Bill C-36 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

Criminal Code

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for having an opportunity to speak on the second reading debate of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the abuse of vulnerable persons.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Yellowhead for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important social issue as well as for the excellent work he has done in his riding and here in the House of Commons over a number of years.

From what I understand about this complex social issue, we will need a multi-faceted approach to effectively address exploitative and abusive conduct toward seniors.

Bill C-206 proposes to amend paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code to list as an additional aggravating factor acts that target abuse toward seniors and vulnerable adults who depend on others for their care because of their mental or physical disabilities. The objective of the bill is to bring further protections to seniors and other vulnerable persons by imposing tougher penalties on offenders who commit crimes of abuse against these types of victims.

The Criminal Code presently includes a number of offences of general application that offer equal protection to all Canadians from abusive criminal conduct. Additionally, the Criminal Code directs a sentencing court to account for all aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. It explicitly lists a number of aggravating factors that can apply in cases involving the abuse of elderly or vulnerable persons. These aggravating factors include evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on age or the mental or physical disabilities of the individual.

This last aggravating factor was enacted by Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, which essentially codified common law sentencing practices, because courts were already required by case law to consider the specific impact an offence had on a particular victim, given all their circumstances.

If a sentencing court is already required under the current law to consider all aggravating or mitigating factors relating to the commission of the offence and the offender, including consideration that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, having regard for his or her age or other personal circumstances, including, of course, health and financial situation, I am interested to hear from the member for Yellowhead what situations he is imagining would be covered by his proposed amendment that are not currently covered under the Criminal Code.

It is important to acknowledge that the investigation and prosecution of crime involving elder abuse or abuse of persons with disabilities in Canada is predominantly undertaken by the provinces. As such, it may be wise to consider the impact Bill C-206 would have on the provinces, including the potential for increased litigation relating to interpreting the scope of the proposed aggravating factor, in light of what is already in the Criminal Code.

While it is important to address any gaps in the law with respect to protecting offended seniors or other vulnerable persons, non-legislative responses, such as public education campaigns about the protection offered by the law and further investments in services and programs, are also important measures for Parliament to consider. Non-legislative measures can target the socio-economic factors that increase the susceptibility of these victims to be exploited or abused.

I recall the testimony of Ms. Susan Eng, a representative of the Canadian Association for Retired Persons, who testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, that the aggravating factors proposed in that bill, on their own, were “but one element in a comprehensive strategy needed to prevent, detect, report, investigate, and ultimately prosecute elder abuse.”

I agree with Ms. Eng. I know that there are a number of non-legislative initiatives the federal government has spearheaded to support the needs, and prevent the abuse, of the victims referred to in Bill C-206.

The federal victims strategy initiative, led by Justice Canada, aims to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. For instance, the victims fund, which is available through the federal victims strategy, is accessible to provincial and territorial governments and non-governmental organizations to support projects that address the needs of victims and survivors of crime in the criminal justice system. It is my understanding that the victims fund can support projects that meet the needs of the victims who are the focus of Bill C-206.

In 2016, Justice Canada issued a call for proposals, under the victims fund, to non-governmental organizations for projects that would help address gaps in supports and services, raise awareness or advance research to benefit victims and survivors of crime with disabilities, including seniors with disabilities. Seven projects are currently being funded.

In one project, researchers at the University of Toronto worked with three organizations, Womenatthecentre, DAWN Canada and Brain Injury Canada, to address existing gaps in supports and services for women with disabilities who are survivors of crime. The focus of the research project was women who experience intimate partner violence who have sustained disabling, permanent traumatic brain injuries. As a result of this work, a toolkit was developed to provide knowledge of intimate partner violence through educational materials for front-line staff who are supporting women survivors of intimate partner violence who have sustained traumatic brain injuries.

As well, the University of Toronto worked with indigenous organizations across Canada to raise awareness with respect to women with disabilities who are survivors of crime and to expand a toolkit that is specific to the indigenous context.

I am also aware that through the federal victims strategy, Justice Canada hosts knowledge-building events that are designed to provide information about elder abuse and supporting victims who are seniors.

In addition to commemorating the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on December 3, 2018, Justice Canada hosted an information session to explore various approaches in supporting and empowering women victims and survivors with disabilities, including senior women with disabilities who are victims of domestic violence. These knowledge-exchange information sessions are available to victims and survivors of crime, victims advocates, victims service providers, police officers and legal professionals.

I am also aware of the Justice Canada component of the federal family violence initiative, an initiative that is led by the Public Health Agency of Canada. It provides project funding to support the development of models, strategies and tools to improve the criminal justice system's response to family violence, including elder abuse.

The family violence initiative also addresses elder abuse by providing resources for the public. One helpful tool is the booklet published by the Department of Justice on its website entitled “Elder Abuse is Wrong”. The publication is designed for seniors who may be suffering from abuse by someone they know, such as an intimate partner, spouse, family member or caregiver.

Educating these vulnerable people about the resources available, as well as making investments in the services and programs that will address these victims' needs, can have an extremely positive impact on curbing these forms of abuse and exploitation.

The objective of protecting elders and other vulnerable victims is of great importance, and I look forward to hearing the views of other members as we continue to explore a full range of issues that come forward in considering Bill C-206.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate on Private Member's bill, Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

At the outset, I want to to acknowledge the laudable objective of the bill and thank the member from Yellowhead for giving us the opportunity to debate this important social issue this evening.

Bill C-206 amends the Criminal Code to specify that the physical, emotional, sexual or financial abuse of a person over the age of 65 or of a person 18 years of age or older who depends on others for their care because of a mental or physical disability is to be considered an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

The member for Yellowhead said that the bill seeks to give vulnerable seniors further protections to ensure that they can live safely and in dignity, while protecting them against exploitation.

The bill would fulfill that objective by imposing harsher sentences on offenders who abuse these vulnerable victims, whether financially, physically or psychologically.

I am in full agreement with the member for Yellowhead that we must do everything to address the physical, financial and emotional exploitation of our seniors and other vulnerable Canadians who depend on others for their care because of a disability.

I hear about this issue in my work here in Ottawa, in my work around the country and also in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. Constituents speak to me about the statistics, which are problematic. Those statistics show that seniors and Canadians with disabilities are at a higher risk of being victims of crimes.

For instance, while older Canadians have historically reported low victimization rates, the physical disabilities and cognitive impairments experienced by some seniors may increase their vulnerability and make them more prone to certain kinds of abuse, such as online financial crime, neglect, financial exploitation and family-related violence.

