Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which has come to us from the Senate. Once again, this rebuts the repeated arguments made by the Minister of Justice that the opposition systematically blocks its criminal law bills.
This is a well written bill, which is designed to solve an urgent new problem in modern society. It provides solutions that are nonetheless somewhat incomplete, because in fact there needs to be extensive collaboration with the provinces. Still, it provides essential solutions.
This is a modern problem. I think that even when I started practising law in 1966, we could not have imagined that stealing people’s identity could provide so many benefits to someone who did it. We were thinking rather about obtaining a false passport and things of that nature, but with the development of modern transactions, and particularly computer transactions and the use of credit cards, we have realized that identity theft can have terrible consequences.
I think we are already a little behind other countries. In 1998, the American Congress created a new criminal offence dealing specifically with identity theft. At that time, it prohibited the use, transfer or possession, knowingly and without authority, of a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity.
The bill that has come to us seems to me to be 11 years late already. In this case, we cannot say that this government, which was elected in 2006, has been particularly diligent, especially since the bill was apparently ready in the former government’s files, according to what I have heard from the other speakers.
The bill covers obtaining and possessing information relating to identity with the intent to use it deceptively, dishonestly or fraudulently in the commission of an offence. The first offence is therefore theft of identity information, the second offence is trafficking in identity information, and the third offence is unlawful possession or trafficking in government-issued identity documents.
This bill is relatively complete, and also provides for offences relating to possession of instruments for creating false identities. The bill also incorporates a new power, one that may be debatable in constitutional terms: allowing a court to order an offender, in certain cases, to make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity.
I acknowledge that there are already similar provisions in the Criminal Code when the evidence of the offence discloses damages that are relatively simple to assess, to avoid a victim having to go to a civil court and initiate additional legal proceedings. This allows a judge, in sentencing a person, to order them to make restitution. Although we are, in a way, the guardians of the powers we exercise as a nation-state, I do acknowledge that this measure, which is more efficient and makes life easier for victims, is justifiable in the circumstances.
It must be understood that identity theft can have terrible consequences. A journalist in Montreal came home from vacation to find that someone else was in his house. Someone had purchased his house while he was away. He went to a notary. The person had evidently acted in good faith. The journalist had to take very expensive and very complicated legal action.
It is easy to imagine the shock a person feels arriving home and finding someone else living there. It is a tragicomic scenario. Fortunately, I believe the journalist had the psychological strength to deal with it all. He went through it and told the tale. The notary, who was acting in good faith, was taken in as well by the ID the vendor, obviously acting fraudulently, had shown him.
So it is far from trivial. All the other things come to mind such as purchases on the Internet and the use of credit cards. Very often, after our identity is stolen, the individual obtains credit cards in our name. Then they start spending, but we are the ones getting the bills much later on and we are the ones left with all the problems.
Most companies and banks absorb a large portion of the damages caused by identity thefts. It seems to me that, in 2002, the figure involved in identity theft was over $2 billion. I am providing these figures from memory, because I cannot find my notes. Good heavens, it is more than that. In 2004, something over $50 billion U.S. was associated with identity theft. The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimates that, in 2002, consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion as the result of identity theft.
There is obviously some comfort using a credit card in the fact that the companies cover the losses. I myself have experienced this when my credit cards were stolen. However, there is no doubt that, in the end, the consumers bear the cost.
The problem was becoming increasingly urgent. I believe that it was time to legislate in this area. I see that the government is legislating as well with a law I consider well formulated to deal with the problem. Rather than turning to its pet subject, as it does these days with minimum sentences, the government realized that there could be all sorts of reasons behind identity theft. Both the young amateur hacker testing the limits of his computer talents and organized crime systematically committing theft can steal identities. This is one more example, as with many other crimes, in which the court must have the freedom to choose a sentence appropriate to each individual case before it. A sentence can be as long as five years in the most serious cases.
We will support this legislation, which is even a little too late. We will support it in the hope that the government will continue and cooperate with the provinces. The Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Stoddart, has made suggestions in this regard, and I think she did so because she noted that the federal government was not cooperative enough.
I would like to use a little, but not all, of the time I have left, to mention what I pointed out at the start. The Minister of Justice claims that the opposition systematically rejects his legislative agenda . He can see that we have cooperated with him once again in committee and will always cooperate fully with him in an effort to improve his agenda. We oppose only when he takes a route completely different from one we consider effective in the fight against crime.
