Debates of Dec. 1st, 2011

James Bezan Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Charlottetown is not at all even close to the discussion on the bill at hand, namely, vexatious complaints by prisoners to the Correctional Service Canada. He needs to get on track. He is making broad statements that have absolutely no relevance, or founding in truth for that matter.

I think he needs to be called to order to make sure he is being relevant to the debate at hand.

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

It is very true that members are given a lot of latitude to explore the topics that pertain to the question in front of them. It is important that the member for Charlottetown begin to bring some of these ideas together and see how they might pertain to the question in front of us.

The hon. member for Charlottetown.

Sean Casey Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I only wish that the government had the same zeal to combat poverty and other social inequities.

I have read the bill and I want to say to the member directly that any attempt to withhold any constitutional protections to any Canadians will be met with great opposition. We will not be bullied any more with suggestions that we care about criminals and not victims. It is simply not true.

Any effort to limit the rights of any Canadian, regardless of how we might find the reasons for their incarceration deplorable, will be objected to. We cannot allow Conservative fear to erode fundamental rights and natural justice.

I realize that these concepts do not play well with the right wingers over there. For them, it is lock them up, shut them up, and throw away the key.

Any prisoner convicted and serving time is an individual who is there for a reason and he or she should be there, given that a decision was rendered by a judge or jury after a due process. However, it does not mean that once incarcerated his or her fundamental rights as a human being are expunged, as much as the Conservatives would like to think so.

If a prisoner has a legitimate complaint, one that is serious, if he or she is mistreated or abused, then there should be no law that would prevent him or her from seeking a remedy.

We know that even at the worst moments of war, when we think of the great wars, there were international rules as to how we treated prisoners and evil people who did great harm or damage, and for good reason. It is called the Geneva Convention. We do not want a system that disregards the essential dignity of all human life, regardless of the deplorable nature of his or her crime.

We will review the bill, we will scrutinize it, and we will ensure that it meets the test of the charter, a document that many on the other side, deep down, oppose. However, we will do our job to ensure that the intention of the bill is not to stomp out legitimate complaints of prisoners.

In closing, I really do find all this crime propaganda troubling. I really wish the members across the way would look at themselves in the mirror and see how angry they appear.

Candice Hoeppner Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support, with amendments, Bill C-293, which was brought forward by the member for Scarborough Centre. I would like to begin by commending and congratulating my colleague for introducing legislation that would help the Correctional Service Canada meet its legal obligations to resolve inmate grievances in the most effective way possible. Our Conservative government supports this important bill and to that end we will introduce some minor amendments to strengthen the bill at committee stage.

Canadians find it utterly unacceptable that offenders can make it their hobby to file frivolous grievances on the taxpayers' dime, while they are supposed to be engaged in rehabilitation. Let me be clear. All offenders have the right to a fair and expeditious complaint and grievance process. This process is to be made available to every offender without negative consequences. However, that is not to say that offenders should have carte blanche to submit endless and needless paperwork.

The system is set up in a four-level process, from a complaint at the institutional level to a grievance at the national level. Bill C-293 would not change those rights. All offenders will continue to have complete access to a fair and expeditious grievance process. The issue at hand is that there are certain offenders who take advantage of their rights to a fair grievance procedure by clogging up the complaints system with hundreds of frivolous or vexatious complaints and grievances each year.

What do I mean by complaints that are deemed frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith? These are complaints that are submitted with no serious purpose, complaints that are submitted for the sole purpose of harassing officials or to simply cause a disruption. In some instances, offenders will submit the same frivolous or vexatious complaint over and over again, just because they can. We know there are a handful of offenders in our federal prisons right now that account for 15% of all complaints and grievances filed in one year. Some submit as many as 500 to 600 complaints per year.

In light of the volume of grievances that are not made in good faith or are frivolous or vexatious in nature, it is not surprising that this creates a huge challenge for corrections officers to address the legitimate complaints of other offenders.

