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.

Introduction of Bills

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I appreciate the apology by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works concerning Bill C-52. However, as I said this morning, I have the impression that the message has not been adequately understood on the government side. It seems to me, with respect to Bill C-53 which was made public at a press conference by the Minister of Public Safety, that we had the same problem as with Bill C-52. The Minister of Public Works also took part in that media event.

Essentially, the Minister of Public Safety is telling us two things: first, when he held the press conference, the bill was on notice. What I contended in my point of privilege on Thursday, if I recall correctly, is precisely that when a bill is on notice on the order paper it must not be disclosed publicly until it has been given first reading in this House. As a result, his argument completely fails to address the argument I made. I had referred to a number of decisions and quotations, some of which came from your decisions, Mr. Speaker. I am still wondering about that initial aspect, that is, that it seems to me that a press conference should not disclose the content of a bill before the bill has received first reading. That is his first argument.

His second argument is that the press conference did not give explicit details of the content of the bill. However, Mr. Speaker, I would still like to refer you to a document that I sent you this morning, entitled “Backgrounder—Government of Canada to Fix the Problem of Early Parole for Criminals”. It contains some very short phrases that give the essence of the bill, “Changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act… towards the abolition of statutory release”.

They are announcing that, essentially, the bill will deal with that. When we read Bill C-53 we can see that, in fact, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to eliminate accelerated parole review in the Corrections Act. The issue is not the quantity of details but the quality of the details provided in that backgrounder. In the news release, which I have not had a chance to read as carefully, the Minister may have stuck to the ins and outs of the environment in which the bill is being introduced. However, in the technical information sheet that accompanied the news release, it is very clear that the essence of Bill C-53 is being disclosed to the public and the media before being disclosed through first reading in this House. I believe that is contempt of the House.

I defer to your decision, Mr. Speaker.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the question of privilege raised by the member for Joliette concerning Bill C-52 and the press conference I held with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I offer my sincerest apologies to the House.

I fully support what the Minister of Justice has said about this issue in this House. The details about Bill C-52 were disclosed when it was placed on the order paper, before being read the first time. It was a mistake that should not happen again. That is what I wanted to say about Bill C-52.

With respect to Bill C-53, I heard the comments made by the Minister of Public Safety, and I also agree with his argument that the details of this bill were not disclosed at the press conference yesterday. I am also in agreement with his comments on Bill C-53.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address an issue that was raised by the House leader of the Bloc Québécois. This is with regard to whether Bill C-53 was improperly prematurely disclosed in advance by me. I want to speak to that.

The rule in the case that we are talking about is not one that one will find referenced in Marleau and Montpetit. One will not find any reference to it in Erskine May or in Beauchesne's. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the rule essentially comes entirely in one single finding of contempt that you yourself made in 2001 with regard to an action of my predecessor, the first public safety minister, who was the Minister of Justice at that time.

What your ruling clearly indicated and what those circumstances produced is an indication that the rule about disclosing or discussing a bill in advance is a very circumscribed rule. The restrictions are fairly simple. First, the time period in question is limited only to the time between a bill being put on notice and its actual introduction. That is the period in question. Of course, the principle is that the first availability of the text of a bill should be to members of Parliament.

The approach that I adopted in the particular circumstance was not to disclose the contents of the bill. Rather, it was simply to discuss a policy problem that existed and discuss the intention of the government to fix it. It was not a specific explanation of what those fixes were nor an indication of what the text of the bill was going to be. None of those things occurred.

Second, in the case in 2001, the justice minister's actions must be looked at. What occurred specifically was that the justice minister held a briefing with the media. This was after a bill was put on notice and before it was introduced in the House. The justice minister circulated an actual copy of the text of that bill to the media and provided comment on it. Mr. Speaker, that was the basis on which you made a ruling. Your ruling was that was a prima facie contempt of the House.

The test that arises from that case is that one cannot disclose the text of a bill to a select group ahead of parliamentarians seeing it. In your words, Mr. Speaker, “with respect to material to be placed before Parliament”, that is, the bill itself, “the House must take precedence”.

In the arguments before you, the opposition is looking to significantly expand this rule, both in the case of the issues they raised with my colleague the Minister of Justice on Bill C-52 and me and the Minister of Public Works on Bill C-53. They would wish to ask you to expand that rule to effectively prohibit the government from ever discussing any policy that might in the future be the subject matter of a bill before the House.

