of this. We want to get it through as quickly as possible. However, he made a frightening comment at the end, that there was more of the same coming from the government.

As the House knows, the government had a number of failed justice bills. It had a number that had to be amended because of such a poor agenda. It has made Canada more dangerous in some way by insisting on mandatory minimums in areas where it has shown that it is not successful. It has taken away judicial discretion where that could have led to less recidivism and better treatment.

The government seems to lack the enthusiasm for the things that would make Canada safer, such as improved resources for treatment in the jails, moneys to deal with the root causes of crime that would help offenders not reoffend. Over 50% of crimes are for addiction or to pay for addictions. There seems to be a lack of enthusiasm for items that would actually reduce crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with the member for Yukon. As much as we might be in favour of the bill, let us analyze it. There are good parts of the bill. It defines what the offence is so the police can go after the wrongdoers. It would give police and officials wider powers with respect to surveillance interception. That is something attorneys general across the country have been asking for in general. There is also a review of how the legislation is working. It is not necessarily a large jail sentence that makes legislation effective and society safer.

The member for Yukon was a very diligent member of the justice committee, fighting for the rights of aboriginals and the rights of northern Canadians. He knows that 90% of the bills sent forward from the government, after a five o'clock press conference, were about tougher sentences.

We are sitting here three and a half years later and we are just getting to the auto theft bill, which would give police the proper tools to combat that. We really have not done as much as we should with respect to impaired driving, or at least we got to it very late. We are here today, three and a half years later, dealing with commercial fraud, identity theft, identity fraud, which affect people from St. John's to Vancouver Island, to way up north, of all ages and all walks of life. It is something that should have been done earlier.

My advice to the government, through the member's comment, is to get off the five o'clock newscasts and get into the House and even into the Senate, which it often slams, and get some of this legislation done, which affects every day Canadians in a meaningful way.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's previous capacity as a lawyer, he managed to delve into the lives of individuals, both victims and those who were convicted. I want to ask his opinion on two enormous issues that have not been dealt with in the House but should be.

First is the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. It is estimated that 50% of individuals who are in federal institutions have FAS or FAE. It is leading cause of preventable brain damage by birth in children.

Second, if one wanted to do one thing that could reduce youth crime, for example by 60%, and have the most profound impact on keeping our country more secure, it is an early learning head start program for children. It is worked in places like Ypsilanti, Michigan, which has a 35 year retrospective experience with this program.

In his previous capacity as a lawyer, does my colleague not think we should work with the provinces to develop an initiative to reduce FAS and FAE? Also does he not think the federal government has a role to work with provinces to implement a national early learning head start program?

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

Mr. Speaker, you may wonder what this has to do with identity theft. The overall crime fighting agenda of the government is certainly in issue. I want to pay homage both to my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and my predecessor, Claudette Bradshaw, who, in founding Headstart in greater Moncton, was very aware of the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome.

The justice committee heard from police forces across the country and during its visits to western police authorities. They said that the prevention of crime was a huge issue. To find the people who are afflicted with this, treat them, intervene and integrate them into society as early as possible is clearly the best way to get away from crimes such as identity theft, car theft and all the other things we have talked about happening at a later stage.

Clearly the member is on the right track. A responsible and passionate government would be proactively thinking about early intervention, child care and early childhood development. So far I have heard very little from the Conservative government in this respect. It thinks that every middle-class parent who chooses to keep his or her child at home is a good thing. I was one of those children growing up. It is not a bad thing but it is not the whole picture.

A whole segment of society has been left out, which, in some cases, gets involved with crime. It would be so much better for the government, the ministers in the front row, to be aware of how to combat crime. The answer is getting to it early.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed one very important point that I thought should be brought to our attention. The RCMP normally takes the view that this is a civil matter. I have lots of examples of credit card theft. The person goes to the RCMP, is told to take a number, that 20 people have been in before the individual and it will get around to it when it gets around to it because it is a civil matter.

To the extent that this bill would give the RCMP more powers to get involved in this kind of activity is a very good thing and we should proceed with it as quickly as possible. When people who do this kind of stuff realize there are really no consequences, they will repeat what worked for them the first time.

Could the member further his comments on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that moving this from the realm of a civil dispute to an activity covered by the Criminal Code puts the onus on the police to investigate it and prefer charges.

It delves into another issue that is prevalent, though. The government has promised more resources and officers. Its answer seems to be that it gave the money to the provinces and it is their problem if policemen are not on the streets. However, there is an underlying issue with respect to police forces across the country, which is recruitment and retention.

We are not the government on this side yet and we have to tell the government there is a problem. The Minister of Justice had better start talking to the Minister of Public Safety to ensure all the laws are promulgated and can be adequately serviced by police forces across the country. I hear that they are not adequately resourced and there are issues with respect to recruitment and retention, which the government is not addressing, and that is a shame.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the office of my party’s whip for allowing me to spend the next 20 minutes speaking to an exciting bill about identity theft.

This bill is a singular phenomenon in our legislative process. It came from the Senate first. I do not understand why the government did not lay it before this House and the dynamic Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. True, we do have a number of bills to analyze, but it seems to me that it would have been a sign of great deference if we, in our capacity as agents, as representatives and spokespeople for the public, could have had this bill laid before us first.

Identity theft is on the rise in Canada as it is in other countries. This phenomenon can produce some extremely awkward situations for our fellow citizens. Only this morning, I met someone whose credit card had been cloned. Someone had thus had $5,000 stolen from their credit card. It is easy to imagine not only how insecure this can make a person feel, but also what problems they may have in resolving the situation with the financial institutions. Even though most of them agree to reimburse a person who has been the victim of what is, to say the least, a distressing act, it is still an extremely difficult thing to experience and resolve.

The purpose of Bill S-4, which went first to the Senate before being introduced in the House, is to combat identity theft. When we talk about identity theft, we are talking about the unauthorized collecting and use of personal information, ordinarily for criminal purposes. This is nominative information, such as name, date of birth, address, credit card number, social insurance number, or any other personal identification number that can be used to open a bank account, obtain a credit card, have mail forwarded, subscribe to a cell phone service, lease a vehicle or equipment or an office, and even get a job.

With its usual wisdom and judgment, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill, which seems to it to be reasonable and to properly represent Quebec’s interests. We are opposed to bills that do not reflect the values and aspirations of Quebec. We fiercely oppose any bill that attempts to intrude into areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Bill S-4 will mainly create three new offences. First, obtaining and possessing another person’s identity information with the intent of using it in a misleading, deceitful or fraudulent manner in the commission of a crime is an offence liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. Trafficking in identity information is the second offence. Here we are talking about an offence that targets people who sell information to a third party, knowing or being reckless as to whether it might be used for criminal purposes. The third offence, in addition to obtaining and possessing identity information or trafficking in identity information, relates to possession or illegally trafficking in identity documents issued by the government or that contain information about another person.

Those are the three main offences created by Bill S-4. I would note again that identity theft and the use of personal information for purposes other than those consented to by the person for whom it is intended are on the rise in Canada.

This certainly has to do with the development of our means of communication and new technologies.

Other changes have been made to the bill. If I had my druthers, I would be talking about the conflict in the Middle East, but I am afraid it would not be relevant to what we are debating here and so I will not.

The Criminal Code provides for other offences under Bill S-4. A new offence of redirecting mail or causing it to be redirected is created.

There is also the new offence of the possession of a Canada Post mail key. Such a key would obviously be counterfeit.

Additional forgery offences are proposed, such as trafficking in forged documents and the possession of forged documents with intent to use them.

