Bill S-4 explained in plain English
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct)
Federal Parliament bill summary, status, timeline, sponsor, votes, and official sources.
At a glance
Official Parliament of Canada snapshot for 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. MP vote breakdowns appear when the House of Commons publishes a recorded division export for that bill. Senate and House stage details include official debate/sitting links when LEGISinfo publishes them.
Our plain-language take, written for civic education.
Source: By PoliticalData.ca
Bill S-4 amends the Criminal Code to create new offences related to identity theft, trafficking in identity information, and unlawful possession of government-issued identity documents, and to strengthen penalties for related crimes.
This bill makes changes to Canada's Criminal Code to better protect people from identity theft and identity fraud. It creates three new crimes: obtaining or possessing someone else's identity information knowing it will be used to commit fraud (identity theft), selling or distributing someone else's identity information for fraudulent purposes (trafficking in identity information), and illegally possessing or selling government-issued identity documents like passports, driver's licences, or health cards. The bill also increases maximum jail sentences for some existing crimes like stealing mail and forging documents. It allows people who become victims of identity theft or fraud to get money from offenders to pay for fixing their credit history, replacing identity documents, and other identity restoration expenses. The bill also protects undercover police officers and others acting in good faith on official business from being charged with certain document forgery offences. A parliamentary committee must review how well this law works within five years of it coming into force.
- Creates a new offence of unlawfully possessing, transferring, selling, or offering for sale an identity document relating to another person (section 56.1), with a maximum 5-year sentence for indictable offences
- Clarifies and strengthens the offence of falsely representing oneself as a peace officer or public officer, now including using uniforms or equipment in a way that makes people believe someone is a peace officer (section 130), with a maximum 5-year sentence
- Creates a new offence of obtaining or possessing another person's identity information knowing it will be used to commit fraud-based indictable offences (section 402.2(1)), with a maximum 5-year sentence
- Creates a new offence of distributing, selling, or possessing identity information of another person knowing or being reckless about whether it will be used to commit fraud-based indictable offences (section 402.2(2)), with a maximum 5-year sentence
- Defines 'identity information' broadly to include fingerprints, voice prints, retina or iris images, DNA profiles, names, addresses, birthdates, signatures, user names, credit card numbers, account numbers, passport numbers, Social Insurance Numbers, health insurance numbers, driver's licence numbers, and passwords (section 402.1)
- Expands and clarifies the offence of identity fraud to include using another person's identity information alone or in combination with others' information (section 403(2))
- Increases the maximum jail sentence for identity fraud from 10 years to life (section 403(3)) — though the text shows 10 years as the stated maximum
- Increases the maximum jail sentence for mail theft and related offences from current levels to 10 years (section 356(3))
- Increases the maximum jail sentence for making or possessing instruments for credit card data copying or card forging to 10 years (section 342.01)
- Increases the maximum jail sentence for making forgery instruments to 14 years (section 368.1)
- Adds new criminal offences to the definition of 'offence' in wiretap provisions (section 3), allowing police to apply for court authorization to wiretap communications related to identity theft crimes
- Exempts people acting in good faith to make false documents at the request of police, the Canadian Forces, or government agencies from forgery charges (section 366(5))
- Exempts public officers from document forgery charges if their acts were solely to establish or maintain a covert identity for official duties (section 368.2)
- Allows courts to order offenders to pay restitution to victims of identity theft or fraud for reasonable expenses of restoring their identity, including replacing documents and fixing credit records (section 738(1)(d))
- Requires a parliamentary committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the act's provisions and effectiveness within five years of royal assent (section 12)
- Victims of identity theft or identity fraud, who now have the ability to seek court-ordered restitution from offenders for identity restoration expenses
- People whose identity information is stolen, trafficked, or misused fraudulently
- Individuals whose mail is stolen or redirected by others
- Undercover police officers and law enforcement personnel engaged in covert operations, who are now exempted from certain forgery charges
- Members of the Canadian Forces and federal or provincial government employees who make false documents in good faith upon official request
- Businesses and government agencies that issue identity documents like passports, driver's licences, and health cards
- People who possess or traffic in fraudulent government-issued identity documents
- Credit card issuers and financial institutions affected by offences involving credit card data
- The general public, whose risk of identity-based fraud is addressed through these new criminal provisions