By 2036 the size of Canada's senior population will increase about twofold, and persons aged 65 and over will represent approximately one quarter of the Canadian population in total.

Given Canada's aging population, Statistics Canada notes that police-reported violence committed against seniors will continue to increase if it is left unaddressed.

According to police data, Canadian seniors were more likely to be the victim of family violence in 2017 than they were 10 years ago. In 2007, Statistics Canada reported that the overall rate of police-reported violence against seniors had increased by 20% between 1998 and 2005. From 2009 to 2017, the rate of police-reported family violence against seniors rose 7%.

In 2014, people with a disability were about twice as likely to be victims of a violent crime than people who did not have a disability, and women and men with cognitive disabilities or mental health-related disabilities reported violent victimization approximately four times more often than their counterparts who did not have a disability.

Elder abuse, senior isolation and the abuse of vulnerable persons are completely unacceptable. Our government is working hard to provide Canadian seniors with greater security and a better quality of life. That is what compelled us to appoint and name a Minister of Seniors to the federal cabinet.

We have also invested in the new horizons for seniors program, which, through budget 2019, will receive an additional $100 million over the next five years. One of the key initiatives of that program is to tackle elder abuse and fraud.

Several legislative amendments have been enacted by Parliament to address the problem of elder abuse. For instance, in 2011, the Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act enacted an aggravating factor to the fraud offence found at section 380.1 of the Criminal Code. This was referenced in the earlier part of tonight's debate.

This provision directs a judge to treat evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, having regard to “their personal circumstances including their age, health and financial situation”, as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

In 2012, there was also legislation enacted called Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, which enacted a provision that directed courts to treat evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, having regard to his or her age and other personal circumstances, including health and financial situation, as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

These two legislative amendments essentially codified the current sentencing practices. In other words, when these legislative amendments were proposed, the law already required the courts to consider all aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility, including the effect of an offence on a particular victim under all circumstances. In a given case, this can obviously include the victims' age and their vulnerability.

In summary, by codifying the aggravating circumstances, parliamentarians clarified the sentencing law for all Canadians and sent a message to the courts that it is important to consider these aggravating circumstances in sentencing decisions.

The Criminal Code includes a broad range of offences that apply equally to protect all Canadians, including vulnerable and elderly Canadians, as well as specific offences that take into account the vulnerability of the victim. For instance, the offences of assault, assault with bodily harm and aggravated assault apply to protect everyone, regardless of age, health or gender. However, there are also specific offences that target the abuse of vulnerable persons, such as in section 153.1 of the Criminal Code, which applies to the sexual exploitation of a person with a disability. The code also lists several aggravating factors that can apply in cases involving abuse of an elderly or vulnerable person who depends on others for care because of a mental or physical disability.

There are four aggravating factors: one, evidence and offences motivated by bias, prejudice or hate or based on, for instance, age or mental or physical disability; two, the fact that the offenders abuse their spouse or common-law partner; three, the fact that offenders abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim; and four, evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim having regard to their age or other personal circumstance, including their health or financial situation.

Based on my interpretation of the aggravating circumstance proposed in Bill C-206, I have to wonder if the amendment proposed in the bill could overlap with the circumstances already set out in the Criminal Code. I wonder if the amendment fixes any flaws in the law regarding the abuse of seniors and other vulnerable persons.

I look forward to hearing other members' thoughts about whether this conduct is already covered by the Criminal Code and how this amendment would affect the criminal justice system. For example, if we were to adopt an aggravating circumstance that is similar to the ones already in the Criminal Code, would there be an increase in the number of cases related to determining the scope of the new provision and how it differs from the aggravating circumstances set out in the Criminal Code?

Moreover, I wonder about the implications of setting a chronological age distinction of above 65 as the hard limit in the Criminal Code for assessing a person's vulnerability. Witnesses who testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as part of its study of former Bill C-36 emphasized that the impact of a crime on an elderly victim is not necessarily dependent on chronological age, but rather on the combined unique characteristics of that elderly victim.

This leads me to question whether an individual's vulnerability is not best assessed by weighing a combination of factors, such as mental and physical health, financial situation and degree of autonomy. I am sure members of this House can come up with examples of when age is not the best indicator of a person's level of vulnerability. For these reasons, I look forward to a thorough debate on these important policy questions.

During second reading debate of the former Bill C-36, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard at the time said that if we focus only on legal measures, we will be missing a very important point. Non-legislative measures can also significantly help address the problem.

In total, I would underscore that the bill proposed by the member for Yellowhead targets a very important and laudable objective. I look forward to the important debate continuing on this issue and on the issue of combatting elder abuse.

Fraud Against Seniors

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the disproportionate effect of fraud activities against the seniors community across Canada; (b) coordinate a national response to fraud activities to ensure that seniors and other vulnerable groups have the resources they need to understand the signs of fraud; (c) establish tangible recourses for victims of fraud; and (d) work with local law enforcement agencies and the Canada Revenue Agency to introduce legislation to combat fraudulent attacks targeting vulnerable seniors.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand in this place to speak to my private member's motion, Motion No. 203, with regard to seniors fraud. While I am eager to talk about my motion, I must first acknowledge the contribution of our Conservative team.

I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West and his staff for their hard work on this motion, as well as his engagement with seniors and stakeholders in Edmonton and across Canada. While he may not quite be a senior yet, it is very reassuring to see him and the younger generation of members in this place recognize the incredible value that our seniors contribute to our day-to-day lives. I have every confidence that he will be a stalwart champion of our wisest demographic for many years to come in this place.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for all of his hard work on the seniors file, as well as his constituents. In the next Parliament, this place will be losing a dedicated and principled advocate for seniors, for their financial security and palliative care. I look forward to continuing our relationship when he departs from Ottawa later this year for his retirement.

May 18, 2011 remains as one of the most important days in my life. That was the day I was sworn in as minister of state for seniors under the previous government. It was a role that I served in with great reverence and respect for over four years. Being the voice at the cabinet table for nearly a quarter of Canadians is no small task. Each and every day, I went into the ministry with the hope of making life easier and fairer for the nearly five million Canadians I was asked to represent, in addition to my 100,000 constituents in the city of Richmond.