While there is already a system in place to manage offenders who submit high volumes of grievances, it does not address the root of the problem, that of making offenders accountable for their actions. The bill before us would right this wrong and it would ensure that offenders would not be abusing the benefits afforded to them through a fair complaint process. It proposes several things.

First and foremost, Bill C-293 proposes to give the commissioner of the CSC the authority to designate an offender as a vexatious complainant. In practice, this means that the commissioner will have the power to determine, based on a thorough review of the offender's history of complaints, that he or she is deserving of the label a vexatious complainant. This is similar to the process already in place for litigants who abuse our court system.

The bill also proposes that once offenders have been designated as vexatious complainants, they are then obligated to provide additional material to CSC to back up each complaint that they submit. It will allow CSC to refuse to review a grievance that is frivolous, vexatious, or not made in good faith unless the grievance would result in irreparable, significant or adverse consequences to the offender.

The bill is a positive step toward our goal of rebalancing the grievance system and to reducing the burden imposed by offenders who abuse that system. However, our government believes that we should go a step further to put more emphasis on offender accountability. To that end, when the bill proceeds to committee stage, we will propose key amendments that will ensure that offenders who are designated vexatious complainants are no longer able to create delays in the grievance system and affect other offenders access to the process.

Bill C-293 makes an important change by allowing the commissioner of CSC to designate some offenders as vexatious complainants. However, as it currently stands, these offenders would still be able to continue further grievances without first seeking permission from CSC. Furthermore, asking vexatious complainants to provide additional material in support of their grievance would only add to CSC's administrative burden.

We propose to amend this to allow the commissioner of the CSC to order that a vexatious complainant no longer be allowed to submit any complaints or grievances without first receiving the permission of the warden. In effect, that would stop the complaint at the institutional level, rather than allow the possibility of having every new grievance submitted by the vexatious complainant land on the commissioner's desk.

Second, the current bill states that the commissioner of the CSC must conduct a review and a reassessment of the offender's vexatious status every six months. We believe this would prove unwieldy and cumbersome to the commissioner who would be forced to review the offender's status twice a year. Our amendment would change this to make the review annual, which is a much more reasonable timeframe.

Third, Bill C-293 stipulates that the commissioner of CSC must carry out each decision personally as it does not allow for this power to be delegated. Surely it is only reasonable to give the commissioner of the CSC the authority to designate someone to take on this responsibility when needed.

Together, these amendment would help strengthen the bill and would ensure that offenders would be held accountable for their actions, including facing a consequence for their behaviour that is both disruptive and disrespectful.

Our government has been very clear. We are committed to move ahead with measures that will create a correctional system that actually corrects criminal behaviour. We make no apologies for ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions. That includes both the offences that landed them in prison and the actions they take while serving their sentence. It is particularly troubling to hear stories of offenders who, instead of focusing on their own rehabilitation, are abusing the system by lodging frivolous or vexatious complaints and grievances.

Our government is fully supportive of providing the appropriate rehabilitative measures to offenders. We are also committed to putting measures in place to increase offender accountability and ensure that offenders are playing a full role in their rehabilitation.

What we will not tolerate is a small group of offenders being allowed to bog down our corrections system by piling on complaint after complaint, sometimes to the level of 500 to 600 complaints per year, for no other reason than they are wanting to abuse the system. This is unacceptable. It must change and I am very glad that my colleague has brought the bill forward to make changes in this area.

Over the past several years, the Correctional Service Canada has been working hard to address the challenges that our institutions face when dealing with offenders who clog up the system with a high volume of grievances that are of no consequence to the rights, health or safety of that offender.

We believe that, as amended, Bill C-293 will go a long way toward helping address these issues to reduce administrative workload and to ensure that all legitimate offender grievances can be dealt with in a fair and expeditious manner. Therefore, I call on all members of the House to support this very important bill.

Linda Duncan Edmonton—Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I find Bill C-293 both puzzling and troubling. Contrary to what the previous member suggested, the bill does not right a wrong. If enacted, it will pave the way potentially for far greater wrongs. I need only quote from the renowned Justice Louise Arbour, who said, in dealing with previous concerns regarding the treatment of prisoners:

One must resist the temptation to trivialize the infringement of prisoners' rights as either an insignificant infringement of rights, or as an infringement of the rights of people who do not deserve any better. When a right has been granted by law, it is no less important that such right be respected because the person entitled to it is a prisoner.

