Thierry St-Cyr

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Right, for the bad guys.

We have many examples of the federal government's mismanagement of personal information.

In 2002, the RCMP investigated the theft of hundreds of forms from five Canada Immigration Centres and the unauthorized querying of a police data bank by Citizenship and Immigration Canada employees. This was reported in the Toronto Sun.

More than 2,000 employees stationed abroad were implicated or were investigated according to federal authorities. About 21% were fired, 29% were suspended, 25% resigned and 14% decided to take extended leave, according to the February 4, 2002 edition of La Presse.

Therefore, controls must be put in place right within the government.

I will provide another example. In September 2003, six computers—including a Compaq laptop, which I mention even though it is not necessarily germane to the debate— were stolen from the Laval offices of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This laptop alone contained personal information about 120,000 taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, including 600 federal government employees.

The federal government wants the public to believe that it is taking the issue of identity theft seriously but its actions show that it is neglecting the problem. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois, which supports the measure before us, is urging the government to get serious.

As for the legislative framework, to help us in our approach and our discussions later in committee, I would like to talk about other legislative frameworks that could serve as a reference.

For instance, since 1998, the United States federal government and nearly all state governments have adopted a number of measures to address this phenomenon. In 1998, as part of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, Congress enacted a new criminal offence directed specifically at identity theft.

This identity theft offence prohibits the knowing use, transfer, or possession, without authorization, of a "means of identification" of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with any unlawful activity that constitutes any offence under U.S. federal law or any felony under U.S. state or local law.

This is a very broad, comprehensive definition that clearly makes it an offence to use an individual's personal identifying information in order to commit an illegal act.

This might seem obvious. In Canada, for instance—and in the United States, prior to this legislation—this meant that illegal acts were obviously punishable. However, the act of stealing someone's identity in order to commit that act was not illegal and the act of stealing someone's identity with the intention of committing an offence was even less so. In light of this provision adopted in the United States, the simple fact, for instance, of collecting information with the intention of committing a criminal offence or swindle someone became an offence punishable by law. Thus, offences linked to identity theft can carry significant criminal penalties.

Even a simple violation of section 18(28)(a)(7), without more, is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment and a US$250,000 fine. If, as a result of the offence, any individual committing the offence obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during any one-year period, the maximum term of imprisonment increases to 15 years. Several states, including Florida, Indiana, Montana and New York, have also enacted enhanced penalties laws for identity theft.

On July 15, 2004, the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act became law. This Act establishes a new federal offence of aggravated identity theft to enhance penalties for identity theft-related criminal conduct. Under this new offence created in 2004, individuals found guilty of aggravated identity theft would receive an additional mandatory, consecutive two years' imprisonment over and above their sentences for the underlying offence.

The Act also expands the scope of the current identity theft offence by prohibiting not just the transfer or use of another's identity information, but also possession of such information in conjunction with the requisite criminal intent. In addition, it increases the maximum penalties for identity theft and includes a higher maximum penalty for identity theft used to facilitate acts of domestic terrorism.

It is clear that the United States has taken tough measures. Does that mean identity theft no longer exists in the United States? Of course not. There are still major problems, which shows that simply passing drastic and repressive legislation is not enough and more needs to be done.

I am running out of time but I would quickly like to give the French example, which is a bit different, where stealing identity is not an indictable offence, except in very specific cases, such as using false identity in an authentic document or an administrative document intended for a public authority or assuming a false name in order to obtain police clearance.

I will not get into the details of the French example, but I hope committee members will have the opportunity to go and compare what is happening in these two countries. The French law seems less strict and less harsh than the U.S. legislation. It would be interesting to compare identity theft data for France and the United States, to see if the severity of the law, in and of itself, makes a significant difference.

Intuitively, one would be justified into thinking that it is important to have an act that includes provisions punishing this type of offences with a reasonable degree of harshness. Of course, if we want to deal effectively with this issue, we must have means to do so. Among other things, we must have the means to arrest and convict people before they commit offences, but this will not be enough.

In this respect, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that we go further than the bill does, by cooperating with the Quebec and provincial governments to put in place more effective measures, including as regards the civil code, which comes under the Quebec government's responsibility and whose evidentiary rules are less stringent than those of the Criminal Code. We must work to educate the public, to provide information on how to protect oneself from identity theft and, finally—and this was the main thrust of my speech—to lead by example as a responsible government, and to make all necessary efforts to protect our citizens' personal information.

