Bill C-52 (Historical)

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) provide a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years for fraud with a value that exceeds one million dollars;
(b) provide additional aggravating factors for sentencing;
(c) create a discretionary prohibition order for offenders convicted of fraud to prevent them from having authority over the money or real property of others;
(d) require consideration of restitution for victims of fraud; and
(e) clarify that the sentencing court may consider community impact statements from a community that has been harmed by the fraud.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation.

I listened very carefully to the presentation and read earlier the written copy. I don't seem to see anywhere in your presentation where you make a statement--positive, negative, neutral--about Bill C-52.

What is the RCMP's view of Bill C-52?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 52 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, December 7, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're considering Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud).

We've divided today's meeting into two panels. First, we have a panel that includes witnesses from the RCMP. This is their third attempt to appear before us on this bill. We apologize for the inconvenience that we've put them through.

I know that you people have done your best to be here on time, but owing to a number of unforeseen circumstances we weren't able to accommodate you. We're eager to hear what you have to say today, so thank you for attending.

During the second hour of review, we'll be hearing additional witnesses on Bill C-52.

If there's any time left at the end, we can move to consider any committee business that members may want to raise. We have a budget for travel that we need to consider.

I wanted to note that this meeting is being televised and to remind you to turn off your BlackBerrys and take any phone calls outside the room.

Thank you.

Who's going to start for the RCMP?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here before the members of the standing committee to answer questions or hear comments concerning supplementary estimates (B) for the Department of Justice.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, our government was elected on a promise to tackle crime, and we're unwavering in our commitment to fighting crime and protecting Canadians so that our communities are safe places for people to live, raise their families, and do business. To help us fulfill that commitment, I've relied on the advice and the tireless efforts of the employees of the Department of Justice, and I deeply appreciate their support as our government moves forward with its crime agenda.

Our government firmly believes that the protection of society must remain the first priority of our criminal justice system and that sentences should reflect the severity of the crime. To that effect, we've succeeded in implementing legislation to ensure adequate sentences, such as our comprehensive Tackling Violent Crime Act, which legislated tougher jail time for serious gun crimes, increased the age of protection from 14 to 16 years to better protect our youth from adult sexual predators, and provided strong penalties for alcohol-impaired driving. In addition, we've also increased penalties for those convicted of street racing, ended conditional sentences for serious personal injury offences, and passed legislation to combat illegal copying of films in movie theatres.

In our fight against identity theft, we have succeeded in adding three new offences to the Criminal Code through Bill S-4, targeting the early stages of identity-related crime and giving the police the tools they had been lacking to move against this ever growing problem before the damage is done.

With regard to gangs and organized crime, we have passed Bill C-14, which will increase penalties for murders and reckless shootings connected to these activities. Once it comes into force, any murder connected to organized crime activity will automatically be considered first degree and subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

On October 22, our government succeeded in eliminating two-for-one credit for time spent in jail while waiting for trial, a practice that disproportionately reduced prison sentences for some violent offenders. Police associations, victim groups, and indeed all provinces and territories expressed their support for that bill.

Mr. Chairman, our government has made great strides, but there is more that we can be doing to protect Canadians. For example, in recent months I have spoken to victims of various fraud schemes and white collar crime, and they clearly attested to the gravity of those crimes. Fraud can have a devastating impact on the lives of its victims, not only as it affects their financial security but also through feelings of humiliation for having been deceived and voluntarily handing over their life savings. These schemes can be every bit as devastating as a physical assault.

The determination of these victims to call for action on fraud in the face of their emotional turmoil reaffirmed the need to act quickly and effectively against this type of crime. That's why I recently introduced Bill C-52, which cracks down on white collar crime and fraud and increases justice for victims.

These measures will allow victims to be heard and their concerns to be taken seriously by the courts.

We've also taken extremely seriously the many instances of child sexual exploitation facilitated by the Internet. The worldwide web provides new and easier means for offenders to make, view, and distribute child pornography, resulting in a significant increase not only in the availability and volume of pornography but also in the level of violence perpetrated against children.

Our government recently proposed a mandatory reporting regime across Canada that will require suppliers of Internet services to report certain information about Internet child pornography. This is one more step in our efforts to better protect children from sexual predators and help police rescue these young victims and prosecute the criminals responsible.