One would presume that these amendments came forward in response to the recommendations of the federal Correctional Investigator. The federal Correctional Investigator came forward with strong recommendations as a result of the very tragic case of Ashley Smith.

What were the facts in the case of Ashley Smith? Fourteen-year-old Ashley Smith was put in prison because she threw crab apples at a postman and she was shunted from institution to institution. Because it appeared she was under stress and had some mental health problems, she was violating certain rules in the prison. As a result, she went from solitary confinement, then to prison and to another prison. In the end, the sad case of Ashley Smith was that the prison officer sat and watched her die from self-strangulation. As a result of the tragic death of this young women and the failure of the prison guards to protect her interests, there were a number of investigations.

One of the investigations was by the federal Correctional Investigator. One thing he found was that her final grievance remained in the prison grievance box two and a half months after her death. Today we hear that there are inappropriate administrative duties on prison officers. There actually are corrections officer rules that require that box be emptied every day.

What was the nature of Ashley's complaints filed as grievances? The Correctional Investigator quoted a number of them, which I do not have time to go into. However, in his report the investigator found that there was improper designation of her grievances. They were found to be insignificant when he found that they were in fact serious. There was a failure to provide written responses as required by the prison directives. There was a failure to discuss her complaints with her and the responses were prepared well after she was transferred to other institutions. All of her complaints were responded to in an inappropriate way and not compliant with corrections policy.

Despite the heightened duty of vigilance due to her condition of confinement, there was a failure to observe her basic human rights. This was a tragic and avoidable death and the investigator made a number of recommendations. He recommended, contrary to what the hon. member has tabled, the following:

I recommend that all grievances related to the conditions of confinement or treatment in segregation be referred as a priority to the institutional head and be immediately addressed.

I recommend, once again, that the Correctional Service immediately commission an external review of its operations and policies in the area of inmate grievances to ensure fair and expeditious resolution of offenders' complaints and grievances at all levels of the process.

What do we find in the bill here? How does this bill respond to what the Correctional Investigator found? He found that corrections institutions were failing immeasurably in honouring the basic right of considering the grievances. This bill has the opposite effect.

This bill, contrary to due process, gives complete discretion to the regional deputy commissioner or the commissioner or any delegate. In other words, it could be totally within the discretion of any corrections officer to designate somebody as a vexatious prisoner. There are no criteria, there is no process, and in fact the commissioner, or the person making the designation, does not even have to inform the prisoner in writing until after the designation is made.

There is some reference to having a conversation with the prisoner about the process. This is a complete violation of due process. We live in a country of due process. That is how we are made. That is why we are honoured to be a member of the United Nations: we operate by the rule of law and due process. That means we follow basic principles.

This bill violates all of those principles.

Then the prisoner is going to be denied, potentially for a whole year, even the opportunity to raise any kind of grievance. Again, let us remember that we are including the rising numbers of prisoners who are suffering from mental health issues, as documented by the corrections investigator and a number of officials. As a result, there is a high probability that in this process, anybody in the prison could designate somebody with a significant mental health issue, and they will be silenced.

What is the solution? What is the redress for this prisoner? Well, the prisoner can go to court--this from the very government that criticizes us all the time over the possibility that we might table bills that might be litigious. This is the very government that castigated me for daring to table an environmental bill of rights that would simply have allowed Canadians the right to go to court if the government failed to be transparent, open and participatory.

As for the right to go to court, these are prisoners who have been denied the ability to even file a grievance, and we are supposed to believe that they are going to be given access to the courts. As my colleague on this side of the House suggested after the bill was first presented, why is there not a more reasonable mechanism? Why is there not an independent mediator within the prison system, who could come in the same way that many independent people do to make sure prisoners are being treated appropriately? Why not consider some other kind of mechanism?