Another new offence is the re-naming of personation, which is called identity fraud.

The final offence that is added is a further refinement of the meaning of fraudulently personating another person.

I think it is probably my responsibility to mention that the bill provides for two exceptions which shield people from forgery charges if they produce counterfeit documents for secret government operations. This protects public servants who shadow people, engage in electronic eavesdropping or infiltrate groups. These public servants would be protected under this bill when they are tasked by responsible law enforcement agencies with creating and using secret identities in connection with their jobs. If they are hauled before the courts for unauthorized duplication, counterfeiting, forgery, or the appropriation someone’s personality, they have a defence that will make them immune.

The Bloc Québécois does not doubt that this bill is necessary. There is even a burning need for it. We all know people among our friends or in our families who have experienced unauthorized use of their credit card or debit card or some other people who have had their identity appropriated for nefarious ends.

Identity theft is becoming very widespread. The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion as a result of identity theft or the cloning of credit cards or other cash substitutes of this kind.

In 2006, Phone Busters received some 7,800 calls from victims of identity theft reporting total losses of over $16 million for themselves or for businesses. The scope of the problem is apparent.

According to a survey Ipsos-Reid did in 2006, one Canadian in four—so about 25% of the population or 5.7 million Canadians—said they had been a victim of identity theft.

We might wonder why we need the Criminal Code to fight identity theft effectively.

When it is a matter of organized crime, importing and exporting stolen vehicles, drugs, when lengthy investigations are necessary, when we want to address the smuggling of certain products, then we can understand that criminal law is probably the best route under the circumstances. But when it comes to identity theft, credit card cloning and phenomena that often have to do with ownership or the real ownership of identity papers, might civil law not be the better route?

The former Privacy Commissioner told a House of Commons committee that the real solution to identity theft would require civil sanctions. She said:

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

She was of course referring to civil law as opposed to criminal law. As we know, criminal law is far more complex because, for each offence, there must be proof that the individual not only intended to plan or to take a criminally reprehensible action, which is termed mens rea, but also actually performed that act, which is termed actus reus. In civil law, the proof is far easier to establish, because it is not proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but proof by balance of probability.

The Privacy Commissioner said:

Civil sanctions... are very easy to prove and easy for citizens [to understand]. Small claims courts [there is one in Quebec and I imagine also in English Canada]...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.

This poses a problem, because on matters of civil law, the federal government needs to work closely with the provinces, especially Quebec. Quebec is not only the main place where French is spoken in Canada, but also the only province with a civil law system.

That means that the government will have to be flexible, courteous, kind, open and skilful. I must say that these are not qualities the government has been known for in intergovernmental relations.

We need only consider the cavalier way in which the federal government treated Quebec's demand for financial compensation in connection with the harmonization of the sales tax and the GST. The National Assembly of Quebec had even passed a unanimous motion. We need only look at how the government has handled cultural issues and the reconveyance of land adjacent to the National Assembly of Quebec and on the Plains of Abraham.

This is a government that has chosen the federalism of confrontation. It has chosen to be completely insensitive to complaints and, in some cases, even demands that were unanimously supported by the National Assembly of Quebec.

We could go on and on about the Conservative government's insensitivity to the provinces' complaints. If my colleague, the likeable and charming member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, were here, he would certainly give the example of the Kyoto protocol, which has to do with greenhouse gases, and the battle that Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec waged together. We repeatedly called on the government to honour the promise made by former Prime Minister Chrétien and the treaty he had signed, so as to respect the efforts of a number of industries that had fought very effectively against greenhouse gases.

But the government did not want to respect the strategy of the Government of Quebec.

We need only think of Senate reform. We know that Quebec's National Assembly is worried about Senate reform. We can certainly have different complaints about this institution given that it is not a democratic chamber. We might also say that the Senate is an outdated institution that is ill-suited to a modern parliamentary system. However, we cannot act unilaterally.

The former intergovernmental affairs minister in the Quebec National Assembly, Benoît Pelletier, was my professor of constitutional law. I remember his lectures with a great deal of nostalgia. He was a very good professor and I was a very good student. I remember that the course was on Mondays at 8:30 a.m., too early in some respects. Professor Pelletier would arrive and was able to present his material in a very interesting and lively way. I owe my considerable knowledge of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to him.

Naturally we had differences of opinion and I exercised my prerogative as a student to express mine in the middle of a class on the unilateral repatriation of the 1982 Constitution which, as you know, was opposed by the Quebec National Assembly. Even the former leader of the Liberal party, Claude Ryan, who could hardly be suspected of sympathizing with the sovereignists, had joined with the Quebec National Assembly to denounce the extremely cavalier way in which the matter had been handled.

All that to say that the Senate and the Quebec National Assembly do not want us to review the selection process for judges unless the provinces can formally participate. We know that the role of the Senate, the upper chamber, is to provide the necessary regional balance within the federation.

A little while ago, I was giving a tour of the House to some visitors from Australia, and I believe I explained to them why the House of Commons has a green carpet and the Senate has a red one. First of all, the Senate is the chamber of the monarchy. The Queen never sets foot in the House of Commons. She instead goes to the Senate, as does her representative, the Governor General, who goes to the Senate to ratify legislation.

This is done in the Senate, and not in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the house of the people, and traditionally, the green symbolizes the meadows, which is where the people first gathered to oppose the monarchy they felt was too authoritarian and self-congratulatory.

These are examples of how the government did not listen to what we would have liked it to hear from Quebec regarding Senate reforms, the GST or cultural issues. I do not want to skip too quickly over the issue of culture.

The current government chose to recognize Quebec as a nation. We know that Quebec is a nation: we have our own history; we have our own vernacular, the French language; we have a different legal system; we have common aspirations; and we have control over institutions and territory. Those are the main characteristics of a nation. The government recognized Quebec as a nation, but in the absence of concrete action to back this up, we have trouble seeing how we can take it seriously.

I remind the House that the member for Joliette, the Bloc Québécois House leader, is an extremely eloquent man, who shows restraint at all times and is not known for excess. Except, perhaps, when it comes to food. But in general, he is an exceptionally controlled man. Now, when the member for Joliette introduced a bill calling for federally regulated companies to comply with Bill 101, we would have liked to have the support of the government and the official opposition. That would have been a very nice recognition of the fact that Quebec is a nation.

Since my time has expired, I will be pleased to respond to any questions my colleagues might have.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was good as usual, although this time I have some differences to take up with him on some of his points.

When people are victims of identity theft or credit card abuses, they are already under a lot of stress when they find out about this issue. Then when they go to the police, they are told that it is a civil matter, that they need to take a number and they will be dealt with at some point.

When the member suggests perhaps there is some body of evidence out there that perhaps civil courts could handle issues like this, in real terms people will not be encouraged or happy to be told that. They will have to take someone to small claims court, but if it is an identity theft situation, they may not even know the person who stole the identity in the first place.

Another issue is the credit card companies do not want to tell people what happened with their cases. They put the cone of silence around the situation and do not report back to them, so they may never know who used their cards. We should require credit card companies to report back to people and let them know who did what and give a resolution of the case.

It is very important we have this federal legislation so the police forces cannot step aside—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the question raised by my colleague. There is of course the evidence I quoted, given by the former Privacy Commissioner, who found that it would no doubt be more effective to resort to civil law in matters of personal information and transactions, and that this is closer to a civil reality than a commercial reality. In that regard, I agree with the former Privacy Commissioner's testimony.