Obviously, that is not the purpose of the rule. The purpose of the rule is not to stifle discussion or debate, or an exploration of policy issues. That would offend the privileges of members of the House. That would offend our freedom of expression. In fact, if that were to be the rule, it would effectively stifle any public debate of policy, including what we do in question period, what we do in debates on allotted days, what we do in committees all the time and what we do in election campaigns.

That is clearly not the intent of the rule. Clearly, the intent of the rule is restricted to the actual disclosure of the text of a bill. Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a rule that has emanated entirely from a ruling made by you in 2001.

To address specifically the approach that I adopted with regard to any discussion of the introduction of Bill C-53 in advance of it, I took great care. As a former House leader, I was sensitive and cognizant of the issues that existed there. I was well encouraged by our current House leader to exercise due care.

The best way of examining whether any such contempt occurred is simply to look at the words of my availability to the media and what was discussed. I will read them.

Currently, many criminals get out of jail early through a process called accelerated parole review. First-time criminals who have committed non-violent offences can access day parole at one-sixth of their sentence and are granted almost automatically full parole at one-third of their sentence.

“Currently, many criminals get out of jail early through a process called accelerated parole review. It is the law now. First-time criminals who have committed non-violent offences can access day parole at one-sixth of their sentence and are granted almost automatically full parole at one-third of their sentence”. That is simply a description of the law as it exists today. There is nothing inappropriate with that kind of discussion.

Unless the National Parole Board has reasonable grounds to believe that offenders will commit a violent offence once released, it must automatically grant their release into the community.

“Canadians are surprised to learn that unless the National Parole Board has reasonable grounds to believe these offenders will commit a violent offence, not another offence, but a violent offence once released, they must automatically release those prisoners into the community”.

This means, believe it or not, that in some cases, a fraudster, a thief or a drug dealer, for example, could be back on the streets early. Such a criminal could be sentenced to 12 years but would actually be released into the community on day parole in just 2 years, and, notwithstanding having a 12 year sentence, could be fully paroled in 4 years, and the Parole Board would have no choice but to make that order.

Again, it is a description of the existing law. Nothing inappropriate there.

It goes on to state that ”the status quo gives the Parole Board no discretion in dealing with these cases. The test is simple, whether or not the offenders is likely to commit a violent offence. Well as you can imagine, with someone who has never committed a violent offence in the past, the ability to pass that test to be held there longer is a pretty tough one. As a result, even if the Parole Board believes the offender is likely to go out and commit another fraud, another theft or another drug offence, the Parole Board has no choice. They must, under the present law, release that offender into the community. We think that is a problem”.

Again, that is a statement of the law that, in my view as Minister of Public Safety, is a problem. There is nothing inappropriate about doing that. It is a wholly legitimate discussion of policy.

In a number of cases, criminals who received a sentence that seemed appropriate can leave prison and be back on our streets shortly after their crime makes the headlines. This situation upsets Canadians' sense of justice and undermines their trust in the justice system and the correctional system.

It goes on to read, ”This offends Canadians' sense of justice, it undermines their faith in our justice system and our correctional system. Canadians want change and that is what our government intends to deliver”.

Again, that is a very simple, very broad statement of disapproval of the current law and a desire to change it. There is no disclosure of the contents of any bill.

I continue, “This morning, I'm pleased to announce our commitment to reforming the parole system in this country. Our government is committed to fixing the problem of early parole for criminals”.

The commitment I am announcing today is another step toward a system of earned parole where early release is a privilege granted to offenders who have proven that they have truly made an effort in their rehabilitation, rather than a right available to all criminals.

I go on to say, “The commitment I'm announcing today will move us one step closer to a system of earned parole in which early release is a privilege granted only to those who have shown they are committed to rehabilitation rather than a right granted to every criminal. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation that would make the protection of society paramount in all decisions in the correction process. It includes reforms that would hold criminals more accountable for their actions and rehabilitation more effective. Today's commitment will build on these proposed reforms”.

Again, I have not in any place tendered on the table a draft of the bill, as happened in the case of the justice minister in that situation in 2001 where the Speaker found contempt. I did not even discuss the contents of what a solution would be. I simply said, “Here we have a policy problem. We as a government intend to fix that problem. We are going to take action to fix it”.

