House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was theft.

Topics

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation in the following three meetings: one, the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance spring meeting held here in Ottawa, May 3 to 5, 2009; two, the 2009 annual meeting of the Western Governors' Association held in Park City, Utah, June 14 to 16, 2009; and three, the National Governors Association 2009 annual meeting held in Biloxi, Mississippi, July 17 to 20, 2009.

Status of WomenCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to the reports of both Amnesty International and the United Nations regarding the hundreds of young aboriginal women who have disappeared or been killed over the past 30 years.

In this report the committee is asking the government to respond to the Amnesty International report and the United Nations report.

Canada Marine Day ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, An Act respecting a day to honour Canada’s marine industry.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a private member's bill about a marine industry national holiday for those workers in the marine industry.

It is appropriate to do so at this time of year, as many marine workers and their representatives are on the Hill.

I take great pride in introducing the bill because it was the marine industry that brought my family to this country in the first place. My father was a marine worker. In fact he was a shipwright and was recruited by the Canadian Immigration Board to come here to build ships. That is how our family actually immigrated to this great country and was able to set down roots and establish itself.

Clearly it is an industry that is hugely important to all of us across the country. There are literally hundreds of thousands and millions of tonnes of cargo that go through the shipping lanes.

In my riding of Welland we call it the H20 waterway which of course is affectionately known as the Welland Canal. It runs from one end of my riding right through to the other, climbing the mountain, as we call it, in Thorold where we have the twin locks.

It gives me great pleasure to put this bill together and present it, and hopefully it will be adopted by the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Vehicular HomicidePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, you may recall yesterday I presented petitions signed by over 3,600 British Columbians. Today I have another set of petitions, again dealing with the same issue, signed by 2,881 petitioners. The petitions deal with the whole issue of dangerous driving and the scourge of impaired driving and criminally negligent driving.

The petitioners call upon the government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to allow a new charge of vehicular homicide. They draw attention to the fact that vehicular homicide needs to be added to the Criminal Code because it is such a scourge to our society.

Firearms RegistryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition today from my constituents asking the government to repeal the long gun registry which continues to be burdensome for our rural community.

Air Passenger Bill of RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, citizens of Manitoba have signed my petition to call upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights, Bill C-310, which would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers including charters, anywhere they fly. The bill includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights, and unreasonable tarmac delays. It deals with late and misplaced baggage. It deals with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising. It would ensure that passengers be kept informed of flight changes whether they were delays or cancellations. It will require that the new rules be posted at the airports and that the airlines inform passengers of their rights for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay one dollar in compensation. On behalf of the constituents who signed the petition, I am very pleased to present this and ask that Parliament support the bill.

Firearms RegistryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, a number of petitioners would like to draw the attention of the House to a number of things. First, the current long gun registry program is an ineffective and costly program. It has cost taxpayers in excess of $2 billion. The long gun registry program has not reduced violent gun crimes as intended and it unfairly targets farmers, hunters and sport shooters. They therefore ask the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to support Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry).

Canadian International Development AgencyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition today from Canadians of Ontario, Saskatchewan and B.C. who call upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood by the Canadian International Development Agency. This is particularly relevant since CIDA is tasked with helping to promote and eliminate poverty around the world whereas Planned Parenthood, as the petitioners note, promotes the destruction of innocent preborn human life.

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents, mainly from the town of Esterhazy, who express concern that the current moratorium on post office closures may end. Our public post office plays a key role in our social and economic life by providing infrastructure for healthy communities to thrive and for businesses to grow with the assistance of the local post office. They call upon the Government of Canada to maintain the moratorium on post office closures and withdraw the legislation to legalize remailers. They call upon the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand and improve postal services.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the third reading of Bill S-4, which would amend the Criminal Code to address the growing problem of identity theft. Bill S-4 has been reported back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment.

As the witnesses who testified before the committee agreed, this legislation is urgently needed. The new and constantly evolving technologies that dramatically improve our lives are being exploited by enterprising criminals.

Identity theft is growing, both in the number of incidents and in the amount of losses to consumers, retailers, service providers, financial institutions, and also governments.

However, as the witnesses and experts also made very clear, identity theft is not just about money. There is a great deal of fear among Canadians that their identities are being exploited and being abused by criminals. When identity information is used in the course of a fraud, a travel-related offence or another offence, the ramifications for the victim can be severe. Victims of identity theft suffer psychological harm and feelings of being violated. In extreme cases, Canadians can lose their life savings, and sometimes even their homes, or they can be left with a poor credit rating, based on the criminal acts of others.