It is also true that identity theft could lead to criminal prosecution. That is why this bill has been introduced by the Department of Justice. When such offences occur, the crown attorney must lay charges and sentences are handed down, the maximum of which is 10 years. Obviously, we agree that the Criminal Code has a role to play in a number of circumstances.

As for the notion of financial institutions disclosing the identity of the guilty parties, that cannot be resolved through the Criminal Code, but rather through internal regulations and practices established by the financial institutions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a wide-ranging discussion. I agree that the option to proceed civilly would be good. There should be criminal charges of course, but to proceed civilly would also give the defendant the chance to recoup some of his or her money if he or she did not get it civilly.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce suggested that another offence be added to the bill, and that was impersonating another person with the intent to solely obtain information pertaining to that person. Does the member agree with that suggestion?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the crime of personation as identity theft, part of this bill could definitely satisfy the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It was my understanding that this amendment was proposed by the Senate. We can examine this in committee to see just how far the scope of this offence extends, but I think it is pretty close to what the hon. member for Yukon has suggested.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga, who gave us an eloquent exposé on the bill and on the current relations between the Quebec government and federal government.

I have three short questions I would like to put to him. First, does he think that we should follow the example of the United States, where, currently, the rate of fraud through identity theft is the highest?

Second, could legislation of this type apply to the identity theft people face with health insurance cards, in Quebec in particular? This type of fraud is widespread and costs the government dearly. Could the government make use of this legislation to eliminate this scourge?

My last question to him concerns civil law compared with criminal law. I have the impression that, in civil law, the sentences are always less harsh and the punishment less severe and that civil law would not discourage people from committing identity theft to the same extent as criminal law.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the last part of the question, it is true that in civil law there is greater likelihood of a fine being imposed than imprisonment and that punishment is generally less severe when the trial takes place before the Quebec court, for example, or in a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one.

I am less familiar with the American example. There was a small explanatory note on the American model, but because I do not have in-depth knowledge of it I am going to reserve judgment, with my colleague's permission, to avoid stepping off the path of prudence I usually follow when I do not know something.

As to health insurance, in my opinion, it would be covered by this sort of bill since it concerns nominative information. The provisions of the bill could be used to instigate proceedings.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons people commit identity theft is to get resources for illicit purposes. One of the underlying reasons is the individual may have a substance abuse problem. Studies show that an addict steals about $250,000 in various ways, including identity theft, then turns around and sells that information for about $50,000.

The North American opiate medication initiative is a very exciting project that has been going on in Vancouver. Recently there has been an extension to that called SALOME, which is a long-term narcotics substitution program. This program is taking place in Montreal.

Does my colleague think that communities across Canada that would like to have narcotic substitution programs should be able to have them and by so doing the ties between an addict and crime, particularly theft, would be severed?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In a few years, when I am no longer in this House and I think of my years as a parliamentarian. I will always recall his originality in suggesting links that do not immediately spring to mind. Let us put it that way.

Quite honestly, I never thought that identity theft and the search for identity information could be driven by substance abuse problems. I do not have a lot of information on the program to which he referred and do not know if it exists in Montreal.

However, the member's question reassures me that I understand what he is, and that is a humanitarian who wants to make sure legislation is never excessive and who can always be counted on to defend the most disadvantaged. It is most certainly all to his credit.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, CBC; the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Don Valley West, Sri Lanka.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-4, a substantial irritation in my emotional level. I say that because the bill and this problem has been around the House for way too long a period of time. It has been delayed repeatedly by the government in spite of the reality of the problem for the whole of the country. Large numbers of people are suffering very negative consequences from identity theft criminal acts.

I want to go through it because it bothers me that the government pretends to be strong on crime and says that it will fight it in every way, but the bill is a classic example of how it is attempting to mislead the public in that regard.

The bill was introduced in the last Parliament to address the issue. It has had some amendments since then. It was knocked off its normal rotation because of prorogation by the government in September 2007. It was reintroduced when Parliament reopened. It went through the process of first and second reading. It was sent to the justice committee by March 2008, at which point, we were confronted with a justice committee that no longer functioned because the Conservative chair refused to call meetings or when he called meetings, he would abruptly get up and leave the chair and nobody would replace him. That went on until the summer of 2008 and early fall, when again the government stopped Parliament by calling an election against long-term promise by the Prime Minister not to do that.

We came back after the election and we were into a whole battle over conduct of the government in terms of not seriously addressing the fiscal crisis that both this country and countries internationally were confronting. Then we had another prorogation in December 2008.

We came back after the prorogation and what did we see? We saw this bill, not coming to the House, not to the elected chamber in our Parliament, but going to the unelected chamber down the hall, where it sat. Finally it was sent over here earlier this week.

The bill should have been law by the end of 2007, at least the initial issues that we were addressing, even without the amendments. At the rate we are going, it is not going to be law until sometime near the end of 2009. All of that delay is because of the government.

It is quite clear that the Conservatives cannot claim they did not know how serious the problem of identity theft was in the country. The member from Alberta on the government side introduced a private member's on this issue in a very concrete and extensive way. Unfortunately, it was not the appropriate mechanism to deal with a problem of this size. However, that bill is almost three years old. Therefore, in a very clear and irrefutable way the House has known about this problem for at least three years. It knew what we needed to do about it, as well, in terms of a legislative response.

The Criminal Code, as it is right now, is inadequate to deal with the identity theft problem. We have provisions in the code around forgery, impersonation, creating false documents, but they are a reflection of a technology and a societal norm that is 40 or 50 years out of date for the current situation we have. The ability, for instance, to manufacture large numbers of credit cards is a technology that has only existed for about 10 years. The ability to get personal identification numbers, or PINs, credit card numbers and other identification numbers electronically and in large volume has only been possible as the Internet developed, realistically the last five years.

We knew for at least three years, though I would say any of us working in this area at all knew for much longer than that. The government certainly knew, the Department of Justice knew, and our police forces knew. In spite of all that knowledge, here we are today in the House debating this bill at second reading once again.

The bill itself in fact addresses a number of the issues. When the bill was in Parliament last time, my party was prepared to support it, as far as it went. Its inadequacies are some of the areas it does not touch on.

We heard the question earlier from the member for Yukon about whether it adequately addresses the issue, in the 21st century, of mechanisms one can use to steal an identity from someone and impersonate that person. We will know better once we hear from some more of the experts, but the answer to that question is that it probably does not. I am not sure this bill goes far enough to address that issue. It does in part, and I will credit the government for that, but I am not sure it does fully.

There are some good provisions in the bill. We heard questions today around the difficulty of dealing with identity theft in our civil courts, which has been a real problem in terms of their ability to deal with it, but mostly on the part of the individual who has been wronged to be able to identify the person who stole the identity and profited from it to the victim's disadvantage.

Again being critical of the government, there are not adequate police resources deployed in this area. It is interesting that the approach of the government has always been to concentrate on what it calls serious crime, but it is usually stereotypical of criminals who are drug addicts or other addicts, or have serious mental health problems, who commit violent acts.

If we look at the bills that we have gone through, almost innumerable since the Conservative government has been in power, I do not think we could point to more than one bill that addresses white-collar crime. That is mostly what we are talking about. This has a major impact on many lives, but as I said earlier, we are four or five years behind where we should be down that road.

I say that not only because of the inadequacies, and at times, incompetencies of the government, but we also have to look at it in comparison to what other jurisdictions have done. Western Europe has developed technological levels the same as ours. The United States, Australia and New Zealand are way ahead of us in dealing with the issue of identity theft, ahead by at least half a decade, in some cases as much as a decade. We are playing catch-up to a very strong degree, and we are not doing it well because of the manoeuvring of the government.