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today in the House. This is the first time I have spoken since returning after the holidays. I hope that all my colleagues had a happy time with their families and took good advantage of it. I hope that 2008 will be a good year for all of us and for our fellow citizens and that it will bring us the wisdom we need to make the right decisions in Parliament and see this government take the major change in direction that is so badly needed.

In regard to Bill C-27 on identity theft, we know already that the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle. In fact, identity theft is one of our particular concerns. This crime is becoming increasingly common, in part because of the advent of new technologies that make it easier and more attractive. Therefore we need to modernize the Criminal Code to take the reality of identity theft into account.

We in the Bloc think that it is not enough simply to amend the Criminal Code. Concerted action is needed by the various levels of government as well as prevention and public education activities. As is often the case with this government when it comes to legal issues, it seems to think that just passing a law and saying that something is bad and criminal and must not be done will be enough to reduce this kind of crime. We know, though, that everywhere in the world where this kind of approach has been taken, whether in regard to identity theft or crime in general, such as crimes committed with a firearm, just increasing sentences and changing the Criminal Code to create more serious offences is not enough, even though it is sometimes necessary and helpful.

Although we support this bill and consider it justified and appropriate, we want to emphasize at the same time that it does not suffice and that we need to work together with other governments. Although the Criminal Code is a federal matter, there are issues in the civil and commercial areas that are under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the government will have to work together with others.

Unfortunately, the current Conservative government has a rather disappointing history of not working together very well with the provinces. We need only think of its plan to help the manufacturing and forestry industries that was so criticized by the governments of Quebec, Ontario and several other provinces. It was developed without any consultations with them and without taking their requests into account.

Insofar as the reform of federal institutions and representation in the House and Senate are concerned, the government has succeeded in uniting everyone against it since virtually all the provincial representatives are opposed to what has been proposed.

There is also the example of the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. Here too, the Government of Quebec, among others, hoped to work together with the federal government on achieving its objectives, but the reality was quite the opposite.

We are very concerned, therefore, about this. We will continue to pressure the government and emphasize the importance of working together with the provinces. In contrast to what some Conservative members have implied, this legislation will not solve the problem. It is one more tool, which is a good start but will not solve the problem. More action will be needed.

By this I mean educating the public to reduce victimization and introducing regulations to better govern the management, storage, disposal and transfer of information between companies and individuals.

We are faced with new technologies and new realities, primarily because of developments in informatics. We will have to take them into account and put in place measures to achieve greater consistency and security in identity document issuance and verification processes. As well, the federal government will have to set an example. Its record on protecting personal information and preventing identity theft is very poor. That must change. I would like to start by talking about this.

My colleagues have talked a great deal about the purpose and mechanics of the bill. I may come back to this later, if I have time. But first, I wanted to talk about how important it is for the federal government to set an example.

In my opinion, this is the best thing a government can do, and it is the least a government can do. It seems to me that when we are asking people and businesses to make an effort to protect Canadians' identity, we have to lead by example if we want to have any credibility and if we do not want those people to laugh at us.

I would like to point out some problems that already exist. With this bill, the government is proposing to penalize people who fraudulently use identity documents such as social insurance cards, the famous SIN we have talked about so much today. Yet this same government is not doing enough on this front.

In June 2006, the Auditor General said the government “had not done enough to safeguard and strengthen the integrity of the SIN”. In June 2006, there were 2.9 million more social insurance numbers in circulation than the number of Canadians who qualified for one. This is extremely disturbing. There are 2.9 million too many social insurance numbers circulating in Canada at present, or at least there were in June 2006.

The bill makes it illegal to falsely impersonate a peace officer or public officer. We completely agree. Of course a person cannot impersonate a public officer or peace officer, especially for fraudulent purposes. However, in December 2004, the media reported that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, could not account for all of its uniforms, of all things. From January to September 2004, CATSA had given out approximately 75,000 uniform items to about 4,000 screening officers. Out of these, a total of 1,127 pieces were reported lost or stolen, including 91 badges, 78 shirts, 32 windbreakers and 25 sweaters, all of which had the agency's logo on them. To give you an idea, that is 1,127 pieces out of 75,000—almost 2% of the pieces for 4,000 officers, which comes out to more than one article for every four officers. We do not think this is a problem at the officer level in particular. It is likely an inventory problem.