I am very proud of the work we did as a cabinet, including working with my colleague from Niagara Falls in implementing changes to the Criminal Code to combat seniors fraud. I hope today, with the support of all parties, to continue that work.

Unfortunately, domestic and foreign criminal elements are increasingly resorting to fraud in an effort to make a quick profit off of those who are most vulnerable. Our seniors have spent their entire lives building our country and deserve to live out their golden years with the dignity, respect and safety that they have earned. This is why I have tabled Motion No. 203 on seniors fraud.

In my home riding of Richmond Centre, two of the most popular tactics used by criminals are a famous CRA scam and visa scams. I think we are all aware of the former scam, but I would like to explain the latter.

As we all know, Richmond has a very high population of Chinese speakers, and many of the older generation come from abroad. Many of my constituents have family members who are legally here in Canada on visas or permits. Over the past year, scammers have been calling many of my constituents and claim to be representatives of a foreign embassy or consulate. They then go on to demand that a certain amount of money, under the guise of a visa fee or a similar administrative fee, be paid to them electronically. I have been the target of this scam, as have my staffers.

While some of my younger constituents who have the benefit of being educated from a young age on the dangers of the scams may be able to recognize and report this fraud to the relevant authorities, many of the seniors in my riding lack that awareness and knowledge. Couple that with the fact that many seniors are not familiar with the legal minutia surrounding visas and the immigration process, and we have a demographic that is ripe for being targeted by fraudsters, through no fault of their own.

A second scam, which made local headlines in Richmond, involves the targeting of local seniors by scammers posing as employees of the City of Richmond. The scammers call locals and inform them that they need to pay city taxes or a parking fine. However, this scam is lower tech. The scammers indicate that the fee or taxes must be paid in person and arrange a time and place to facilitate payment. In this case, it was the municipal parking lot at Richmond City Hall. Luckily for the individuals involved, they took the step of inquiring about these fees or fines at the city hall beforehand and were able to thwart the scammers.

This is an issue of concern not only for seniors, but for Canadians across this country. In a recent householder, I asked my constituents if they supported my motion. I am extremely proud to say that the overwhelming majority of constituents who responded, regardless of age, supported my motion.

I have also conducted consultative round tables with seniors and organizations serving seniors across the nation. I would again like to thank all of the participants for their contributions toward the debate on Motion No. 203.

This is what they told me.

The Ontario Society of Senior Citizens' Organizations has said that policing authorities cannot opt out of dealing with fraud complaints and reports from seniors. In other words, they need to be part of the solution and given the jurisdiction to do so. Seniors who have suffered or are suffering from fraud do not know where to go for help. There is a need for resources for these victims.

From my own recollection of consultation visits in earlier years, the City of Calgary has an excellent model, which I will discuss later in more detail.

Representatives from the CNIB point out that the most vulnerable are often those who are socially isolated. Seniors can also be better equipped with tools to fight against fraud by increasing their understanding of technology. In other words, they need to be better informed and better educated. A church administrator raised the concern of a lack of resources to advise seniors on how to identify frauds and not become victims.

Another issue, identified by The Neighbourhood Group, is that there is a language barrier for seniors who have limited English or French in understanding the laws and regulations in different levels of government. They are often scared because of the lack of correct information in their own language. This is especially serious in cities where there is a large number of immigrants. This issue was echoed by several cultural groups through the interpreters at the round tables. They also believe in tougher laws and sentencing to fight the criminals, the scammers.

The International Federation on Ageing shared its findings with respect to identifying seniors fraud across the world. It added that there is the need, as one of the prevention tools, to educate front-line bank tellers on awareness of financial fraud targeting seniors. The whole banking industry should be involved.

All these concerns regarding seniors fraud are real. My hon. colleague from Edmonton West had a similar response. However, I will leave it to him to comment on that, as I do not want to steal his speech material.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast are calling on the government to take action to combat seniors fraud. Here are more facts.

Today, we live in a society that is digitizing at an unprecedented rate. We are now able to store massive amounts of information on barely visible microchips and transmit massive amounts of information across vast distances in the blink of an eye. It has allowed for meteoric advances in all fields of society, including health care, infrastructure and research, to name a few. It has played an integral role in propelling humanity to its technological zenith. Its benefits are countless and cannot be understated. However, as with most things, there are unintended and serious drawbacks.

With increasing cellphone use, computers, email, the Internet and other electronic media, the digital shift in the modern economy provides many new opportunities for those who seek to do harm to our seniors. I do not think it is hyperbolic to say that there is not a single member in this place who has not received a complaint from a constituent about phishing, fake romantic interest, foreign embassies demanding visa payments or the infamous CRA calls. Despite efforts to increase digital literacy among all demographics, the reality is that these new and evolving technologies are not always easy to grasp and understand, especially for a demographic that grew up in an age bereft of the immense levels of the digital practices we see today.

Each day scammers are finding new and creative ways to swindle our seniors out of their hard-earned cash. For example, earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice charged more than 260 people as a result of the largest elderly fraud sweep in American history. These 260 people managed to steal over three-quarters of a billion dollars from seniors, or nearly $750,000 for each person charged.

While an increasingly digitized society has provided innumerable benefits to society at large, it has also paved the way for new challenges. However, I would suggest that no group is facing these challenges more directly than our seniors. Apart from run-of-the-mill phone scams, statistics show that nearly two-thirds of seniors experience some sort of security issue online but are less likely to report it to authorities compared to younger Canadians. It is this disproportionate vulnerability that the shift to a digital economy has created for an aging population that my motion seeks to address.

Motion No. 203 calls on this place to recognize that seniors are disproportionately victims of fraud and scams that target vulnerable Canadians. The data is crystal clear and irrefutable. According to a 2010 report by the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, older Canadians were deemed to be at a heightened risk of attempted fraud for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, their trusting nature, their isolated social status and their personal savings. This is why I started working closely with banks and credit unions when I was appointed the minister responsible for seniors in 2011, which resulted in the age credit, the pension income tax credit, pension income splitting and steps aimed at increasing digital literacy. The previous Conservative government also passed Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, in 2012, which included vulnerability due to age as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

The problems facing seniors today are more pronounced because of increasing amounts of fraud and an increasing senior population. Government statistics reveal that seniors are the fastest-growing demographic group in Canada. By 2030, the number of seniors will reach 9.6 million people, representing close to one-quarter of Canada's population. The life expectancy of Canadians is expected to continue to rise. Canadian men and women born in 2016 will live, on average, to 87 and 90 respectively, according to Employment and Social Development Canada in February 2019.