With regard to the ability of our police officers to deal with investigations in this area, it is extremely limited. A number of them do not have sufficient training, but overall, there simply are not enough police officers in this country to deal with this problem. They need additional training. They do not get it when they go through their basic training to become police officers, whether that be the RCMP, or provincial or municipal police officers. They need quite extensive additional education in order to be able to combat this crime at the police level.

I know from talking to prosecutors that they feel that they need additional resources to prosecute adequately. Some of those resources are in the form of changes to the Criminal Code and they are, again to the credit of the government, reflected in some of the amendments that we would be passing if Bill S-4 eventually goes through. In terms of the financial resources, they are clearly not there in sufficient numbers.

When this bill went through the Senate, I believe it received either five or seven amendments. A couple of them seemed to be, on the surface, just very technical amendments. One was changing the singular to the plural, but I think there was something more there. So that will be one of the issues we will have to address at committee.

In the provisions, the government empowered our criminal courts to make restitution orders not only for the costs of the proceedings but also the direct losses suffered by a victim of identity crimes, including compensation for replacing all the documentation they have to replace.

In some cases, it can be very significant compensation. For instance, if someone is in the process of trying to obtain a mortgage, their identity is stolen and their name shows up on a debtors list through some of the credit-granting agencies, they may lose their mortgage, and by the time they get it straightened out, they may have lost the real estate transaction and thereby suffer quite severely. It could be thousands, and in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars in damages by the time they straighten it all out and purchase a new building, which by then would be valued higher. They would have taken a real financial hit.

The section that would be amended with regard to restitution would allow an individual to show that evidence to a criminal court and have them order the perpetrator of the crime to compensate the person.

I am sure as people are listening they are thinking that in most cases they would not expect to be able to collect that money back, but the reality with a great deal of identity theft is that, in fact, it is perpetrated by organized crime. So if the individual can be identified, and more importantly, the gang, the organized crime unit, there may be a reasonable opportunity for getting those damages back. The proposed restitution amendment is very appropriate and could turn out to be quite a valuable tool.

With regard to the other sections, the principle sections, creating the offence of identity theft is absolutely crucial. Again, our Criminal Code is so far out of date with regard to the type of criminal activity that is going on here that it is just impossible to use for identity theft as it is being performed now. That is very important, and we are quite supportive of that.

Creating greater penalties and clearer offences for creating identity documents, whether those be ones issued by the government or some other level of government or documents of a commercial nature that would identify a person, in all cases I think these amendments catch that type of activity and clearly make it a crime with appropriate penalties attached.

One of the amendments that came from the Senate was a five-year review that was not in the bill that the government had originally presented. I think that is probably an appropriate amendment, one that we can support. Unfortunately, as so often happens with those reviews, they get done much later than when they are scheduled, in part because the justice committee is so busy. However, we would support that.

I want to address a few comments to the inadequacies of the bill, in particular in the real estate area. I have had some contact with individuals who work in that area. We have had a number of quite notorious cases in Ontario.

In fact, there was a court judgment that I think the average citizen was shocked by, where a couple had bought a condo in the Toronto area and were in residence for I think it was 17 years, but someone else, a criminal, forged documents, created a false identity, went into a lawyer's office and signed documents that put a very large mortgage on that condo, I think it was $200,000, impersonating the real owners. Ultimately this was discovered. The bank took action against the owner. It came out clearly that it was a situation where they had not participated at all in the fraud, but a court in Ontario ruled that in fact the mortgage could be enforced against them.

This ultimately required, I believe, an amendment to the legislation in Ontario retroactively to prevent the consequences of that decision. However, that type of ruling could in fact happen in other provinces, as I understand the situation today.

Bill S-4 does not address that issue at all, as I see it. Again, that is why it is crucial for this to go to committee. Unless I hear opposite from legal experts there, I think this is an area where we need to buttress the bill and put additional provisions in to make it very clear what the penalties will be if that kind of fraud is perpetrated, but also to protect valid legal homeowners and business interests as well.

I have heard from title insurance people in Ontario that there is a current section in the Criminal Code that addresses this in part, but it is way out of date. They are looking for amendments in that regard. It is one of the ones that I think we would have to try to convince the government to support and bring those people in to indicate what the situation is.

I can say that this issue has occupied a significant amount of time of the law societies across all provinces and territories. They have spent, I would say, the better part of the last 10 years trying to get some reasonable controls in place so that type of abuse does not occur.

Lawyers in Ontario, as recently as this past year, have had imposed upon them much greater responsibility to ensure that the person who is sitting at their desk signing legal documents is in fact that person and not pretending to be someone else.

That has taken a great deal of effort by all the law societies. We do not know yet whether it is going to be successful in terms of preventing these types of frauds, but that is what the provinces have done.

Correspondingly, we need to do more at the federal level in the Criminal Code. I think the section of the code that deals with this area and is not addressed at all in the bill, from what I can see, needs to be strengthened quite significantly.

Once we hear more evidence on this, and I am not sure what happened at the Senate as to whether it addressed this problem, I think we are going to find that the whole issue of impersonation appears not to be dealt with strongly enough. We will probably have to look for some amendments to strengthen the bill there.

I will make one final point. We have heard from the banking system and credit card granting companies that they are very interested in coming forward. I am left with the impression that they think there is additional work that needs to be done on Bill S-4 to strengthen it, to try to prevent these types of crimes from happening. Again, it is very important for this to go to the committee for that purpose.

We will be supporting the bill in principle going to the committee, hopefully to strengthen it there and bring it back for third reading and passage and finally get this into place, in spite of all the delays we have had from the government.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his eloquent speech on this matter.

However, I want to point out very clearly that although I have tremendous respect for lawyers and the job they do, police officers take the brunt of the devastation that many of our victims go through because of identity theft and because of this type of crime.

It is not only about documents. It is really an emotional crime for many of them that they never recover from. Therefore, it is of urgency that we pass the bill so that more of these victims are protected from this devastation. It is devastating. Some of them contemplate suicide because they are so distraught about what has happened to them.

When I talk about urgency, I was very pleased to hear during the speech by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh that he mentioned that the bill should be law now, not in late 2009. We agree on this side of the House.

It is in that context that I ask this question: Will the member then introduce a motion to help us push this through more quickly, a motion in the House that would pass this bill at all stages so that we can get it through immediately?

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

Mr. Speaker, that has been proposed by the government over this last week several times. Obviously, the member did not pay attention to my speech with regard to the inadequacies of the bill and where the amendments need to, in particular, address the issue of real estate fraud.

I am very conscious of the impact this has on victims. I am very conscious that the impact is most severe when people lose their homes, as opposed to getting an extra $5,000 they have to pay back on a credit card or having their bank account stripped of all the money. That may be $5,000, but losing a home is anywhere from a couple of hundred thousand dollars to as much as a million dollars because of this.

The bill does not go far enough. For that reason alone we need to take a look at it. We need to hear from the credit granting agencies in this country because it seems to me they have additional requirements to make. Passing the bill as it is now would not address adequately the problems we are confronted with.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member did a great service to Canadians at the beginning of his speech when he outlined how he was frustrated at the bill being delayed and how a former justice minister and a couple of other ministers ranted about trying to fight crime. He also outlined very carefully, and scientifically, all the delays not only of this bill, but a number of justice bills that the government introduced.

