Justice Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

My colleague Mr. Murphy, in his questions, began questioning a number of things. My question is this. A number of the briefs we've received—and we'll be hearing from them, I assume, at some course—like the one from the Canadian Bar Association, have suggested that to amend the code piecemeal—that's the word I'm looking for--is not in fact the best way to do so. They noted that there are serious issues with regard to the efficacy of the Criminal Code in a number of clauses, as it now stands, given the new technologies, etc. And when Justice Canada in 2004 conducted consultations on the issue of identity theft, one of the recommendations that were made by CBA to Justice Canada was that the government should in fact conduct a vast consultation on overhauling the Criminal Code in its entirety, rather than going piecemeal, whether by the government itself or through private members' bills.

So my question to you is, one, given that your bill only addresses one very narrow issue within the vast issue of identity theft, because it does not cover everything to do with identity theft, with the legal obtainment of personal information but then the illicit use and possibly criminalization of that illicit use, do you agree with CBA that in fact there should be a general consultation and an overall reform to address all of the issues and to ensure that through a piecemeal approach we're not creating unintended consequences and continuing to leave open significant loopholes? And this piecemeal approach would give a false sense of security to members of the public that because we fixed this one thing, everything is fine and dandy.

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

That's an excellent question. I do absolutely agree that to address the entire problem of identity theft, we need a much more comprehensive piece of legislation, or pieces of legislation, to deal with the issue. Frankly, I look forward to that. You mentioned the Justice Canada initiative in 2004, and they've continued their work on that. In fact, the department's been keeping me up to date on that, and I appreciate it. The last document was produced in June 2006.

My frustration, though, is that we need these laws in place now in Canada, because we have increasing and growing problems in this area, so anything I can do to move this issue along generally, anything I can do to address any part of the problem of identity theft, to me is a good thing.

I think you're correct in saying the bill addresses a narrow issue; it addresses a narrow issue by design. My focus obviously is to focus on a certain area and try to address the problem there as a way of dealing with part of the problem of identity theft. But while it's a narrow issue, it's an important one. I feel that if this bill were passed, it would obviously address part of the issue of identify theft, it would improve the laws of Canada in dealing with part of this problem, and I think, frankly, it would encourage the government to move to bring forward a more comprehensive package. If the government, in its wisdom at that time, felt that they could bring forward a comprehensive package and at that time all of my concerns were addressed in that package, obviously I would support it. If this bill does become law, and amends the law, I would certainly welcome that.

My concern is that if I were to withdraw the bill and back off, I'm not sure exactly when we would have the comprehensive pieces of legislation come forward to truly address the whole problem. I see this as a way to instigate it to address the entire problem.

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

I appreciate that, Mr. Rajotte.

This is my next question. Given that you would and do welcome a comprehensive review of all aspects of identity theft and an omnibus legislation that would deal with all of the necessary provisions that would need to be brought to the Criminal Code, or amendments to the Criminal Code, in order to bring it into the 21st century on this particular issue, I have to presume—and you may correct me if my presumption is wrong—that you've had discussions with both the previous justice minister and the current justice minister and with the parliamentary secretaries as to whether that is a priority for the government, and if it is, what timeline is being worked on.

Justice Canada has been studying this for—we're going into the third year. A report came out last spring, I believe, sometime in 2006. So how far along is the government in dealing with this issue in a comprehensive fashion?

Is the answer that you've received the reason you wish to proceed with this, because you don't expect to see anything?

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

That's a tougher question in the sense of conversations—

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

And I like you, but I think it's an objective question.

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

It's an objective question.

I think it's tough to give a timeline to these kinds of things. Frankly, the discussions I've had have been more general in terms of what issues need to be addressed. Obviously I'm not privy to what's discussed in cabinet or what's discussed in the cabinet committees. So in terms of timelines as to exactly when legislation will come forward, I'm not privy to that. I don't think it's fair for me to ask cabinet to break confidence to say that.

They have been very helpful, I would say, in terms of sharing information with me—information that is obviously available to all the public—and in encouraging me to bring forward suggestions in other areas as well.

I'm confident that this is a priority for the government. I certainly think that's the indication I've been given. I've also been given the indication right from the get-go that the government is willing to work with me on this piece of legislation. My understanding has been that if I were open to amendments, if the bill addressed some of the concerns not only of the government but also of opposition members, the bill could then go forward and address one part of the problem right now, and then the more comprehensive legislative package could come forward and complement the entire area.

Does that clarify it?

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

No, it doesn't, but I've been informed by the chair that I have no time left.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The exchange has been fulsome.

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

I guess the short answer is yes.

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

It has.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

And it will give birth to a subsequent round for Ms. Jennings, I'm sure.

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

Yes, it will.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Ms. Freeman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you for introducing your bill. I must say I share certain concerns. Earlier you answered a question from Mr. Moore asking you for the exact number of cases you're contemplating. In my view, those cases are quite limited.

I read the Canadian Bar report and, once again, I share my colleagues' concerns. You're attacking the problem of personal information obtained by fraud and identity theft by introducing a bill containing partial amendments to the Criminal Code. The addition of those partial amendments concerns the vast field that you want to cover.