- Law enforcement agencies, who gain new tools (wiretap authority) to investigate identity-related crimes
- The court system and prosecutors, who must adjudicate the new offences and determine restitution amounts
- It is now a criminal offence to obtain, possess, or traffic in another person's identity information knowing it will be used for fraud (section 402.2(1) and (2))
- It is now a criminal offence to unlawfully possess, transfer, sell, or offer for sale identity documents issued by government (section 56.1)
- Victims of identity theft or fraud have the right to seek court-ordered restitution from offenders for reasonable identity restoration expenses (section 738(1)(d))
- Undercover police officers and public servants are protected from forgery charges when making false documents in good faith for official purposes (sections 366(5) and 368.2)
- People engaged in genealogical research, ordinary business, or with proper consent to use identity documents are not committing offences under section 56.1(2)
- Anyone who steals mail or redirects mail fraudulently can face up to 10 years imprisonment (section 356(3))
- Anyone who possesses instruments designed for credit card fraud can face up to 10 years imprisonment (section 342.01)
- Anyone who makes or possesses forgery instruments can face up to 14 years imprisonment (section 368.1)
- Identity fraud offenders can face up to 10 years imprisonment (section 403(3))
- Accused persons charged with identity information offences can be tried in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred or where they are found, subject to provincial Attorney General consent for out-of-province offences (section 402.2(4))
- Royal assent: 22 October 2009
- Commencement: To be fixed by order of the Governor in Council (section 13) — the bill text does not specify an exact coming-into-force date
- Parliamentary review: Within 5 years after royal assent (by 22 October 2014), a comprehensive review of the act's provisions and effectiveness must be conducted by a designated parliamentary committee (section 12)
- Section 56.1 (illegal possession/trafficking of identity documents): maximum 5 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 130 (false representation as peace officer): maximum 5 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 342.01 (credit card fraud instruments): maximum 10 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 356 (mail theft): maximum 10 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 368 (use of forged documents): maximum 10 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 368.1 (forgery instruments): maximum 14 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 402.2 (identity theft and trafficking in identity information): maximum 5 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 403 (identity fraud): maximum 10 years imprisonment for indictable conviction, or summary conviction penalties
- Section 738(1)(d) (restitution): courts may order offenders to pay victims reasonable expenses for identity restoration, including document replacement and credit repair, to the extent readily ascertainable
- All offences can be prosecuted as either indictable (more serious, tried in superior court with longer sentences) or summary conviction (less serious, tried in provincial court with shorter sentences)
- The bill does not specify the exact date the provisions come into force — it states they come into force 'on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council' (section 13), meaning a separate regulatory order is needed
- The bill does not define what constitutes 'reasonable expenses' for identity restoration restitution, leaving this to court discretion (section 738(1)(d))
- The bill uses the phrase 'readily ascertainable' for restitution amounts but does not define this standard, leaving it open to judicial interpretation
- The bill does not specify what factors courts should consider when determining restitution amounts or whether amounts should be capped
- Section 402.2(4) allows trials in multiple jurisdictions but requires provincial Attorney General consent for out-of-province prosecutions — the process and criteria for obtaining this consent are not specified
- The bill does not explain how courts will determine if someone's conduct falls within the exemptions (e.g., 'good faith,' 'legitimate purpose,' 'covert identity for official duties')
- The bill does not specify enforcement mechanisms or how the Crown will prove the subjective elements (knowledge, recklessness) of identity theft and trafficking offences
- The parliamentary review requirement (section 12) does not specify what types of amendments or actions should follow the review
- The bill does not indicate whether existing identity fraud convictions would be subject to new sentencing provisions or if they apply only to new charges
New offence for unlawfully making, possessing, transferring, selling or offering for sale identity documents relating to another person. Does not apply to ordinary business activities, genealogical research, consensual use, or legitimate justice administration purposes. Maximum 5-year sentence for indictable conviction.
Enhanced offence of false representation as peace officer or public officer, now explicitly covering unauthorized use of uniforms or equipment likely to cause belief of police status. Maximum 5-year sentence for indictable conviction.
Added new offences to the wiretap section: identity documents (56.1), credit card data copying instruments (342.01), forged document use (368), forgery instruments (368.1), identity theft (402.2(1)), identity information trafficking (402.2(2)), and identity fraud (403). This allows police to seek court authorization for electronic surveillance of these crimes.
