Debates of Dec. 7th, 2004

Credit Cards

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will answer the hon. member's two very important questions. I will start with the expenditure in terms of comparing it with the gun registry.

It really saddens me that we use this special time of the year as we head into the Christmas season and use the parallel of the gun registry. The only simple answer I have for the hon. member, who has good intentions, is this. Why does he not ask the police association who have told us “do it, support it”? If he can convince them to tell me as a member of Parliament and all others to scrap it, then I would be glad to stand by his side and say that we will scrap it. I ask him to speak to the police association. Therein lies his answer.

On the second question, my hon. colleague asks why do we not charge them for identity fraud for making these cards. Let us say that somebody stands outside a store and says he is going to rob that store. We live in a civil country. The presumption of innocence is there. Until that person actually goes into that store and commits that crime, the authorities cannot and should not arrest this individual. They can arrest upon action. If the individual goes in and robs that store, then they have the right under the law to arrest this individual.

How do we say this to somebody? I used to work with Popular Mechanics and made a few things at home. Maybe sometimes that was infringing on violation of patents, but I did not go out and sell the things. Let us say that I was making a stereo in my house or something. Maybe that was a violation, but if I had gone out to market it, thus violating somebody's patent right, then I should have been charged with a criminal act. In this case I say to my hon. colleague, how do we do that? The intent to do wrong is there, yes, but on intent alone we cannot charge the individual. The moment they use these new gadgets, yes, we should charge them.

Here is what I have found, and I will close with this. Industry, government and banks--and we have tried it with our passports, for example--are continuing to upgrade the system to make sure that fraud does not occur, but we have heard this over the decade or so we have been here that as much as we upgrade the technology, someone will come along and try to beat the system. Unfortunately, that is society, and it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we invest money properly to beat them as well as they try to beat us.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, as I am sure my hon. colleague is aware, at least anecdotally, over the last 10 years transactions in this country have changed substantially. Basically 80% was cash or cheque and now transactions are something in the order of 50% electronic. Of that 50% electronic, 61% is by debit card and 39% is by way of credit cards, so interestingly the debit card has actually eclipsed the credit card. The credit card is starting to be treated or seen by Canadians as less advantageous technology.

The proposal by the NDP is that we should cap interest rates at five points over prime and that we should set up either an industry driven bureaucracy or a government driven bureaucracy to so-called educate people and prevent them having difficulties with their lines of credit.

Given the trend lines that I suggested to the hon. member, I would be interested in his reaction as to whether he thinks those ideas as put forward by both the Bloc and the NDP have any merit whatsoever.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the past--and again I refer to the fact of your long stay here and I wish you many more years--it was the gasoline pricing. They talked about capping the gasoline prices. We all remember that. Over the years we have had those debates. Of course it is a provincial jurisdiction and there were provinces in Canada that tried to regulate gas pricing. We all know what happened. The prices skyrocketed. Other provinces chose not to go that way.

If we apply the same principle to this industry to regulate it, I believe we are going to have the same outcome. The key here, in response to the parliamentary secretary, is to give people choices, to say that here is a credit card with all the bells and whistles and here is a credit card that offers nothing but maybe a minimal charge, because of course for every service provided there is a charge.

In this case I am responding to the parliamentary secretary by saying that in my view the answer is to provide choices for people. The first choice is if they want to use these credit cards. The second choice is in the types of charges that they are going to be charged on the debt they carry. And if we leave it at that, then I truly believe we live in a democratic society.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, I want to pick up a bit on what we have just discussed. I know that it is not perhaps right on topic with some of the discussion pertaining to capping interest rates and things like that, but I want to talk about identity theft and the relationship credit cards have to identity theft.

My first couple of comments relate to a few comments made by the hon. member across the floor a few moments ago with respect to identity theft and credit cards. My colleague was quite correct in one thing. Right now, and I believe this is a tragedy, if someone is in possession of multiple pieces of personal identification that belong to someone else, it is not a crime. It is not a crime until that identification is used.

My hon. colleague suggested that is the way it should be because someone could stand outside a Kresge's or a department store with someone else's ID but we cannot charge the person because it is a free country until that person uses it. He suggests that we cannot really do anything about that.