Recognizing that the dregs of civil society would target people specifically because of their trusting nature and their inability to readily rely on family is a very uncomfortable spectre, but it is a reality nevertheless. I, and I hope many in this place, consider making this formal recognition in this House a very important step in continuing the fight against seniors fraud.

The next step in addressing this very serious—

Criminal Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by once again thanking the member for Red Deer for the work he has done to bring the issue of the personation of peace officers to the attention of the House. As he and others have correctly pointed out, there have been a number of offences committed in recent years in which the offender personated an officer in order to facilitate illegal activity, and these instances have the profoundly troubling consequence of undermining public trust in the police and other officials.

I would also like to acknowledge the courageous appearance before the justice committee of Laurie Long and her daughter Jordan, whose 46-hour ordeal at the hands of a man who pretended to be a police officer evokes in all of us the utmost compassion and outrage. Jordan's determination to not only overcome this trauma but to speak openly about it in an effort both to encourage other victims to come forward and to prevent others from being victimized truly merits the term “heroic”.

Accordingly, I will be supporting Bill C-444 as a statement of the seriousness with which Parliament regards the crime of personation. I can support it because the member for Red Deer has wisely not included a mandatory minimum sentencing provision and, as such, this legislation would be unlikely to have the unintended negative consequences of other Conservative justice bills that have come before us.

However, at the same time the bill is unlikely to have the meaningful positive impact that we all desire, indeed, that which the member for Red Deer desires, mainly fewer instances of personation. The bill would establish that for offenders who personate a peace officer in order to facilitate another offence, this intention would be considered an aggravating factor with respect to the sentence for personation, yet, as I outlined at second reading, Canada already allows for longer sentences for personation than many comparable jurisdictions, and there has been no suggestion that Canadian judges have been ignoring material aggravating factors when meting them out.

Furthermore, even if some judges were moved by this legislation to issue longer sentences than they otherwise would have, the offenders would still be unlikely to spend more time in prison because the sentence for personation would generally be served concurrently with a longer sentence for the crime it was intended to facilitate. Indeed, while the member for Red Deer outlined at committee certain exceptional hypothetical scenarios in which his bill could conceivably impact the length of a prison term, these scenarios constitute exceptions that prove the rule, which is that the bill will have less of the impact than the member for Red Deer would himself wish on sentencing and prison terms.

Finally, even if this bill were in rare cases to cause certain offenders to spend more time in prison, it has been well established that longer prison terms do not result in less crime. As such, the goal of reducing the occurrence of personation would not be furthered in any event. As I suggested at second reading, preventive measures, such as restricting the availability of authentic looking police attire and equipment, would do more to protect Canadians than this somewhat less than consequential amendment on the matter of sentencing guidelines might do.

I know that the member for Red Deer explained at committee, and today, that his primary purpose in bringing this bill forward was not to increase the length of prison terms, or even to have a direct impact on the incidence of this offence, but rather to raise awareness about the crime of personation. This is a laudable objective, and in fact I have spent much of my own work seeking to raise awareness on various issues, including crimes committed both in Canada and abroad.

While I am on the topic, I will take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to those members from all parties who have participated in the context of Iran accountability week in efforts to raise awareness about the threat posed by the Iranian regime, both to other countries and particularly to its own people. Raising awareness can undoubtedly be an important first step on the road to tangible change.

However, the Criminal Code is an inappropriate tool with which to engage in an awareness campaign. For one thing, I am somewhat uneasy about the precedent of making additions to it that are primarily of a symbolic nature. The Criminal Code functions best when it is simple, efficient, clear and accessible to ordinary Canadians. Amendments to the Code are appropriate when it is determined that there is a fault or a gap in the law, but if we make a habit or a practice of amending it simply for the purpose of signalling concern, however valid a given concern might be— and, again, I applaud the member for Red Deer in his expression of concern—we risk unnecessarily complicating a document that is already dense and complex, not to mention risking unforeseen and undesired consequences in unforeseeable cases.

More importantly, perhaps, the Criminal Code is simply not an effective means of raising awareness. I appreciate that this bill has brought the matter of personation of peace officers to the attention of Parliament, although that goal could have been achieved just as well by way of a motion. However, surely we must seek not only to alert parliamentarians to this problem, but the Canadian public as well. To that end, adding an aggravating sentencing factor to the Criminal Code, especially one that is unlikely to have any real consequential effect, may achieve little, as very few Canadians are conversant in the sentencing guidelines of section 130.

Indeed, the government itself has acknowledged on several occasions that amending the Codes does not, on its own, raise awareness.

Last fall, for example, Parliament unanimously passed Bill C-36 which, similarly to the bill before us, added an aggravating sentencing factor, this one designed to increase penalties for those who target seniors.

At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice stood in this House and said:

This government recognizes the concern expressed by witnesses...who noted that Bill C-36 could not serve as the only response to the problem of elder abuse.

He went on to explain that the bill was intended to complement an awareness and advertising campaign already in place.

Another example is Bill C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act, which received royal assent on June 28 of last year. At committee, Catherine Kane, who was then director general and senior general counsel of the criminal law policy and amendments section in the Department of Justice, and I congratulate her on her appointment since to the Federal Court, referred to the government's plan for educating the public regarding the bill's provisions saying, “we will also be embarking on some public education materials so we can explain to various audiences what these changes mean”.

I regret that I have yet to see any such educational materials in the 11 months since the bill received royal assent. I might add, parenthetically, that while a backgrounder published by the Department of Justice in conjunction with the coming into force of the legislation on March 11 of this year speaks of two guides on the department's website, “What you need to know about making a citizen's arrest” and “Technical guide to self defence and defence of property reforms”, the links to both are broken.

Nevertheless, my point is that even the government has in word, if not always in deed, recognized that education and raising awareness should be conducted outside the Criminal Code. Regrettably, the bill before us does not do likewise. There has been no mention, for instance, of education programs to inform individuals about their right to ask a police officer for identification. Indeed, there has not even been any suggestion that the very change wrought by the bill will be publicized in any way.

Simply having this provision rest as one of many in the Criminal Code that most Canadians only encounter when they are either charged with a crime or fall victim to one does not constitute effective education or awareness-raising, and neither is it a strategy that will prevent, deter or dissuade anyone from engaging in what we all agree is reprehensible behaviour.

