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.

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, through you, I will simply answer that the Criminal Code has to be taken as a whole. First we had to deal with the remand issue, otherwise abolishing the right to release after one-sixth of the sentence would be useless.

I thank my colleague for his interest in justice and for helping the federal government improve the Criminal Code through his comments. That is very commendable.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-52 introduced by the government.

I want to begin my speech by making a comment. When this bill was announced, we were surprised, or maybe not that much, since other ministers have behaved this way, to learn through various press conferences held across Canada, in Ottawa, Montreal and Edmonton, that the substance of this bill was being released before we as parliamentarians and legislators knew about it and had a chance to look at the bill and what it entails. This government once again is using a very important matter, that of economic crimes, to do some marketing.

This is not the first time I have seen this. I just want to give the government a friendly warning. They did the same thing during the last budget. Before the budget was tabled, a number of ministers made targeted announcements. Take for example the agriculture portfolio, for which I am the Bloc Québécois critic. The Minister of Agriculture made an announcement on measures that he wanted to implement before the budget was even tabled. When the budget was tabled, it was not at all what the farmers expected and it did not address their concerns. The government leaked information for the sake of publicity but we could not react because we did not have the exact wording of the budget in front of us.

That is how the story of this bill began.

Nevertheless, in order to be consistent with all the interventions it has made in the House, the Bloc Québécois is prepared to go over this bill in committee. It will need some minor and some major changes. Over the next few minutes I will explain what could be done to make this bill acceptable and effective.

The government's Bill C-52 is just not good enough. We will send it to committee, we will study it thoroughly, and we will recommend some much-needed changes.

The first problem is that this bill proposes minimum sentences.That is the Conservative government's pet project. It wants to put minimum sentences all over the place. We have to make sure that imposing minimum sentences for economic crimes will really make a difference. These offences are known as white-collar crimes, or maybe lace-collar crimes if the offender is a woman. Regardless, we are talking about people like Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones, who are fraudsters. We are seeing more and more cases like this. It could be because people are speaking up about it more than they used to. Or maybe it really is happening more often than before. I do not know, but we have to get tougher and tougher on these people.

The first point I want to make is that minimum sentences are not a deterrent. During question periods and press conferences, the minister has been unable to think of one single major fraud case in which the sentence has been less than the two years proposed in Bill C-52. Under this bill, there will be a minimum two-year sentence for fraud cases over $1 million.

We asked the Conservatives to find one single ruling, one precedent, one case in which the judge sentenced someone convicted of fraud in excess of $1 million to less than two years, two years less a day, one year or six months in prison. The minister himself has been unable to provide a single example.

After researching the issue, we learned that typical prison sentences in fraud in excess of $1 million cases have been around six or seven years. The most recent example that comes to mind is Vincent Lacroix, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison but will be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of that time, so will probably not serve all 13 years in jail. That is the problem. The problem is not what is in the bill, but what is not in it.

The bill talks about aggravating factors, among other things. The courts already take the aggravating factors into account. Most, if not all, of the aggravating factors in the current bill were addressed in the Vincent Lacroix ruling. This means that the judge who presided over this case had full flexibility to add aggravating factors. One need only read the ruling to see that the new Bill C-52 would not have changed much in Vincent Lacroix's case.

This is already the case with restitution orders, which are broader in scope in the bill, but experts have raised concerns about the feasibility of these measures in practice. That remains to be seen. I think it would be good for the committee to hear from these experts and from the government to see how we could make these restitution orders effective.

Orders that limit the activities of offenders are a little better and more useful. But this, as well, is at best an extension of a practice that already exists in the Criminal Code. That is one thing that could be acceptable in this bill. But we believe—and I am not the first Bloc Québécois member who has spoken in this House—that it is missing the obvious.

We believe that the problem with parole is not when they are going in, but when they are coming out. What happens is that criminals—and this is what people object to—receive prison sentences that are standard, appropriate, and accepted by the public, but they are released before their sentence is up.

A guy like Vincent Lacroix gets 13 years in prison for what he did. People in my riding are telling me that a 13-year sentence for what he did makes sense. What does not make sense is that he could be released sooner, thanks to the parole system and the one-sixth of a sentence option that this government refuses to eliminate. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for it to be eliminated.

