Evidence of meeting #55 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Davies is requesting a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The decision of the chair has been overturned. Now we have debate on this amendment, and we will not be going until the debate is completed.
Mr. MacKenzie.
9:20 p.m.
An hon. member
Are we going over...?
9:20 p.m.
An hon. member
The usual debate.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Well, Mr. Chair, for all the reasons that you've ruled it out of order--while the other side have now overturned that--we would oppose it. It takes away what the intent of the bill was.
I'm a little bit disappointed that Madame Mourani saw fit to support the other side against your judgment. I thought we had talked previously and she had indicated that she didn't support any amendments. This particular amendment I think goes entirely against the intent of the bill. I don't know how I can be any clearer: what he's done here is not what the intent of the bill was from the very beginning.
It was the agreement we had, the understanding we had. Certainly, all of a sudden they put a value in, and that's not what the argument was through this process. The Bloc Québécois had an agreement with this party to move forward with no amendments, so I can't understand the legitimacy of where they have gone on this. When you put it into a value, it's not what the bill was, not intended to be, and I just think it's a watered-down version of the original bill.
I don't know whether Ms. Mourani wants to talk about it or not, but I'm extremely disappointed that this is going forward after you have made your decision.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We need to be debating the amendment. So whether or not Madame Mourani...she voted to overturn the decision of the chair.
Madame Mourani, I'll give you the opportunity to speak to this, and then we'll come back to Mr. McColeman and Mr. Rathgeber.
Madame Mourani.
9:20 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chairman, I challenged your decision, not for personal reasons, but simply to allow us to debate this.
I had serious doubts that your ruling was the correct one. After giving this some thought, we think the amendment is in order. So, I didn't understand why you thought it was not, particularly since there had been no debate.
However, we will be voting against it. I am not saying we will support it. We will vote against all the amendments that come forward today. There is no doubt about that; I have looked at all of them and we will be voting against them all.
That said, we were of the view that they were within the scope of the bill. This is a democratic institution, and people have a right to present their amendments and have them debated. However, I can assure you we will be voting against.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I will speak to the amendment. I don't believe that was the intent of the legislation to begin with.
Secondly, by putting this kind of amendment in place, we're diminishing the original intent. There are so many victims out there of white-collar crime, in particular the ones who are the hardest to deal with. We had witnesses today who are the most vulnerable people. They're our elderly people. They're the people who perhaps, like many in my community, have been able to save $60,000 or $70,000 in order to live out their lives with a little bit of dignity. But they're being scammed by someone who may scam only five or six people. Does that diminish their standing versus being part of a large Ponzi scheme? I don't think so. In fact, I think they're the most vulnerable people, the ones who actually suffer the most.
We heard our witnesses, the victim witnesses in particular—the gentleman here—describe to us tonight some of the things that happened to some of these people who were shamed and lost. Perhaps it may not have been a lot of money, in some people's eyes. But they have committed suicide, or they've been in psychological treatment for years and years as a result of this. It's basically been the ruination of their lives.
So to diminish the fact that there's a distinction between someone who wants to victimize these people, who does victimize them by defrauding them...to somehow say that's less than a mega fraudster, I don't buy that argument.
This amendment would say that we're going to categorize the types of fraudsters out there. We're going to say that there are the big, sophisticated fraudsters who get away with millions—and yes, we don't want to see those people have access to early parole—but we're also going to then say that there is a lesser scale. For example, if it's in a small community, if it's a trusted person who all of a sudden turns sour, and there are 10 people in the community who might have lost less than a certain threshold of money, but it may have been all they had.... I can personally relate to some people in that category. If they lost their $60,000 or $70,000, it would be the ruination of their lives. They're in their seventies or eighties. They're very vulnerable.
I cannot agree to these amendments for that reason.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Rathgeber, Monsieur Ménard, Mr. Davies, and Mr. MacKenzie.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Very briefly, Mr. Chair, as ludicrous as I thought Mr. Holland's proposed amendment was to make the threshold $100,000, this one is even more ludicrous.
To make the threshold $1 million would imply that a white-collar fraud or a scheme where the damages are $990,000 is somehow minor. That defies any logic, anything the victims have told us. It's ludicrous. I think it's counterintuitive to the spirit of the bill.
I commend your ruling that it's out of order.
But since the members on the other side of the table have deemed fit to challenge the chair, I certainly take Madame Mourani on her word that she will do the right thing and vote no to this ludicrous amendment, making the bar $1 million for the difference between a minor fraud and a major fraud.
9:25 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
In light of the arguments we have just heard, it is clear that committee members are against the proposed amendments. However, my previous decision is based on my conviction that amendments should come forward so that members have an opportunity to discuss them. That is exactly what Ms. Mourani felt and what she just explained.
