Justice Committee on Oct. 5th, 2009

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Woodworth, you have five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Ms. Rinella, for attending today.

I'd like to begin with two points of what I hope will be clarification. Then I'll ask some questions.

The first point of clarification is around the minister's answer. Having had the opportunity to listen to his evidence not long ago, I think what the minister was trying to say about section 386 and section 387 is that because of their particular requirements, they are much harder to convict upon than the broader offences of fraud impersonation. It's not that it isn't a problem, but just that the broader offences are easier and therefore more frequently resorted to for the kinds of problems you're addressing. Since that's the case, we don't need to worry about trying to reconstitute section 386 and section 387.

The second point of clarification I'd like to make is that the bill before us is largely not about the actual fraud offences but instead about what I might refer to as the pre-fraud offences; that is, the theft and possession and trafficking of information rather than the use of that information for fraudulent purposes. So it took me a while to understand where you're coming from. Without in any way taking away from the good points you make about how the fraud sections perhaps could be amended, I'm not sure this particular act is the venue to do that, insofar as it might almost change the entire architecture of the act.

Having said that, is there anything in this act we are considering that gives you concern? I understand there are things not in it that you'd like to see. Is there anything that's in it that gives your association concern?

[Wendy Rinella]

The main point is that we're concerned that a fraud that is committed with a credit card could result in someone with more jail time than a fraud that is committed by somebody who conveys or mortgages property fraudulently. I say that because of the cases of the POAs that are abused, other issues of that nature, and people who are impersonating their family members with the same name. So I kind of worry that--

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So you're suggesting that the penalty provisions for identity information theft or trafficking or possession might be greater than the penalty provisions for the use of it. Is that your point?

[Wendy Rinella]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Is there anything else in the act that--

[Wendy Rinella]

No.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Then it comes down to things that are not in the act that you'd like to see in the act. One of them does get touched on, and that is an amendment in clause 10 around identity fraud or personation with intent, an amendment to section 403 of the code, which currently has a 10-year maximum prison sentence. I know in your presentation there's talk of an increase in the maximum penalty to the general fraud provisions. Are you satisfied with the 10-year maximum sentence for what has been called personation and will now be called identity fraud?

[Wendy Rinella]

There's usually an escalation in fraud. Fraudsters usually start with credit card scams and insurance claims, and then they manifest and they get more clever and they use mortgage fraud and title fraud. We would like to see a minimum penalty around title and real estate fraud. I would again point to the Georgia act, where they actually have created an offence for what they call real estate fraud racketeering. It says when there is:

a pattern of residential mortgage fraud or a conspiracy or endeavour to engage or participate in a pattern of residential mortgage fraud, said violation shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 20 years, by a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or both.

From our perspective, we would like to see some minimum penalties.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No.

Mr. Norlock, did you want to ask a question?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Not at this time, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Murphy.

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

What's your view of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

--since we have lots of time?

[Wendy Rinella]

It's the relationship between where someone's nose touches another person's finger.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'm going to rule that one out of order. Nice try, Mr. Murphy.

[Wendy Rinella]

Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I think we're at the end.

Just to comment, I'm from British Columbia, and you're correct in noting that the largest land title fraud was committed in British Columbia. Of course Mr. Wirik and, I believe, Mr. Gill are both being prosecuted under the current Criminal Code provisions.

I'm a little bit concerned about your suggestions about making changes that go perhaps outside the scope of Bill S-4. I tend to concur with my colleague Mr. Woodworth that Bill S-4 is very specific in its scope. I'm not sure the fraud that occurred in British Columbia necessarily would have been more easily prosecuted even with Bill S-4 in place. As you know, in that case it was collusion between Mr. Gill and a lawyer, Mr. Wirik. In that case, of course, it was the Law Society of British Columbia that actually paid all the victims and in fact had to levy very significant sums on an annual basis against the members of the law society.

So do you want to comment on whether Bill S-4 would have made any difference in the Wirik and Tarsem Gill case?

[Wendy Rinella]

My understanding of the case is that Mr. Wirik did not obtain the mortgage discharge. It was a failure in terms of executing his office. That's what he was eventually charged for. So you're absolutely correct, I don't think there would have been any impact from Bill S-4 on this type of fraud. I think he was disbarred in 2002, and it finally came to trial and he was charged in 2009. In the interim he ran a pet food store, so he had a seven-year reprieve in which to develop his defence, which is very unfortunate. That's the one thing that we'd like to see: more effective prosecution of these heinous crimes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you so much.

[Wendy Rinella]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, if there's nothing else, we'll adjourn.