As an optimist and a person who always looks on the bright side of things, I would like to cheer the member up and say it is probably a good thing that a number of those bills were delayed. As a thoroughly researched member of the justice committee, I would like him to outline how the government not only did not listen to the experts but did not listen to the experts from the Justice Department. This would have been the normal part of policy making. Therefore, it may be good that some of the poorly written bills were delayed with all the manoeuvring by the Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon who sat on the justice committee for a number of years with me and saw this going on with the government. Let me answer his question by addressing one bill specifically because it is coming back. The Conservatives are trying to rejuvenate it and it is the conditional sentencing bill. In terms of taking advice or researching the background of the bill and the reasons why we have conditional sentences in this country, the Conservatives are trying to make these blunt changes without having any understanding of the consequences, mostly to the provinces, or they are simply not caring about the consequences.

Bill C-9 was the bill introduced early in 2006 shortly after the Conservatives were elected and that bill was going to create a situation where about 5,000 more people were going to spend an extra year in jail than they were currently spending. From the process we went through with the minister in front of the committee, I think we even had the public safety minister take a look at this in terms of responding to a question, neither of those ministers had any idea of what the consequences were going to be.

Their department officials did. I gathered some of the information from them and the rest from the Library of Parliament. The opposition parties came together and took out the abusive part of that legislation. We passed the bill where it did need some amendments and clarification, and we ended up with a decent piece of legislation, but now they are back and they are trying to do it again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my honourable colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, who understands this bill so well. For a bill like this, can the federal government make its own law without coordinating with the provinces? It seems to me that such collaboration is necessary given that this kind of legislation will affect the provincial governments. I would like my honourable colleague to comment further on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague is right. We cannot fight identity theft unless we work with the provinces. Quebec will do things differently because it uses the Civil Code, whereas the other provinces use common law. I am not convinced that the government has had a satisfactory dialogue with the provinces. That is another thing we will have to figure out in committee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague from Windsor is quite narrow and specific. At the privacy and access to information committee, we learned that there are over three million compromises of one's personal information per year in this country alone.

In other words, it is a far more widespread problem than most people realize. The reason they do not realize it is that there is no obligation to notify a person if their personal identity has been stolen or if their personal information has been compromised. This is a widespread problem. There are 30 million incidents per year in the U.S. and three million incidents per year in Canada, and there is no duty to notify.

Is there anything in this bill that will obligate, for instance, credit card companies or the supermarket chains that hold massive amounts of personal data to notify people if their personal information has been compromised? If not, will he push for that as an amendment in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the initial answer is no. This bill does not address the issue of notifying.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That is a terrible oversight.

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

I think I have to caution my colleague from Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, who is very knowledgeable of this, and very enthusiastic and passionate about getting some resolution.

He will recall in my speech that I mentioned the member from Alberta who is currently the chair of the industry committee. He brought forth a bill and addressed that issue. What came out when we were looking at that private member's bill, and we got this from the Department of Justice, was that the provision was more appropriate in an industry bill, or legislation that the industry department is responsible for.

However, and this is much like the question we had from the Bloc, I do not have a sense that the government has done anything about moving forward in that area. It is not just a question of notification. There is the whole issue of privacy and record keeping and how that is protected. There is a need to enhance the ability to protect that from theft. All of that work is really more a consumer-type of bill. That is where it should be. My belief is that the government is not currently addressing that issue at all.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is enough time for a very brief question or comment. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has to do with crime prevention. At the privacy, access and ethics committee, we found that the commissioner has had difficulty establishing legitimacy of a public education mandate. It would seem to me that, if the Privacy Commissioner were to have the support of the government for a public education mandate, Canadians would start to participate in an important aspect of crime and that is crime prevention.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 10 or 15 seconds left for the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

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

Mr. Speaker, recognizing that, I certainly agree that a public education campaign is going to have to be funded at the federal level. It would be one of the appropriate ways to move dramatically to prevent these crimes from ever occurring. There is a regulatory function that needs to be in place with regard to the credit-granting agencies as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this very important issue of identity theft. Bill S-4, which comes to us from the Senate, is certainly a very important starting point. I should begin by saying the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill.

We are obviously very concerned about identity theft. We are worried about it. The Criminal Code needs to be modernized to take this kind of theft into account.

However, identity theft should be fought through the concerted action of various levels of government. This is actually what we have just seen. It has probably not been done yet or not done well enough. It is important, therefore, to take a look at this bill and send it to committee for study of other aspects than changes to the Criminal Code. These changes are important and we agree with them, but that is not enough.

Governments need to look at other measures, such as public education, to reduce the number of victims. Identity theft and identity abuse could, in many cases, be dealt with through a good, Canada-wide education campaign.

Take the case of older people whose identities are often stolen because they are incredibly naïve when people approach them and when they use their own ID. A very good information campaign targeted at these people in particular would certainly result is less theft and reduced court costs. We should not rely solely on the Criminal Code and we should definitely establish a program to inform people about how their identities are stolen and with which means of communication. People’s identities are stolen over the telephone. That too reveals a disarming naivety.

We cannot expect to solve everything just by suppressing theft, and parallel to this legislation, we should also adopt regulations to provide better guidelines for the way companies manage, store and dispose of information. We need regulations outside this bill that would make a major contribution to providing better guidelines. There are also measures to ensure increased security and uniformity of the processes for issuing and verifying people’s identity documents.

Often, in the case of real estate fraud, people do not know how to protect their identity documents. We are not talking about credit cards here. Credit cards are important, but I think we talk about them far too much because some very major identity thefts take place through real estate transactions. People even sell houses that do not belong to them. Some people do that on quite a regular basis. Then it gets extremely complex for the victims to get their identity back. This legislation must address thoroughly the question of identity theft as it relates to real estate, because these transactions cost people huge amounts of money. Often these people have their entire lives ruined. Once they have lost their home, a year or three years later they are living somewhere else, but they have lost part of their life’s dream.

Coordination with governments is important, therefore, but we must also include real estate fraud more specifically. In some real estate frauds, and I have had cases in my riding, the people are no longer entitled to cross the American border because they are considered to be the ones who committed the fraud themselves. It is a temporary situation, because once that is resolved, everything is put back as it was.

This is therefore very serious and it is much more than a temporary pecuniary loss.

The purpose of the bill is to combat identity theft such as the unauthorized collection and use of personal information for criminal purposes. This is important. People do it in order to steal from other people. It is rare for someone to steal an identity simply to identify themself as someone else. In general, the bottom line will be crime.

Names, dates of birth, addresses, credit card numbers, social insurance numbers and any other personal identification number can be used to open a bank account, get a credit card, have mail forwarded, subscribe to a cell phone service, lease a vehicle or equipment, or even sell a house one does not own.

Three new basic offences are created by this bill, and that is very good. They are all subject to a maximum term of five years. That is why we believe these three offences should be considered in committee. They must be properly assessed so we know whether they will properly protect the public.

The three offences are: obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent of using it in a misleading, deceitful or fraudulent manner in the commission of a crime; trafficking in identity information, an offence that targets people who transfer or sell information to a third party, knowing or being reckless as to whether the information might be used for criminal purposes; and possession or illegally trafficking in identity documents issued by the government that contain information about another person.

People become someone else and are responsible.

There are also other amendments to the Criminal Code; the new offences of redirecting or causing to be redirected the mail of another person are created.

That may not seem serious, but people regularly take someone else’s mail, particularly in the suburbs.

The new offence of possession of a counterfeit Canada Post key will also be created.