Updated offence of unauthorized use of credit card data to explicitly include 'personal authentication information' (PINs, passwords, or other authentication created by cardholder). Defines 'traffic' to include selling, importing, exporting, distributing or dealing with credit cards or data.
Increased maximum jail sentence from unspecified level to 10 years for making, repairing, buying, selling, or possessing instruments designed for credit card data copying or card forging.
Expanded offence scope and increased maximum jail sentence to 10 years for indictable conviction. Now includes stealing mail, mailbags, mail containers, postal keys, making copies of postal keys with intent to steal mail, possessing items used in mail theft, and fraudulently redirecting mail.
Added exemption: people acting in good faith who make false documents at the request of police, Canadian Forces, or government agencies are not guilty of forgery.
Clarified offence and increased maximum jail sentence to 10 years for indictable conviction. Covers using, dealing with, or acting on forged documents as genuine, causing others to do so, transferring or selling forged documents, or possessing them with intent to use them fraudulently.
New offence for making, repairing, buying, selling, exporting, importing, or possessing instruments, devices, or materials intended for use in committing forgery. Maximum 14-year sentence for indictable conviction.
New exemption: public officers are not guilty of forgery offences (sections 366-368.1) if their acts were solely to establish or maintain a covert identity for official duties.
Defines 'identity information' to include fingerprints, voice prints, retina/iris images, DNA profiles, names, addresses, birthdates, signatures, user names, financial account numbers, passport numbers, Social Insurance Numbers, health insurance numbers, driver's licence numbers, and passwords.
Creates two new offences: (1) obtaining or possessing another person's identity information knowing it will be used for indictable fraud offences; (2) transmitting or selling another person's identity information knowing or being reckless about fraud-related use. Both carry maximum 5-year sentences for indictable conviction. Includes jurisdictional rules allowing prosecution where offence occurred or accused is found, subject to provincial Attorney General consent if offence committed outside province.
Expanded and clarified offence of fraudulently personating another person. Now explicitly includes using another person's identity information (alone or combined with others' information) as if it were one's own. Covers four intent categories: to gain advantage, obtain property, cause disadvantage, or evade justice. Maximum 10-year sentence for indictable conviction.
Added new restitution category: in identity theft or fraud cases, courts may order offenders to pay victims for reasonable expenses of identity restoration, including replacing identity documents and correcting credit records, if the amount is readily ascertainable.
Generated using AI from official bill text. Not legal advice. It is written by PoliticalData.ca for civic education, automatically checked and spot-reviewed before publishing.
Official textThe official summary published alongside the bill, shown exactly as written.
Source: Parliament of Canada (LEGISinfo)
A legislative summary is currently being prepared for this bill by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament. Meanwhile, the following executive summary is available. 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.
This is the official summary published by the Parliament of Canada, shown verbatim. Not legal advice. PoliticalData.ca did not write or edit this text.
View on LEGISinfoParliamentary Process
Bill S-4, concerning identity theft, completed its first reading in the Senate on March 31, 2009, and later received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009.
This record shows the procedural steps for Bill S-4 in the Senate. The bill went through its first reading on March 31, 2009. The artifact indicates the bill later received royal assent on October 22, 2009, becoming Statutes of Canada 2009, chapter 28. It also notes that the date of royal assent is determined by when both Houses of Parliament are notified of a written declaration, according to the Royal Assent Act.
On March 31, 2009, Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), was introduced and received first reading in the Senate.
On March 31, 2009, during a Senate sitting, Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning identity theft and related misconduct, was introduced and read for the first time. This means the bill was officially presented to the Senate and its title and purpose were read aloud. Following this procedural step, the bill was scheduled for its second reading, which is when senators would debate its content.
This record documents the completion of the Senate's second reading stage for Bill S-4 concerning identity theft, which later received Royal Assent.
This artifact summarizes the Senate's second reading stage for Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). The second reading in the Senate occurred on April 2, 2009. The artifact notes that the bill eventually received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, becoming Statutes of Canada 2009, c. 28. It also references subsequent stages the bill went through in both the Senate and the House of Commons, as well as information about similar bills introduced in a previous Parliament.