Long after these victims spend their time and energy clearing their good names, there remain lingering feelings of vulnerability and loss of control over their lives and anxiety for years to come over whether the nightmare is even over. The fear of having their identities misused again at some unknown point in time in the future is a constant for these victims.

Police are increasingly seeing links between identity theft and organized crime, and even terrorism. Organized criminals use other people's identities to camouflage their own identities and to commit crimes to generate large profits. We are seeing identity information collected in one place and instantaneously shipped over the Internet to criminal gangs in other countries for manipulation. The criminals are getting ahead of us in their level of organization and sophistication.

RCMP witnesses who testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights explained that the key components of Bill S-4 are new offences that would close legislative gaps. Right now, criminals can collect, possess and traffic in identity information for criminal purposes, but they may not be guilty of any crime. While the ultimate criminal or fraudulent use of other people's identities is clearly criminal under a variety of offences, such as fraud or personation, Bill S-4 would directly target the early phases of identity theft operations which today may fall through the legal cracks. The new offences contained in Bill S-4 would allow the police to take action and lay charges even before a fraud is committed or a person is impersonated or someone unlawfully crosses the border with phony documents.

As the RCMP witnesses testified before committee, Bill S-4 would bring our laws one step closer to protecting not only individual Canadians but also the integrity of the Canadian economy.

Other aspects of Bill S-4 would clarify and complement existing offences in the Criminal Code. For instance, in addition to existing offences regarding the protection of the mail and Canada Post operations, new offences would be added to address redirecting mail and stealing mail from a mailbox, both of which are known techniques used by identity thieves to gather information.

As I already mentioned, new offences concerning the collection and possession of identity information are included in the bill, as is the new offence of trafficking in identity information. The offence of personation already prohibits the fraudulent use of another person's identity, and this would now be renamed “identity fraud”.

The idea here is for the criminal law to clearly reflect the full sequence of identity crime activities. Identity theft, the collecting and possessing of identity information, is followed by trafficking in identity information, which is then followed by identity fraud, the actual fraudulent use of the identity information.

Bill S-4 would also extend the restitution provisions in the Criminal Code to help victims recover some of the costs they must bear to obtain new documents and otherwise rehabilitate their identities if they are victimized. This measure would, hopefully, go some way toward remedying the damage done to Canadians who struggle to cope with having lost control of their identities.

Other vital aspects of Bill S-4 are the narrowly tailored exemptions relating to the manufacture and use of false documents for use by undercover police officers. One exemption permits people who make false documents to be shielded from liability if they do so in good faith and at the request of a police agency or government department. The other exemption permits peace officers to make and use false identity documents without criminal liability solely where they do so for the purpose of maintaining a covert identity.

In the House, in committee and in the Senate some concerns were raised about the exemptions because they do not contain an oversight or accountability mechanism. The government considers it entirely appropriate to grant these exemptions as the making and use of false documents for covert investigations as fundamental to effective law enforcement. The exemptions are very narrow. They do not permit anyone to commit fraud, identity theft, impersonation or any offence outside of a few narrow forgery offences.

Peace officers can use false documents only for the purpose of maintaining their covert identity. They will fall outside the scope of the exemption if they use the forged documents for any other purpose. The government considers these exemptions to be close parallels to the exemption provided to police for the carrying of a firearm. There is no oversight required for each occasion on which a police officer carries his or her weapon. The law simply makes it clear that officers may carry firearms whenever they are on the job.

Similarly, requiring oversight for each instance in which an undercover agent makes or uses a false identity document to support his or her covert identity would be administratively burdensome, if not impossible. More important, as there is no conceivable harm that can come to Canadians by these limited exemptions, oversight would serve no conceivable useful purpose. The government is confident that the exemptions in Bill S-4 are both necessary and appropriate.

It bears mentioning that in the Senate the legal and constitutional affairs committee amended this bill to put in a five year review of the legislation. The government is pleased that the legislation will be reviewed so that parliamentarians can consider how effective the law has been at helping to reduce and prevent identity fraud. That evaluation will give us an opportunity to appreciate whether any additional amendments or any other improvements should be made to better protect Canadians from identity crime.

Bill S-4 would not immediately bring an end to identity crime. No piece of legislation alone would be capable of doing that. Still, Bill S-4 is a giant step forward and would provide law enforcement in this country with some tools that are currently missing from its toolbox. Witnesses have been clear that Bill S-4 is urgently needed.

As technology advances, so too must criminal law and the Criminal Code. I, therefore, encourage all hon. members to pass this legislation without further delay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, I also have presented a private member's bill with respect to identity theft that would reverse the onus onto the accused to establish that he or she is in possession of another person's identity with the permission of the person whose identity is being carried.