I suggest the opposite. I think we can do something about it. I think the first thing we have to do is identify what personal information is and get a definition for it and identity theft in the Criminal Code of Canada.

The second thing we need to do is take action. We need to make it a crime for anyone to carry personal information that is not his or hers without the lawful consent of the individual whose identity that person is carrying, or without a lawful excuse. That is how we do it. My hon. colleague said that we cannot really do anything about it. Sure we can. There are recommendations upon recommendations from institutions like the Canadian Bankers Association on how to deal with this specific issue.

As a matter of fact, I plan to introduce, hopefully as early as next spring, a private member's bill dealing with identity theft. That is how we do it.

Identity theft is the fastest growing crime in North America. In 2002, the latest statistics I have available to me suggest that there were over 160,000 victims of identity theft in Canada. I would suggest that in 2004 we probably have closer to 250,000 or 300,000 victims of identity theft. That number is growing by leaps and bounds.

The relationship between identity theft and credit cards is simply this. Out of all the various ways in which identity theft can be perpetrated upon the public, and I am talking about phone fraud and bank fraud, the largest single aspect of identity theft is through credit card fraud. Over 42% of all identity theft violations deal with credit card fraud. Of that, over half is with new credit cards.

There are two ways in which one could perpetrate a crime with credit cards. One would be to steal a credit card. For example, someone walking down the street lifts somebody's wallet. The credit card is taken and the thief whips down to the nearest convenience store, supermarket, grocery store or Sears, forges the person's signature, uses the credit card, charges up a whole bunch of bills and then walks away from the crime.

The most serious aspect and the fastest growing component of credit card fraud is how people are getting new credit cards. This is very difficult to police.

How is it done? Here is how it works. It is pretty simple. In this day and age, there are over 600 credit cards or charge cards available in the marketplace. I think that number is increasing. Many times, credit card companies send out pre-authorized credit letters to some of their good clients. In other words, they send out a letter saying that the client is a valued customer of theirs and because the client has performed admirably with the responsibility the client has shown with respect to paying off the current account, the company says it pre-authorizes the client for a new credit card with a $20,000 limit.

Here is what happens. Many people who receive these letters are not in the market for a new credit card so they just chuck the letter in the garbage. What the identity thieves do then is literally go through people's garbage, pick out these letters and respond to them. They respond to the credit card company by saying, “I am John Doe and I am pre-authorized for a $20,000 limit on a new credit card”. They put the person's address on it or, more than likely, what they say is, ”My name is John Doe and I am accepting the offer for a $20,000 limit on a new credit card, but my address has changed. I do not live at 123 Elm Drive anymore. I have just moved”. Then they give the credit card company their own address.

What happens? A couple of weeks later in the mail comes a new credit card made out to John Doe and the new address. This person will take that credit card and start making charges. That is identity theft. Where do the charges ultimately go? The charges go back to John Doe, not the person who has committed the theft. This is the fastest growing crime in North America.

We are all victims of this. The other thing that happens is that this is a great cost to our economy. Again, statistics show that in 2002, with about 160,000 victims of credit card fraud or identity theft, there was about a $2.5 billion cost to the economy. I would suggest that in this day and age, two years later, the cost to the economy is closer to $5 billion.

We have to do something about this. It is a very serious crime. If we do not deal with it through legislation, we will not deal with it at all. That is what I am suggesting. We need legislation to deal with this problem.

Again, my hon. colleague across the floor suggested that there is nothing we can do. We can do something about it. That is why we are in this assembly. We are lawmakers. We see a problem, we identify a problem, we create a solution and we deal with it. That is what we need to do here.

There is a great proliferation of credit cards in Canada and throughout the world. We know that. That will not abate. That will not be something that causes people to ask for less credit. The credit card companies themselves clearly will increase the number of products and cards they offer. Knowing this and knowing that identity theft is the fastest growing crime in North America, recognizing that credit card fraud is the largest proponent of identity theft, why do we not just do something about it.