Do you think the bill you're introducing is the best way to handle such a broad and complex problem as personal information obtained by fraud?

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

I believe the bill addresses that issue. It does certainly deal with obtaining personal information from a third party by false pretense or by fraud, counselling another person to obtain this personal information. In terms of this specific issue within the broader ambit of identity theft, I think it does certainly address the problem of obtaining personal information fraudulently.

If there's a broader way of addressing that particular problem within the larger issue of identity theft, I'd certainly be open to that. But I think the bill is quite comprehensive in addressing that specific issue.

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

Don't you think that, by amending the Criminal Code in this way, that is to say very partially, you risk creating other weaknesses and inconsistencies, rather than helping to solve the problem of personal information obtained by fraud? It's a big problem. Here we're talking about the Internet and so on.

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

I look forward to a comprehensive package being introduced on the general issue of identity theft. But sometimes issues as big as this--if you look at identity theft, copyright, competition law, and a lot of other areas of public policy—are actually addressed better by identifying a specific problem and making amendments to target that specific problem.

I'm chair of the industry committee, and we have a lot of examples of where public policy is so broad—Copyright is one example. We've been debating that for the last 20 years. We don't know when the legislation will come forward, because people have one problem with one particular aspect of the bill.

A way to start addressing identity theft is by saying, here's a specific way of dealing with this personal and specific problem we have, and plugging that gap right now. Then when the government brings forward legislation to deal with the broader issue, if it's covered within their legislation they may say, okay, that problem has been addressed; let's address everything else. Or they may bring forward their general legislation and say that it is addressed within the general legislation.

Either way, I think this bill has moved the issue forward and addressed the specific issue that needed to be addressed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Rajotte.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank Mr. Rajotte for this bill. As short as it is, I think it's excellent.

I'd like to tell you about a problem we're dealing with. In Quebec, private companies gather personal information. After obtaining it, those companies transfer it to other companies, to companies in Ontario, among others. In the case I'm going to discuss, the information was forwarded to Houston, Texas, where there's a major information centre.

If I file a credit application, for example, I realize that my personal information, obtained from a third party, is in the hands of a company that is not under the jurisdiction of my province. In Houston, American laws are in effect.

The Ontario company that issues my credit card, MBNA, for example, which many of us are familiar with, obtains information from Houston. I can't solve the problem at the provincial level. However, the amendment that you want to make to the Criminal Code would enable me to file a complaint in the event my personal information was stolen or someone obtained that information through a third party and that caused me harm. From what I've understood, this amendment, as minor as it is, would mean that, under the Criminal Code, it would be possible to seek this remedy in the 10 provinces and three territories of Canada.

Paul Szabo talked about the people who were the victims of an identity theft on October 25, 2006. I was the victim of that kind of theft, and I can tell you that it's hard to recover from even 10 years later. Personal information associated with my name went to Houston. In Houston, it was transferred to credit companies. Even today, when I want to get a credit card, it states that Daniel Petit went bankrupt. However, I'm a lawyer and I can't go bankrupt. False information was forwarded. My identity was stolen. Process servers even came to my home to serve me with documents concerning civil proceedings with which I had nothing to do.

I lived through that situation, and it's really sad. Ten years later, I'm still on file at Air Canada. There are problems with a certain Daniel Petit, but it isn't me. It's a dangerous situation. As short as it is, this bill is excellent. If it had been in effect at the time, I could have instituted criminal proceedings against the companies and had my identity restored, which I was unable to do.

I've told you about my case. When you thought of this bill, did you think of that? All the provinces are separate from on another, and the Criminal Code is the only act that applies from east to west, across the country. Did you think about the fact that, for me, the Criminal Code would have been the best tool?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Please feel comfortable. Your friendship is dear to me, Mr. Petit.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Petit.

Clearly it is a situation. There's a situation very similar to yours in my riding with a gentleman who 10 years later is still having trouble boarding Air Canada flights. When he and his wife board to go somewhere on a holiday, he still phones me and says he has a problem. It's a situation that needs to be resolved.

One of the things the third point of the bill was trying to address was the cross-border aspect of pretexting, of sharing this information, by holding the Canadian affiliates of foreign companies liable for invasions of privacy and identify theft committed against Canadians. The challenge here—and obviously this partly explains the amendments to the Competition Act—is that the Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has no mandate to pursue investigations outside Canada. Perhaps, as Mr. Comartin mentioned, it might be better addressed by broadening her mandate, or broadening her powers in some way, through the PIPEDA review.

With the Internet and with wires going across borders and not respecting borders, we have to find a way to deal with exactly the kind of situation you describe--a company in Quebec that transfers information with the click of a finger down to a company in Texas, and 10 years later you're still dealing with this problem. That obviously has to be addressed. I think you mentioned it was 10 years ago; this is a problem that needs to be addressed now.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Mr. Petit, do you have a final question to ask? We'd listen to the departmental officials, unless you have a brief supplementary—