We could do that in any number of ways. We could do that by changing the one-sixth day parole eligibility to perhaps one-fifth or one-third or one-quarter. I did not in any way disclose at that point in time what that solution would be. We could have changed the full eligibility parole from one-third to one-half to one-quarter. I have not disclosed that.

We could simply change the test from an automatic one to one where we shift the burden to a prisoner to prove why he or she should be released or to one that would create a presumption that could be dissuaded perhaps by victims. We did not discuss what particular solution there would be, We also could simply do away with the whole system of accelerated parole, which is what we did ultimately, but nowhere in this announcement did I ever state which of those many myriad of solutions could have been the ones approached.

Certainly it falls far short of the test that is established in the 2001 decision of yourself, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the actual disclosure of the text of a bill in advance, to a limited audience of not parliamentarians. That is the real test. It is over here. I am in fact fa away from that, simply dealing in a policy discussion, indicating that we have a problem in our society that we need to fix.

For the opposition members, who have been complaining a lot about the fact that we go out and talk about what we are doing, what we think needs to be done and what we want to fix, and who do not like to have us communicating with Canadians, I can understand why they want that rule expanded to stifle any discussion of policy or of problems that we intend to fix in this country, including in the justice area.

However, that is not what the rule stands for in the decision that was taken in March 2001 that established this principle that it would be a contempt on Parliament to circulate and disclose in advance the text of a bill. In fact, in my case we do not even come anywhere close to that: none of the provisions, none of the potential mechanisms, none of the solutions, let alone the specific text, which is what the principle stands for.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that you should dispense with the request from the leader of the Bloc Québécois in the House of Commons, supported by the other parties in this matter, because it simply falls far short of the test that would constitute any contempt of Parliament.

I have been very careful in this matter, as was my colleague, the public works minister, in the exact same availability to the media, in addressing these issues in a cautious fashion that respected, to the utmost, the principles of respecting the supremacy of Parliament, that the content of a bill should be, once put on notice, submitted to this Parliament first before it is submitted to any other group, and that is exactly what was done in this case.

Therefore, to expand that rule significantly to stifle any discussion of policy would be a highly inappropriate approach.

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-46. We will probably study Bill C-47 either later today or tomorrow. Bills C-46 and C-47 are very closely related to each other and, for those watching us, have to do with cybercrime.

It appears that the Canadian government has finally entered the 21st century and wants to address the very serious problem of cybercrime. Before going into the details, I would like to give some background. There was a convention, if we can call it that, known as the convention on cybercrime. That convention was the subject of many meetings. In fact, there were 27 different versions of the convention on cybercrime before the final version was drafted and signed by many countries, including Canada, the United States, Japan, South Africa, and even the Council of Europe. All the countries that signed the convention undertook to introduce one or more bills to implement the convention on cybercrime. That is precisely what the government is doing here today.

We can examine the technical details of the bill in committee. Yes, the Bloc Québécois agrees that Bill C-46 should move forward and be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This will also probably be true for Bill C-47.

Bill C-46 should allow police forces to adapt their investigative techniques to modern technologies like cellphones, iPods, the Internet, as well as social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter that link today's online world. This bill will give police forces access to such technologies.

When a bill like this is introduced there is one thing the government and parliamentarians must not forget: the bill must not infringe on basic rights even though we are trying to properly equip our police forces to deal with crime. All of this is being done in response to what happened in 2001. Even though we know that work on cybercrime began in 1995, the events of September 2001 had a substantial impact. That is when governments realized they did not have the means to intercept certain communications. Before and after 1995, and even before and after 2001, surveillance was used. It was very easy to realize you were being followed. We are not talking about a James Bond movie here. We are not nearly as sophisticated as the show 24, where the characters are totally equipped to deal with crimes of this nature. We needed to find tools to help deal with cybercrime and make them available to our police forces.

Cybercrime is very subtle and very insidious. It is everywhere today. The members opposite, especially those from the Conservative Party, talk about the luring of children or what some people attempt to do with computers, namely slowly but surely approach children to have sexual encounters.

It is much more than that. I am not saying that the luring of children is not a serious crime, far from it. This is an extremely serious crime. There are also other crimes that are much more subtle, including identity theft and the planning of major crimes. Just look at the London subway bombings. They were planned right here in Canada. Somewhere near Toronto, attacks were being planned with global targets. Here in Canada, the police thanked an individual whose assistance was instrumental in foiling a crime about to unfold in Great Britain.