Yes, we can talk about insurance caps on credit cards. In my opinion the real problem is theft. Whether we self-regulate, self-police or cap credit cards, that does not solve the problem of what we do with people who steal our identities, use our credit cards and go on spending binges

Do members know that it takes over a thousand hours and costs over $675 per person for Canadians who has been victimized by identity theft. This is what it costs to try to rectify the situation. That is an inordinate amount of time and money that innocent victims have to deal with because they have been victimized.

We have an opportunity to fix the problem. All we need to do is pay some attention to the problem itself. I do not think we have a problem with capping expenses or the interest level charged by credit card companies. It goes far beyond that. I think we have a problem with people stealing identities. They are using credit cards for illicit purposes. That is the problem we should be talking about tonight, and that is what I want to address.

I am not going to talk about whether the government should be taking money from the gun registry and putting it into credit card fraud. We have to make a law because no law exists right now. We can do it. Why Parliament has waited this long to deal with a problem that is growing faster than any other crime in North America is beyond me.

Part of the reason I am speaking here tonight is that hopefully I will get some support from members opposite and on this side of the House next year when I introduce a private member's bill. I think it is a fairly simple fix to a very serious problem.

Once again, in my opinion, all we need to do to deal with the problem is this. First, clearly define personal information and identity theft in the Criminal Code of Canada. Second, make it a crime for individuals to possess someone else's personal information unless they have express consent from that individual or if there is a lawful excuse.

Let me give one final example of how ridiculous the situation is right now. A police officer can stop a car and with legitimate cause and purpose get the individual to open the trunk of the car. The police could find 500 credit cards made out to individuals across Canada, but that person cannot be charged with identity theft. It is very simple to say that the person did nothing wrong. We all know the difference between right and wrong. Believe me, if a person has 500 credit cards in his or her possession, he or she is about to commit a crime.

We cannot deal with it now because we have no legislation to do so. Let us ensure that we enact legislation to deal with the problem. Let us fix it.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair, I very much appreciate the hon. member highlighting the issue of identity theft. My previous question to the hon. member from the Liberal side was about identity theft, and I am not satisfied that he addressed the issue to the extent it should have been.

In fact, he said that someone standing in front of a store could not be charged with the intention to rob the store. We can understand that. However, someone could put a gun to a person's head and then say that since he or she did not pull the trigger, there is no intention of harming anyone or using that gun for a criminal purpose. In that instance it would not be true.

Similarly, someone could try to smuggle a weapon onto a plane and say that he or she had no intention of doing anything wrong with it. How would someone know what the intention was? Why would someone pay $90 for state of the art high technology identity which belongs to someone else while boasting that it is high quality? I believe we as lawmakers are allowing people to do the wrong things in a correct way. We say that it is okay for people to commit fraud, but they should do it right so we cannot charge them. As lawmakers we must stop it, whether the fraud is committed in a right or wrong way. Fraud is fraud and it must be stopped.

The member listened to the comments of the member from the government side. Does he think the government has the political will to stop identity theft crime or introduce some sort of legislation so we can make it illegal to possess someone else's identity for the purpose of committing a crime?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, yes, basically I agree with everything the hon. member has said. I referred to most of those points in my presentation. I think we can put a dent in identity theft, particularly credit card fraud, by taking the steps I have outlined. Once again. I will summarize in case the member did not hear it the first two times.

First, we have to clearly define personal information in identity theft in the Criminal Code of Canada. That has not been done yet. Second, we need to make it a crime for someone to possess someone else's personal information. It is that simple. Can we do it? Yes, we can. Will the government enact legislation? I am not sure. I want to introduce a private member's bill. If the government came forward with legislation dealing with this issue before I introduced a private member's bill, I would gladly support it because it needs to be done.

We are all lawmakers. I go back to the fact that we are all on the same side with a lot of issues. We know intuitively, if not empirically, the difference between right and wrong. We know that people are getting away with identity theft. We can deal with it. We can put a stop to it, and we need to do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I have listened to the member's remarks and he has perhaps made some useful suggestions. I would not be prepared to accept that no criminal charges would emanate from a scenario where a policeman found an individual with a box full of 500 credit cards belonging to other people. I would ask the hon. member if he is of the same view.