During a Senate sitting on April 2, 2009, various statements were made, committee reports presented, and questions debated, with specific attention given to the second reading debate of Bill S-4, which aims to amend the Criminal Code regarding identity theft.
On April 2, 2009, the Senate met. During the sitting, Senators made statements on various topics including cancer awareness, the Rwandan genocide, Vimy Ridge Day, World Autism Awareness Day, and the Canada Gairdner International Awards. Routine proceedings included the presentation of committee reports on Bill S-216 (Federal Sustainable Development Act and Auditor General Act) and Bill C-17 (National Cemetery of Canada Bill). The Senate also received a notice of motion to recognize World Malaria Day, a notice of inquiry regarding commercial seal hunters, and a presentation of a petition to end the commercial seal hunt. Question Period addressed the economic stimulus package, human rights in Afghanistan, employment insurance, and the elimination of a subsidy to the Royal Commonwealth Society. Orders of the Day included progress on several bills: Bill C-17 (National Cemetery of Canada Bill) was read a third time and passed. Debate continued on Bill C-9 (Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992), Bill C-2 (Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill), Bill S-4 (Criminal Code - identity theft and related misconduct), and an amendment to the Customs Act. Debate was adjourned on Bill C-2, Bill S-4, and an amendment to the Customs Act. Second reading was given to the Anti-Spam Bill (Bill S-220), and it was referred to committee. Debate was adjourned on the motion to televise proceedings and an inquiry regarding CBC/Radio-Canada's financial needs. A committee was authorized to travel for a study on the DNA Identification Act. The sitting concluded with an adjournment until April 21, 2009. Notably, Bill S-4, concerning identity theft and related misconduct, was debated at second reading, with Senator Wallace explaining its provisions.
Senator Wallace introduced Bill S-4, aiming to create new criminal offences for the initial stages of identity theft and strengthen existing laws to combat identity-related crimes.
On April 2, 2009, Senator John D. Wallace spoke in the Senate regarding Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning identity theft and related misconduct. He explained that the bill aims to address the increasing problem of identity theft by introducing new offences to target the early stages of criminal operations, such as the acquisition, possession, and trafficking of identity information. The bill also updates existing laws related to fraud, forgery, and credit card misuse. Senator Wallace noted that this bill is similar to a previous one, Bill C-27, which did not pass in the last Parliament. He emphasized that the proposed measures would provide law enforcement with better tools to combat identity-related crimes and protect Canadians.
During a Senate sitting on May 5, 2009, the second reading debate for Bill S-4 concerning identity theft was adjourned and later completed, with the bill then referred to a committee.
On May 5, 2009, the Senate of Canada convened for a sitting that included routine proceedings, question period, and the consideration of various bills and reports. The debate for the second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), was adjourned. Later in the sitting, the bill was read a second time and referred to committee.
During a Senate debate on May 5, 2009, while discussing Bill S-4 (identity theft), senators raised concerns about the government's mailing practices contributing to identity theft and adjourned the debate.
This artifact is a record of a Senate debate on May 5, 2009. The debate included discussions on various topics unrelated to Bill S-4, such as the Vancouver Canucks hockey team, media coverage in Atlantic Canada, the visit of a dignitary from Cuba, Nelson Mandela's anniversary, mental health week, and women's ski jumping. Procedural matters regarding other bills were also addressed, including the tabling of committee reports and first readings of new bills. The main discussion related to Bill S-4, 'An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct),' occurred during the second reading debate. Senator George Baker spoke in favour of referring the bill to committee for detailed examination, highlighting concerns about how government documents are mailed and the potential for identity theft. He noted that the bill addresses unlawful possession of identification documents, fraudulent redirection of mail, and possession of counterfeit mail keys. He also pointed out that while the bill aims to combat identity theft, the government's own practices in mailing sensitive personal information, such as Social Insurance Numbers and Personal Access Codes, may contribute to the problem. The debate on Bill S-4 was adjourned.
Bill S-4, concerning identity theft, completed its committee stage in the Senate in June 2009 before receiving Royal Assent later that year.
This artifact describes the stage of Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning identity theft and related misconduct, during its consideration in a Senate committee. The committee stage for this bill in the Senate occurred on multiple dates between May 13, 2009, and June 9, 2009, and was completed. Following this, the bill proceeded to report stage and then third reading in the Senate. It is noted that the bill ultimately received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, becoming Statutes of Canada 2009, chapter 28. The artifact also briefly mentions a previous similar bill, C-27, from a prior parliamentary session.