Cybercrime has become a global phenomenon. Today, we cannot simply say that cybercrime only occurs in Canada, Quebec, or Ottawa and the surrounding region. Cybercrime is a global phenomenon and it has to be addressed globally. That is the purpose of Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, which we will study in the coming days.

There is something worrying me. We will have to carefully study the intrusion into the personal life of an individual. I hesitate to say this because the line between the intrusion into the rights of an individual versus the protection of society is increasingly blurred. We will have to keep a very close eye on this as we study the bill. We must ensure that citizens do not run the risk of being more vulnerable to an intrusion into their private lives. I do not think that anyone in this House is against adapting legislation to the new realities in technology and crime.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that criminals, especially those working on the Web, are brilliant for the most part. Anyone who can use such tools as Facebook or Twitter and the whole Internet is intelligent enough to hatch a good plan for a crime.

We are very close to that reality when we see someone using their cell phone, sending coded messages and providing information over the Internet. We have to follow this up. I will give the example of the transfer of “illegal” funds to tax havens. I spoke about this when debating Bill C-42 and Bill C-52. Today, criminals who use computer technology are increasingly smart. Thus, police forces must be equipped to deal with them. That is the objective of Bill C-46.

Technologies do not just benefit criminals and are also available to police. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is important and rather urgent for police to be equipped to detect not just crimes that have been committed, not just those about to be committed, but those that are being planned. We have to be one step ahead of the criminal planning a crime and able to intervene before an offence is committed. That is the objective of Bill C-46.

However, we must avoid allowing the police to use their investigative tools to gain access to a very large amount of information—it goes that far—but we must also monitor some peoples' activities on the Internet to learn more about their private lives. It goes far beyond listening to telephone conversations. This bill goes much further than that.

However, we must find a balance between the fundamental rights to privacy and safety. That is what this is all about. Is the right to privacy more important that the right to safety? That line is easily crossed by police officers or unscrupulous individuals.

We must remember that some police offers were convicted of having used the computer system of the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec to monitor a spouse's new friend and watch over the movements of that individual. Those police officers were convicted because they had taken private information.

We must be very careful, and this will probably be the most important debate over the next few months. The Ligue des droits et libertés has raised some concerns. We must be careful, we must be prudent, we must be aware, and we must realize that there could be some slip-ups. When it comes to truly addressing security concerns, is protecting the rights of individuals less important than protecting society? That is a debate that will have to be held when the time comes to examine the bill in committee.

It is clear, and I would like to share a little about what the Ligue des droits et libertés has said. According to the Ligue, the bill constitutes an unprecedented invasion of privacy. It has brought up the following points. The government is presenting its bills as a way to make the necessary changes to traditional investigative powers for electronic surveillance to adapt to new communication technologies. But there is no comparison between the information transmitted through a telephone conversation and information that circulates freely.

Moreover, unlike telephone conversations, which leave no trace unless they are recorded, modern communications leave a trail in computer memories that can be detected long after the fact. That is a very important point, and I hope that nobody in this Parliament or in Canada or Quebec believes that once an email has been sent, it is over and done with. Unfortunately for them, I have bad news, because when people send an email using their computer or even their BlackBerry, there is always a trail. Their hard drives retain information about every email ever sent, and that information can be retrieved. That is where we find ourselves in a grey area.

But the Ligue des droits et libertés adds that everything we do in our everyday lives could come under police investigation. They will have access to lists of the websites we visit, emails we send and receive, credit card purchases, purchases of all kinds—clothing, books, winter gear—our outings, our movements abroad and in Canada, gas purchases, on-line and ATM banking transactions and medical information. Naturally, the list might get even longer.

We have to be prudent. I do not necessarily share all of the concerns expressed by the Ligue des droits et libertés, but they are urging us to be prudent. As parliamentarians, we have to use our judgment. We have to tell police forces—the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, the Ontario Provincial Police and other police services in large municipalities—that there are lines that must not be crossed once Bill C-46 is passed.

I firmly believe that one thing is for sure: police forces must have the tools they need to deal with crime in the 21st century. Yes, armed robberies and bank heists are still happening, although less frequently according to the latest statistics. We still hear about corner store hold-ups and all kinds of other assaults. But there is now a new kind of crime called cybercrime. We have been looking for ways to fight it since 1995. We have to make sure we have the tools to do that.

