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.

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

Under those circumstances, whatever legislation we pass, this useless Bill C-52 that we have before us, for example, we will get nowhere until we do away with tax havens. The problem is that we are not able to follow the money. White collar criminals do not bury their money in their gardens. They generally bury it on some island in the sun, in the Caribbean, or some other tax haven.

Do we agree on that?

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

Thank you. I just have one question, and then I'll pass it to my colleague Madame Mendes, who also has one.

My reading of Bill C-52 leads me to believe that it would only create a minimum mandatory for someone who's convicted of a general offence of fraud. It does not create a minimum mandatory for someone who's convicted of fraud affecting the market—fraudulent manipulation of stock exchange transactions, insider trading, or false prospectives, as in the case of Bre-X—regardless of whether the total amount of the fraud was $10 million, $20 million, $30 million, or $40 million. So I'd like to know if you believe that the minimum mandatory that's being proposed for general fraud should also apply to these other offences, many of which were brought into the Criminal Code in 2004.

Go ahead with your question, so that you get it in.

[Gary Logan, Detective Sergeant, Retired, Toronto Police Fraud Squad, As an Individual]

First, I read through Bill C-52 and I'm very pleased with what I read, because in the years I've been investigating and dealing with corporate fraud with the Toronto Police Service, I've certainly seen a lot of change with respect to the way this is being managed. I'm very pleased, particularly with the sentencing, because, I don't care what anyone says, if somebody at the end of the day is convicted and there's the reality of their going to jail--and I think we've all witnessed this through comments and through people we've seen in the newspaper moving outside of or attempting to get back into Canada--jail certainly works. It's a definite deterrent. I've heard this from other people in dealing with people who have committed these crimes.

One thing I am concerned about--maybe not so much concerned, maybe that's a poor choice of words--is the restitution. It has been my experience, in all the years I've been dealing with this, that the restitution orders issued by the courts are really only in effect for the period of probation. At the end of the probation, if the restitution is not made, where does this leave the victim? The enforcement component of the restitution and the period of probation is very rarely ever enforced by the law after that.

The court also has the authority to issue what is referred to as a compensation order. A compensation order can be applied through the crown to the court as long as the victim is in court, at which time the judge, based on the facts and circumstances, can issue what is referred to as a compensation order. In my experience, that has always been a more favourable choice and direction to go in. Restitution I've always been a little leery of, because that only runs for the period of probation and nobody is monitoring that period of probation to ensure that victims are being compensated properly. At the end of the day, probation is over, there is no restitution, and the victims are back at square one.

So that may be something you want to consider, or at least think about, to ensure that this issue is looked at. Other than that, I'm very pleased with everything else I've looked at with respect to the changes forthcoming in the bill.

The other thing I want to speak to today, and Diane touched on it, is securities crime. I probably spent the better part of 16 or 17 years investigating corporate fraud. Over those years I've had many years of dealing within the securities industry in particular and the market where fraud and allegations of fraud have occurred.

In years gone by, there was a set procedure, a set format, whereby an intake process was set in place for all crimes relating to fraud. Victims would attend or at least deal with the police. At that stage there would be an intake process, an assessment or triage of what had occurred. Based on that, the police would make a determination, based on the facts and the evidence readily available, whether to proceed to the next step, take on the case, and conduct the investigation. That worked very well for all types of crimes, particularly fraud.

Since about 2003 there has been a change in that, a shift in who would be looking at the investigations occurring within the securities industry. From that time forward, from where I've sat and from what I've seen, to me, all that has done is increase the state of confusion for the victims and for our officers. What I mean by that is that there is uncertainty as to who really will be taking the lead in conducting the investigations. There's the uncertainty as to where the victims are able to introduce their complaints into a police environment. The way it stands now, the first person many of these victims who go to police services are going to meet will not, for the most part...and it's no fault of the officers. Officers have a very difficult time understanding fraud at the low level. This is why it's critical to have the appropriate people in place within police services who understand all the components of fraud and criminal laws that pertain to them.