According to the CBC, some of these uniform items were offered to the highest bidder on eBay, an online auction site. Imagine this: the legislators in this House pass an act to prohibit citizens from falsely impersonating a peace officer or public officer. That is all well and good, but at the same time, among the thousands of CATSA uniform items are the 91 badges, which are similar to the badges police officers show on television. They show a badge to identify themselves, but these badges are being sold on eBay.

It is urgent that we plug these holes. We can pass all the laws we want; however, if it is so incredibly easy for people to make false representations, we will not solve the problem.

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works finally announced on December 10, 2007, the federal government's contribution for the relocation of the Montreal planetarium to the Rio site.

During the press conference, the unelected minister put on a shameful display of partisanship unworthy of his position. Indeed, although the host of the event had planned to invite the federal representatives from east Montreal, the unelected minister apparently objected, despite the fact that these federal representatives joined forces to complete the project.

Furthermore, this unelected minister, showing absolute pettiness and a complete lack of ethics, took it upon himself to invite and introduce Conservative candidates from Montreal Island, emphasizing that they would likely be his future colleagues in the House of Commons.

Coming from someone who was not elected, this contempt for the democratic process is not only unacceptable, but I think it is safe to bet that Montrealers will not soon forget it.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many Canadian taxpayers are going to believe that.

If the then minister of finance had no idea what impact this bill would have on his family business, if he did not use his influence, then he is unbelievably lucky. Things just happened to work out for him? I have my doubts.

If the former finance minister and member for LaSalle—Émard is truly as innocent as the hon. member claims, then he is a very lucky man because the bill truly worked out quite well for his family business.

As for where the international division of Canada Steamship Lines International operates from—I mentioned this in my speech—that was one of the things that was questioned by a Quebec journalist who went to Barbados. He knocked on the door of the Canada Steamship Lines International office, but no one answered. There was just a small sign on the door that said: Canada Steamship Lines International.

Since the hon. member is so determined to defend the integrity of his colleague from LaSalle—Émard, then I invite him to go on a little mission. Let him invite us to see the Canada Steamship Lines International offices in Barbados. It would be my pleasure to go there and I am sure a number of my colleagues here in this House would be happy to do so as well. A trip like that would leave us with a lot of free time because visiting the offices of Canada Steamship Lines International would take only 30 to 40 seconds since there practically are no offices.

And if the headquarters are truly in Barbados, with hundreds of employees working there and keeping this company in operation, then, when we return from our trip that the hon. member is going to invite us to take, I will say in this House that I was wrong.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the omnibus bill that contained the clauses on the tax convention with Barbados and was retroactive to 1995 was introduced by the member for LaSalle—Émard. Now, I am being told that he had never discussed it with finance department officials. How is it that he introduced a bill in this House containing clauses that were allegedly never discussed and whose legal implications he allegedly never considered?

Either the member is mistaken and the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, did address that issue and did examine the implications of these clauses, contrary to what the member just said, or the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was the finance minister at the time, never considered the impacts of these clauses and was completely unaware of how clauses in a bill he introduced in this House could affect his family company. I have some trouble imagining that. Either way, he acted irresponsibly.

It is a well-known fact that he did not run the day-to-day operations of Canada Steamship Lines. However, if someone owns a company, he need not be involved directly in its management to know that if it moved to Barbados in 1995 it might be interesting to make the tax agreement retroactive to 1995.

The last item has to do with the competitiveness of these corporations. Let us be frank. If it were really true, why would there not be a special tax treatment for these corporations in Canada? At least the 2% to 5% in tax that could be collected would be paid in Canada. At present, we lose everything. Are we prepared to accept for all time that the existence of tax havens and corporations without infrastructure to support—these shipping companies use our infrastructure and our ports and the consumer goods are destined for our markets or are being shipped by our producers via these ships—justifies the burden being shouldered by Canadian taxpayers alone?

We have to find means of ensuring, among other things, that everyone pays their fair share. The member has just confirmed the Liberal Party's true methods. These companies must be profitable; therefore there is no other option but to be based in a tax haven such as Barbados.

I could make the following argument as I mentioned earlier. Two months ago I became the father of a baby girl. I could say that in order to pay my rent I have no choice but to pay less tax and I will work under the table. It does not work like that. I cannot say that because I need to pay less I have to find a way of not paying my taxes. Everyone has to pay taxes, citizens and corporations alike.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask a question because I knew that I would have the opportunity to reply to my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance. I am pleased to see that he wishes this committee to examine this issue once again. An agreement will be reached readily given that the government has already stated that it supports continuing with the review already begun by the Standing Committee on Finance.