Fundamentally, the 2,074 pages of legal language in the Criminal Code are neither a billboard nor a public service announcement. Any attempt to use them as such, however well intentioned, cannot be expected to succeed.

As I said at the outset, I will support this bill so as to join with the member for Red Deer in seeking to make this statement on an important issue. Again, I commend the member for this initiative. However, if we are to protect Canadians from those who would abuse their trust by disguising themselves as peace officers in order to do harm, we must devise concrete measures that can be more effective at both raising awareness and preventing this intolerable crime.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

moved that Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak today to my private member's bill, Bill C-444, which seeks to amend section 130 of the Criminal Code by adding a sentencing provision for the offence of personating peace officers or public officers. The amendment would make personating an officer for the purpose of committing another offence an aggravating circumstance.

I would like the thank the hon. member for Oxford for seconding my bill. He served 30 years with the Woodstock police service in his past life and 10 of those were as chief of police. He is a great Canadian who continues to proudly serve our country.

I was moved to research and table the bill following a horrible crime that took place in my riding. Flashing lights and a police uniform were used as weapons to abduct a 16-year-old girl. She had just earned her driver's licence and was driving alone, as many of us do. She was held captive for 46 hours and brutally assaulted before she managed to escape from her attacker. She was brave. She survived.

The offender was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced with six offences, one of which was section 130 of the Criminal Code, which deals with personation of a peace officer or public officer.

The cold fact of the matter was that she was abducted only because she thought she was doing the right thing. When confronted by someone she thought was a police officer, she did what she had been taught to do. She stopped and she followed instructions. In this case, she ultimately lost any opportunity she might have had to protect herself.

This is one case that happened in my riding, but unfortunately this is a crime that is occurring in all regions of Canada and most often it is for the purpose of tricking a victim into thinking that they are under the control of a real officer so that another crime can also be committed.

When I began researching this issue, I found that what had happened in Penhold and Red Deer was happening in small towns and large cities all over Canada. Criminals are using authentic police lights and dressing in police uniforms to commit crimes such as auto theft and fraud in Kelowna; highway robbery in Oakville, Barrie and Brampton; assault and robbery in Ottawa; abductions in Scarborough and Calgary; break and enter and subsequent assaults in Sydney Mines and Oshawa; intimidation in Mississauga; unlawful confinement in Lethbridge; and fraud in Kings Country, Brantford and Toronto.

For the young woman in my riding, and all of these victims, the police uniform no longer represents safety and security. With time, they will cope with this fear and will hopefully regain their trust in authority. However, every time we hear of these types of incidents, one more person has this trust shattered. This is a concern for all of us, but it is a great concern for police who are out there trying to do their jobs.

The police who I have spoken to in my riding, RCMP veterans and serving members, have encouraged me in my mission to add this sentencing provision to section 130. It would not affect their enforcement of the offence, but they recognize that this amendment would help ensure that sentencing for this crime would reflect the significant impact that it has on our country.

There was a case in Calgary where a man personated a police officer and used flashing lights to attempt to pull over and abduct young females. CBC News quoted a sergeant with the Calgary Police Force who stated that the false representation of a police officer was “a very serious offence”. He went on to say, “We cannot have our confidence in the public eroded. It is very important that we are able to conduct our jobs, and if people do not trust the police or they are worried, it can make our jobs very difficult”.

I previously introduced the bill during the last Parliament. It had been reported back to the House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The unanimous support that I received from the House was extremely encouraging, and I look forward to that same level of support from this Parliament.

As I describe the specific points of the bill, let me start by explaining the definition of peace officers and public officers in the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code defines police officers as Canadian officers of customs and excise, immigration, corrections, fisheries and the Canadian Forces. It includes pilots in command of an aircraft, mayors, wardens, reeves, sheriffs, justices of the peace and, of course, police officers.

A public officer is defined as an officer of customs or excise, an officer of the Canadian Forces, an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and any officer while the officer is engaged in enforcing the laws of Canada relating to revenue, customs, excise, trade or navigation.

The bottom line is that these are all occupations that demand a significant amount of trust from the Canadian public. Anyone who falsely represents members of these occupations in order to commit a crime against a person is committing a serious breach of that person's trust, and that of all of us.

However, this bill is about sentencing. It speaks to the need for tougher penalties for this particular crime, in line with the fundamental sentencing principle of proportionality, which is stated in section 718 of the Criminal Code. The bill has a basic objective. It would make impersonating a peace officer in the commission of another offence an aggravating circumstance to be considered for sentencing purposes. It would add one clause to the Criminal Code following section 130.

Because it is short, I would like to read my bill into the record. It states that the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 130:

130.1 If a person is convicted of an offence under section 130, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the accused personated a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence.

That is all. It does not seek to effect any interpretation of the crime. My bill would simply direct a sentencing court to consider this as one factor when dealing with someone convicted of impersonating a peace officer or a public officer.

We know that a number of factors come into play in a sentencing decision, such as the criminal record of the offender or the severity of harm caused to a victim. Aggravating circumstances are just one more factor that sentencing judges are required to consider that do not guarantee, but tend to increase, the severity of a sentence.

There are aggravating circumstances defined in section 718 that apply to all criminal offences. There are also aggravating circumstances attached to specific offences within the code. To be clear, the bill seeks to add the special aggravating circumstance to a sentencing court to consider the crime of impersonating a peace officer or public officer.

When we look at aggravating circumstances that apply to all offences, one of them is evidence that the offender, in committing an offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. This would apply in situations where an offender has an existing relationship with a victim, such as a teacher, a coach or a bona fide police officer. However, those who impersonate officers do not fall into this category. Offenders who impersonate peace or public officers have not abused a position of authority, for he or she does not have that position to begin with. This circumstance in section 718 cannot then be used, since this would apply to real police officers who have abused their position of trust. It does not apply to those who are posing as police officers.

An offender's false representation of him or herself as an officer is intended to deceive and breach trust and authority. However, this deceit is not captured by the existing circumstances that speak to these abuses. I hope that my colleagues in the House will recognize this gap in the law and work with me to fill it, as my bill seeks to do. We know that adding a new aggravating circumstance to the Criminal Code is an effective way to ensure that the fundamental sentencing principles are achieved.