It is similar to someone having another person's cheque book or credit card in his or her briefcase. In this case there are 500 of them in the trunk of someone's car. I think a policeman could infer an attempted fraud in that situation. One could probably also infer the intent just from the existence of all these other identities on credit cards.

I do not want to take away from the member's creative suggestion of looking at other ways to target this type of crime. Would he not accept that we are not clearly out in the cold in this scenario, that a policeman would likely have good grounds to act?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is quite correct that there is a possibility that an individual found in possession of 500 credit cards could be charged with a crime, but not with identity theft. That much we know.

We also know the possession of multiple pieces of identification right now is not a crime. Charges can be laid, but it cannot be for identity theft. Let us not kid around. That is what the person is planning to do, so let us not try and pony up a charge because we do not have the legislation or a law in place to deal with it. We know there is going to be a wrong. One does not have to be Einstein to figure out that if a guy has 500 pieces of false identification, he is not out there for a joyride. He is not going to make a bonfire with all these identifications. He is doing it for a reason. He wants to commit a crime.

Yes, the police can perhaps charge those people, but they cannot charge them with the crime they should be charged with, which is identity theft, and we need to deal with that.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chair, I could not help but stand up to make some comments. I listened to my colleague on the other side talk about a gun and the intention to take the gun on a flight.

I want to reassure the member that the Minister of Transport, as well as myself, take those matters seriously. For someone to stand in the House of Commons, say that he has a gun and that it is his intention to carry it on a flight, but he is not guilty, is something of which the hon. member has to seriously be a little careful. I need to remind him that we have laws that would prevent him from doing things like that.

Saying to someone, as my hon. colleague across the way said, that he was going to stick a gun at the guy's head but he did not intend to pull the trigger is not the same as someone having maybe two or three cards from somebody else. Realistically, we have to compare apples and apples and oranges and oranges. Let us not use fearmonger tactics. On this side of the House, we take very seriously the fact that a person has a gun and might take it on a flight.

Does my hon. colleague shares my views or does he share the views of his colleague, which were very inflammatory?

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.

[The Chair]

There are no points of order and no dilatory motions during this debate.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, all I can say is I know my esteemed colleague and I know his intention was only to try to create an analogy. He was referring to comments made by one of the members opposite who said that just because one had something, it was not a crime until he or she went into a store and used it. I am saying, let us make it a crime.

The analogy my esteemed colleague was using was to refute the argument and example given by the member opposite. I do not, for the life of me, think that he was in any way, shape or form encouraging violence or encouraging someone to go out with a loaded revolver or handgun just for the point of showing that it “ain't a crime” until he pulled the trigger. I do not think my colleague even meant that. Quite frankly, the member's inference that he did is an insult to my esteemed colleague.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Maybe we could check the blues.

[The Chair]

Just to set the record straight. I was mistaken earlier. There are no dilatory motions, no quorum calls and no requests for unanimous consent allowed, but there are opportunities for points of order. Is there still a point of order from the member for Newton—North Delta?

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make it clear for the record that I never said I had the intention of carrying a gun onto the plane. I want the hon. member, who implied that I was going to carry a gun to the aircraft, with no intention of doing anything bad, to know I did not say that. I simply gave an example that if someone had a gun and did not pull the trigger, it did not mean that the person was not wrong in his or her intention, similarly about carrying a gun onto a plane. I absolutely have no intention of doing that. I even do not touch guns.

[The Chair]

I do not think that is a point of order. It is a point of debate. The member is allowed to get up frequently, ask those questions and enter into the debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chair, I am sure that if we checked the blues, we would find that there were comments made that certainly need to be looked at.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak regarding the financial services sector in Canada. I would like to focus my remarks on the issue of credit cards. As we know, the use of credit cards has become an integral part of how many Canadians handle their personal finances. Indeed the Canadian credit card market is one of the most competitive in the world, with more than 600 card offerings. Banks, credit unions and caisse populaires are the principal issuers, however, retailers have also jumped on the bandwagon, offering a variety of financial programs to meet the credit and transaction needs of the customer.