I now know that the Liberal Party also supports proceeding and I have no doubt at all that the NDP would also like to examine the issue of companies that use tax havens such as Barbados, the most well known example, to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

I would like to spend most of my time on this subject. The tax agreement with the United States covered by the bill under consideration is not a problem. We all know that the United States is not a tax haven. The bill gives cross-border workers the same tax benefits as resident workers. It will institute a bipartite tribunal or board to settle tax disputes and to tighten rules for certain types of companies, making it more difficult to use various tax loopholes.

The bill eliminates certain provisions pertaining to double taxation of capital gains. We support this and I believe it has a great deal of support from parliamentarians. I do not wish to go into too much detail about this matter.

However, it is surprising that the government has time for such matters. That is fine, we are not criticizing them, but we are questioning their unwillingness to shut down tax havens.

I would like to backtrack a bit to have a better understanding of what is at issue. There is a general rule among various countries that sign tax agreements. If tax is paid in one country, it is not paid a second time on the same income when the money is repatriated to the country of origin. According to this principle, the same income is not taxed twice.

That said, in order to know whether companies have paid taxes in their country of origin, Canada negotiates tax treaties with other countries. Among other things, these treaties provide for the exchange of information about taxes paid in another country, so that Canada knows whether or not the money should be taxed when it is brought back here. If there is no tax treaty or exchange of information, Canada assumes that taxes were not paid and claims the corresponding taxes when the money is brought back.

In the past, in the Liberal days, a bill was introduced by the finance minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, to establish a tax treaty with Barbados, telling our companies that do business in Barbados and pay taxes there that they should not also pay taxes in Canada. At issue was a famous example of a company doing business in Barbados, Canada Steamship Lines International, which was of course owned by the family of the member for LaSalle—Émard.

Up to this point, everything is fine and seems to make sense. The problem is that the tax rate for international companies in Barbados is 2%. Obviously, it is rather ridiculous to say that these companies paid taxes in Barbados, since they paid 2%. Really, it was getting a gift. Then, companies such as Canada Steamship Lines are allowed to bring back to Canada the money they had earned from having their head office in Barbados, without having to pay taxes here.

There is another loophole in this mechanism that the Liberals themselves introduced. Obviously, the act requires there to be a real place of business in Barbados. It also states that the revenues must genuinely be earned in Barbados, and that they must not simply be a financing scheme to avoid paying taxes.

Members will probably remember the very telling report that aired in Quebec, aptly called Les évasions barbares, or The Barbarian Evasions.

A journalist went to Barbados, to the building that is home to the head offices of hundreds of companies that supposedly do business there. The journalist found that the building has about a hundred tiny rooms just big enough to accommodate a secretary and two filing cabinets. Obviously, the journalist demonstrated by this very fact that it would be impossible for a company that generates millions of dollars to really have a head office there, in such a small partitioned office with only a desk, a typist, a computer and two filing cabinets.

In reality, the decisions made by those companies are made in Canada or elsewhere around the world. Their activities take place in Canada or elsewhere around the world, but their financing is such that all revenue is artificially declared in Barbados and is subject to a ridiculously low tax rate, only 2%. They then send the money back to Canada, maintaining that they have already paid taxes in Barbados and therefore should not have to pay taxes in Canada.

This scheme is possible because of the negligence of the Liberal government at the time and we hope that the Conservative government will be proactive in this file, as it claims it will. At the time, the Liberal government was negligent and even had the audacity to adopt retroactive measures with respect to the tax treaty with Barbados. In fact, when the bill was adopted, the provisions were that the treaty would apply retroactively to 1995. By a curious coincidence, that was the same year that Canada Steamship Lines was established in Barbados. That was a rather interesting situation, especially since, when it comes to retroactivity, both the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to adopt a double standard.

Obviously, the guaranteed income supplement is a perfect example. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting for the seniors who have been swindled out of the guaranteed income supplement. They are owed money because they were misinformed and were unable to claim the money at the appropriate time. They must be given full retroactivity, that is, they must be given the money that is owing to them. It is not a gift; they are entitled to this money. Yet, this is not being done.

