Bill S-4 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 30, 2009
- Debated in principleMay 4, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 10, 2009
- Passed the second chamberOct. 20, 2009
- Became lawOct. 22, 2009
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- John D. WallaceSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Joe ComartinStates general support for the legislation.
- Brian MurphyStates he is in favour of the bill while noting good parts like definitions and surveillance powers.
- Robert Vincentexplicitly states it is a good bill and the Bloc Québécois supports it
- Christian OuelletStates the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill and need to modernize the Criminal Code.
- Réal MénardDiscusses the bill's introduction and notes maximum sentences of 10 years for offences.
- Brent Rathgeberstates legislation is urgently needed and defends its provisions on possession
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
If you have any questions, please contact the Library of Parliament at (613) 995-1166. On 31 March 2009, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), in the Senate and it was given first reading. Currently, the Criminal Code does not contain a specific identity theft offence. With the exception of some new offences dealing with computers (s. 342.1) and credit/debit cards (s. 342), most of the Code offences relating to property predate both the computer and the Internet. Bill S-4 will create several new Criminal Code offences specifically targeting those aspects of identity theft that are not already covered by existing provisions. Essentially, the bill will focus on the preparatory stages of identity theft by making it an offence to obtain, possess, transfer or sell the identity documents of another person.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsSenator BanksBroaden the definition of identity documents to include any other document, apparatus or information storage device that establishes identity, and expand the definition of personal authentication information.Voted down · June 11, 2009 · Senate record
- adds safeguardsSenator JoyalAdd annual public reporting requirements on the use of false documents by police and other entities for undercover operations, and require written reports by public officers who commit acts that would otherwise be offences.Voted down · June 11, 2009 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
78% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,423 words introduced, 2,723 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill was expanded to cover additional identity documents and to add definitions clarifying credit card data offences. Several provisions were updated or replaced to include new terms and exceptions during passage through Parliament.
- Definition of identity document was expanded to include death certificates and employee identity cards.
Before: “a birth certificate, a passport as defined in subsection 57(5), a document that simplifies the process of entry into Canada, a certificate of citizenship, a document indicating immigration status in Canada or a certificate of Indian status,”
After: “a birth certificate, a death certificate, a passport as defined in subsection 57(5), a document that simplifies the process of entry into Canada, a certificate of citizenship, a document indicating immigration status in Canada, a certificate of Indian status or an employee identity card that bears the employee's photograph and signature,”
- Credit card data offence was broadened from personal identification number to personal authentication information.
Before: “possesses, uses, traffics in or permits another person to use credit card data, including a personal identification number,”
After: “possesses, uses, traffics in or permits another person to use credit card data, including personal authentication informa”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on lengthy defined terms and fixed maximum sentences to mark most offences. A few phrases still turn on inferences or states of mind that invite argument.
Open to argument
“in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the information is intended to be used”
The test is objective but hinges on what a court will infer from surrounding facts, leaving room for dispute.“knowing that or being reckless as to whether”
Recklessness introduces a subjective mental element that must be proven or inferred.“in a manner that is likely to cause persons to believe”
Likelihood is judged from the perspective of hypothetical observers and is not a bright-line rule.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
Maximum penalties are stated in fixed numbers of years.“"traffic" means, in relation to a credit card or credit card data, to sell, export from or import into Canada, distribute or deal with in any other way”
The term is given an explicit statutory definition.
Discretion. The bill leaves little to regulations or ministerial orders; most discretion appears in the statutory phrases “lawful excuse,” “without lawful authority or excuse,” and the requirement for Attorney General consent to prosecute out-of-province offences.
Challenging the law itself. Sections using “reasonable inference” or “reckless” could be attacked for vagueness under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily contest whether the required inference or recklessness existed, though the listed documents and fixed penalties limit other arguments.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.