I listened closely to what the Ligue des droits et libertés said, and I feel that we have to be careful. The Ligue says that the bill provides little or no protection against unreasonable seizures without a warrant. The authorities will be able to obtain subscriber data even though the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act recognizes that this information is private. This is provided for in Bill C-47, but the authorities could still obtain this information. Without a warrant and on the basis of a suspicion, an officer will be able to ask a service provider to keep the contents of all your communications. It is like asking the post office to photocopy all your mail in case something should happen. I feel that people may go a bit too far sometimes, but this serves as a reminder that we must be cautious. I do not necessarily share the views of the Ligue des droits et libertés, but as politicians, we have to listen to both sides of the story.

The Ligue des droits et libertés also says that with a warrant obtained on the basis of a mere suspicion, an agent will easily be able to compel the service provider to turn over all its lists and so on. I believe that this is a bit dangerous, and we will have to address it when this bill is studied in committee. The Ligue added that with a warrant, which can be obtained on the basis of reasonable grounds to believe—less stringent conditions than for wiretapping—the content of your communications could be intercepted.

Certainly, what the Ligue des droits et libertés is saying is important. It is calling on parliamentarians to be careful when we print and pass legislation, but especially when we apply it. Once the law is passed, it may be too late to amend it. I will say one thing right now: police forces must be equipped to deal with cybercrime and 21st century crime. It is clear that crime prevention is one promising solution. The police will need to be able to prevent such crimes, and that takes equipment.

Obviously, the authorities have to try to uncover a plot before it is carried out. Once a crime has been committed, it is a little late to intervene, even if the criminals are brought to justice. In closing, if the authorities can thwart the crime before it is committed, I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction.

Introduction of Bills

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to second the member for Joliette's remarks.

The parliamentary secretary referred to regret that any information in advance of a bill being tabled became public.

I would like to urge you, Mr. Speaker, when you review this matter, to look at a pattern. With Bill C-52, the Minister of Justice acknowledged that it was inappropriate. You said that you considered the matter closed, and probably at exactly the same time, the Minister of Public Safety was preparing to release details of another bill.

This is not an accident by an overenthusiastic communications assistant in a minister's office, it is a pattern involving many, many bills, particularly in recent weeks. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, whatever ruling you ultimately decide on, to make clear the rules surrounding this kind of information, and not simply to accept that somebody comes in and apologizes while a colleague at the same time is doing exactly the same thing. There seems to be a communication confusion in the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, and you are the best person to clarify that for everybody.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to know that I have a problem not only with the fact that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services did not apologize for the Bill C-52 incident as the Minister of Justice did, but also with the fact that, yesterday, both the Minister of Public Safety and, once again, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services did exactly the same thing with Bill C-53. I offer as proof the press release that I provided to you as well as the backgrounder that goes into great detail about Bill C-53.

Once again, I believe that there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege. I hope that you will consider this fact if you believe it to be relevant.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the House for a bit of clarification.

The parliamentary secretary has referred to the incident in respect to Bill C-52, regarding which the Minister of Justice has acknowledged that an error was made. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, the minister also indicated that he would be advising ministers generally that the practice of calling premature news conferences should not continue.

However, I took it from the remarks of the representative for the Bloc Québécois that his concern related not only to Bill C-52 but also to the incident that occurred yesterday with respect to Bill C-53, as the practice that was complained about was indeed repeated, with the holding of a premature news conference about a subsequent bill having to do with justice matters.

It is important to have confirmation from the government that it not only acknowledges the mistake in respect of Bill C-52 but also acknowledges that exactly the same mistake was made with respect to Bill C-53, and that the commitment undertaking by the Minister of Justice that this practice will stop is in fact going to apply to each and every minister on each and every bill so that we will not have this ongoing succession of premature news conferences that do in fact encroach upon the privileges of members of this House.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice yesterday expressed regret and his most sincere apologies to the House for releasing any information on Bill C-52 in advance of the bill being tabled.

As we know, once a bill has been put on notice, it is inappropriate to speak to the bill until such time as it has been tabled. The Minister of Justice indicated that he would be advising all of his cabinet colleagues as well of the inappropriateness of this type of action, and he offered his most sincere apologies on behalf of the government for any inadvertent release of information, which should not have happened.