So I'm proposing we set up a securities crime unit composed of 22 officers and one executive assistant. Quebec recently brought in 22 police officers plus three special crowns to deal with fraud, at a budget of $6 million. I've worked this out, and the way it stands nationally, with 22 plus one executive assistant, it can be done for $5 million.

It's a very effective system, a very effective unit. It works on the basis that they are very motivated and highly skilled officers who have the ability to understand and determine what is and what is not fraud. They have the ability to understand, manage, and control evidence. They're able to meet with victims and understand exactly the nature of their complaints. They can very quickly determine what is fraud, what is not, and what can be investigated. They have the ability to very quickly understand the jurisdictional authority and determine which police service has the ability to investigate the alleged crime. It may involve more than one police service.

Once it is determined that an offence has taken place, the securities crime unit prepare a package based on the documentation provided by the victim. They ensure that the package is prepared in a format that can be received by any police service in Canada, at the introduction level, on the basis that a criminal offence has taken place. Once that is done, an investigator is assigned and the investigation moves ahead.

There is always a point of reference with the securities crime unit to the police service engaged in that investigative process, and they work directly with the public. The nice thing about it is that it's a stand-alone operation.

Something that has always been criticized and has created a lot of problems and grey areas occurs when you engage a police officer in a relationship that is too close--by design or perception--to a regulator or any other person or group that has specific authorities under specific acts, and things can be piggybacked for criminal purposes on a provincial statute under that authority and used to further a criminal investigation. Whether or not that actually occurs, any time that moves forward into a criminal environment there's always the risk that the case will be finished due to concerns about compromise and movement and migration of authorities and evidence.

That perception has occurred on many occasions. In some cases certain document flows have moved from one side to the other and have affected relatively good criminal investigations. The investigations were ruined, and they were not able to move forward from that point.

This unit is completely stand-alone. There's a hierarchy that's audible as you get into it. There's public accountability on the entire system from all levels of government. It falls under a police services board. There's everything under the federal public minister. There's reporting to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. So it's completely open and transparent and is reportable through all levels of government above it.

It also works with all police services. In this day and age, I don't know why we are not engaging all of the resources currently available to us. Most police services have a fraud component within them. I know for a fact that they are very good, competent, and skilled investigators. I've worked with a number of them. I've known a number of them for years and I know their abilities. I'll tell you right now that in this country the fraud investigators across Canada are probably some of the top investigators on the continent. So when I hear stories about people saying that the police do not have the ability to understand these sophisticated types of crimes, I do not buy that for a moment.

We have to be able to get outside of the box from where we are now. The securities crime unit will engage all the resources of all the police services--including the RCMP--and get them actively involved in investigating these frauds that occur within their jurisdictions.

It's set up to work with all police services--provincial, regional, municipal, and federal. Based on that, it's a good system and it's a working system. It has worked for a number of years at different levels in police services and in policing for the basic fundamental intake assessment and investigation of crimes. All I'm doing now is looking at it on a larger scale, increasing the level, and specializing the core functions of people who take on this role in their ability to work with the public directly, prepare packages, refer to the police, work with the police, and move from that point forward.

When a complainant walks into a police division district today to talk to an officer, nine times out of ten there is a great deal of confusion as to who will conduct the investigation. Unfortunately, after 2003 most police services believed that if anything had to do with securities, the victim was automatically referred to IMET for the purposes of that investigation. That has created a lot of public frustration at the end of the day as to how these are managed.

I'll wrap it up at that point. That's basically what I am proposing and what I've put together.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 49 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, November 23, 2009.

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

Mr. Comartin, you sent me notice about a possible point of privilege. Did you want to raise that now or at the end of the meeting?

[The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Rob Nicholson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The short title of this was just pointed out to me. You can refer to it as the Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act. It's also known as Bill C-52. This enhances the sentencing provisions for fraud, in particular white collar crime.

The Criminal Code already criminalizes a vast array of what could be called white collar crime, such as bribery, credit card fraud, and forgery, and with the passage of Bill S-4, identity theft, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to get that one passed. That's an important contribution in this area.