The competition among the companies is fierce. I am sure that hon. members have seen ads offering convenient payment options, low borrowing rates, point programs, insurance coverage, and retailer discounts. It is important that consumers be provided with adequate information so they can make informed choices about their banking services. That is why the government is continuing to work to improve it.

Before I address the specific issues of credit cards, given the predominance of these financial products on the markets, I would like first to take a moment to provide some background to key federal legislation concerning financial institutions in Canada.

Indeed the impact of federal legislation and initiatives designed to protect customers within the financial sector is an important element of the government's ability to service Canadians. Hon. members will no doubt recall Bill C-8, which implemented a new policy framework for Canada's financial services sector.

The legislation was the culmination of a process that began in 1996 with the establishment of the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector and the payment advisory committee. In September 1998 the task force presented the government with its report entitled “Change, Challenge, Opportunity”, which was subsequently reviewed by two parliamentary committees.

The committees in turn conducted extensive public consultation and presented the government with their own recommendations. The consultation process led to the emergence of a broad consensus of measures to improve the sector. That consensus provided the solid foundation for reforming Canada's financial services sector in “A Framework for the Future”, the policy paper released by the government in June 1999.

Bill C-8 contained a number of measures that focused on four main areas: one, promoting the efficiency and growth of the financial services sector; two, fostering domestic competition; three, empowering and protecting consumers; and four, improving the regulatory environments. While all these points are important, I would like to focus my remarks today on the third point, empowering and protecting consumers.

There are concerns that Canadians' personal information given to credit card companies may be subject to the United States of America's patriot act. It has been suggested that Canadian credit card companies and Canadian banks with offices in the United States could be forced to disclose the personal information of their Canadian clients. To this end, the government is committed to doing everything it can to protect the personal privacy of Canadians.

Many safeguards are already in place to protect our rights and privacy. They include the Canadian Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and Canada-U.S. agreements stipulating conditions under which information can be shared between the two governments. We are also cooperating with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on the planned audit in 2004-05 of the transfer of personal information between Canada and the United States.

One of the important components of Bill C-8 for consumers was the establishment of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. This agency was established to consolidate and strengthen oversight of consumer protection measures in federally regulated financial sectors and to expand consumer education. While some consumer protection activities existed previously, they were dispersed among various federal entities. The creation of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada was one of a series of initiatives resulting from the extensive period of study and public consultation of financial sector reform that culminated in the legislation contained in Bill C-8.

Established in 2001, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's mandate is to protect and educate consumers of financial services. The agency was established by the federal government to strengthen oversight of consumer issues and expend consumer education in the financial sector.

As a federal regulatory agency, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is responsible for enforcing many of the federal laws that protect consumers in their dealings with financial institutions.

The responsibilities of the agencies are to: ensure that federally regulated financial institutions comply with federal consumer protection laws and regulations; monitor financial institutions' business practices, known as voluntary codes of conduct, concerning small business lending and the use of debit cards; educate consumers about their rights and responsibilities; help Canadians get the information they need to be more informed consumers of financial products and services.

It is also important for Canadians to know which financial institutions fall within the mandate of the agency. These financial institutions include all banks as well as insurance companies that are federally incorporated or registered. Also included are trust and loan companies and cooperative credit associations that are federally incorporated or registered.

Through cooperation with other organizations, information programs, a toll free consumer help line and a comprehensive website, the agency promotes greater awareness of financial systems and the rights and responsibilities of consumers.

Again, the protection of the personal information of Canadians is of paramount importance to the government. We will continue to work to ensure that it is protected.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member talked about educating the consumers. That is a very good point. However, I would like to ask the hon. member what effective course of action the Liberals have taken in the past to provide more information about responsible credit card use to Canadians so that Canadians are better informed.

Credit cards are a very convenient form of payment, especially for Christmas shoppers.

The second question I would like to ask the Liberal member is does he think the government should devote its attention to going after criminals who commit credit card fraud, or rather than chasing credit card fraud criminals or other people committing similar frauds, should the government's top priority be to use the gun registry to chase peaceful duck hunters? What should be the government's top priority?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have listened to my hon. colleague all night and he keeps going back to the gun registry. Let us set the record straight here, once and for all.