As soon as the House resumed, we introduced a bill. The parliamentary secretary said it is really complicated. Yet the bill is very simple; it eliminates the one-sixth practice. With this measure, Vincent Lacroix could therefore not get out after two years and two months, which is what one-sixth of a 13-year sentence would work out to. People are upset. They are not happy, and with good reason.

The same thing goes for Earl Jones. Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones could therefore benefit from this practice of parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. I would remind the House that Lacroix's crimes affected 9,200 victims. He stole over $130 million from people and not one cent of it was recovered. They will never see that money again. A sentence of 13 years is acceptable, but if he is granted parole after serving one-sixth of it, he will get out in two years and two months.

The figures I just gave regarding the victims are an indication of what a problem this is. In addition, we are not doing anything about tax havens. We think this presents a good opportunity, at committee, to try to add measures to this bill to eliminate tax havens, since we know that is where crooks stash their spoils.

What good will it do to order restitution of hidden money? Unfortunately, fraud artists are generally smart people who plan ahead. They defraud their victims over a number of months and years, and the smarter they are, the better their scheme will be. Unfortunately, they will manage to hide the money they steal from people. They will even tell themselves that, if worst comes to worst, they will spend some time in prison, but that when they are eventually released, they will be able to recover the stolen money from the tax havens where they hid it.

This is where we can take action to ensure that these people cannot hide the money they have stolen and that the victims can get their money back.

Amending the Income Tax Act to prohibit the use of tax havens would obviously be a big improvement. As we know, tax havens allow individuals and companies to hide money and avoid paying tax.

I will conclude on the issue of tax havens. I would like to make three points before I finish. We want to repeal the provisions that allow companies to use a strategy known as double deduction. The Bloc Québécois proposes to amend a section of the Income Tax Regulations that allows Canadian companies to set up what are known as international business corporations in Barbados. We also plan to oppose the ratification of any free trade agreement with countries that are on the OECD banking transparency greylist or blacklist.

In conclusion, I believe it would be a good idea to send this bill to committee and make the necessary changes to it, especially as regards parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served and tax havens.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Before beginning questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that there are five minutes for questions and ten minutes for debate.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member from the Bloc, and I thought for a moment I was seeing the Bloc recognize that we do have crime in this country and that we have to bring in changes in legislation to address that. However, at the end of his presentation, I found that I was sadly mistaken.

The member talked about Mr. Lacroix who received a 13-year sentence, which the member of the Bloc said was appropriate. He then went on to say he would only serve one-sixth of his sentence and he would be out in two years and two months, and that is not appropriate.

I need to impress on the Bloc member that this is the very reason we are trying to bring in mandatory sentences, so that people who are convicted of white-collar crimes get a sentence that is a set sentence and so that they are going to serve that time, and it will be appropriate for the crime they have committed. It is going to do away with the escape clause that allows them to serve only one-sixth of their sentence, as was the case in the example that the member just gave. The Bloc member seems to be confused about what this is all about. We want to get these criminals to do their time.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is himself confused, because I really was very clear, even if in ten minutes, it is not possible to discuss all the ins and outs of a bill. One thing is sure, he has just shown how confused he is. He says that there is a problem with my remarks when I say we have to be critical of the fact that Vincent Lacroix will be able to get out after two years and two months. Why can he get out then? Because the law as it stands allows him to. Parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served is a fact. So, after serving one-sixth of his sentence of 13 years, as set by the judge, who, in my opinion did a good job, he will get out.

What we in the Bloc are saying is that parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served must be eliminated. I do not know if the member was present when Parliament resumed on September 14. Right off, on arrival, we introduced a bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence. Let us take the example of someone like Vincent Lacroix. That is his name. I do not know whether the hon. member has been following the news in Quebec recently with regard to economic crimes, but the man defrauded 9,200 people of $130 million. His name is Vincent Lacroix. If parole after serving one-sixth of a sentence were abolished, he would be in prison for 13 years, not just two years and two months.