That will be in the law and it is very important. Canada Post is installing more and more mailboxes with keys throughout rural communities. People are able to get their neighbours’ keys to steal their mail.

Additional forgery offences, such as trafficking in forged documents and possession of forged documents with the intent of using them, will be created.

This is another point addressed by the law that should be thoroughly considered in committee.

There will be the new term for the offence of personation, to be called identity fraud, and the meaning of the expression “personation” is clarified.

Moreover, the addition of a new power would enable the court to order the offender, as part of the penalty, to make restitution to the victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity, including expenses to replace cards and documents and to correct their credit history.

All this does not address thefts in connection with real estate, which cost victims huge sums of money.

This legislation needs to be coordinated with the Civil Code of Quebec so that people can recover their property, whether it is money or something like a boat that was sold by someone it did not belong to. This often happens, because boats are harder to identify than cars. Even a house can be sold fraudulently.

Since this law should have been passed long ago in Canada, it is important to look at what has been done elsewhere, especially in the United States and France. I would like to give an example of what is done in France. Identity theft is not an indictable offence in itself, except in very specific cases, such as using a false identity in an authentic document or an administrative document intended for a public authority. Assuming a false name in order to obtain a police record check is an offence under the French criminal code. These are things we should look at, because the proposed legislation does not cover them.

In France, specific provisions stipulate the following:

A penalty of six months' imprisonment and a fine of € 7,500 [a substantial fine] is incurred by:

1. using a name or part of a name other than that assigned by civil status;

2. changing, altering or modifying a name or part of a name assigned by civil status,

in an authentic or public document or in an administrative document drafted for public authority, other than where regulations in force permit the drafting of such documents under an assumed civil status.

It would be a very good idea to refer to civil status for names, as French law does. Earlier, a member said that in Quebec, there are two ways for a person to be identified: by birth record or by government record. The first has been abandoned, and now only the government's birth records are officially valid. That is why it is a good idea to work with other governments to stay on top of how things are changing in the provinces.

Another important thing in France is this:

Identity theft becomes a criminal offence as soon as one “[assumes] the name of another person in circumstances that led or could have led to the initiation of a criminal prosecution”. In this case, it is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of € 75,000.

That shows just how heavily the law relies on authorities with respect to civil status. It is interesting to see how other countries do things.

I have one last example, also from France. One article reads as follows:

Assuming the name of another person in circumstances that led or could have led to the initiation of a criminal prosecution against such a person is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of € 75,000.

[...]sentences imposed for this misdemeanour are cumulated, and may not run concurrently with any imposed for the offence in the context of which the name was usurped.

The penalties set out under the first paragraph apply to a false statement in respect of the civil status of a person which has led or could have led to the initiation of a criminal prosecution against another person.

That is why I think it is so important for the committee to find out how things are done in other countries and to acknowledge that others already have good identity theft legislation.

The Conservative member mentioned earlier that if we are serious about this bill, we should adopt it immediately without sending it to committee. We believe that, on the contrary, even though we support the bill and it is necessary, there is work to be done in committee. We cannot skip this very important step.

I was saying that the Bloc supports this bill. We wish to send it to committee because identity theft is an issue that we have felt strongly about for a long time. It is important that we realize that identity theft, the issue before us, can happen in various ways. For example, someone could take a social insurance card and use it to obtain housing under a name other than their own. They could build an identity with very few documents.

[Pablo Rodriguez]

Come on.

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

Absolutely.

In 2004, costs associated with identity theft were in excess of $50 billion in the United States. That is huge. Identity theft is costly for consumers, banks, business people, and governments as well. The federal government has to initiate legal proceedings while the police must check all complaints. Provincial governments lose money through health card fraud and, eventually, medical insurance. Non-Canadians have fake cards. It is the government, and in the end every one of us, that pays for it all. Health cards are passed among foreigners who are not even Canadian citizens and do not have a Canadian identity. Those people come here to be treated at taxpayers' expense. That is truly unacceptable.

In 2002, the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion as a result of identity theft. Once again, citizens are forced to cover these losses.

In addition to these financial losses, victims of identity theft suffer damaged credit ratings and compromised personal and financial records. As I said earlier, some people cannot cross the Canada-United States border because they have been the victims of identity theft.

According to a very interesting 2006 Ipsos Reid poll, one Canadian adult in four, that is 25%, or about 5.7 million Canadians, reported being a victim of identity theft or knew someone who had been a victim. We can see how common it is, how absolutely necessary this bill is, and how it could be broad enough to stop this. I will say again that this bill is no replacement for a very good education campaign. We absolutely need to have both.

In conclusion, I want to say that the Criminal Code is an unwieldy instrument for fighting identity theft. The rules of evidence are strict but necessary; we agree on that. It is important to harmonize with the civil laws so that, in some cases, the civil law alone can be used to recover lost funds.

Other measures will have to be put in place to effectively fight identity theft and recover lost funds.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, like auto theft, identity theft requires a multi-pronged approach. We need strong criminal laws, which we are dealing with in this bill and which are long overdue. We need resourced police investigators. As I indicated before, we have examples in Winnipeg where people complain about credit card fraud and they are told to take a number with the 30 other people in line and to consider it a civil matter because the police do not have either the resources or the legislative power to deal with it.

The member mentioned that a more alert, more informed consumer is very important. However, we also need to deal with more technology, more secure smart cards. This has been an issue for quite a number of years.

As a matter of fact, the first smart cards were looked at by the Bob Rae government back in 1990, when it was looking at how many Americans--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I should remind the hon. member that even though the member for Toronto Centre was not a member at that time, he is a member now, so you will have to refer to him by his riding instead of his proper name.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply mentioned it to illustrate that the changes in technology issue has been a long time coming. Ten years ago, the Conservative Government of Ontario was looking at a smart card proposition. It was going to do that in conjunction with the banks, which were bringing out a smart banking card.

I believe that certainly half the problem is getting rid of the cards we have right now, which are the cause of a lot of the problems.

In any event, I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with that or whether he has any observations about where the smart card program is going to take us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, because I feel he is quite right. The technology should first be applied to social insurance cards issued by the federal government, which are still nothing more than little pieces of plastic that can be easily seen and identified by everyone. Why not have a very sophisticated smart card that only certain people would be able to read? Indeed, such a card should not be used to rent a car or buy a cell phone. It should be used when beginning a new job, when going into an employment insurance office or when one needs a permit from the government. Thus, only people with official status should be able to read the card.

We are a long way from the little plastic card with a nine-digit number that has been around for nearly 30 or even 40 years. We have come much further than that. I agree with my colleague 100%. We must embrace technology. This bill will not cover everything. The government must also embrace technology. I agree. I mentioned awareness campaigns several times. They are a crucial and very important complement to the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec is governed by the Civil Code. I would like to add that I am the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that at the meetings of this committee, we frequently talked about the differences between Quebec, with its Civil Code, and the rest of the country, with its common law in French or English.

Are there any specific things that apply to this bill in the beautiful province of Quebec because of the Civil Code and that would be different in the rest of the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question very much.

This is not my area of expertise. I am not a lawyer myself, as I was an architect in my professional life. It is difficult for me to say. I do know that the Civil Code has specific provisions that will have to be coordinated and considered for a law like this one, but I do not know what they are. I am sorry.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate working with my friend and colleague across the way on the environment committee.

This is a very important topic. Identity theft is a serious problem in my riding of Langley. The typical thief is breaking into mailboxes and stealing identity documents through the mail. These individuals are addicted to drugs, usually stay up until all hours, and they work for organized crime. First, is my colleague experiencing a similar problem in his riding?

