Justice Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

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

My colleagues have already made a similar point to me.

But thank you.

I was having fun conjuring up how I might personate a dead person. Some people have suggested that you have to have a criminal mind to do a really good job of crafting criminal legislation. I tread on this with a bit of trepidation.

On a serious note, I'm very hopeful that these sections, if adopted by the House and the Senate, will become components of the laws that are used to prosecute criminal organizations. Currently it's probably a missing piece.

My question is technical. In the amendment proposed to clause 2, under proposed paragraph (e), it says: “obtains identification from any person by a false pretense or by fraud”. It occurred to me that there could also be a theft scenario. In other words, why wouldn't we include a theft as a trigger point in the definition? Someone may obtain my personal or financial information by a false pretense or fraud, or they may simply steal my wallet or credit card.

Is there any reason why we've left that out? The most obvious way to lose your personal information is when somebody steals it from you. Or what if they do it just by observing? I guess observing isn't covered here.

Could you comment on whether the theft of the document should be included here, so that it's more comprehensive and covers more real-life scenarios?

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I recognize that we will probably come back to this in the future to do a rewrite and modification, as things evolve. But I'm delighted to have one kick at the can now.

Thank you.

[Joanne Klineberg]

That's a very interesting question.

Two weeks ago, we were here as you discussed Bill C-299, and I think this committee identified pretexting as one of a number of ways in which information could be obtained for later use in identity theft and identity fraud. That's the scope of Bill C-299, as it was brought to this committee.

Are there other ways in which identity thieves gather and collect information for the same purposes? There are. As was addressed in a letter by the Canadian Bar Association, this committee also identified that you then get into some complex and comprehensive issues, in terms of exactly what you would want to capture. Yes, that is an issue.

As to what this committee might want to do with that, I guess you would have to consider the scope of this legislation, as it was brought to you, and those larger types of issues.

[William Bartlett]

To further comment, the concept of theft of information, as Ms. Klineberg noted earlier, is a somewhat difficult one, because the law has not generally regarded information as having value by itself.

What we've been focusing on in terms of the government's identity theft initiative is simply the preparatory steps of obtaining information for certain purposes.

Frankly, I don't think it would be helpful to try to get into the area of the theft of information as such. I don't think it would be within the scope of this bill. But the concept of stealing as theft of information is very difficult in terms of the law, whereas if you deal with it simply in the context of obtaining the information, which is how we're approaching it, for certain purposes as part of a preparatory step, you avoid some of the minefields of getting into the difficulties of what theft means when it comes to information.

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

Okay, I'll accept that explanation. But if someone steals my ID card, it's not covered by this section, is it?

[Joanne Klineberg]

Well, it wouldn't be covered by this section, but that would actually not be a disadvantage. Stealing someone's identity card is the offence of theft. That can be proved without having to prove the intent to use it to commit fraud or personation, which these motions would add to these offences. So the stealing of the card itself is already a criminal offence, which would be easier to prove than this.

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

But the card is only worth 1.5¢. Isn't that true? If the stolen card is only worth 1.5¢, you'd be prosecuting for a “theft under”, I'm afraid. The theft wouldn't pertain to the value of the card. It could be a debit card, one of these octopus cards, electronic wallet cards. I mean, all this stuff is out there.

Anyway, I'll stop there. I've made the point, and I'll see where we go later.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

I'll ask Mr. Rajotte to join us at the table.

Mr. Thompson has a quick question.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'm curious with regard to this whole issue. As things happen, you keep information and get prepared for doing something different that needs to be done.

I've listened to the debate, and Joe Sixpack, the normal guy who's listening to all these things...a lot of people start panicking. They ask me where to get information as to what to do.

You hear the debates out there. Don't give your credit card to a waitress. Don't sign the back of the card. Yet the company says you must sign the back of the card.

People would like to do all they can to protect themselves from these things. Is there an information package or anything of that nature that the justice department throws together to feed common old Joe Sixpack, so he knows he shouldn't crumple up his receipt and throw it in the garbage can and things like that?

[Joanne Klineberg]

At present I don't think the Department of Justice has information packages. The Department of Justice really only has authority to look at this issue from the perspective of how we can amend the criminal laws in this area. If that were to take place at some point in the future, I think there would certainly be consumer protection-type self-help information packages prepared

I'm certain the Department of Industry has consumer protection. They have their website. They have information packages. They address this issue from a consumer protection perspective.

Law enforcement has a lot of information on this. The banking sector and other sectors of industry have lots and lots of material on how consumers can protect themselves, as well as the Department of Industry, at least, and possibly some other federal departments.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

[William Bartlett]

There is a broader identity theft initiative involving Industry and some other departments, which includes things like consumer information. You're quite right, Mr. Thompson. There are a lot of things that people can do to protect themselves, and probably need to know to protect themselves, and a lot that can be done in terms of industry practices.

I was somewhat surprised, recently, to find out that when you go to a hotel and they give you one of those plastic cards that opens the door, you shouldn't turn that card in. You should destroy it. If you gave a credit card when you registered, that credit card information is on the key.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Is that right? I didn't realize that.

[William Bartlett]

If you turn that card in at the hotel, you're giving them something from which that credit card information can be pulled off.