Our government has shown its concern for the victims of multiple murderers and their families. We firmly believe that the families of murder victims should not be made to feel that the life of their loved one doesn't count. This is why I tabled Bill C-36, which will permit judges to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murderers.

While there can only be one life sentence for an offender who commits more than one murder, the parole ineligibility period, 25 years in the case of a first-degree murderer, could be imposed consecutively for each subsequent murder. In addition, we continue to seek elimination of the “faint hope” clause of the Criminal Code. By saying no to early parole for murderers, our government hopes to spare families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to re-live these unspeakable losses over and over again.

Both of these pieces of legislation would acknowledge the value of every life taken by this most serious of crimes. It would ensure the criminals responsible serve a sentence that more adequately reflects the gravity of their crimes.

Mr. Chair, protecting people is a priority, not an afterthought. Our government remains committed to improving our justice system in order to properly address the problem of drug producers and traffickers.

Last spring I was in Vancouver to announce, alongside senior law enforcement officials, that our government was seeking to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by introducing Bill C-15.

This legislation would impose mandatory sentences on drug producers and traffickers, especially targeting the criminal enterprise of gangs and other violent criminal organizations, because we know that drugs are the currency of organized crime.

Having this legislation passed as quickly as possible would better protect our communities and send a clear message that if you produce and traffic in marijuana, if you're into the grow op business in residential neighbourhoods, if you threaten the safety of Canada's communities, you will serve jail time.

It's been six months since that bill was referred to the Senate. It's still not out of committee. I certainly urge all members of Parliament to do whatever we can to ensure and promote and push to get that important piece of legislation passed.

We are doing many things at the department. One of the things we are doing is investing some $10 million in the guns, gangs, and drugs initiative, which funds community-based programs that seek to help youth resist the lure of gang involvement and illicit drug use.

The Department of Justice is also committed to continuing to play a leadership role in strengthening the justice system through non-legislative means. The department has requested some $3 million in the main estimates for grants and contributions under the justice partnership and innovation program. This program contributes to policy development to ensure that justice remains accessible, efficient, effective, and that it reflects Canadian values.

We're also committed to helping victims better navigate and deal with the criminal justice and correctional systems. To that end, we have increased allocations to the victims fund to, among other things, provide greater financial assistance to those victims who wish to attend national parole board hearings, assist Canadians victimized abroad, provide additional funding to provincial and territorial governments to enhance or develop new services for underserviced victims of crime, and provide resources to the territories to directly assist victims with emergency costs.

In total, we have increased the funding for the federal victim strategy by $52 million over four years. We've also created the independent federal ombudsman for victims of crime to ensure that the federal government lives up to its commitments and obligations to victims of crime and to give victims a strong and effective voice in the criminal justice system.

We also recognize that aboriginal people enter our justice system in disproportionate numbers. As a result, we have renewed our commitment to the aboriginal justice strategy until 2012. We will make an additional investment of $40 million, for a total of $85 million over five years.

The strategy funds programs that provide justice services to more than 400 aboriginal communities across Canada, helping to hold offenders accountable for their actions, increase awareness of victims issues, and promote greater youth connection with aboriginal culture and traditions.

Mr. Chairman, ours is a busy agenda. I think we are doing important work. It's an important component of what we are here to do as members of Parliament.

I thank this committee for its work in moving forward on these justice initiatives. I look forward to more cooperation from this committee. Thank you again.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I was wondering if we could postpone our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-52 until we come back on January 25. Is there an urgent need for us to proceed with the clause-by-clause study on December 9? That would mean that if we wanted to propose amendments to the bill, we would have to table them tomorrow. We cannot work miracles. It becomes very difficult. Is there an urgent need? Can we put the study of to January 25?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

That will bring to an end our session. Unfortunately we're out of time. We have to go to vote.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing. Your testimony is now part of the public record. We'll consider it as we move forward in our consideration of Bill C-52.

Again, thank you.

We are adjourned.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Dubin, I'm a bit concerned about--I always take shots at the insurance bureaus--and I really have to question your analysis. Why would you be pushing the use of this bill as opposed to using the organized crime sections in the code for the kind of crime that you see with the fraudulent auto accidents?