Second, from his comments it sounded like he was going to support this legislation going to committee, and I want to get confirmation of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my hon. colleague and friend that we will support this bill 100%. However, we would like to make some changes to it with regard to a number of points that I mentioned earlier and that we feel should be fleshed out. The bill that has come to us from the Senate is not complete enough and could be reworked in committee. We will be there to work very hard on this bill.

Yes, I have had some very serious cases of identity theft in my riding. I even had one case where the person almost had to be treated for depression. His identity had been stolen in the United States. He returned to my riding with no identity documents. He had lost everything. As I mentioned earlier, since documents are often made of just paper or cardboard without complex technology, even the government doubted the person who was saying that his identity had been stolen. So we need laws and we must also work with the Americans on this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the questions and comments, but I have missed a couple of opportunities, so I thought I would take this opportunity to express a couple of views about Bill S-4.

We have seen this bill before. As a matter of fact, we have seen the bills on drug trafficking and issues such as auto theft and identity theft. These are all amendments to the Criminal Code, and I have to wonder why the government has not put together an omnibus bill to deal with these.

These are all very similar in terms of the concerns for public safety issues and dealing with organized crime. Many of the witnesses would be the same. The efficiency of this place would be improved substantially if these were in an omnibus bill.

I know what the government is doing. It is basically saying that if it puts the bills out one at a time and milks them through all the stages and the press releases, et cetera, it leaves an impression somehow that it is being tough on crime. Well, if it wants to be tough on crime, it should pass legislation, not just talk about it. That is what is happening here.

Many of the issues we talked about today in debate are privacy related. The Privacy Act came in about 25 years ago, when the computer of the day was the Commodore 64. Technology is very important. It is not just about smart cards, it is that the legislation we have to protect the privacy of Canadians is way out of date.

One of the big problems, in my view, is that the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for this act, has said before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that he is quite happy with the way the act is operating. That is unacceptable.

We had a bill on human pathogens and toxins. That bill prescribed the rules whereby private information on the health of certain Canadians would be shared with offshore jurisdictions and allowed to be passed on to others. The Privacy Commissioner did not even appear before the health committee. Why is that?

I hope that when the issue gets to the Senate the Privacy Commissioner will have an opportunity to express her concerns about this important issue, for which she had asked for a privacy impact assessment two years ago. The government has not taken her up on this. Why?

The House has to understand that when we address crime, it must be a comprehensive approach. It cannot just be punishment. It has to be prevention, remediation. It has to be a whole host of things, and I have not seen it. All I see are little rinky-dink bills for increased penalties or mandatory minimums.

We do not even have the resources for the policing authorities across the country to enforce the laws we pass here. We are not doing the job.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 27 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

The bill would amend 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.

Like Bill C-26, which we discussed the other day, the auto theft legislation, this bill is only one part of a multi-pronged approach to attack the problem of identity theft. In both cases, the auto theft legislation and the identity theft legislation, we must begin our battle with strong changes to the Criminal Code, which itself was written in 1892 and is in dire need of a rewrite. Judging by the number of lawyers in this chamber, we are shortchanging the public if we do not embark on that rewrite sooner rather than later.

The legislation will go a long way to help the police investigate and take action regarding credit card fraud. All too often I have heard constituents complain that they feel abandoned by the police after their credit card has been stolen and has been used in a fraudulent manner. When they go to the police station they are told to take a number and wait until it is their turn. When their turn comes they are told that there were 30 similar cases that day, and without tough legislation, it is better to deal with it as a civil matter.

By bringing in tough new Criminal Code legislation, we take away that argument that we should deal with it as a civil matter because we are not going to get anywhere with it anyway in the absence of the legislation. Therefore, I think this is a very positive move to deal with that important area.

This happened in a case where the complainant did his own investigation of suspicious transactions, once he found out that the credit card was being misused, and in effect identified the guilty party. He basically turned the entire documented, solved case over to the RCMP, hoping to be thanked for all the hard work and a job well done. However, in fact, the person was told to go home, that the credit card company would just simply absorb the loss and that he would not be out any money.

That certainly did not make him very happy about this whole process, not to mention all the trauma involved in actually having the credit card stolen in the first place and a lot of transactions being put on the credit card, and all the phone calls, and so on, that it takes to resolve this issue.

That type of action merely encourages criminals to do it again and tell their friends, “Don't worry. You can't get caught, and if you do get caught, nothing will happen to you”. This is not a good signal to be sending to the public. We need this tough legislation to allow the police to take action.

If we had had it, the police probably would not have had 30 new cases that morning, because the criminals would know that something was going to happen to them in the first place and they might have thought twice about stealing the credit card.

The next area is to properly resource the police. In Manitoba's case, the parallel I draw is the gang suppression unit and the auto theft suppression unit of the police force. It is basically setting up a special unit in the police department that is resourced and tasked to deal with the problem at hand, to target the highest risk-level of offender. In the case of the auto theft group, I believe level 4 is the highest group. We are not talking about a lot of people. We are talking about perhaps 50 people in the high-risk groups.

We have to dedicate a special unit to go after identity theft.

As with the auto thieves, we are looking at a very small group of people. I would submit that is the situation with identity theft. When I go to one of the seniors' homes in my riding where there are 500 people, it would be safe to bet that not one of them would contemplate committing identity theft, stealing or misusing a credit card, or anything of the sort.

If we eliminate those people and other large groups, we come down to very small numbers. My submission would also be that those small numbers would be the repeat offenders who are doing it essentially as a profession, as a job. We have to aggressively target these offenders.

As I indicated in the case of the debit card and the bank card skimmers, often gangs with overseas connections may be operating here because it is easy. They have little chance of being caught, and certainly they are not treated very badly when they are caught.

There was a ring uncovered in the last couple of years, I believe from eastern Europe. The members of the group came to Canada for the sole purpose of going to various banks and credit unions across the country and putting credit card and debit card skimming equipment on ATMs. Over a three- or four-hour period they collected several hundred pieces of people's information. Using that information, they then proceeded to clean out people's bank accounts and make new copies of credit cards for further use.

In addition, clearly more consumer alerts are required. Part of the answer is getting consumers up to speed in this whole area.

I have had many tea parties in seniors' homes in my constituency of Elmwood—Transcona over the years where I have invited a member of the police force to talk about this very problem. The constable always has the same message: “Don't carry a big purse when you go out. Leave your ID at home. You're only going to Safeway. You're only going across the street. Why do you insist upon carrying a big purse with all your identification and enough contents to go on a trip somewhere when you are going to be back in a half hour?”

In some ways, we are all easy targets for thieves.

Fortunately we are seeing an explosion in the use of shredders. People are shredding more of their documents, and we can all agree with that. They are not throwing their bills out in the garbage like they used to; they are shredding them, which is a good sign.

However, I also juxtapose that to other people, maybe the same people who are happily shredding their documents, who attend the boat shows, the garden shows and the home shows at the convention centre in Winnipeg. I see them there on the weekends happily giving out their personal information when they are filling out applications for different free draws that exhibitors have. They do not consider that this information could be used improperly.

There are a number of other things we are told we should not be doing. Certainly mailbox fraud is a big area, and it is dealt with in the bill. Nowadays a lot of people have their mailboxes locked. That is a very good thing , because people do steal other people's mail and use that information for bad things.