Naturally, when people have to pay taxes because they have forgotten to declare income over the past five or ten years, retroactivity applies. Those at fault cannot tell the tax man that he caught them too late, so they should only have to pay for the past 11 months. If they get caught, they have to pay taxes for the past five or ten years.

The same goes for Barbados. New legislation was retroactive. No big deal, it provided tax shelters to companies so they could get off without having to pay any taxes. No big deal, retroactivity applied. In contrast, when it comes to reimbursing seniors, when it is time to give them the money they are entitled to, the government says too bad, it cannot be done.

The Liberals did not want to budge when people were asking them to. We challenged them on the fact that they were offering full retroactivity in terms of tax breaks for the richest companies, but were not doing the same for seniors. During the election campaign, the Conservatives said that they would grant seniors full retroactivity. Now they are refusing to do it because they say they are in charge and things have changed.

What does it mean for politics when a member or a minister says that now that he is in government, things have changed? Does it mean that he said whatever he wanted beforehand? Does it mean that the government has the right to withhold the truth and mislead the public? That is a very strange way to operate.

I really want to take this opportunity to emphasize something to all parties in this House. Even though the Bloc Québécois supports the bill before us concerning the tax convention with the United States, we want to re-examine issues related to other tax conventions between Canada and other countries, conventions that are designed not to help workers, but to enable companies to pay next to no tax in Canada and opt out of their fair contribution.

We will continue this work after the holidays. If the Liberals want to work with us, so much the better. I hope that the Conservative government will act as quickly as it says it will.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says that this tax treaty with the United States was not given its due.

However, the Standing Committee on Finance spent a great deal of time examining the tax treaty with Barbados. When the current government was in the opposition, it was in favour of rapidly plugging the loopholes that allow people to bring money back to Canada from tax havens without having to pay tax. Now that it is in government, it seems to be well-intentioned, but we are still waiting for results.

It was the Liberal Party that was responsible for creating these loopholes in the first place. In fact, it was the former minister of finance and current member for LaSalle—Émard who did so. He even had Parliament pass retroactive legislation to allow money to be repatriated from Barbados tax free.

I would like to know whether the Liberals, now that they are in opposition, have changed their minds and are willing to cooperate with the other parties to resolve the tax havens problem.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Standing Committee on Finance studied this bill. The committee also looked at other tax treaties, including the treaty with Barbados regarding tax havens.

The government took action on this matter, although this bill comes from the Senate. Before it was elected, the government said—and it repeated this at the Standing Committee on Finance—that it would take action on the matter of tax havens and the tax evasion that goes on in Barbados, for example.

I would like to ask him a very specific question. Can the parliamentary secretary give us a date on which the government will come forward with a proposal to resolve the tax haven issue?

[Petitions, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by a thousand people from Pointe-Saint-Charles and elsewhere in my riding who want the government to tell Canada Post to reverse its decision to close the Pointe-Saint-Charles post office located at 1695 Grand Trunk in Montreal.

The topic of post office closures in rural areas has been much discussed in this House. However, closing an urban post office hurts too. Some residents, particularly those in this neighbourhood, have a hard time getting around. They use wheelchairs or walkers to get to the post office. For them, a post office located several kilometres away at the end of the Victoria bridge, an area that is not served by public transportation and that is regularly congested, is just not acceptable.

Furthermore, between 200 and 300 people use post office boxes at this post office. Some people use them to maintain a permanent address, but now they will have to get new post office boxes. Others, such as victims of domestic violence, use them for reasons of confidentiality. All of these people will have trouble accessing this service in the future.

Lastly, I would like to point out that Montreal's Pointe-Saint-Charles neighbourhood is experiencing economic renewal and development. Community members have done a lot of work to attract businesses to the neighbourhood. Canada Post is sending the wrong signal by closing the only post office in the neighbourhood.

The government will have to pay attention to the thousands of people who have signed this petition and who are taking part in a rally about this today. I hope they will be heard, and I hope Canada Post will reverse its decision.

[Securities, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the New York Stock Exchange merged with Euronext, each institution kept its regulatory framework. The merger did not result in the creation of a single regulatory body. According to the World Bank and the OECD, the current system is working quite well and studies show that a centralized system would be more expensive.

In light of these facts, will the Minister of Finance admit that his true objective is to centralize all financial activities in Toronto in order to benefit his friends on Bay Street?