Justice Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Thank you, merci, Mr. Chair.

I must say, Mr. Chair, I think I'm about to breach one of my cardinal rules, which is to never ask an unintelligent question. But I am so confused by what has happened here.

Mr. Rajotte, this is no reflection on you. I get some sense of where you're trying to go with this, but in reading the briefs, I'm really quite uncertain as to where we're going to end up.

Here comes the stupid part. Do I understand correctly that you're proposing that we take a good deal of this away bill from the Criminal Code, that there are only some very minor amendments to the Criminal Code that you're proposing?

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

The bill obviously amends three acts. I think both from the second reading debate and from discussions with the two relevant departments and with members, I've come to the conclusion that there's not support to pass the clause on the Canada Evidence Act and the four clauses on the Competition Act. The clauses on the Competition Act, I think, deserve further study. So if the committee studying PIPEDA is willing to look at those, I would be fine sending those there. But obviously my goal here is to move the legislation forward.

The primary point in introducing the legislation was the Criminal Code amendments. I'm not suggesting that we remove any of the clauses, but I understand that the justice department obviously wants some tightening up, and members of this committee want some tightening up, of some of the language of the Criminal Code amendments.

Mr. Comartin, I did want to say that my training is as an economist, as a political scientist. So I sort of gave the direction to drafting counsel to draft it with this intent. But if there are suggestions as to how this should be tightened up, obviously I'm willing to listen to them.

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

Okay, this may be a bit unfair, but I'm not sure where the government is going on this. Do you have any sense of that, specifically with regard not to any Criminal Code amendments but to amendments to the Competition Act and maybe the Canada Evidence Act? I think it's more concentrated on the Competition Act. Do you know if there's activity there? The Bar Association repeatedly says that this area needs more study. I read into that that they mean more study before we actually come forward with amendments.

So I guess my question is whether you have any sense of what's happening with regard to amendments to the Competition Act, or has there already been a decision made that we don't need amendments to the Competition Act?

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

My sense, Mr. Comartin, is that the industry department does not wish these amendments to the Competition Act to go forward. That's my sense. The Competition Act is one of the most difficult pieces of legislation. I've sat through so many reviews that I think I'm going straight through purgatory for it. Their view is that it is not an appropriate piece of legislation to deal with this kind of issue.

Now, my only point in response would be that the Competition Act is one way of seeking civil recourse if you are a person affected by this. So I think the issue needs to be studied, and I'd love to hear the Privacy Commissioner, the Competition Commissioner, and others come forward to speak to it. I want the public policy debate to carry forward on that, but I'd like to see the Criminal Code amendments enacted as soon as possible, which is why I'm willing to see it go to the other committee.

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

Okay, I have just one final question.

I know how much you've looked into this. Have you seen any reports or studies that would indicate that amendments to the privacy legislation, at either the federal or provincial level, would be the more appropriate way of dealing with these transgressions?

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

That in fact may be the more appropriate way. Perhaps—and the legislative committee may recommend this—the Privacy Commissioner herself may in fact be given broader powers to deal with these kinds of transgressions. That may be more appropriate than amending the Competition Act. I've heard that argument, and I think it's a valid point.

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

That's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin

We'll go to Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Rajotte, for all your work on this file. It's an important file, and I certainly appreciate the effort you've put in, and also your flexibility in dealing with this committee to achieve something that is workable and something that hopefully we can all support.

Sometimes we get lost in all the conversation about each clause and each detail of a private member's bill. Can you take us through the typical transaction, the typical event, that you would like to prohibit? I know that a lot of this is happening. We hear the horror stories sometimes in the media about identity theft, and increasingly so. But so much of this is happening behind the scenes, and people aren't aware. It could be that every one of us around this table has been the victim of identity theft and we don't realize it. So could you take us a bit through maybe the more minor situations, and then maybe through some of the worst case situations that you're trying to address through the Criminal Code provisions, specifically?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.

You are correct in the sense that identity theft is a serious and growing problem. You have the most basic form in which people steal people's credit cards or other information and actually actively try to impersonate them.

I am coming back to it over and over, but I cannot think of a better illustration than what happened to the Privacy Commissioner. Her own personal information was obtained by someone who impersonated someone else. That's the kind of thing this bill is specifically trying to address.

Some people may ask why we are being so narrow in our focus. It's to address the issue. Obviously with a private member's bill, if you are focused, you have a better chance of moving the bill forward and moving the issue forward and perhaps putting some friendly pressure on the government to move forward in a more comprehensive way on the issue.

Coming back to that, I can't think of a better example than that of someone presenting themselves as part of an institution like a bank or an insurance company, or presenting themselves as someone else and obtaining that information. That is one issue.

The other issue is obviously that of taking that information, collecting it, and selling it. That is the typical situation I am trying to prevent with this bill.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

There are a couple of situations. There is the scenario you mentioned in which this information is obtained through a third party. You also mentioned these data brokers who are collecting information from people and then selling it to someone else.

What about the data brokers themselves? I understand that your bill would attempt to criminalize the obtaining of that information from the third party, but what about the actions they are taking to obtain this information in the first place?

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

That's an important point.

There are two types of data brokers. There are the larger companies. They trade in larger or commercial aggregate data. For instance, they look at how many people are buying a certain type of product in a certain region, and they market that type of information. Second, there are other companies that target individuals. They're more specific to individuals. They target them for a fee. The invasiveness that these data brokers have is on a continuum. They can't be pegged into one category or another, but they are the ones that, frankly, I am more concerned about, because they're targeting individuals or obtaining personal information on individuals.

Now, if it's voluntary, if it's consensual, I have no problem with that. But obviously if they're obtaining it through illegal means, then I am concerned about that.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On the issue that was raised by the private investigators, do you see a narrowing of the focus on the Criminal Code side? Do you see tightening that provision as addressing the concerns that they've raised, that they would perhaps no longer be captured as long as they were not using that information for what would be a criminal purpose?

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

Are you referring to “PI's, Pretext, Privacy, & and the HP Scandal”? Is that the document?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

We had a submission from the Council of Private Investigators, Ontario on the bill to criminalize pretexting.

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

I don't know if I have that specific document.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay.

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

Do you mind reading the section you'd like me to address?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

They had raised a couple of concerns, but that's fine. I understand that they're looking at the private member's bill as it was, and perhaps not as it may be if we adopt some of the suggestions you're making.

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

On the committee I would be open to amendments from private investigators, but I think we ought to distinguish between private investigators and law enforcement agencies like the RCMP. My intent here and my guidance was not to impinge upon the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies in carrying out their functions, but obviously we want to distinguish between private investigators. If they have some legitimate amendments to bring forward, I'd certainly welcome those as well.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks for bringing this bill forward, and also for your willingness to entertain amendments to make it an ideal product at the end of the day to protect Canadians. We appreciate all your efforts.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Ms. Jennings.