As to the relevance of aggravating circumstances, Parliament recently passed an important bill on elder abuse, Bill C-36. With its passage into law we saw a very important amendment to the Criminal Code, adding a new aggravating circumstance to section 718.2 to apply to any offence against elderly Canadians. With this bill we are now seeking to apply this rationale when it comes to sentencing for crimes against Canadians who have been misled into thinking they are dealing with an officer but are then victimized.

The sentence for this kind of malicious deceit must reflect the significant impact that the crime has on the lives of victims. Victims, whoever they may be, must be assured that there will be serious consequences for the criminals who have hurt them.

By supporting the bill, we are also helping to preserve the trust and respect that citizens have for real, bona fide police officers. When citizens see a police uniform, they naturally trust and respect the authority that comes with it. Our laws must reflect this reality.

I note that personation of an officer used to be punishable as a summary conviction and had a maximum penalty of only six months imprisonment. The Conservative government in the previous Parliament passed into law former Bill S-4, which increased the maximum penalty for this offence to five years imprisonment and made it a hybrid offence. I commend the Department of Justice for its work on increasing the maximum sentence for this crime, which came into force two years ago. Now we must give the courts this sentencing tool to exercise the new maximum in the most serious cases.

For 34 years I worked as a teacher of children and young adults. As a teacher, I shared their joys of accomplishment as well as their concerns about the future. I was always there to help them through difficult times when they had to deal with terrible ordeals. Being a receptive ear to their voices gave me an understanding of how difficult and fragile life can be.

As a member of Parliament I have once again heard such a voice. I shared the same concerns as others in our community when I heard of the disappearance of a young girl from Penhold. Prayers were all that I could offer. No one knew why her car was left where it was. There was nothing to indicate that she would have strayed from the errand that she was on. Her parents were frantic and our community of central Alberta empathized while we all waited. Finally the news broke that she had been found.

Only then did the pieces of this horrible ordeal start to make sense. The weapons used by her attacker were flashing lights and an RCMP uniform. That is why the car was left there. Her trust of the uniform and the false sense of safety and authority that it presented to her resulted in the most horrendous 46 hours that anyone could imagine.

The subsequent trial of her abductor forced the girl and her family to relive this ordeal. Finally a verdict and a sentence was rendered, but two things haunted them. First was the knowledge that the crime of personating a peace officer amounted to, in those days, only six months imprisonment, which was the maximum sentence allowed before the passage of Bill S-4. Second was that in the commission of this crime, the weapons used to lure her into a trap would not be recognized for what they really were. She had been deceived by the trust she had in the police and the weapon of deceit was considered more of a side issue than the catalyst for the crime.

The day that this brave young lady and her mother came to me for help was the day I knew they needed the receptive ear that I had while I was a teacher, and it would also be part of my job as a member of Parliament. It is my hope that all of my colleagues can recognize the importance of the bill and will see that it is worth supporting.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills.

Bill C-50, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013;

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse);

Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention;

Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not know anything about a so-called deal that the NDP House leader talked about, I do know the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance announced a process she was going to recommend to the finance committee to allow study of the bill, which I understand was adopted yesterday. It is a large bill, but it is not as large, of course, as the one that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was part of the cabinet in Quebec.

However, that being said, it is important that it be studied.

Consequently, as our government proposed, next week, 11 committees, including the finance committee, will study the important and necessary economic measures proposed in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

Yesterday, the finance committee got to work on this bill, not even 24 hours after the House passed it at second reading. This bill will implement key measures, like an extension of the small business hiring tax credit; and let me assure the House, it will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion, job-killing carbon tax.

Turning to business in the chamber, we will start second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, momentarily. I think it will be today.

Tomorrow, we will start report stage—and, ideally, third reading—of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As a former trade minister, I can tell you that the NDP is opposed to free trade. They have made that clear numerous times by dragging out debate, delaying and voting against free trade agreements here in the House. In fact, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior outlined his party's position when he stated that “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation.” That is the NDP position.

We will continue debating free trade with Panama next week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. This bill will finally put into law our free trade agreement—an agreement which was signed here in Ottawa almost two-and-a-half years ago.

On Monday, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, before question period. Based on the speeches we heard the last time it was before the House, I hope that these two extra hours of debate will be sufficient for it to proceed to committee.

After question period on Monday, we will see Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act to combat elder abuse, considered at report stage and, hopefully, third reading.

Also Monday will be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(a), for resuming the adjourned debate on the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Finally, next Thursday, we will consider Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, which I understand was considered clause by clause at the human resources committee this morning. Given the unanimous endorsement the bill received at second reading, I hope it could pass and be sent to the other place before we rise for the constituency week.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gatineau for her leadership and wisdom on this particular issue.

What is interesting is that if it were only so complicated, what we would need to do here would be to find a balance between national security and our rights and freedoms and the protection of civil liberties. However, what history has shown us over the last decade, which is a long time to have a look at this question, is that these provisions that were brought forward in Bill C-36, and now are being reprised in Bill S-7, were fundamentally ineffective and unnecessary. Therefore, it is not really a matter of finding the balance here.

What we have found is that our current laws, criminal justice system and security arrangements have been sufficient to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism in this country.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today in the House to speak against Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. The genealogy of Bill S-7 takes us back to Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, which was tabled by the Liberal government in 2001. The original intent of the Anti-terrorism Act was to provide the Canadian legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001, 9/11 as we now know it.

There is no question that day should not and indeed cannot be forgotten. The images of passenger planes flying into those iconic towers repeat themselves over and over again in news, television and film, and undoubtedly in the mind as the memories of the many who were personally impacted by that act of terror.

I note with sadness that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and his partner have such memories to bear.

As these images repeat themselves, we witness the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocents, including 24 Canadians over and over again. That day we awoke to a new kind of threat and a new level of threat. Most importantly, we awoke to a new and profound sense of vulnerability, so we responded.

Several provisions of Bill C-36 became permanently enshrined in other legislation such as the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code and the Access to Information Act. However, several parts of the Anti-terrorism Act had sunset clauses expiring in February 2007. These provisions concerned investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions or preventive arrest provisions.

These measures were largely without precedence in Canadian law and for good reason. We believe that these provisions run contrary to fundamental principles, rights and liberties enshrined in Canadian law. The rights and liberties violated include the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial. We believe that these are important restrictions on the authority of the state because in their absence there is not sufficient protection of an individual's freedom.

As per the terms of the Anti-terrorism Act, these provisions, in order to be extended, had to be adopted by way of resolution by both Houses of Parliament. However, the resolution was defeated soundly, 159:124 in this House, and these controversial provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act sunsetted.