I hope the member who tabled this bill will give serious consideration, if her bill proceeds, to sending it to committee to be measurably amended, so that at least the government, if it sides with this bill, will show that it is siding with due process of law and human rights.

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

As she may wish, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona will have two minutes remaining when the House next resumes debate on the motion.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Glenn Thibeault Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, in April 2009 the House passed my motion to bring relief to Canadians by instituting binding regulations regarding credit cards, yet two and a half years later the government has failed to fulfill the will of the House.

Last year, in an attempt to placate consumers, the Minister of Finance introduced the voluntary code of conduct for credit cards. However, this move was mostly spin, with little substance.

In the first place, the code of conduct simply did not do enough to protect consumers. For example, the code was directed mainly toward the credit card issuers, meaning that most of the issues addressed were those of small businesses, not consumers.

While I welcome any way to help small and medium-sized businesses in Canada, and while I recognize that helping them protect their razor-thin profit margins could help lower consumer prices, there are many precise issues, specifically at the banking level, that affect consumers directly and that were not addressed by the code.

Additionally, even those provisions that were put in place do not go far enough. Study after study by academics and reserve banks shows that consumers who use cash and debit cards are effectively subsidizing the spending of credit card users, as businesses are forced to increase their prices to cover merchant fees. Credit card users then receive reward points, cash back, or air miles to compensate them for this increased cost, while consumers using cash and debit cards are forced to cover this cost with no return.

Second, this weakness is compounded by the voluntary nature of the system. The failure of voluntary systems of quasi-regulation has been brought to light recently by the banks pulling out of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments external complaint resolution system. When banks first joined OBSI following a spate of consumer complaints and media coverage of the failure to resolve them, the industry and the minister of finance of the day made a behind-closed-doors deal to adhere to the system in order to avoid formal regulation from a government body.

Now, with the eye of economic reporting focused elsewhere, the government has allowed banks to leave the OBSI system and instead settle their complaints through a downtown Toronto law firm. The government likes to say that this brings choice to the market, but the only ones getting choice on the matter are the big banks.

What is to stop the government from allowing credit card issuers to leave the mechanisms of the voluntary code of conduct later, when it senses the opportunity?

The banking industry is one of the fastest-changing industries in the world, and even specialists sometimes struggle to keep up with the acronyms and investment vehicles that banks use. It is important that the government keep up with the industry.

As I stated earlier, the Minister of Finance likes to applaud our regulatory regime. However, if we do not keep moving forward, we risk being left behind. The government needs to act now to ensure that our financial regulation continues to protect consumers, businesses and the economy as a whole.

Shelly Glover Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, Canadians use financial services products every single day, whether using their credit cards, cashing a cheque, going to the bank or signing a mortgage. Canadians deserve to be treated fairly when using these products and to be provided with clear information before agreeing to use them.

That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has taken key steps to address consumer concerns and make financial services products more consumer friendly, but why does the NDP keep voting against these measures?

Why do the NDP members oppose protecting consumers with new credit card rules that will require consent for credit limit increases, require a minimum 21-day grace period on new purchases, require full disclosure for consumers and limit other anti-consumer business practices?

Why did the NDP oppose bringing in a code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry to help small businesses dealing with unfair practices? The code would help ensure fairness, encourage real choice and competition, and protect businesses from rising costs, so why did the NDP oppose that, and oppose banning negative option billing for financial products as well? Why do the NDP members oppose shortening the cheque holding period? They oppose making mortgage insurance more transparent, understandable and affordable with enhanced disclosures and other measures.

The NDP members oppose creating an independent task force on financial literacy to help consumers make the right financial choices. Why do they oppose all of these things, and not only these things, but so many more?

In budget 2011 we did even more, as our Conservative government built on that record with even more consumer friendly proposals, such as banning unsolicited credit card cheques, moving to protect consumers of prepaid cards and beginning to implement the task force on financial literacy recommendations, starting with the creation of the financial literacy leaders here in the government. Again, why did the NDP oppose all of these pro-consumer measures?