More and more he is saying that we must be tough on crime. That is what the Americans have done. They have been so tough on crime, established so many minimum sentences, and taken so much discretionary authority away from judges with regard to sentencing that that country now has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Yet Canada had similar incarceration rates 25 or 30 years ago. What have they gained from that? They are now beginning to see for themselves that it does not make any sense. In July, the Vera Institute of Justice reported that at least 22 American states were about to curb their tough on crime measures, because the current system has reached its breaking point in terms of human and financial resources. It is this approach that we do not wish to see in Canada or Quebec.
Of course in the short term, one might think that imposing minimum sentences and showing that we are tough on crime would be more popular. However, when you go into specifics, studies have shown that, while people may initially support minimum sentences, when they are presented with specific cases, they tend to gradually come around and say that some exceptions must be made, then many exceptions, and finally, so many exceptions that there is no point in imposing minimum sentences to begin with. That is what we have seen in all Commonwealth countries in recent years. The Minister of Justice must know this, since this information can be found in one of his studies. We noted in particular that he said that no studies have shown any difference in crime rates after minimum sentencing had been imposed, rather only variations in incarceration rates.
As I was saying, the U.S. currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world with 762 people per 100,000 population compared to 117 people per 100,000 population in Canada. In all the western European countries we made comparisons with the rate is roughly 100 people per 100,000 population. It is not insignificant that in countries like France and Belgium, where juries participate with judges in arriving at sentences, the rate is lower, namely 93 in France and 88 in Belgium. What we see is that. although initially people seem to approve of minimum sentences, when they look at specific cases they suddenly realize that they should not be used indiscriminately.
What is more, this system is very expensive. The annual cost of keeping an inmate in a federal institution—I asked a commissioner of the federal correctional service this in committee—is $101,000 in Canada. We are told that almost all of that cost relates to the security measures taken in the prisons because of that $101,000, only 2% of a little more than $2 billion goes to rehabilitation programs.
Frankly, I am one of those who think that what is important is increasing the chances of being caught and I think I applied that in our province. By modernizing police squads, we have achieved remarkable results in the fight against organized crime and $101,000 is roughly the cost of one investigator for a year; that is roughly what it would cost for the necessary modernization of the squads that should be fighting the major fraud we are currently witnessing.
Again, to focus strictly on being tough on crime is to be stupid on crime.
People who are tough on crime think it is stupid to be soft on crime. Both are stupid though. The important thing is to be smart on crime, to be smart in the way we deal with offences.We must work on prevention, on increasing the chances of catching people, and on dealing with offenders, who all have their particular problems, so that the sentences they receive take fully into account not just the crime that was committed but the person who committed it, his motivations, his past, and so forth. That is how we will get results.
Here is an example. I was surprised to learn—we are currently studying the Canadian penitentiary system at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security—that 39% of the inmates in Ontario have been diagnosed with a mental illness. I have long known that a primary characteristic of the inmates in our prisons is that they are socially maladjusted. I was aware but did not quite realize the extent to which it is mental illness that leads to social maladjustment. What does someone who has been diagnosed with mental illness know about the minimum sentences our legislators have provided to dissuade him from committing crimes? His motivations are obviously very different.
That is why it is so important for judges to have input on sentences. We have an especially good system in Canada because our judges are professional and independent. We have made efforts in all the provinces to ensure that the people who are appointed to the bench have met a certain number of tests. We have selection committees consisting of members of the public, the bar and the judiciary. There are still politically motivated appointments of course. I have never made any, but I know it does happen. At least all those who are appointed turn up. They are also appointed for life. They are independent and do not have any more political ties. In addition—at least in Quebec—we often make probation officers available to judges to provide psychological backup. This support is not for the judges themselves, of course. They can go and get that elsewhere if they need it. There are considerable resources available for judges who handle juvenile cases.
In our opinion, measures like these help us fight crime in ways that are smart. Just being tough on crime is stupid. It is even stupider both to be tough on crime and to try to discredit people who want a smarter, necessarily softer approach. People who are tough on crime inevitably want the toughest sentence, the one that takes least account of the prisoner.
I think that what we should be doing in the House is looking for ways to fight crime effectively. Following the same path as the United States means achieving the same results as the United States, where the crime rate is higher than in Canada, in some cases, appallingly so. Americans are three and a half times more likely than Canadians to be victims of homicide. Even worse, spouses in the United States are five times more likely than their Canadian counterparts to be victims of homicide. Why is that? It is because of other factors.
I repeat that our objections do not concern the agenda the government is introducing today. These measures are justified and aimed at fighting crime in ways that are effective. When the government tables something that is smart and well thought out, we are in favour of it, and that is why we are in favour of this bill today.