That is what we are criticizing, and I do not see how minimum sentences would change anything. Bill C-52 would have told the judge who considered the case of Vincent Lacroix that he had to be given a minimum of two years for his fraud. A fat lot of good that does us. He gave him 13 years. He certainly would not give anyone like Vincent Lacroix two years, or he would have his head taken off in Quebec. This is why I would say the hon. member is confused and not me.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct. The tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Panama and so on are really the important part that the government is forgetting about. It talks about restitution but there will be no restitution because fraudsters are going to get their money to the tax havens.

In addition to that, I would like to ask the member what he thinks about the idea of toughening up the banking rules to require the banks to be more vigilant about the activities of people like this. For example, currently the bank has to report anyone who comes in with a cash deposit of over $10,000. Why can the government not come up with some more stringent rules for the banks?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Unfortunately, the hon. member only has 40 seconds to answer the question.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and, had a little over 10 minutes been allotted to me for my speech, I happen to have here notes regarding the banks' requirement to report improper activities. The Bloc Québécois is proposing that banks be required to report suspicious transactions, including discrepancies in trust accounts, to the financial markets authority and to the professional corporation the person involved belongs to. This approach would allow regulatory bodies to quickly identify fraudulent transactions and act before people's entire savings have been misappropriated. I therefore totally agree with my colleague from the NDP.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my strong support to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud). This bill is a message to fraudsters in the headlines and a response to the victims who have suffered due to the greed and deceit of these fraudsters. The message is that our law will not tolerate this conduct and that serious sentences will result.

As this government has said time and again, it is time to put the concerns of victims at the forefront. While Bill C-52 may not restore their life savings and may not deter all future fraud, it does demonstrate that we mean business when we say that those guilty of fraud will be held accountable.

The troubling aspect of fraud is that any one of us could be a victim. Even though we may be careful in all our personal financial matters, today's white-collar criminals are clever and smooth, and even the most cautious investor could be caught in a fraudulent scheme. It is a shame that these fraudsters could not put their cleverness to good use to the benefit of society in such tough economic times.

Other speakers have highlighted the nature and scope of fraud today, and I am sure we can all think of other examples. We know that such schemes are not limited to organized crime.

We have heard a lot about Ponzi schemes recently, but we have also heard about the impact on victims of a wider range of other types of fraud. The impact on the victim of a $500 fraud may be just as devastating as the impact of a $1 million fraud if the victim has limited means. These reforms address the offence of fraud regardless of value, although there are mandatory minimum sentences applicable for fraud of over $1 million.

Fraud, regardless of the value, is a real and serious crime with real and serious consequences, and it is time that everyone in the criminal justice system took fraud seriously. Bill C-52 is an important step in the right direction. It will improve the Criminal Code sentencing provisions for fraud to ensure that sentences imposed on offenders adequately reflect the harm they cause.

For fraud that has a value of $1 million or more, that in the “large scale” category, a minimum sentence of two years will be imposed. I should make it clear, though, that this is only a minimum and where the fraud is larger than that, as it is so often, or if there are other aggravating factors, the sentence should be well above two years and can go as high as 14 years.

The bill is not just about the ultimate sentence for the offender. It is also about the victim's role in the sentencing process. The Criminal Code has evolved over the years to improve the experience of victims in the justice system and to provide a role, albeit limited, for victims of crime. These provisions include victim impact statements and the opportunity to present such a statement along with consideration of restitution at sentencing, testimonial aids and publication bans on the victim's identity, where needed.

Bill C-52 will further address the need to consider victims of crime when sentencing the offender for fraud. For example, the reforms will make clear that if the fraud had a particularly significant impact on the victim because of his or her financial situation, health or any other relevant factor, that should aggravate the sentence. In other words, those factors, as well as others, should move the sentence up toward the maximum. I would note that this is another aspect that will be welcomed by victims, because all victims agree that no one else should suffer as they have and that such fraud must be prevented from happening in the future.

A new prohibition order can be part of an offender's sentence. When so ordered by a judge, the offender can be prohibited from having authority over another person's money, real property or valuable securities in any employment or volunteer capacity in the future. If the offender does not respect this prohibition, he or she can be charged with a separate offence.