Unfortunately, the alleged consumer measures that the NDP proposes are actually quite harmful for consumers because they are so poorly thought out. Indeed, we all remember the NDP's bizarre idea in the last election to have the politicians essentially run the credit card companies and dictate their daily operations. It was an idea so poorly thought out that even consumer groups gave the NDP idea a big thumbs-down.

Let me read directly what the Consumers' Association of Canada had to say: “I don't think it's doable. [Significantly lower rates] would mean cuts to fraud protection guarantees and...would only help about one-third of Canada's some 25 million credit card holders, because 65% of us pay our cards off every month. It's being much too overblown as a great gift to Canadian consumers, because most of us don't fall into that category anyway”.

The NDP members continue to harp about protecting consumers, but they have absolutely no clue about how to protect them. Shame on them for making these false allegations and making it seem as though they would protect them, when in fact they jeopardize the safety of consumers in Canada.

Glenn Thibeault Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find that very rich, because the Conservatives have done nothing to actually protect consumers.

They talk about the grandiose code of conduct. It is a voluntary code of conduct that does nothing to help consumers. It helps small businesses.

Small businesses are saying that right now their costs are going up because of the merchant fees. When we were talking about protecting consumers, we were including small businesses.

The Conservatives talk about the things we oppose. We oppose them because they are always supporting the big banks and the credit card companies. On this side of the House we ensure that working families, small businesses and the 99% of people who use credit cards get a fair deal. The Conservatives do not.

Shelly Glover Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has one thing right: we are looking to protect people. It is Canadians we are protecting.

The one thing the NDP continues to do is put our Canadian families at risk. Consumers are not worrying about this government putting them in jeopardy; they are worrying about the NDP proposals that make absolutely no sense and actually put their interests at risk.

Consumers need protection from the NDP. Every single time NDP members vote in this place to raise taxes, it would hurt Canadian families and Canadian consumers.

Unfortunately, Canadians do not want to see these politicians voting to take more money out of their pockets, which would do them harm, do this economy harm and put them in jeopardy.

We are on the right track as a Conservative government. Canadians believe in us, and we will continue on that track to protect their interests.

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, the cultural capitals program, which is administered by Canadian Heritage and was announced in 2002, annually designates three communities of distinction in three various levels, the first level being a population of 125,000 and over, the middle being a population of between 50,000 and 125,000, and the third level being 50,000 people. This has been done since its inception and each of these levels come with funding. The first level comes with up to $2 million, the second with $750,000 and the third with $500,000.

I rise to speak to a situation that has arisen this year where a number of smaller towns, those designated under 50,000 citizens, and those between 50,000 and 125,000 citizens, have made applications, through great expense of their own, to have themselves designated as cultural capitals for the year.

This year it seems that the government has chosen to cancel or eliminate two levels and has seen fit to award only to cultural capitals in the category of 125,000 and over, those being Calgary and the Niagara region.

I have heard from two towns, Rouyn-Noranda and Saint-Eustache, asking why they were not informed or why there was no recognition of the fact that there are potential cultural capitals in this country, and I am focusing on Quebec specifically and these two capitals, that may merit the title of cultural capital for a population of 50,000 and under. However, none was designated this year and they are coming to me and asking why that is.

There seems to be a lack of clarity as to the process of the cultural capitals program. If there are three levels that are available and open for competition, why are these three levels not acknowledged? In particular, Rouyn-Noranda, which put together a very strong package, was left having spent over $20,000 to create this package and was told that the category did not exist or was led to believe that the category does not exist.

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am heartened that the hard work of the arts and cultural community to impress upon the government the importance of its existence has finally been taken to heart. However, it still does not answer the question as to how the cultural capitals program works. In fact, in his speech, he did not even mention the cultural capitals program.

This is a program that is supposed to help smaller communities target the arts and cultural aspects of their communities and these communities are being left out. Why are they being left out? With all the work that the hon. member says is being done, why are smaller communities being left out, with no answer as to why the two levels of the cultural capitals program were not acknowledged this year?