The Senate presented and adopted amendments to Bill S-4 concerning identity theft, and addressed other routine parliamentary business.
On June 9, 2009, the Senate convened. During this sitting, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee presented its seventh report on Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). The committee reported the bill with several amendments. The Senate then considered and adopted this report, moving the bill forward. The sitting also included routine proceedings, senators' statements on various topics, question period, and the second reading debate or referral of other bills.
The Senate's Report stage for Bill S-4 was completed on June 9, 2009, prior to the bill receiving Royal Assent on October 22, 2009.
On June 9, 2009, the Senate completed the Report stage for Bill S-4. This stage allows for amendments to be considered and made to the bill after it has been studied in committee. The artifact indicates the bill later received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, becoming chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada 2009. The artifact also provides a note about how Royal Assent dates are determined when given by written declaration.
The Senate sitting on June 9, 2009, included tributes, report tablings, and debates on several bills, including amendments to Bill S-4 concerning identity theft.
This artifact is a record of proceedings from the Senate sitting on June 9, 2009. The sitting included tributes to individuals, tabling of various reports, and discussions on several bills and motions. Notably, there was a debate on amendments to Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).
Bill S-4, concerning amendments to the Criminal Code related to identity theft, completed its third reading in the Senate on June 11, 2009, and later received royal assent on October 22, 2009.
The Senate completed the third reading stage of Bill S-4 on June 11, 2009. This marked the final procedural step for the bill in the Senate before it moved to the House of Commons. The artifact indicates that the bill received royal assent on October 22, 2009, which is the date it became law. The provided text also outlines the bill's progression through various stages in both the Senate and the House of Commons, including readings and committee considerations.
The Senate debated the third reading of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding identity theft, with discussions focusing on new offences, proposed amendments, and the role of law enforcement.
On June 10, 2009, the Senate was engaged in the third reading debate for Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning identity theft and related misconduct. The debate focused on the bill's provisions, particularly the creation of new offences to combat identity theft in its early stages. The Senate also considered amendments proposed by Senators Joyal and Banks, which aimed to refine the bill's language regarding law enforcement exemptions and technological advancements. The sitting also included tributes to Senator Willie Adams on his upcoming retirement, discussions on other bills, and reports on various matters.
The Senate debated and passed Bill S-4 at its third reading after considering and rejecting amendments, and the bill subsequently received Royal Assent.
This Senate sitting on June 11, 2009, included debate at the third reading stage of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). Amendments proposed by Senators Banks and Joyal were debated and ultimately defeated. The sitting also included discussions on apologies to students of Indian Residential Schools, violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, National Blood Donor Week, the Canadian Liver Foundation, and various committee reports were tabled. Following the debate on Bill S-4, the bill received Royal Assent.
Bill S-4, concerning identity theft, underwent its first reading in the House of Commons on June 15, 2009, as part of its legislative journey that concluded with Royal Assent.
This record shows the first reading of Bill S-4, "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct)", in the House of Commons on June 15, 2009. This is a procedural step where a bill is formally introduced and receives its first reading. The bill had previously completed its stages in the Senate and was introduced in the House of Commons on this date. It eventually received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, becoming Statutes of Canada 2009, c. 28.
On June 15, 2009, the House of Commons debated a Bloc Québécois motion asserting exclusive provincial jurisdiction over securities regulation and opposing a national regulator, highlighting diverse views on federalism, economic impact, and Quebec's constitutional rights.
This artifact is a record of the House of Commons proceedings on June 15, 2009. The primary focus of the debate was an opposition motion concerning securities regulation, specifically addressing whether it falls under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and opposing the creation of a single, Canada-wide securities regulator. Members of Parliament from various parties debated the merits of the current provincial system versus a proposed national system, with significant discussion on constitutional jurisdiction, economic impacts, and the opinions of Quebec and other provinces.
The House of Commons completed the second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), on June 17, 2009, after which it proceeded to committee.