I find it surprising to see that clause-by-clause consideration of bills in committee is a complete farce, where everything becomes a procedural issue. I believe this is within the scope — I'm still looking for the correct expression in French — of the bill. Yes, there are different choices that can be made with respect to a bill, and that's why people propose amendments. However, every time someone is not in favour of the proposed amendment or the Chair is not in favour, he rules it to be out of order. It's a complete farce. Amendments are killed off on the basis of procedure. By the way, why not do things properly, the way they're done elsewhere? When someone moves an amendment related to the subject matter of the bill, well, people discuss it and hear the members' opinions. In this case, you were told…
I fully agree with Mr. McColeman's arguments because, quite frankly, $1 million, and even $100,000, is far too much. Personally, I do not want to see these amendments passed. However, I will challenge the Chair's rulings when I have the sense they will place a gag on committee members who are trying to improve a bill or limit its scope, because it goes too far, or make amendments so that it will have a more positive effect. That is the principle I'm defending in challenging rulings. Obviously, if it were completely off topic and had nothing to do with the parole process, the Chair would be absolutely right to rule that is not within the scope of the bill. However, what he is saying is:
“This is within the scope, but I don't agree with it.”
That's why I voted against the Chair's ruling. I will also be voting against the amendment which, like you and others who spoke before me, I do not agree with.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Again, Monsieur Ménard, so that you are clear on this, this isn't a unilateral decision that we make. We make it with our legislative experts from the House who take the proper procedure and ask if it moves completely contrary to the scope of the bill. According to the procedure, if they counsel me that it does, then I'm basically bound by their decision in their expert opinion. When my decision is overturned, then we get to debate it.
It's legislative counsel who has said that it moves against the spirit of the bill.
9:30 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I am absolutely convinced that that is what they think, but I completely disagree with them. Their view is that a bill cannot be amended except by changing a comma or verb tense or correcting a spelling error. That is not my view.
If, for example, it is decided that the sentence for a particular offence should be 14 years, whereas I believe it should be seven years, I can move an amendment. That may be contrary to the stated purpose, but it is within the scope of the bill under consideration. In any case, being familiar with the way it works in other legislatures, I can tell you that I know that is the process which is followed, and it is more logical, because otherwise, there is no longer any point to clause-by-clause consideration.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.
Mr. Davies, and then Mr. MacKenzie.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
First of all, I want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc, Monsieur Ménard and Madame Mourani, for what I consider to be a principled stand and one of integrity. We may not agree on the substance of the bill, but I think it shows a respect for the process that I personally find very admirable.
I know that Mr. Ménard was a justice minister in Quebec, and certainly he has a very well-established experience with legislative drafting. So if he thinks this is in order, that opinion counts a lot with me.
I just want to say that Mr. Rathgeber uses one of the oldest tricks in the book, which is to name call. He called my amendment ludicrous. That doesn't speak to the logic of it; it's a name call.
I'll tell you where the million dollars came from, Mr. Chairman. On the million-dollar threshold, if my friend read the Criminal Code--read the sections he's calling ludicrous--which he obviously hasn't, the million dollars came from the Criminal Code. That is the standard that's extant in the Criminal Code in some of these offences. The million-dollar figure is referred to as an aggravating factor when sentences are given out; that's why we use the million dollars.
I also want to point out that the Criminal Code is filled with distinctions that seek to establish thresholds of seriousness. We have theft over, theft under.... That doesn't mean the theft of $20 is less serious than the theft of $200 million; only a fool would equate those two in terms of sentencing. They make a difference.
9:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
February 15th, 2011 / 9:30 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I didn't suggest that anybody in this room was one, but it's amazing how quickly people reacted.
Anyway, the reason we put that million-dollar scope in was to separate those large-scale frauds from lesser frauds. In this case we want to separate the crime of an aboriginal woman who may have passed bad cheques because she has an alcohol problem or an addiction or she is a victim of sexual abuse and finds herself in a federal prison.
Ashley Smith was in a federal prison. All of us in this room know that people can end up in a federal prison who are non-violent first-time offenders. I don't think anybody in this room would say that Ashley Smith should have been in the prison cells she was in. I want to differentiate an Ashley Smith from an Earl Jones.
We picked an arbitrary number. We chose one that's already in the Criminal Code.
I might point out that this language was pulled from NDP Bill C-21. We actually made amendments to lower the threshold of a million dollars, and those amendments were defeated by parties in this room.
When we talk about a million dollars, Mr. McColeman said that someone might lose $60,000 or $70,000. That's true. That's a serious amount of money. It doesn't take long to get to a million dollars. I mean, if you defraud 15 people, you're at the million dollars. I'm perfectly open to anybody who wants to suggest that there be a lower threshold.
My Liberal colleagues have suggested $100,000. That sounds reasonable to me too. The point is to identify the white-collar crimes and establish a limit that separates what we consider to be a large-scale organized kleptocracy from the kinds of offences committed by people who do not fall into that category.
I also want to say, in conclusion, that these offences are by definition large-scale offences. They're filing false prospectuses. They're violating trademark for the purpose of trade. People aren't doing this to make $60; they're doing this to have large-scale organized crime.
Again, I respect the vote. I don't want to hold things up, Mr. Chairman. We have a lot of business to do, and I would propose that we go to the vote on this, unless anybody has anything different to say.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I'd like to point out something to Mr. Davies. I do believe either Jones or Lacroix was sentenced under provincial securities legislation. Therefore, all your amendments relating to Criminal Code offences wouldn't apply.
I just wonder if Ms. Campbell might be able to--
9:35 p.m.
NDP