It's clearly organized, it's clearly quite sophisticated, and it seems to me that the sections of the code dealing with organized crime groups would be much more appropriate than the contents of Bill C-52.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

First, I have to apologize. I had to go to Parliament to speak to another justice bill, Bill C-58. I said, and it will be noted: it is a very good bill, one that is very worthwhile and will be debated here by the committee in the near future.

However, I find it more difficult to accept Bill C-52. I don't know what your opinion is, I didn't hear you. So I am going to listen to you and ask you just one question. I practised criminal law for many years and I know of no case where someone committed a fraud, a theft, because I call it theft, of over $1 million and got a sentence of less than two years. So I wonder whether it is really necessary to impose a minimum prison term.

As well, I would like to talk about the obligation to make restitution. I think section 741 of the Criminal Code is not really used, which provides that the court may order restitution to victims, and this automatically becomes a civil judgment that the thief will be required to pay.

There are some things I don't understand. Minimum sentences of imprisonment are not a problem for me. The problem is that we don't go far enough and the risk is that we send the message that this isn't serious, that it is just a $1 million fraud, and the thief gets off with two years or less, or maybe more. That is a bad message. I don't know what you think, I didn't hear you, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony and you patience with the committee's work. I have some questions for Mr. Kube and Mr. Roy. Unfortunately, Mr. Nichol, I did not hear your presentation, and that is why I will not be asking you any questions.

Bill C-52, in its present form, applies only to crimes of fraud, in general. As you said, that doesn't cover cases like Bre-X. A fraudulent prospectus was issued by a company. It also doesn't apply to insider trading, and so on.

Do you think the bill should be amended so that it applies to other fraudulent acts that are already regarded as criminal, to ensure equality, if I can use that expression?

Mr. Roy, you said it might be wise to create an exception for accomplices to fraud, given that the evidence often shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, obviously, that their role was minimal. In your opinion, how could we be sure, in terms of the drafting, that an accomplice who did play a relatively major role in the case was dealt with? Could there be aggravating factors that would determine whether the person should be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence?

You also talked about prohibitions on someone convicted of fraud handling other people's affairs. If the bill is amended to give a judge the power to impose such a prohibition, will other sections of the Criminal Code have to be amended to be sure that this makes sense? What I want to talk about here is what you said earlier, probation, monitoring a person who is subject to the prohibition.

Thank you.

Was that short enough?

[William Nichol, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Justice Review Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

On behalf of the directors of the Canadian Justice Review Board, I wish to thank the committee members for providing the opportunity to appear here this afternoon. I've provided the committee clerk with a brief that highlights our concerns in more detail, and I understand you have received copies of it electronically.

The key point that I would like to emphasize is that Bill C-52 deals only with the sentencing aspect of an otherwise very lengthy process, and by its nature, it already provides many opportunities to avoid sentencing in the long run.

The brief contains a list of some of the many possible escape routes. I hope you will review and consider those in terms of the content of this legislation. My friend here has alluded to some of those escape routes.

Yesterday's Ottawa Citizen carried an opinion piece from Mr. James Morton, entitled “We need 21st-century law”. Mr. Morton is, among other things, an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall. In my opinion, a key passage in his article touched on the matters being considered here today. Mr. Morton asks, “Is crime really best dealt with by prisons?” He answers the question by saying that in some cases—white-collar crime—probably yes, but in other cases, as with most drug-related crime, probably not. But here we're dealing with white-collar crime. Bill C-52 seeks to address white-collar crime and it does so in the general context of the criminal justice system's goal of preventing crime.

Fraud has a legal definition in the Criminal Code, but fraud can be very difficult to prove. If the goal is to prevent damage to society, and more specifically financial damage, then perhaps it's time to define in the Criminal Code some of the other undesirable white-collar activities—for example, creative accounting. In my opinion, this bill would be considerably improved if it did that.

If we were speaking of fraud alone, then the Canadian Justice Review Board submits that a two-year prison term is not an effective deterrent, especially given our current parole board policies. We ask that you, as legislators, consider a mandatory five-year sentence.