On the last day of debate on this bill, a number of people mentioned we should reduce the number of mailed statements to our houses, that maybe we do not need monthly statements from our financial services people, that perhaps we could get by with quarterly statements.

They also suggest that sensitive information should be kept in a locked box. All too often we see people leaving information out. I guess the government has had some very bad experiences itself over the last couple of years with some members of Parliament leaving information in places when it should have been returned to its rightful place and locked up. We should be more organized in all of that.

Having said that, I may be one of the worst offenders, so I really do not want to go too far there.

It is also recommended that we do not let our credit cards out of sight at restaurants and gas stations. The reality is that we do this every day. Are we supposed to tell a waiter at the restaurant, “Sorry, I have to follow you to the machine to make sure you do not clone or skim my card”?

Another point was not to give credit card information over the phone unless one actually knows the person.

What is the answer? Clearly there is a bigger solution we have to deal with, and that is the whole area of technology and the inception of smart card programs.

I have followed this issue for a number of years. I recall back in 1990 or 1991, the Ontario NDP government at the time, led by somebody in this House I cannot mention, embarked on the first smart card idea. By the way, it was an idea that was way ahead of its time. Only France had embarked on a rudimentary smart card program at the time.

The Ontario government at that time set up pilot projects in Fort Frances and Windsor. It was trying to track the number of Americans who were coming across the border, getting OHIP cards, Ontario health cards, and then coming for free operations and health care.

At the end of the day, the project determined that Ontario had issued more OHIP cards than it had residents in the province. Beyond that, though, the government decided not to proceed further with the smart cards. I am not sure why it did not proceed; perhaps there was a change in government.

The NDP government was succeeded by the Harris government, which announced a new smart card program to run parallel to the program that was being introduced by the big banks at the time. I met with representatives in Toronto, and they gave me a tour through their nice new building. They had a very impressive program.

The government was going to start issuing smart cards at around $10 apiece. There was to be a health card on there and I think a driver's licence. Members should understand that these cards have the potential to have about five different things on them. Smart cards can have a driver's licence, a health card, a fishing licence, and a number of things. The government's plan was to roll out the program at a cost of $8 to $10 a card. Over time the price of the cards dropped, as we know.

While all of this was going on, the banks were going to roll out their system. They actually put off rolling it out for a few years, all the while knowing that people were being victimized. It was cheaper for the banks to pay the losses from the thefts and the misuse of the cards than it was to bring in the smart card technology. They were directly responsible for letting people go through all sorts of anguish for an extra five or six years because they did not want to put out the extra dollars. It was cheaper to lose the hundred million dollars, or whatever it was, per year in the thefts. We could have done something a long time ago in terms of smart cards because the technology was there, but it was going to be a little more expensive at the time.

In fact the banks are just rolling out their cards at the moment. Some members may have them, but if they do not, they certainly will be getting them within the next few months or the next year. I believe they had a plan where they were rolling out in certain areas a year or two ago, but the mass rolling out is just beginning.

These cards are a huge improvement over the old striped cards. The old cards are essentially obsolete and should be phased out as quickly as possible, because they are the easy ones to skim and counterfeit. Hopefully this will drastically reduce the credit card and debit card fraud and give consumers a breather, until these criminals can figure how out to compromise those cards. We may be ahead of the curve for a little while.

I am hoping we are going to have a huge overnight reduction in credit card and debit card fraud, similar to Manitoba's experience with its auto theft program. These cards, as I have indicated, are the answer in the same way that the immobilizers on cars were the answer in stopping auto theft.

Once again, the NDP are supporting actions that actually work. We do not want to head off on crime legislation like the Conservatives do, bringing in a bunch of things that have been proven not to work in other jurisdictions. We want to promote and initiate good ideas that actually have a history of working somewhere else.

We have a multi-pronged approach. We have tough criminal legislation. We have, for example, the auto theft suppression unit of the police, which is working well in Winnipeg and it could be working well nationally. We have the constant monitoring of suspects. We have to do that here as well. There is the whole idea of the mandatory immobilizers in the cars, and the GPS ankle bracelets.

To my friend from B.C., because I know he is upset about this bait car idea that I am not highly supportive of, I want to extend an olive branch. Since we are all trying to get along here in the House, I want to tell him that if he brings that bait car to Winnipeg in February and he can get it to actually work, I will be very happy to support his idea that we should try that as well. I do not think we want to exclude good ideas. Some ideas work better in some parts of the country than others.

In terms of identity theft, once again we have the tough criminal legislation in Bill S-4. We are reasonably happy with this bill. I think there are a couple of changes we would like to see, particularly for lawyers. It was pointed out yesterday that the whole area of mortgage fraud and so on is not covered by this bill. Lawyers across Canada have to be vigilant about that, because they are being presented with false identification from people attempting to get mortgage funds.

Once again, the police identity theft suppression unit has to be set up. We need more consumer alerts, which I have indicated, and the education programs, which we delved into. There is always room for more ideas. I do not think we should in any way exclude anybody with a good idea. Better smart card technology is the key here, because we have to keep ahead of the curve.

One of the members mentioned yesterday that we are dealing with almost $2 billion of losses. In fact identity theft has become so common that insurance companies have been selling identity theft coverage as an extension to house insurance policies for some four or five years now. Insurance companies would not do that if there was not a big market and a considerable demand for these programs. These programs are costly to set up. They need to have negotiations for re-insurance for the whole program.

Clearly this is a program that people are buying, because insurance companies are selling it. It pays to restore people to where they were before the loss. There is a considerable expense involved in trying to get credit cards and ID restored. Has anyone tried to get a driver's licence or a birth certificate replaced? It is a lot of work.

A lot of the identity theft is aided and abetted by the Internet. Criminals trade in stolen information. None of this existed 20 years ago. As one member mentioned yesterday with his Commodore 64, we did not have Internet access in those days and we did not have to worry about these things. The Internet and computers today mean we have a whole new exposure that we did not have before.

The criminals are passing on the information about where to buy these skimming machines and devices on how to clone credit cards. All this information is readily available to up-and-coming criminals who want to expand their lines of work.

Yesterday, the member for Winnipeg Centre asked about requiring the credit card companies to pass on to customers the results of their investigations. I agree totally. It is not included in the bill, but it is an important issue.

If people steal the identities of other people and use their credit cards, the credit care company will not give them any information about where they are at unless they investigate it. They are left to wonder who did it. It can be as traumatic as having one's home broken into and not knowing who did it.

I will proceed with the rest of my speech during the question and answer period.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member like to elaborate on the additional finer points in his argument?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the shortest question I have heard any lawyer in the chamber ask since I was elected.

We have some serious concerns about organized crime involvement, credit and debit card fraud and identity theft. That is really a big concern. I guess the isolated cases can be dealt with, but when they are part of organized crime, particularly when there is an international flavour and international connections to them, we have cause for serious concern.

Criminals who are involved with this type of activity are often the same people involved in the drug activity. They are all tied together at a certain point. I mentioned that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh had noted that lawyers were faced with real estate buyers presenting false identity to get mortgage loans. That is not within the bill, but it is another fertile area for organized crime.

We have mentioned that there is a huge rise in identity theft. The bill has an exemption for law enforcement, such as undercover police to use identity documents, called lawful excuse. This is a very important point. In addition, there is a five-year parliamentary review of the legislation, which we are very happy to see.

In terms of losses, computers get blamed for a lot of things, but a member mentioned yesterday day that online losses were still only 15% of the total, whereas in-person losses were at 25%. People are still experiencing losses with credit card fraud and debit card fraud in person at a higher rate than they are online.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)