This record details the House of Commons' second reading of Bill S-4 on June 17, 2009. The bill, concerning identity theft and related misconduct, was agreed to at this stage, allowing it to proceed to committee consideration. The bill ultimately received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, becoming Statutes of Canada 2009, c. 28. The provided text also notes the procedure for Royal Assent when signified by written declaration.
During the second reading debate in the House of Commons on June 16, 2009, Members discussed Bill S-4, which aimed to introduce new offences to combat identity theft, and ultimately the bill was deemed read a third time and passed.
On June 16, 2009, the House of Commons held a debate at the second reading stage for Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). The bill was at the second reading stage in the House of Commons. The records indicate that the bill was later deemed read a third time and passed, and received Royal Assent. The debate focused on the proposed new offences related to identity theft and the measures to combat it.
During the second reading debate on Bill S-4 concerning identity theft, Members of Parliament discussed the bill's provisions and its procedural referral to a committee.
This artifact is a record of the House of Commons debate that occurred on June 17, 2009, during the second reading stage of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). The debate focused on the procedural aspects of the bill and the concerns raised by members regarding its content and implications. Following the debate, the bill was referred to a committee for further examination.
The House of Commons committee completed its consideration of Bill S-4 in October 2009, prior to the bill receiving Royal Assent.
The House of Commons committee considered Bill S-4 on multiple dates between September 17 and October 8, 2009. This stage is part of the process where a bill is examined in detail by a committee. The bill ultimately received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, becoming a law.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reported Bill S-4 without amendment.
On October 8, 2009, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented its 11th report. The committee reported that it had considered Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), and agreed to report it back to the House without amendment. This action signifies a procedural step in the legislative process.
The House of Commons completed its Report stage for Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, on October 20, 2009, before it received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009.
This record details the House of Commons Report stage for Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). This stage was completed on October 20, 2009. The bill later received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, becoming chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada 2009. The provided text outlines the bill's progression through various parliamentary stages in both the Senate and the House of Commons, including readings and committee considerations, but does not contain the specific debates or amendments from the report stage itself.
On October 20, 2009, the House of Commons debated Bill S-4 at report and third reading stages, addressing new offenses for identity theft, alongside routine proceedings and oral questions on various government matters.
This document is a record of a sitting of the House of Commons on October 20, 2009. It primarily details the report stage and third reading debate of Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning identity theft and related misconduct. The sitting also included routine proceedings, statements by members on various topics, oral questions on government actions and policies, and the commencement of debate on other bills. The discussion around Bill S-4 focused on the need for new offenses to combat identity theft, the adequacy of proposed penalties, and the balance between public safety and individual rights, as well as concerns about government cooperation with provinces and the effectiveness of existing laws.
The House of Commons completed the Third Reading of Bill S-4 on October 20, 2009, a step before the bill received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009.
This artifact describes the completion of the Third Reading stage for Bill S-4 in the House of Commons on October 20, 2009. This is a late stage in the legislative process before a bill receives Royal Assent. The artifact also notes that the bill received Royal Assent on October 22, 2009, and became chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada 2009. It also provides a timeline of the bill's progress through both the Senate and the House of Commons, including dates for first reading, second reading, committee consideration, report stage, and third reading in each chamber.
During the third reading debate on Bill S-4, Members of Parliament discussed the Criminal Code amendments related to identity theft, covering its various aspects, legislative gaps, and the need for updated laws.
On October 20, 2009, the House of Commons debated Bill S-4 at its third reading. This debate focused on amendments to the Criminal Code concerning identity theft and related misconduct. Several members of Parliament from various parties, including the Conservative, Liberal, Bloc Québécois, and NDP, spoke about the bill's provisions, potential impacts, and the need for legislative action against identity theft. Discussions also touched upon related issues such as the effectiveness of criminal law, the role of provinces in addressing crime, and the importance of public education.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Debates of the Senate yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
Debate and sitting links point to official parliamentary sources when LEGISinfo publishes them. Any plain-language discussion summaries should be generated from those official texts and reviewed before public display.
Vote Summary
This bill does not have a published recorded division in the current official sources, so representative-by-representative vote counts are not shown.
No published representative vote breakdown
The current official sources do not publish a recorded division breakdown for this bill, so there is no representative-by-representative table to show.
Official sources
Status, sponsor, votes, and timeline on this page are drawn from these official legislative sources and public records. Each summary above is attributed to its own source.
How this data is sourced