I was not at the committee meetings and I am wondering if the member opposite could tell me whether the idea of reversing the onus onto the person charged to establish that he or she is in possession of that identity with permission was discussed in committee.

Right now I understand the law to be that the police must establish that the stolen identity is in a person's possession for the purpose of committing a crime. I believe the onus should be reversed onto the person who has been charged. I wonder if the member opposite can answer that question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, the issue of reverse onus is problematic. As the member will undoubtedly know, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that an accused charged with any Criminal Code offence is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and that the crown bears the onus of establishing each and every element of the offence.

The short answer to his question is that there was no serious discussion about reversing the onus with respect to Bill S-4. However, the member should be happy to know from a reading of Bill S-4 that simple possession is an offence. There is no longer a requirement that the possession be for some further unlawful act or for the purpose of committing a fraud, impersonation or some other Criminal Code offence. Possession of someone else's identity is an offence in and of itself.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague.

According to the Privacy Commissioner, the real fight against identity theft happens in small claims court, which is under provincial jurisdiction.

Should this bill be adopted, does the member intend to put pressure on his government so that it works in cooperation with the provinces to put an end to identity theft?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, the government believes that co-operation between all levels of government and between government and police agencies is absolutely necessary to put an end to identity theft.

The police were unequivocal in their testimony before the committee that this type of tool is required in their toolbox.

Yes, it is the intention of the justice committee, of which I am a member, and the government to co-operate with law enforcement and other levels of government, municipal police agencies, the federal police agency and the RCMP to work collaboratively and co-operatively to put an end to this growing area of crime.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert for the speech he made a few moments ago.

I work with the member for Edmonton—St. Albert on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is very much interested in improving our Criminal Code and strengthening measures to protect the most vulnerable. The bill before us today, Bill S-4, deals with identity theft.

I do not intend to speak at length because the Liberal Party supports Bill S-4, which was in fact introduced in the previous Parliament. The bill was first introduced in the House of Commons, but this time around, the government introduced it in the Senate. We have discussed it in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and we believe these are reasonable and appropriate measures to address a problem that increasingly affects our seniors.

I had the opportunity to speak this morning with a man from my riding, Roger Dorion. He represents a group of francophone seniors. They are obviously very aware of the harm that identity theft can cause to a person. Those who traffic in stolen identities or try to steal identities or mail often choose seniors as their victims.

The bill basically sets out three new criminal offences to deal with identity theft. As my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert noted, there are additional and new provisions around being in possession of stolen identity documents, not only having to use those documents for a further criminal purpose, but simply being in possession, for example, of redirected or stolen mail or a key to open a mailbox that is not one's own. At the root of identity theft, we often find tampering with mail. The consequences can be devastating.

The new offences are all subject to a five year maximum sentence. We think that is an appropriate balance to send a message to those sometimes involved in organized crime who think that identity theft represents an economic gain for them at devastating consequences to the victims of these crimes.

On behalf of the Liberal Party, I am giving the House of Commons today an opportunity to dispose of this bill as quickly as possible. We do not intend to start a long debate. We already discussed this bill in the previous Parliament.

I have spoken to our House leader about this and it is our hope that perhaps while other parties are speaking on Bill S-4, we might find a mechanism, by unanimous consent, to pass this bill this morning at report stage and third reading. It is a bill that has been around for a long time and we think there are other important criminal justice measures on the order paper today that we are anxious to debate and to move forward expeditiously.

From our perspective, any measures that can be taken by the government or other parties to ensure that this bill passes this morning or later today, including the third reading stage, the Liberal Party will be very co-operative.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I think it is commendable that they are willing to move quickly and to have a bill passed quickly. But the member forgets that he is not the only one concerned. There are people at home watching us on television, and these people want to understand this bill, because it affects them personally. He spoke about identity theft, and that affects the people watching us at home today.

Why does the member want to rush things without allowing viewers to listen to us and truly understand this bill? He would rather act quickly and dispose of this bill, so he can move on to something else. That is my question for the member.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Madam Speaker, the member for Shefford misunderstood. At no point did I propose that we dispose of a bill before the House to prevent those watching on TV from understanding. However, the member for Shefford will agree that there are no new measures in this bill that were not debated during the last Parliament, as part of a bill that was nearly identical to the one before us today.

We have had discussions in the House of Commons standing committee. Debates were held in the Senate over this bill. So, I disagree with the member for Shefford that we must avoid proceeding quickly with Bill S-4. I simply suggested to the other members that we could quickly pass the final form of this bill in order to move on to other bills. Viewers at home have had plenty of time to understand this bill, and many documents were brought before the parliamentary committees, either during this Parliament or the previous one. This is not a new measure. I think that this bill should be passed, and I think we should do so as quickly as reasonably possible in this House.