Ms. Hazel Magnussen, who is a colleague of mine operating in Victoria, British Columbia, who is also the secretary of the Canadian Justice Review Board, specializes in victims' rights issues. Over the past two years or more, she has been conferring with the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Mr. Steve Sullivan, and also with our own board member Professor Ted DeCoste. As a result, they designed a curriculum that Ted DeCoste was able to introduce for law students at the University of Alberta that raises awareness of victims' rights.

Since Mr. Sullivan may also be appearing in front of this committee, I don't want to steal any of his thunder, but I would like to point out that the Canadian Justice Review Board agrees with sentiments he expressed in a November press release. He said:

I am pleased to see the federal government moving forward on important victims’ issues like financial crime and restitution...I am however concerned that the restitution piece of this new legislation applies only to victims of fraud. We need to ensure that we are supporting all victims who may have been devastated financially as a result of a crime.

If I may, I'd like to return quickly to the comments I made a few moments ago and reiterate that this legislation would be greatly improved if it brought within the ambit of the Criminal Code some of these other socially unacceptable practices often associated with what we might call the financial industry, and also legislated significant penalties for those behaviours, including restitution.

Fraud is not the only problem. I believe it's very upsetting, or depressing, for the general public to hear or read about major financial swindles and then learn that even those fraudsters who admit guilt receive what many consider to be laughable sentences, such as house arrest or early six-month parole.

What Bill C-52 should be doing is restoring public confidence in the justice system by giving society a legal framework that applies to the 21st century's financial world.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee again for the invitation to appear. I trust that you will give some consideration as to the recommendations we've made.

Thank you.

[Arthur Kube, President, National Office, National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll tell you a bit about our organization. It's been in existence for 57 years. It started largely in the province of Saskatchewan and it has grown to where we now have 380 organizations affiliated to our federation, with an approximate total membership in excess of a million individual seniors.

What has been happening in the last few years is that more and more of our members are depending upon their individual investments for their retirement income. As you know, the number of people who are covered by a pension plan has been declining for some time, and therefore a good number of our members have to operate in the market.

We appreciate that Parliament is moving on Bill C-52, and I think it's a step in the right direction. However, I want to assure the committee members and the chair that it's not quite sufficient for our members. Let me give you an example.

In the Bre-X case, you had a situation where it was a publicly sold security. Let me tell you that the president of Bre-X had an exit strategy all along. How are you going to get hold of the president of Bre-X who is now, I understand, living either in the Turks and Caicos Islands or somewhere, beyond the Canadian jurisdiction? To a certain extent, with that bill, unless you have an extradition agreement, really nothing will happen.

The other thing is that when seniors are defrauded, quite often they're ashamed to report it. To a certain extent, they're leery of the rest of the family because they feel they should have consulted the family. But we then find out that somebody does goes ahead and lay a complaint and the person is prosecuted.

You know, there's nothing in the legislation that says, if a person is found guilty of fraud, they're not only found guilty of the fraud perpetrated on the person who complained...but there should be compensation and restitution for all of the people who got defrauded by that particular person. I think to a certain extent the bill falls short.

We passed a resolution at our convention, which emphasizes the direction we seniors would like to go in. I'd like to read that resolution:

Whereas the federal government, in the January 27, 2009, budget set out the plan for regulatory reform of Canada's capital markets; and whereas the expert panel on securities regulation that reported in the Hawkin Report, published January 2, 2009, recommends reform of the multiple and provincial Canadian securities regulatory schemes to a single Canadian securities regulator; and whereas the Canadian capital markets need efficient, effective, and shareholder-friendly regulatory protection; and whereas a change in the Canadian securities regulatory schemes has the support of the majority of the provinces; and whereas a single securities regulator will enhance the detection and prosecution of serious capital market crimes, where the current fragmented system of provincial securities regulations has shown that it cannot prevent such crimes; and whereas the current financial crisis has provided the motivation and optimism that such a reform to a single Canadian securities regulator will work and be supported by most provinces; therefore it be resolved that the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation lobby the federal government and opposition parties to establish a national securities regulator through legislation that enhances the right of investments.