We know that the efforts did not end there. Similar bills were proposed in 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the forms of Bill S-3, Bill C-19 and Bill C-17 respectively. It seems this is an annual, or almost annual rite. Now they are back.

Time has passed in the interim, a decade roughly since Bill C-36 was brought before the House, and time has been instructive. Since the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act, the recognizance with conditions or preventive arrest provision has never been used. The investigative hearing provision has been used once in the Air India case. Many consider that exercise to have had no positive effect, in fact quite the opposite.

Paul Copeland, a highly experienced and respected lawyer representing the Law Union of Ontario, speaking about this sole experience with the investigative hearing provision, said to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2010 that the Law Union characterized this episode “as a fiasco, and I think that's an appropriate description”. He went on to say about all the provisions examined:

The provisions you are looking at here, in my submission, change the Canadian legal landscape.... They should not be passed, and in my view they are not needed. There are other provisions of the code that allow for various ways of dealing with these people.

This seems to be the nub of the issue. Without such extreme provisions, without changing the legal landscape of Canada, without breaching the rights and civil liberties of Canadian citizens, we have successfully protected the safety and security of Canada and Canadians from terrorist attack. These provisions have proven over the course of time to constitute an unnecessary and ineffective infringement.

As the former NDP justice critic said in the House in 2010:

When facing a crisis, we as political leaders feel that we have to do something even when all the evidence shows that the structures we have, the strength of our society, the strength of our laws, are enough to deal with it. We passed legislation in early 2002 to deal with terrorism when we panicked. We have learned in the last eight years that there was no need for that legislation.

The only thing to add to that summation is that in the past decade we have learned that we did not need this act.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. As Denis Barrette, spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, noted before the standing committee on Bill C-17 in 2011:

Since 2007, police investigations have succeeded in dismantling terrorist conspiracies using neither one of the provisions we are talking about today.

He concluded:

We believe that Canadians will be better served and better protected under the usual provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than others that are completely unnecessary. Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work. On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice and a greater probability that the reputation of innocent individuals...will be tarnished.

We have borne witness to that in this country.

While these provisions have proven to have no effect on the fight against terror, they have had a profound social impact on Canada and many Canadians. On the eve of 9/11 this year, I showed a film at my local review theatre, the Fox in the Beach. The film is called Change Your Name Ousama. It was produced and directed by local filmmaker Fuad Chowdhury and focuses on a community in my riding of Beaches—East York called Crescent Town. Crescent Town is a very densely populated and diverse community, which is largely made up of Bangladeshi Canadians, most of whom are Muslim.

The film is not a point of view film. It was made for television and screened at the Montreal film festival. It includes significant interview footage, for example, of the assistant director of CSIS. It also includes footage of our Prime Minister in a fairly recent CBC interview telling Canadians that the major threat to Canada is still Islamicism. The film also tells the story of what it feels like to be one of about a million Muslim Canadians living in a political climate where their religion has been held to be a threat to the security of their country.

It is noted in the film by a University of Toronto academic that governments, through their actions, have the power to create stigmas and to marginalize communities. Of this we need, in this place, to be very mindful and sensitive. This is where the film gets its title. It was the advice, amidst the political fallout of 9/11, of a Muslim leader of Crescent Town to members of his community, “Change your name Ousama. Shave your beard. Do not wear your kufi”. In essence, “change or disguise your identity”.

Motivated as they have been, bills such as that introduced in 2001 by the Liberals and its partial reprisal today in the form of Bill S-7 have had that impact. They have left so many across this country and in my riding feeling like they have something to apologize for, as if the onus rests on them to demonstrate somehow that they are not terrorists.

Herein lies a great tragedy. In Bill S-7, as with Bill C-36 before it, we have before us a bill that contradicts not just the legal heritage of this country but a fundamental social and political heritage that takes us back decades at least, a heritage of which we should be proud and protective. The heritage I speak of is the opportunity to maintain and exercise one's culture and religion in Canada freely and still be and feel fully Canadian. This social and political heritage is one that has made us a great place, a place where so many around the world long to come to live.

Justice and Human Rights

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr.Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

Motions in amendment

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House and speak to this bill. Many hon. members have already talked about the summary of the bill, so I will not dwell on it. It has already been done. I will instead focus on some of the points in Bill C-350.

First, I would like to applaud the intent behind this bill, which is to provide support to the families of the accused and to victims by ensuring that offenders are required to fulfill their responsibilities toward them. That is a very noble intention. I am glad that we have the opportunity today to discuss this issue and that the bill will be referred to committee for study.

I would also like to point out that we have just witnessed something exceptional and remarkable: a Conservative member and an NDP member have introduced two very similar amendments, two amendments that go along the same lines. We often talk about disagreements between parties and about how impossible it is for them to work together. Today's event is a fine example that, despite disagreements, the various parties also have some common interests. All hon. members of the House are thinking people, knowledgeable and well informed about the issues they are working on.

The proposed amendments are very interesting and are heading in more or less the same direction. It will be interesting to see how they will be received in committee and how the members will work together.

The government wants to put the protection of families and victims first. However, this bill should not replace measures designed to better inform and advise victims and provide them with better financial support.

This bill currently states that offenders who are awarded monies will compensate victims. However, many cannot be accountable to the victims and families. We have to take these people into consideration. We must also ensure that this bill is not one we can use to say that we did everything we could. We can do more for the good of the victims and the offenders' families, for the children of offenders. That is my concern with this bill concerning victims.

Bill C-350 seeks to make offenders accountable, as indicated by the title of the bill. We must consider what will result in true accountability of offenders. Once again, a very specific approach is being taken to a problem, which is fair, because that is what we have to do in our work. But we must not lose sight of the broader issue of interest in Bill C-350.

The NDP believes that this bill is not the best way to make offenders accountable. Based on the testimony of many experts, among others, who appeared before the committee, an offender must be directly involved in decisions about paying compensation to victims and other financial decisions in order to develop his sense of responsibility. If such decisions are made for him and he is not asked for his input, he will not necessarily develop that sense of responsibility. He does not have a say, he does not even have to think about his situation. Will that really make him more accountable? The NDP believes that this question must be posed. Many experts are also wondering about this.

I spoke about the victims and accountability. I would now like to talk about rehabilitation and prevention. These issues are not addressed in this bill, and the Conservative Party has not talked about them much in connection with this bill. I continue to find this unfortunate and worrisome.