If my hon. colleague could get the Canadian Police Association to back his party's views, I am sure that we on this side of the House would certainly listen to him.

I have to say that not only the Canadian Police Association but every policeman I have talked to supports the gun registry. When the police arrive at a crime scene or at a home, be it for violence or domestic issues, they need to know what is inside.

The Conservative Party is creating this bogus argument. I think those members should wrap their heads around it and really think what the police are telling us on an everyday basis.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my point was not simply to focus on the gun registry. I was making a comparison, going after the duck hunters or going after the criminals working within credit card fraud and other organized criminals. What should be the priority between those two was the question.

On the other hand I am a member of the subcommittee on organized crime, which I mentioned earlier. The Canadian Police Association, the RCMP, and various other police and law enforcement agencies are pleading to the lawmakers that they should be provided with enough resources so that they can chase the organized criminals.

In Surrey marijuana grow ops are a serious problem. Auto theft is a serious problem. Other various organized crimes, such as credit card fraud, are very serious problems.

Currently our law enforcement agencies are saying that if we give them 10 leads on organized crime, they do not have enough resources even to follow up with one of those leads, keeping those other nine leads out of the investigating pipeline. Is that fair? Is that the way to combat organized crime, by not providing the police with the necessary resources?

My question was about choosing between choice A, investing all of the scarce resources in going after the duck hunters, or choice B, going after the organized criminals to combat crime. What would be his preference? That was the question.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, my colleague talks about choice A and choice B. Let me advise my hon. colleague that there is no choice A or choice B. The right choice that the government has made is to make sure that we go after criminals, to make sure that we use the nth degree of the law, so that absolutely no individual who commits a crime in this country gets away with it.

We on this side of the House ensure a safe environment for all our citizens to live in peace and in harmony among each other. We do not try to pit A against B, as my hon. colleague and his party have certainly done for ages.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have certainly followed the debate over the last few hours. It has taken a swing into areas where criminality is associated with the credit card industry.

Much of what is happening today, and I can attest to this because I have been involved in a number of very specialized police conferences to deal with organized criminal activity, is that organized criminal activity is operating extensively in this country, by foreign criminals, I might add. Many of them have come here with an agenda of their own. They have entered this nation one way or another to fulfill that very special agenda they have.

One of the issues is the whole area of identity theft by organized criminal activity. There have been criminals caught in this country with 150, 200, 300 credit cards which belong to people who are part of the citizenry of this country. Some of those cards have been sent overseas and are used overseas. There is not a section in the Criminal Code that deals specifically with that.

I know that the government is aware of that. The Liberals are very much aware of it, as are the police in this nation. The police have been pressing the government to do something about it, but there is no specific charge that deals with that. Yes, maybe they could try for conspiracy, but it is very difficult to prove conspiracy. They would have to go through this whole issue of intent and then what would they end up with, after a lot of police and government resources are used?

When is the government planning to put forward some very specific legislation to deal with identity thieves, especially the organized ones?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I listened to my colleague very carefully and there was an underlying tone.

Let me tell the House what I think the underlying tone was because I have listened to the Conservative Party many times. First, citizens of this country are not a problem; and second, persons who are immigrants and are claiming refugee status because they have a problem back in their home country are not allowed. They are not respected. They are criminals. That is what I think I heard from my hon. colleague.

He said that people who come to this country are criminals. Does that mean my father was a criminal when he came to this country? I am an immigrant. Which part of that does he not understand? By saying that all immigrants who are coming here are part and parcel of what he is thinking of, I have to tell you that we on this side of the House have a different view from you have. We invite people to come to this country--

[The Chair]

Order, please. I would encourage hon. members to direct their comments through the Chair. It can be passionate and can be delivered as forcefully as necessary, but if all hon. members deliver them through the Chair, that way we will keep it according to the rules, civil, proper, but passionate I hope. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I did not deliver my comments through the Chair, I apologize.

However, to infer that about persons who come to this country to make a better life for themselves or to insinuate that is something that really does not sit well with me. I am very passionate about that. We on this side of the House welcome immigrants, who have come to this country, who wish to realize their dreams. We welcome them unlike the other side of the House.