The offence of fraud is the most important offence in our arsenal against white collar crime. Fraud consists of two elements: deception or dishonesty, coupled with an actual loss of money or other items of economic value or merely the risk of such loss. So you can see the breadth and flexibility of this offence is adequate to capture security-related frauds like accounting frauds that overstate the value of securities issuers to shareholders and investors, misstatements about the state of the company, or Ponzi schemes of this sort, which has attracted so much attention recently in the United States and Canada.

The fraud offence is also an effective weapon against other kinds of fraud, such as mass-marketing fraud, real estate or title fraud, home renovation fraud, health care fraud, or other kinds of insurance fraud, tax evasion, and old scams now perpetrated with new technologies.

For too long I believe our justice system has not focused enough on the scam artists who take advantage of the trust of others. With the global economic downturn, as I indicated, massive Ponzi schemes have been revealed. I think that underlines the point we've made here and in the House of Commons and to the public at large that we must send a new, stronger message in this area.

The government has a comprehensive plan for sending that message. As members of the committee, you are all aware that the key aspect of the government's response is Bill C-53, which eliminates accelerated parole under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety, but of course it is a legislative initiative I strongly support.

Another piece of our plan is Bill C-42, which will put an end to conditional sentences for fraudsters, among others.

Let me return to Bill C-52, the Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act. To improve the law quickly the government wanted this piece of legislation to be entirely focused. For this reason, the various sentencing measures in this bill are targeted at fraud offenders specifically. The current maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment, the highest maximum in the code short of life. The maximum sentence is adequate, but we believe that more can be done to ensure that sentences reflect the devastation caused by fraud.

The first amendment in Bill C-52 is a mandatory penalty for fraud in excess of $1 million. Fraud over $1 million is currently a statutory aggravating factor. This bill will convert that aggravating factor into a circumstance that results automatically in a mandatory penalty of at least two years in prison. Any fraud or series of frauds that result in the loss of more than $1 million must necessarily have been the result of a complex, well-organized, well-planned scheme and quite likely supported by additional crimes, like forgery. Any fraud that rises to this level of loss must be considered serious.

Many frauds, as we know, are larger than this, so it's important to be clear that two years is the floor, not the ceiling. The actual sentence imposed for a larger fraud will obviously reflect all the additional blame for the elements of that fraud, many of which are captured by existing aggravating factors under section 380.1 of the code. This bill will supplement those aggravating factors with new ones if the duration, complexity, magnitude, or degree of the planning was significant; if the offence had a significant impact on the victim, given their personal circumstances; if the offender failed to comply with applicable regulatory or licensing regimes; or if the offender concealed or destroyed relevant records.

All of these factors highlight, in one way or another, conduct or results that are completely unacceptable to Canadians. The new aggravating factors, in conjunction with the existing ones, will be applied by sentencing courts to arrive at a just sentence on the particular facts of each case.

Another new measure is the introduction of a prohibition order that can be part of the sentence. The Criminal Code has several prohibition orders in place that are designed to help prevent offenders from reoffending. One such example is the order that is often made against a person convicted of a number of child sexual offences. The order, for instance, could prohibit them from, among other things, working in schools or other places where they would be in a position of trust or authority over young people.

Along the same lines, this bill will enable the court to order that the convicted offender be prohibited from having control over or authority over another person's money or real or valuable securities--up to life. Breaching this prohibition order will itself be an offence.

Other aspects of Bill C-52 focus on improving the responsiveness of the justice system to the needs of victims. It contains provisions designed to encourage the use of restitution orders in fraud cases. The Criminal Code currently enables judges to order offenders to pay restitution to victims in appropriate circumstances. Restitution may be ordered to help cover monetary losses incurred by victims, among other things as a result of the loss of property caused by a crime. Bill C-52 would require judges to consider restitution in all cases in which an offender is found guilty of fraud. If a judge decides not to make a restitution order, he or she would have to give reasons for declining to do so.

The bill would require a judge, before imposing a sentence on an offender, to inquire of the crown whether reasonable steps had been taken to provide victims with an opportunity to indicate whether they are seeking restitution. This is designed to ensure that sentencing does not take place before victims have had a chance to indicate that they would like to seek restitution from the offender, as well as allow time for victims to establish their monetary losses.