Mr. Speaker, you indicated in your ruling yesterday that you accepted the apology and considered the matter to be closed. I can assure you, on behalf of the government, that this type of early release, if you will, will not be forthcoming again any time in the future.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after the apology made by the Minister of Justice regarding the question of privilege I raised last Thursday, you said that, unless you heard further, you considered this matter closed. But this morning, I have more to add.

I would first like to say that although my question of privilege had to do with two ministers, only the Minister of Justice apologized. But the Minister of Public Works and Government Services also disclosed critical information about Bill C-52 before it was introduced in the House.

However, the main reason I have brought the issue up again today is that we are still very concerned about government ministers publicly disclosing information about bills before their first reading in this House. Despite the apology from the Minister of Justice, we fear that the government did not fully learn its lesson.

Although the Minister of Justice apologized in this House for disclosing information about Bill C-52 before it was introduced in the House, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, yet again, held a press conference on Bill C-53, which was on notice but had not yet received first reading in the House. In a press release and a backgrounder that were made public before first reading of the bill, it is clearly indicated that the government intends to eliminate accelerated parole review from the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Moreover, I sent you these documents with my letter.

Having read Bill C-53, I can say that this is exactly what it does. It eliminates accelerated parole review and makes some consequential amendments. Once again, the government disclosed the content of a bill before it was introduced in the House.

As the Bloc Québécois House leader, I am often called on to advise my colleagues on the legislative process and private members' business. If there is one thing I stress, it is that bills that Bloc Québécois members want to introduce must remain confidential before they are introduced in the House. I always advise my colleagues to hold their press conferences after their bill has received first reading.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there is no longer any reason to strictly apply the rule of confidentiality of bills on notice, I would just like to know so that I can give my colleagues different advice.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I ask you again to consider the question of privilege I raised last Thursday and the new information I have brought to your attention this morning concerning Bill C-53.

I repeat that if you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to rise in the chamber to address the matter that was raised on Thursday by the member for Joliette concerning the introduction of Bill C-52.

It was correctly pointed out to the House that details of that bill were released prior to the actual tabling of the bill while the bill was on notice. Members have the right and the duty to see the bill first.

One of the things I share with you, Mr. Speaker, is a deep respect for the House, its traditions and its rules. The release of those details was a mistake, and for that I apologize to the House without reservation. I have indicated to my colleagues, and I will be indicating to them, that this should never happen again.

As for myself, it is my sincere hope to introduce many more bills in the House, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that this will never happen again.

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we already have institutions in place governing the matter before us today, namely, Bill C-52, but perhaps they are not being properly enforced, that is, they have not been given enough teeth.

I cannot believe that Mr. Lacroix did everything he did with anyone keeping a close eye on him. I think that someone, somewhere, was not watching him closely enough. Although it happened in Quebec, it is all the same. Mr. Lacroix was not watched closely enough, otherwise, he would not have been able to do what he did. It is appalling to think that our current institutions do not have enough teeth, nor the regulations, financial resources and other means needed to ensure that things are done properly and to prevent crimes before they are committed.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-52, to impose harsher sentences for economic crimes. However, in our view, this bill does not always take the right approach.

This bill introduced on October 21 includes a minimum sentence of two years for fraud over $1 million, as has been repeatedly pointed out. It provides additional aggravating factors for sentencing such as the financial and psychological impact on victims, the failure to comply with a professional standard or a licensing requirement, and the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud. It also includes a broader definition of victim. The court could receive a written statement of the repercussions of a fraud on a given community, describing the losses suffered, for example, by a senior's club, or an entire neighbourhood or club. The bill also enables the courts to order restitution for the loss of property. If they do not, they will have to provide an explanation and justification for their decision. The bill also makes it possible for the courts to prevent fraudsters from engaging in certain activities in the future, once convicted of fraud, of course.

The Bloc Québécois wants to improve this bill in committee, as the Conservative member is asking us to do, and correct the major flaws that we see in the bill. We will therefore vote in favour of this bill at second reading. That is why, as my colleague from the Liberal Party was saying earlier, we have no objection to this bill being referred directly to committee.