The reason it's so important for seniors to have a regulatory framework is that, to us, prevention is really the answer to stopping crimes. If you have a strong regulatory system, where, for instance, we could separate people who either sell or advise in the security field into different parts, that would be a beginning. If we could license them properly and bond them properly, that would be another help. We think the answer to white-collar crime, especially as far as seniors are concerned, rests more on the side of regulation than really punishment, because, as I said, these crooks are pretty smart. They always have an exit strategy. We know it's awfully hard to recuperate these fraudulent gains.

Quite often they ship it out of the country, they transfer it to the rest of the family and so on, and it makes it very difficult. And for an average senior to have access to the judicial system, it's very hard. We're saying prevention is the answer to white-collar crime, especially when it comes to the question of seniors.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Richard Dubin, Vice-President, Investigative Services, Insurance Bureau of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada is the national trade association that represents Canada's home, car, and business insurers. As a national trade association, we have an investigative services division that has a staff of 59, of which I am the head. Our team includes a number of seasoned former police veterans who spend their days investigating organized insurance crimes involving staged auto collisions and auto theft. This is a very busy job for our people due to the growth in Canada of organized crime.

Insurance fraud is a big business in Canada. In just home, business, and auto insurance, it is estimated to be a $3-billion-a-year business. On average, 10% to 15% of all claims have an element of fraud. Consider for a moment that our industry paid out $25 billion in claims in 2008 and you'll see the scope of the problem. Let's be clear as to where that money has to come from; it comes from individual Canadians in the form of higher premiums.

Organized crime long ago saw an opportunity in insurance fraud. Why? Because it is a low-risk, high-profit business. The penalties are minor, and jail time is rarely handed out, even for cases involving substantial fraud. In the brief time I have here, I want to tell you about just one type of highly organized insurance fraud: staged auto collisions.

Phoney car crashes are a big business in the Greater Toronto Area, which is considered the staged auto-collision capital of Canada. These complex schemes frequently involve organized criminals linked with tow-truck operators, body shops, paralegals, and registered health care providers. I also refer to them as rehab centres or rehab clinics. In one particular investigation, which is ongoing right now, 41 staged auto collisions are alleged to have taken place involving fraudulent auto physical damage and fraudulent accident benefit claims. Further investigation suggests a possible 116 additional alleged staged collisions involving this criminal organization.

Altogether, we estimate that this one project alone could cost insurers and their customers between $20 million and $25 million in potential fraud. To date, over 200 charges have been laid against 38 individuals.

Staged collisions involve not only those intentionally causing the collision but also the innocent drivers who are placed at great risk of serious injury or death. Particularly dangerous is the “swoop and squat”, in which two cars intentionally box in the innocent driver. A third car quickly passes in front and then jams on the brakes, forcing the innocent driver to rear-end the vehicle ahead. The vehicle struck in the rear is usually carrying several passengers who paid for their seats so that they can claim to be injured. They submit fraudulent accident benefit claims, which are supported by rehab clinics.

In more elaborate schemes, a runner recruits drivers and passengers to play roles in a carefully scripted, choreographed, controlled crash. Bogus witnesses are positioned near the staged collision to support the criminals' account and to contradict the innocent driver's testimony.

IBC's investigative services investigates, on average, over 30 such projects a year. Unfortunately, those convicted and sentenced usually receive conditional sentences, and restitution is rarely ordered. In keeping up with organized crime, however, designated investigative bodies, like ours, and police and prosecutors need more tools. A strengthened Criminal Code to get tough on these types of crimes is a top priority, and we were pleased to see that the House of Commons has already passed Bill C-26 in regard to auto theft.

This legislation, Bill C-52, is another positive step that takes direct aim at the kind of organized criminals our industry battles every day. Tougher penalties for fraudsters will send a clear message that Canadians will no longer tolerate having their savings targeted by criminals.

It is time for the fraudsters' free ride to end, and Bill C-52 makes strong steps in that direction. We urge parliamentarians to pass this legislation.

Thank you. We would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our guest and the other guests for being here today. I will be very brief because we have only a little time.

As you understand Bill C-52, would you be able to tell us whether the sentences for similar frauds will be applied cumulatively for multiple frauds of the same nature? For example, if a person commits 12 frauds, the minimum sentence would be 12 times two years.