As mentioned, the Criminal Code already permits victim impact statements and provides for restitution to be part of the sentence in appropriate circumstances. Bill C-52 highlights the importance of both measures when it comes to fraud.

The Criminal Code currently provides that judges may consider a statement made by a victim of crime, known as a victim impact statement. Its purpose is to provide the sentencing judge with additional information, in the victim's own words, on the harm or loss suffered by the victim as a result of the offence. The statement is shared with the offender in advance, and victims may be cross-examined on the statement. Although this cross-examination rarely happens, it does ensure that the statement stays focused on the harm caused and not on recommendations about the sentence.

The statement provides judges with information on the impact or effect of the offence. For victims of fraud, the impact will be significant and can extend not only to their financial loss but to their sense of trust and overall well-being.

The bill also acknowledges that it is not just the actual victim of fraud who will suffer a loss or an impact. If the victim has been stripped of his or her savings, then they will not be buying goods and services, participating in leisure and charitable activities, pursuing their hobbies and interests or enjoying life in their communities.

The provisions in Bill C-52 recognize this and go a step further than the victim impact statements by enacting a community impact statement provision for fraud. Community impact statements are not unheard of, quite the contrary, but the code does not specifically provide that the court should consider such statements. The existing victim impact statement provisions in the code include that the court may also consider any other evidence concerning the victim for the purpose of determining the sentence.

This authority has led some courts to broadly interpret the term victim so that others impacted by the crime, including communities, have submitted statements at the time of sentence. There have been several examples in the case law of the courts' acceptance that crimes have an impact on the community as a whole.

Bill C-52 would make that recognition clearer with respect to fraud. When an offender is sentenced for fraud, the court may consider a statement made by a representative of the community describing the loss or harm to the community. The statement must be in writing, identify the community, clarify that the person can speak on behalf of the community, and be shared with the crown and the defence. So, for example, as I mentioned, where the victim cannot participate in the activities and the economy of his or her community, that community may suffer and that community may seek to submit a community impact statement.

As other speakers have noted, community impact statements are quite consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing that are laid out in the Criminal Code, in particular, to provide reparations for the harm done to the victims or the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to their community.

I would also like to note the reforms regarding restitution.

Many speakers have noted the need for victims to actually receive restitution. No one disagrees that this should occur, but the reality is that if there is no money or not enough money to address the victim's losses, this cannot happen.

Restitution, to have any real meaning for the offender, must be paid by the offender to the victim. Where offenders can do so, they often do, so they can get a lesser sentence, but if they cannot make restitution, it is likely pointless to suggest that they do only to dash the hopes of the victims later.

We also need to keep in mind that we are reforming the criminal law and the sentences for fraud. The sentence must take into account a range of factors and restitution can be a part of that sentence, but if the restitution is not paid, the offender is still serving the other parts of his sentence and that restitution debt will remain to be paid. I should also note that the ability of an offender to pay restitution must also be considered before this is included as part of his or her criminal sentence.

As noted, restitution is the payment by the offender to the victim of a specific amount that reflects the financial losses of the victim. An order for restitution may be made as part of the overall sentence imposed on the offender as a stand-alone measure or as part of a probation order or a conditional sentence.

Of course, a conditional sentence should not be an option for fraud and it will not be an option for fraud once Bill C-42, the conditional sentence bill, is passed, because it carries a 14-year maximum penalty.

Bill C-52 would make a real difference in addressing fraud. No one disagrees that other initiatives are also needed: prevention, regulation, enforcement and prosecution.

In summary, the bill would help to improve the responsiveness of the criminal process for victims of fraud. It would require the sentencing court to consider if restitution should be ordered and it would permit the court to receive a community impact statement in cases where a community, in addition to individuals, have suffered from fraud.

I would encourage all hon. members of the House to support this bill and ensure that it becomes law as soon as possible.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I listened carefully to the member's speech, and I am left with a number of questions. I am sure that the voters who listened to his speech also have many questions.

We know that the Conservative Party hoped this bill would solve the problem with white collar criminals. Members will remember Vincent Lacroix. Earl Jones is another such case. I would like to ask the member why they settled on the figure of $1 million. Is there small fraud and large fraud? Someone who cheated others out of $900,000 would not be covered by this bill, while someone who committed fraud of over $1 million would.

Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones stole public money. They jeopardized the financial security of our seniors, of those who invested and who trusted them. Why did the Conservatives not include a provision to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served? That would have ensured that Vincent Lacroix would serve his 14 years in prison, instead of two years. But the Conservatives did not include such a provision. They say that they want to, but they are not doing it.

The other thing is that they allowed Vincent Lacroix, and other fraudsters, to hide their money in foreign countries, with the problem of—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer the question.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member would have heard in my speech, Bill C-42 addresses the issue of conditional sentencing, which is something that we support strongly. The government does not believe that conditional sentences should be an option for fraud.

I am not familiar with the details of the amount stolen by Mr. Lacroix, but if there were 9,000 victims, one would expect that the value of that crime probably did reach $1 million or more.

I am pleased to see that members of the Bloc are concerned about white collar crime. However, if they were really concerned about white collar crime in this country they would have supported the national securities regulator, which would strengthen the ability of securities regulators across Canada to enforce the securities laws of Canada and really get at the root cause of securities fraud.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that Harry Markopolos discovered the whole Ponzi scheme that was perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, and he did so 10 years before the scheme was uncovered.

He went to the SEC, which is why I want to deal with the comments the government member just made regarding the National Securities Commission. He went to the SEC but the SEC is an old boys' club composed of industry insiders. In fact, I believe Bernie Madoff's son-in-law is one of the investigators.

My point is that it does not matter what sort of organization is set up, it is the people who are running the organization who need to be arm's length people, they need to be armed with police type powers and they need to have forensic accounting facilities included with them.

Just having a national securities regulator, if a bunch of industry insiders are appointed to run it, it will not get us any further down the road.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I am simply suggesting is that our law enforcement officers need to be given an arsenal of weapons in order to go after white collar criminals who deprive people of their life savings or their retirement savings. One significant aspect of that is to have a national securities regulator who will have strong enforcement of our securities laws across the country. This has been pointed out by many experts in the field of securities law as one of the essential elements of going after these white collar criminals.

However, that is not enough, which is why this government has taken the effort to put forward Bill C-52 to significantly strengthen the penalties for white collar crime. We are sending the message that white collar crime is not acceptable in our society and people will pay a heavy price if they continue to do these things to vulnerable seniors, retirees, savers and law-abiding citizens of this country,

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate and indicate, as others have, our support for Bill C-52. We acknowledge that it is a step in the right direction by the fact that it sets a mandatory minimum sentence of two years for people convicted under section 380 and it takes measures to deal with widespread and rampant white collar crime in our society today.

However, like others have said in the debate, where is the rest of the strategy? Where is the meat that will really crack down on corporate and white collar crime? Why has the government been so slow to take this step? Why is it limiting its other actions on the question of a national securities regulator when what this country needs is a complete strategy dealing with white collar crime, and a corporate Canada accountability act.

That is my suggestion to the House today and it is something New Democrats have proposed in the past. I would urge the government to consider going beyond this tiny move in the right direction and consider comprehensive measures that Canadians are so desperate for.

The debate makes us all ask whether we are talking about good cops, bad cops or just no cops, which is the problem with respect to white collar crime. We know the situation is very serious. It has been estimated that Canadians lose billions of dollars annually to white collar crime. Canadians have said, time and time again to the current government and the previous government, that they want action in this regard. They have actually said, through significant polling, that white collar crime is at the top of their minds when it comes to crime in this country today. Recent polling has suggested that Canadians rank economic crime at the top of the list of other crimes. In fact, 67% of Canadians said that economic crime was their number one issue when it came to crime. That ranks just ahead of gang violence at 66%, gun crime at 54%, organized crime at 54% and terrorism at 14%. We can see very clearly that this is an issue that Canadians want government to do something about as quickly as possible.

For many Canadians, the bill today, no matter how significant a step, is really too little too late. I do not need to tell the House how many Canadians have been victims of white collar crime. We have been calling for action on this for a long time and so little has been done.