Accountability, yes. But what about rehabilitation? We support comprehensive rehabilitation programs that will reduce recidivism and make our cities safer. When we were debating mandatory minimum sentences, there was a lot of talk about safety in our streets and communities. However, the two concepts do not necessarily go hand in hand. If we want to make our cities and communities safer, we have to talk about rehabilitation and prevention.

In a 2007 report, Public Safety Canada recognized that former inmates face a number of challenges, such as limited access to jobs, that compromise their ability to become law-abiding citizens.

If we really want to help offenders fulfill their financial responsibilities toward their communities and their families, we have to think about what we can do to improve their access to jobs. The two go hand in hand, and that issue has to be part of a debate like this one. If the Conservative Party really cares about offender accountability, what is it prepared to do to ensure that offenders who are released from prison can find work and shoulder their responsibilities toward their communities?

Quebec's Centre de ressources pour délinquants comes to mind. The centre works to enhance the skills and employability of its clientele in order to facilitate integration or reintegration into the job market. These things exist and have already been implemented in several departments and provinces in different ways. The Centre de ressources pour délinquants is an example of that. Experts are available to offenders to ensure they have the legal, social and educational support they need to give them the best possible opportunity to reintegrate into the job market. The centre is part of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec. Yes, Quebec. So we have to think about just how involved we can get in this issue, but it is worth mentioning.

Now let us talk about prevention. Once again, we do not hear this word enough when talking about safety and the role of inmates or offenders in our society. It is important to prevent crime, and not simply punish people. This point cannot be over-emphasized, especially when working with a Conservative government like this one. Why not invest in prevention? A report entitled “Cost and Effectiveness of Federal Correctional Policy” stated the following:

The skyrocketing costs associated with new bills [like Bill C-10 and Bill C-25] will put a great deal of pressure on rehabilitation programs, which could suffer if the new influx of prisoners is not accompanied by the additional resources needed to handle them.

We could learn from the mistakes of other countries that also favour punishment, but did not put enough additional resources into the system and whose rehabilitation programs are suffering a great deal as a result.

I think it is now time to discuss Bill C-36. I can make an interesting link here. This bill deals with elder abuse. This bill contains measures that give judges another tool for punishing crimes committed against seniors. If we really want to tackle the problem of elder abuse, then we also need to ask ourselves how we can prevent it and how we can support seniors to make it easier for them to report cases of abuse.

In fact, a number of bills claim to be fighting a problem, but they do not really get to the heart of that problem and do not take into account the factors of vulnerability and prevention that go along with all that.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the work that the committee did on Bill C-350. I am pleased to see that amendments were made to the bill after the work in committee with all the parties. However, from what I heard from my colleagues on that committee, a number of questions have yet to be answered. I do not understand why members who know their stuff cannot manage to get some answers. For example, does this bill encroach on provincial jurisdictions? Is there not a risk of limiting a judge's discretionary power?

How is it that we have not yet gotten answers to these questions, and how is that we are seeing limited debate and testimony in this type of committee?

In conclusion, the NDP will support this bill at second reading, but it is important that prevention and rehabilitation be included in these discussions and these debates. Restitution is possible for a theft or items broken by an offender, but the psychological or physical damage done during a crime cannot all be repaired, and someone who dies as a result of a crime cannot be brought back.

That is why punishment is not enough; we need to take action beforehand to prevent the crime.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to start my one-day-late Thursday statement with the Conservatives' deep gratitude to all of the staff and pages of the House of Commons, who were forced to endure a rather long Wednesday sitting. I thank them for that and I apologize that they were subjected to it.

On to the remaining business of the House, this afternoon will we complete third reading debate of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. On Monday we will have the third reading debate of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, now that we are past the opposition's theatrical and ideologically driven delay tactics at report stage, which caused you, Madam Speaker, to have to spend an undue length of time here, in particular during the unfortunate act of slow votes, which really achieved nothing but inconvenience to the staff and pages of the House of Commons.

If we have extra time on Monday, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. For the remainder of the week, I want to see the House dispose of the many bills that are still awaiting our work and attention. To accommodate the House, we have voted to sit into the evenings next week.

I would welcome any co-operation from my counterparts on moving these bills forward efficiently. I would like to start with securing second reading and referral to committee before the fall sitting of the following bills: Bill C-24, the Canada—Panama economic growth and prosperity act; Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act; Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act; Bill C-15, the military justice bill that I mentioned moments ago; Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act; and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Of course, this is only the start of my list, but it would be a good message for us to send to Canadians to show that we are actually willing to do our jobs, the jobs they sent us here to do, and actually vote and make decisions on the bills before us. A productive last week of the spring sitting of our hard-working Parliament would reassure Canadians that their parliamentarians are here to work.

To get on in that direction, since today is World Elder Abuse Day, I want to draw attention to our Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act. I believe this bill to combat elder abuse has the support of all parties. I have heard the suggestion of the opposition whip, but I would like to suggest we go one step further. I know the opposition has shown it likes to talk about things; we actually like to make decisions and get things done on this side of the House. With that in mind, and in recognition of this day, it is appropriate to advance this important bill right now and send it to committee for study. Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my friend.

It is true that some bills are too short, such as Bill C-36, which is only four paragraphs long. It is a very serious process. It is an important bill to protect seniors, yet it is a very small bill.

In stark contrast, here we have an omnibus bill that is over 400 pages long that fundamentally changes over 70 pieces of legislation and in which everything is hidden. This is because the Prime Minister knows that it is not a good bill.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is disconcerting is not only the overall approach with respect to environmental protection, or the absence regarding environmental protection, but the prospective chilling effect that the critiques of critics have on the overall discussion of this issue as a whole.

We saw the same thing with regard to Bill C-10. We see the same thing with regard to Bill C-26.

There is a pattern here in which those who criticize the government, if it is in matters of criminal justice, are said to be on the side of the criminals and not on the side of the victims, or on the side of the child pornographers and not on the side of those who seek to protect children.

This kind of indictment, and it is not even by innuendo but indeed indictment, by chilling debate, by silencing dissent, does credit neither to the substance of the legislation, which should be allowed to be debated on the merits, and there is no more compelling concern in that regard than that which relates to the environment, nor to the democratic process itself, which should allow for all forms of discussion, debate, dissent, critique and the like.

We are missing this, not only in this debate but on other bills as well.