The bill contains provisions aimed at encouraging courts to consider the impact that fraud can have, not only on individuals but also on groups and communities. The Criminal Code currently requires courts, when sentencing an offender, to consider a victim impact statement describing the harm done to or the loss suffered by a victim of the offence. Canadian courts have already in previous cases considered impact statements made on behalf of a community.

This bill would explicitly allow courts to consider a statement by a person on a community's behalf describing the harm done to or the losses suffered by the community when imposing a sentence on an offender found guilty of fraud. A community impact statement would allow a community to express publicly, and to the offender directly, the loss or harm that has been suffered in order to allow the community to begin a rebuilding and healing process.

Mr. Chairman, those are the major elements of this bill. I look forward to the speedy passage of this important piece of legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

Today is meeting number 48 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It's Wednesday, November 19, 2009, and I note that today's meeting with the minister is being televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. First, we have the Honourable Rob Nicholson with us to open our review of Bill C-52. During the second hour, we have with us Shirish P. Chotalia, the government's order-in-council appointee as chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

At the end of today's meeting we'll leave a little time for an in camera meeting to discuss adoption of a steering committee report for our work plan going forward.

Once again, a reminder to turn off your BlackBerrys or switch them to vibrate, and if you do have to take calls, please take them outside of this room. Thank you.

By order of reference, we are now considering Bill C-52, an act to amend the Criminal Code on sentencing for fraud. To help us with our review of this bill, we have with us the Honourable Rob Nicholson.

Welcome back, Minister. I understand you have some support with you: Catherine Kane--welcome back--as well as Joanne Klineberg.

Minister, you have ten minutes for presentation, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. If the government were a compassionate government, it would have kept the promise that we were told about by the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park three years ago. If the government really felt for Canadians, it would not be increasing the EI premiums, which is in its books, to the tune of $15.5 billion. It is on record. If the government were compassionate, it would work with the rest of us, but every time we go into committee, for example, there is always an obstacle here and an obstacle there, some kind of stumbling block.

When it comes to the well-being of Canadians and the nation, earlier today we spoke about our veterans, past and present. There was one united voice and all parties spoke from the heart. That is how we have to approach this type of legislation, for the good of the country. Bill C-52 and the Conservatives' initiative on these areas is pure politicking right now.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I will tell him that too, absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being harassed. The problem is, when they hear the facts, they cannot take it. The fact is that the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, who was asked a similar question, was intellectually dishonest with his response. I know I can use that word. Why? The member for Cape Breton—Canso and the member for Mississauga South asked him a very simple question. Were the EI premiums, under Liberal administration, ever increased? In those 13 years that we served in government, did they go, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso clearly stated, from $3.18 per $100 to the $1.72 per $100 that it is today, saving employers and employees just over $14 billion?

Why could he not be honest enough and say, yes, they did go down? The Liberal member, and I have to stress, the good Liberal member for Cape Breton—Canso, simply asked a question. Where did the money go? Why did the parliamentary secretary mislead this House? If this Reform, now called Conservative, Party wants us to co-operate, the least thing they could do is be honest with us.

For example, the other day, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was on television being asked questions about Bill C-52 and she really could not give answers. All she said was, “We will see” or “We do not know”.

It reminds me of what Kim Campbell said before the 1993 election. She said to reporters that she was not going to answer the questions then, she would answer them after the election.

No, Canadians are not stupid. Canadians want to know now, before they make decisions. That is why we are asking these questions.

The member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park talked about entrepreneurs and independent business people, the self-employed. An independent entrepreneur, an independent business person does not become a self-employed independent because he wants to become unemployed. He is an independent entrepreneur because he wants to continue earning a good living to support his family and his surroundings.

An independent business person, a self-employed person, does not become self-employed because he wants to become unemployed to collect EI.

My father, God rest his soul, told me a story as I was growing up. He said that when he went out looking for work he did not ask how much the job paid. He simply wanted to work. He was not concerned about how much EI would pay, he was concerned about whether there was work.

A self-employed person does not become self-employed because he plans to be unemployed. He plans to be gainfully employed for as long as he can.

Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the bill makes it voluntary for self-employed Canadians who want to opt in and it fixes a “glaring gap” in the program.

The government cannot give us statistics such as who, how many, what the uptake is going to be, what the cost is going to be, et cetera.

I do not know what the gap is all about that Ms. Swift is talking about, because what is going to happen is that the people who are working are going to be taxed. We know that because hidden in the government's budget--

Introduction of Bills--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to make a couple of rulings that I know members are dying to hear.

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 27, 2009, by the hon. member for Joliette alleging the premature disclosure of the content of a government bill to the media prior to the bill’s introduction in the House.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Joliette for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. Minister of Public Safety, the hon. member for Wascana, the hon. member for Vancouver East, the hon. member for Beauséjour, and the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for their comments.

In raising his question of privilege, the hon. member for Joliette claimed that a breach of the privileges of the House had occurred as a result of the public disclosure of the content of Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The member argued that the Minister of Public Safety in a press conference and through a press release and backgrounder on the bill had disclosed its essence and content to the public and media before it was introduced in the House on October 26, 2009, and that this amounted to a contempt of the House. It was his contention that, “The issue is not the quantity of details but the quality of details—”. He pointed to the importance of the confidentiality of bills prior to their introduction, saying that he always advises colleagues to hold press conferences on their bills only after their introduction.

Likening this situation to the question of privilege he raised on October 22, 2009, concerning the disclosure of details of Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), prior to its introduction, the hon. member for Joliette wondered if there was no longer any reason for him to apply the rule of confidentiality of bills on notice so strictly.

During the interventions of the hon. member for Wascana, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Beauséjour, the seriousness of this issue was raised. The chair was urged to consider whether this was becoming a pattern and to give clear direction to the House on the rules that apply in this respect.

Following question period on October 27, the Minister of Public Safety rose to address the issue of whether the contents of Bill C-53 had been improperly disclosed prior to its introduction in the House. The minister noted that the rule prohibiting disclosure of the content of bills prior to their introduction arises out of a 2001 Speaker's ruling. The minister noted that the ruling limited the time period in question to the time between the bill being put on notice and its actual introduction in the House. He argued that the underlying principle is that the text of the bill should be made available first to members of Parliament.

Citing the 2001 case, in which the justice minister had actually circulated to the media a copy of the text of the bill and provided comment on it, the Minister of Public Safety acknowledged that the text of a bill cannot be disclosed to a select group ahead of parliamentarians seeing it. He then went on to accuse the opposition of looking to expand this rule significantly, effectively prohibiting the government from ever discussing any policy that might, in the future, be the subject matter of a bill before the House.

In his comments, the minister argued that the purpose of the rule is not to stifle discussion or debate or an exploration of policy issues but to restrict the actual disclosure of the text of a bill. That is only partly correct. The purpose of the convention is also to ensure that members are not impeded in their work by being denied information that others have been given.

The minister also noted that the time period in question is limited only to the time between a bill being put on notice and its actual introduction, and in this he is correct. Prior to giving notice of a bill, a minister or a private member developing a legislative initiative is of course free to discuss the proposal with anyone, but the House has the right to have first access to the text of the bill once it has been placed on notice. The specifics of a bill, once it has been placed on notice, should remain confidential until the bill is introduced.

In the case before us, the Minister of Public Safety differentiated between his own conduct and prohibited actions, stating that he did not disclose the contents of Bill C-53 but rather discussed an existing policy problem and the intention of the government to solve it. He provided neither a specific explanation of the government's solution nor an indication of what the text of government legislation in this regard would be.

As members have indicated, it has been a long-standing practice that the content of all bills on notice is confidential until they are introduced in the House. As I mentioned in my ruling of March 19, 2001, referred to by the Minister of Public Safety, at page 1,840 of the Debates:

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

I went on to say that:

To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

In the 2001 case, the Chair ruled the matter to be, prima facie, a case of privilege, and it was ultimately referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In the committee's report on the matter, presented to the House on May 9, 2001, this important principle was reiterated. Following a commitment by the then Minister of Justice to establish protocol governing the processes for bills prior to their introduction, the report stated, in part:

The Committee believes that the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing materials should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of Parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of Parliament.