Twelve years ago, Canadians were shocked to learn the sordid details of a too good to be true deal gone bad. Hon. members will remember the Bre-X scandal. It rang the alarm bells. Thousands of investors saw millions of dollars lost overnight as a corporate hoax was revealed. Did we learn from that? No. What followed was Magnex, Livent, Corel, CINAR, Cartaway, Golden Rule, Castor Holdings, Norbourg, Portus, Nortel, Conrad Black, Bernie Madoff, and the list goes on and on.

Investigations are launched, but very seldom are people put behind bars and criminal charges upheld. This is not right, obviously, for these are not victimless crimes. It is truly an urgent issue for Canadians and it is time for the government to come forward with a complete set of strategies and policies to protect investors and employees.

Back in 2004, the Governor of the Bank of Canada used the term “wild west” to describe Canadian financial regulations. I think that was an appropriate description of what was happening all around us. He, along with many others, called for government to do something about the wild west and to put in place measures that would bring some order to the wild west and, in fact, to hire a sheriff to get the job done.

Every other country in the G8 has done something to deal with corporate crime and introduce sweeping accountability rules, every one except Canada. It is time to do something about this issue and bring in rules for investors. It is time to protect employees who blow the whistle on corporate fraud. It is time, after years of Liberal neglect and Conservative indifference, to bring in rules that will reduce corporate crime and white collar crime in Canada.

I have a few suggestions to make, and this is consistent with our previous announcement for having a corporate Canada accountability act.

The first point I want to make has to do with the regulatory field. As the member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned in his question, I do not think it is good enough to simply call for a national securities regulator without the rest of the pieces of the puzzle in place. It ignores the fact that many provinces, in the absence of any kind of federal leadership, filled that vacuum with their own initiatives. The passport system actually took off and is now active across this country.

We do not need a national securities regulator in this country. We need a Canadian body that coordinates provincial securities regulators and brings a unified response to this whole area. A pan-Canadian approach is needed. Forget the challenges to the Supreme Court. Forget the bullying in this House. Let us start to do something about the whole package that is required and not one single issue, either in terms of a national securities regulator or, in the case of this bill, one particular move with respect to the Criminal Code.

Second, we need new accounting oversight committees and independent auditors. They should be legislated, similar to what happened in the United States and Australia as a result of the Enron scandal. Canadian executives should face new provisions for disclosure to shareholders and changes in law to ensure that independent board members are truly independent.

We also need to fight for Canadian workers and businesses. We recommend that the government bring in much more stringent whistleblower protection and apply the regulations that we now have and enhance them so that there are new rules for corporate perks.

Yesterday in the United States, we saw President Obama stand up to the automobile executives who are ripping off consumers and turning to the government for a handout, all the while flying in their private jets and flitting off to exotic summer retreats. Finally, someone in this world has stood up to that kind of ripoff and corporate crime and has said that enough is enough. That is what we need to do in this country.

Finally, as part of this overall plan, we need to ensure that Canada is no longer known as a place where people can squirm away from corporate fraud. We need to put in place the right provisions to police the financial wild west. That means an increased and independent mandate for the RCMP integrated market enforcement team, bringing in international standards in Canadian corporate accounting and law, and an examination of new laws to prevent non-compete payments.

We have been through Bre-X. We have been through Nortel. Just yesterday, people gathered on the steps of the Parliament buildings to express their deepest concerns and cries for help because their life savings have been lost as a part of the Nortel sale. That company had previously squandered public moneys and had been ordered to pay $2.7 billion back in 2006 to shareholders as a result of a lawsuit under U.S. securities law.

In the United States, there is the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which actually has the teeth to crack down on white collar crime. We in this country need something similar that approaches this issue from a comprehensive point of view. We need corporate accountability. For too long, Canadian investors and companies playing by the rules have shouldered the burden of fraud. Ordinary Canadians lose big because of corporate fraud and cooked books, and the prosperity gap only widens.

Let us begin today with a campaign for fairness in the markets and for a corporate Canada accountability act to ensure that the government and the ministers responsible admit the problems and help Parliament fix it. We cannot do nothing at this point. The government knows that it can take this kind of commitment from us to the bank.