I just found that out myself. Now I destroy that plastic card. I take it with me, and when I get it home I cut it up.

I have a shredder at home, and I shred everything with my credit card information on it. A lot of personal information is pulled out of the garbage. If you put it out in the garbage, then it's pretty much open season.

You're quite right. There's a tremendous amount in terms of simply preventing it from happening that individuals can do to protect themselves and that business can do to help them protect themselves.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'll certainly not turn my cards or keys back in. Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

I'm going to ask Mr. Rajotte to present. At the same time I'll ask the justice department officials to remain, because I know there are some other questions. Mr. St. Amand has some questions, but I'm going to ask Mr. St. Amand to please just stand by until Mr. Rajotte presents.

Colleagues, I have to say that the bills that come to this particular committee usually look different when they leave. I see that yours has been reduced to about one page, unfortunately.

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

It's a good page.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It's a good page, yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Rajotte.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.

I did make quite an extensive presentation the last time we had this, so I don't want to make too long a presentation. Obviously I accept the amendments.

I do want to say something about the process.

I don't come from a criminal law background. I come from more of an industry, science, and technology background. It's interesting that Mr. Bartlett was before our committee recently on Bill C-26; he has expertise in a lot of areas.

I actually think this process has been quite healthy. It started when I read an article in Macleans magazine about our current Privacy Commissioner's phone records being accessed. I approached the legislative office and said I wanted to do a private member's bill on this issue. I was drawn for the first time and submitted the bill.

I had some very helpful suggestions at second reading from members of this committee from all parties. They said they liked the intent of the bill and that it addressed part of the identity theft problem, but that they would like these sections to be clarified. I think Mr. Murphy raised the issue of definition of information at that time, and why I had chosen PIPEDA. I think Mr. Moore as well raised a lot of questions about the Criminal Code sections.

Obviously, what the government has suggested is taking the Competition Act amendments not as amendments but as policy statements and putting them to the committee reviewing PIPEDA legislation; I've accepted that. The amendments they've suggested today, in my own view, have improved the bill and have accomplished the intent of what I set out to do in the beginning.

I think it's been a healthy process overall, and I appreciate this committee's work on it. I think it's been excellent from all parties' points of view. I should also recognize Monsieur Ménard and Mr. Comartin for their speeches in the House of Commons; I think they were very good as well. I appreciate that, and I also appreciate the officials' being here and being so responsive.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am open for any questions members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Rajotte.

Go ahead, Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This may have been covered during Mr. Rajotte's earlier presentation, so if I'm being repetitious, I know you'll cut me off.

Mr. Rajotte, in the course of their everyday operations, health care providers, health care institutions, financial institutions, investment counsellors, etc., obviously gather this type of information. With respect to the consultation process, how widely were those sectors consulted? Have they singly or collectively raised concerns about the bill?

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

The only consultation I did was in Alberta, which has quite extensively moved down the road of personal electronic health record information. This bill, according to them and certainly according to my intent, in no way affects them, because when they're collecting that information, it's consensual and voluntary, so it's not affected in any way by the amendments and legislation I'm putting forward. Perhaps the officials would like to comment on that as well.

It was Capital Health, which is the health region of my area. They said they obviously collect information both at the macro and the personal level, but it is collected voluntarily, so it's not affected by this legislation.

[William Bartlett]

I can only agree with Mr. Rajotte. The voluntary collection of information by businesses is simply not.... This activity is not involved in any way, but they are governed in their collection of information by PIPEDA. Mr. Rajotte is asking that some of the concerns he has raised about protection of personal information be referred to the ethics committee reviewing PIPEDA. It is that legislation that governs the private sector, governs business, in terms of how it deals with personal information it has collected quite legitimately in the course of its business. It's quite a comprehensive piece of legislation that is being comprehensively reviewed to see if changes are needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.

Committee members, I know there are one or two more questions, but we do have some work to do to go through clause-by-clause, if you would keep that in mind. We have two other motions we have to deal with at the end of this particular meeting.

Mr. Murphy.

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

To sum up, to be sure we're nailing everything down, Mr. Bartlett, is there anything we're not thinking about where these provisions could innocently catch someone who under colour of right is obtaining identification information? I'm not sure I have any examples, because otherwise we would have crossed it off. But it seems to me that lists of names are often sold or conveyed from one organization to another, even on a charitable basis. Maybe that's already covered by PIPEDA. I don't know. But the United Way gives their mailing list--I just picked something out of the air--to the Easter Seals people. Is there anything here? There's no evil game mentioned there, but the transfer of identification information.... Is there any way innocent parties could be caught by these provisions? I can't think of any.

[William Bartlett]

I really can't see how, Mr. Murphy. First of all, there's no fraud or false pretenses involved in the transfer of the information, and secondly, the transfer doesn't involve the purpose of using it for fraud or personation. So I can't really conceive of an innocent, legitimate exchange of information where the person engaging in that would have the further purpose of using it for fraud or personation. If they obtain it through fraud or false pretenses in the course of some business activity like that, with the intention of using it for fraud or personation, then they really have stepped outside the legitimate scope of what they purport to be doing.