While an attempt has been made to liken the situation surrounding Bill C-53, the case before us today, to the disclosure of the details of Bill C-52, clearly the circumstances of these two situations are not identical.

In the case of Bill C-52, specific details of the bill were released to the media and the public. On October 26 and 27, respectively, the Minister of Justice and then the Minister of Public Works and Government Services apologized to the House and made commitments to ensure that their actions concerning Bill C-52 would not be repeated. Their apologies put an end to the matter, as I indicated at the time. However, the House—and in particular ministers—should note that had it not been for the apologies of the ministers, the case might well have had a different outcome.

However, in the case of Bill C-53, the Minister of Public Safety categorically assured the House that, “none of the provisions, none of the potential mechanisms, none of the solutions, let alone the specific text” were divulged prior to the bill's introduction in the House.

While, by his own admission, he discussed in broad terms the policy initiative contained in the bill, the Chair is satisfied that the Minister of Public Safety did not disclose the details of the measures being proposed in the bill. The Chair is also satisfied that there has been no contempt of the House as a collectivity nor of any member individually as members were not denied information they need to perform their duties as parliamentarians.

Accordingly, the Chair finds no grounds for declaring a prima facie question of privilege in this case.

I wish to thank the House for its attention to this ruling on a matter of considerable importance to us all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, because we have the minister coming on Bill C-52 on the 16th of November. That's the difficulty here. Had we known--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We also have the minister coming on the 16th on Bill C-52, and my guess is it's going to take some time. We have at least four, if not five, amendments, government amendments on Bill C-36. So for me to add him, I'm going to need specific direction from the committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, thanks, Chair.

The motion is pretty easy to understand. We would complete clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 on Wednesday. You've mentioned Bill C-52. We have another bill before our committee and other work we'd like to get moving on. I think today's our third day of testimony on Bill C-36. That's why I would like to see us with a concrete plan to complete Bill C-36. The nature of my motion would be to give us a definitive date on which we're going to wrap up Bill C-36, and that date, in my view, should be Wednesday.

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

Unless I am mistaken, we will begin our study of Bill C-52 on November 16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There are two other items. We're moving on to a review of Bill C-52. It's tentatively scheduled for November 16, which is the first meeting after the break. I want to make sure everybody knows we need a list of witnesses on Bill C-52. You have your formal notice. Please submit to us the list of witnesses you'd like to hear on Bill C-52, which is the white collar crime legislation.

Since we'll be moving to clause-by-clause on Bill C-36 some time in the very near future, depending on the outcome of the motion, we'd like to have your amendments as soon as possible.

It's the same thing for Bill C-232. We want to move toward clause-by-clause on that as well, so if you have amendments to that bill please get them to the clerk as soon as possible.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to what day the House will be doing its annual tributes to the sacrifices of our veterans and those in the Canadian Forces currently serving, that will be under negotiation. I suspect that is something that will be discussed among all House leaders in the days ahead. We will decide, obviously, collectively and co-operatively on the appropriate time to make that important tribute.

In regard to our ongoing justice program, obviously we are going to continue along, as we have last week and this week, for the remainder of the week with our justice legislation. I would note that since my last statement, we introduced Bill C-53, Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act, and Bill C-54, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. Both of those additional bills are a key part of our ongoing efforts to reform the justice system in our country.

We sent to committee this week Bill C-42, Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and other Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-52, Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act; Bill C-46, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act; and Bill C-47, Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act.

By the day's end, we hope to conclude debate on Bill C-43, Strengthening Canada's Corrections System Act. If we do that, I intend to call Bill C-31, the modernizing criminal procedure bill, and Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Tomorrow we will continue with yet another justice bill, Bill C-35, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, followed by the remainder of the justice bills that I noted if they have not been completed.

Next week I intend to call Bill C-50, the employment insurance for long tenured workers' bill, which is at report stage, having had it returned from committee.

Following Bill C-50, we will call for debate the report and third reading stage of Bill C-27, Electronic Commerce Protection Act, and second reading of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act,

Finally, Wednesday, November 4, will be an allotted day.