In matters of justice, however, the Bloc Québécois strongly believes that the most effective approach is still prevention. We must address the causes of crime. This bill does not go far enough to address the causes of crime and we will look at that in committee and propose a few options. We believe there is a flagrant lack of monitoring over people in this field who manage to defraud others even though they are supposed to be monitored much more closely.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that the current justice system needs improvement in many ways and that some laws need to be amended. Parliament and the government are responsible for taking action to ensure that Canadians and Quebeckers feel safe wherever they are in this country. Therefore, on June 15, 2007, which was a while ago, in response to the Conservatives' ideological approach, the Bloc Québécois recommended measures to curb economic crime. Our constructive approach is already working. In the 2008 budget, the Conservative government adopted some of the Bloc Québécois' ideas. It allocated extra resources to the national crime prevention strategy and to Crown prosecutors. As for this particular bill, even though we think the government is missing the mark in many respects, we will still support it at second reading if only to enable the committee to conduct a thorough study so that all members have the opportunity to recommend significant improvements if they want to.

Lately, there have been a lot of financial scandals around the world, in the United States, in Canada and in Quebec, such as Cinar, Norbourg and Earl Jones, and, in the United States, Madoff and Enron. These scandals have focused attention on some of the gaps in our oversight and our battle against economic crimes. That is why, on September 2, 2009, the Bloc Québécois introduced a number of measures to improve the system, making it harder for people to commit these crimes and easier to discover them and punish them more severely. Ours is the kind of comprehensive approach we need if we want to understand this kind of crime and wage an effective war against it.

In response, the government panicked. On September 16, well after our proposal was made public, it announced a bill that would include mandatory minimum jail time and aggravating factors, and enable the courts to order restitution of assets. We have Bill C-52 before us now. In many ways, the government's bill is so much smoke and mirrors. We all know that mandatory minimums are useless. The Bloc Québécois is not alone in saying that. Over and over again, people have said that the United States has the harshest sentences in the world. Their jails are full, yet the crime rate in every category is the highest in the world.

Fraud in excess of $1 million is actually a very rare occurrence. Yesterday, I heard a member of this House give a few examples of frauds in excess of $1 million, perhaps seven or eight instances, but his assertions were totally unsubstantiated. He talked about someone who had been sentenced to 24 months for stealing $1.2 million, but mentioned no name, case or references.

So far, we know of very few specific cases of individuals who have stolen $1 million and have not been sentenced to two years of imprisonment. In those instances where we are told that they did not receive a two-year sentence, most of the time, it might be because they were granted a remission of sentence after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. The fact of the matter is that the usual sentence for such offences is six or seven years of imprisonment.

This could in fact send the wrong message to the courts and result in shorter sentences being handed down. As we know, even with a reduced sentence, Mr. Lacroix was sentenced to more than two years. Had guidelines like the ones proposed been applied to him, he would have almost automatically been sentenced to two years of imprisonment. Instead, he got 14 years. The problem is that he will not be serving the full sentence. It is not that the sentence was wrong. The sentence was the right one, and he should be serving it. That is the problem.

The courts already take into account the prescribed aggravating factors. This bill provides for some, but it is already being done. What is being added here does not make much of a difference. Here is a specific example: almost all, if not all, the aggravating factors listed in the bill were mentioned in the ruling concerning Mr. Lacroix.

Restitution orders are also already in use. Their use may be broader in scope in the bill, but that does not substantially change what already exists.

As for the prohibition orders limiting the activities of convicted offenders, that is something interesting. However, many have suggested that they might be difficult to enforce. This should be looked at much more closely in committee.

What is missing from the bill is the abolition of parole after an offender has served one-sixth of his sentence. This is one of the two most important elements. Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix will be able to use this mechanism to get out of prison before they have served an appropriate sentence, the one that was imposed on them, which in Mr. Lacroix's case was just over 14 years. With parole after one-sixth of his sentence, Mr. Lacroix will serve two years and a few months, including time already served. This is not nearly enough time for what he did. The solution in the case of Mr. Lacroix and all those who do the same thing is not to sentence them to a minimum of two years, but to require that they serve their full time, without parole after one-sixth of the sentence. The government is not doing anything about this, yet it is a key measure for dealing with this issue.

I listened earlier as a secretary of state told us that the committee would be open to any suggestions we might have. I hope it will be open to this one, because it is one of the key measures we should put in place.

Before imposing minimum sentences, which are inherently unfair, because they force the judge to impose overly harsh sentences on people who deserve less, should we not start by limiting non-judicial decisions? It is not a judge, but a parole board that decides to parole an offender who has served one-sixth of his sentence. This is therefore a non-judicial intervention in a judicial process to reduce a sentence that has already been handed down in accordance with the rules.