[Lucie Joncas]

Thank you very much for the accommodation. I'm sorry, but obviously I thought I was starting at 3:30.

To begin with, the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to talk to you about our concerns regarding Bill C-52.

The AQAAD is composed of more than 600 members who practise mainly criminal law, and each region is represented on our board of directors. The needs of the regions are very diverse, and when we present submissions we try to consider the needs of both northern communities and urban communities.

The AQAAD is aware of recent problems involving frauds that caused substantial losses for many members of the public. Quebec has been particularly affected by the embezzling of funds invested by individuals, but we do not believe that the judicial system has responded to this situation adequately. The AQAAD has always taken the position, in principle, of favouring judicial discretion, so is inevitably opposed to mandatory minimum prison terms.

In recent years, we have seen a significant erosion of judges' discretionary authority, and we deplore that situation. Repeated attacks undermine the credibility of the system and jeopardize its ability to operate. Bill C-52 provides for a two-year mandatory minimum sentence. The Quebec Court of Appeal put us on notice several years ago when it refused to impose conditional sentences of imprisonment for substantial frauds. We will recall the guilty pleas or verdicts in certain cases that affected Parliament more directly, and the Court of Appeal definitely put us on notice that firm prison terms should be handed down. So we recognize that principle and we respect it.

However, I think we have to recognize that there are exceptional cases and that major injustices could result. The amendments proposed to subsection 1.1 of section 380 refer to "the total value of the subject-matter of the offences", or,in the French version, "la valeur totale de l'objet des infractions en cause". We have to remember that under section 21 of the Criminal Code there are various ways of being a party to an offence that might involve a very significant total sum, but where an individual who played a very minimal or secondary role would fall within the provisions you are proposing. So I think the specific role should be taken into consideration, and the need to individualize sentencing is not being respected when this kind of minimum sentence is imposed.

I also think we have to remember that the Criminal Code provides for a maximum term of 14 years for any fraud over $5,000. So judges have all the latitude they need, lots of elbow room, to impose sentences well over what is proposed, in appropriate cases.

There is also another clause that concerns us. We see that you want to impose the condition that a person not work in places that could result in more offences being committed, but the Criminal Code already provides for this possibility. Paragraph 732.1(3)(h) provides that when a probation is made, the court may prescribe that the offender

(h) comply with such other reasonable conditions as the court considers desirable, subject to any regulations ... for protecting society and for facilitating the offender’s successful reintegration into the community.

So the Criminal Code already provides for this possibility in probation orders. We must remember that the people who sit on parole boards, both provincially and federally, have complete authority to impose exactly these kinds of conditions. And believe me, they do their jobs well and they regularly impose all sorts of conditions for protecting society.

So our position, in principle, as representatives of the Association québécoise des avocats de la défense, is that we have to stop usurping the discretion of the courts. I think this bill does not meet any legal need and can only be a response to a political need. This is what concerns us: that there will be a constant erosion of judicial discretion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 50 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, November 25, 2009.

Once again, I will reminder all those present to turn off their BlackBerrys, or at least switch them to vibrate. If you're going to take a call, please take it outside of this room. Thank you.

You have the agenda before you for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-52, and we have a number of witnesses with us.

Mr. Comartin, we left off at our last meeting with your point of privilege. Are you intending to raise that again?

Criminal Code

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my career as a criminal lawyer, my most important client was always the one in front of me, whom I had to defend before the court. It is worth repeating: justice issues are very important. I do not mean to denigrate the work of other members, because I respect what they do, but this work is very important because it gives people their freedom. We must give this the attention it deserves.

As a parliamentarian and a lawyer, when someone forgets—I was going to use another word, but I will avoid it so as to avoid a point of order—deliberately or not, to hand over documents or to give us the information we need to make decisions, I take exception to that. In fact, I think I should take exception more often.

Bills C-52, C-42, C-36, C-31 and C-32 need to be studied immediately. Should they be studied quickly? No, we will take our time and give them the careful consideration they deserve, as we should and as we are expected to do. Then we will see.

For now, the issue that concerns me is Bill C-36. In my opinion, we must take time to give it the consideration it deserves. The Conservatives must stop forgetting to give us the documents needed to study this bill.