The bill also does not deal with tax havens. This is the second key point, and my colleague from Manicouagan was right to speak at length about it. Yesterday, I listened as hon. members spoke with trembling voices about the victims who should be compensated and supported, but the only way the government is proposing to support them is to send the people who defrauded them to jail. The government must also consider the victims and make every effort to compensate them for the losses they have suffered. The way to do that is to ensure that the people who defrauded them can repay the money they stole by preventing them from hiding that money in tax havens. These are the two main elements the Bloc Québécois will raise in committee in order to improve this flawed bill.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very fortunate and blessed to come from Mississauga, the safest city in Canada, because of the capable leadership of our mayor, Hazel McCallion, and our police chief.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, why is he and his party delaying the expedition of the bill? He knows that all the opposition parties support both Bill C-52 and Bill C-42. So why not send it directly to committee? Why do we continue to debate it for two days when we are all in agreement?

Will the parliamentary secretary agree to send it directly to committee?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-52. It is a very important piece of legislation for my constituents as well as for all members' constituents across our country. Due to modern technology, a farmer in rural Saskatchewan is just as susceptible to fraud as a stock analyst is in Toronto. It is important that we realize this when discussing the bill.

I want to make some technical points about the bill. It contains six measures, all of which are designed in some way to enhance the sentencing process for offenders convicted of fraud.

The first element is a mandatory minimum penalty. Canadians are most concerned about large-scale frauds that wipe out people's life savings and demonstrate extreme greed and indifference to others. To address this concern, the bill includes a mandatory penalty of a minimum of two years in prison for any fraud or combined fraud with a value of over $1 million. The mandatory minimum penalty would act as a floor. A variety of aggravating factors would also be applied to raise the actual sentence well above the two-year range in many cases.

There are currently four statutory aggravating factors for fraud in section 380.1 of the Criminal Code. The bill would add new aggravating factors to that list to set out additional characteristics of fraud which are troubling. The new factors would focus on: first, the impact of the fraud on its victims; second, the complexity and magnitude of the fraud; third, the failure of the offender to comply with applicable rules and regulations; and fourth, any attempt by the offender to conceal records relevant to the fraud.

Another measure will require the sentencing court to state on the record which aggravating and mitigating factors it is applying. This is to ensure transparency in sentencing and to ensure that the statutory rules in section 380.1 which set out aggravating factors and factors that are prohibited from having a mitigating factor are effectively applied.

The bill would also give the courts a new sentencing tool for fraud offenders aimed at preventing the commission of further fraud and victimization. The court would be able to order as part of a sentence that the offender would be prohibited from having work for remuneration or in a volunteer capacity that involves having authority over another person's money, valuable securities, or real property. The order would be discretionary and available for any period up to life.

The two final measures are aimed at improving the responsiveness of the justice system and the sentencing process to the needs of the victims. Data from 2006-07 show that approximately 20% of fraud convictions resulted in a restitution order. In order to encourage a greater use of these orders, sentencing courts would be required to ask the Crown whether reasonable efforts were made to give victims a chance to indicate whether they want restitution. The courts would also be required to consider restitution in all fraud cases and to provide reasons if restitution is not ordered.

Three points of caution are needed. It is important to note that no criminal law reform can change the bottom line, namely that if an offender does not have any adequate assets, restitution itself may be a hollow remedy. It should also be kept in mind that the Crown is responsible for making the sentencing submissions. Victims will not have standing to advance their restitution requests. Finally, we cannot establish a collection mechanism for restitution ordered as a part of the sentence as this would require extensive provincial cooperation and tracking and the cost would be prohibitive.

The last measure in the bill would specifically acknowledge that the courts may consider a statement prepared by a representative of a community or definable group for consideration at sentencing for fraud cases. The courts are already somewhat receptive to considering community impact statements describing the impact of a crime on a community as a whole or in some specific cases. In fraud cases, for example, a large-scale fraud which has many identifiable victims in a small town could have an economic impact on that entire community.

I am confident that the measures in the bill will help send a strong message to the fraudsters out there that their time is finally up. I am also pleased that the bill can act as a springboard for discussion and awareness particularly toward fraud in general.

I hope that all hon. members will support the bill and help to ensure it is passed very quickly into law.