Bill C-37 (Historical)

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to change the rules concerning victim surcharges.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia had two minutes remaining for his remarks and then the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that self-governing first nations, under the terms of their self-government agreements, are already required to prepare their financial statements and make them available to community members. That is why they are not included in the bill. Why should the residents of first nation communities expect anything less?

Developing healthier, more sustainable communities depends on good, democratic governance. The legislation is fair and reasonable. It is the responsible thing to do to ensure transparency, increased accountability and ultimately, more effective governance in first nation communities.

I call on all parties to give Bill C-27 their wholehearted support to make sure that first nation citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges as other Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned many times that this is a very important measure for the government. I wonder why that is because the Conservatives have invoked time allocation yet again and are saying they do not want to hear all sides of the story. They do not want to hear the voices of members elected to represent aboriginal communities and first nation communities across the country. They are not investing in the things that the first nations or aboriginal communities or urban aboriginal people, such as those living in my community, are looking for. They are looking for things such as affordable housing, an increase in the affordability of food and the affordability of life in general.

Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague, will he start focusing on those issues as well?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard countless times from those on reserve who do not know what their chiefs and councillors make. All they are asking is for the right to have that same courtesy as other Canadians do from coast to coast to coast.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the government is being somewhat ironic bragging about the Accountability Act, when that act enshrined the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer who, years later, finds himself shut down at every corner.

I have a question that is fairly direct. It just requires a yes or no. Given the theme of his speech was about opening up the books, which I agree with, I would like to ask him very simply, would he allow the Auditor General to look at all of his expenses as a member of Parliament? Yes or no?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should focus on Bill C-27, which would ensure that councillors and chiefs throughout Canada, from coast to coast to coast, would be open to their constituents.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's interrupted speech with some interest. We are now facing a closure motion on the bill and therefore this is the last day of debate on this section of the bill. Does he believe that this is the most important, most crucial piece of legislation facing the House at the moment? The fact that the Conservatives have only put up five speakers so far out of 160 is a bit ironic given the circumstances that we face with the closure motion in front of us.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the most important bill that we are speaking to because we are speaking to it right now. It is very important for those people on reserve who want to know the remuneration of their chiefs and councillors. For years they have been asking us for that and that is what we are going to deliver.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question previously and I did not really get an answer, so I will try a slightly different question this time.

The answer I got from my hon. colleague was that we want to make sure that people living on reserves know exactly what their chiefs are making and increase transparency there. However, the government is not a government that is being transparent or accountable to the constituents that it represents, which include all Canadians.

Will the member have the decency to ensure that his government, his Prime Minister and all of his ministers are being truly accountable and truly transparent, that they are being the representatives of the state and are accountable to all their constituents, not just the Canadians who are friends and insiders of the Conservative Party but to all Canadians?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the member that all members on this side are very upfront with regard to what they spend. I am sure all of the ministers would be very certain of that.

Having said that, the most important bill here today is Bill C-27, which will ensure that people on reserve can understand what their chiefs and councillors receive each year through remuneration.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-27.

According to the Conservative majority, the purpose of this bill is to make first nations' finances more transparent by requiring first nations to disclose various pieces of information.

I must begin by pointing out to the House the irony in this situation: the Conservative government lacks transparency in many areas and has no problem criticizing the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he confirms their lack of transparency.

The Conservatives also hid information that the Chief Electoral Officer had requested when the robocall scandal came to light. They hide their destructive environmental policies in mammoth bills like the budget bill voted on last June. They deceived Canadians on the real cost of the F-35 and they misled Canadians during the election. At the time, they said they would not raise the age of eligibility for old age security, yet they raised it from 65 to 67 just a few months later.

Now the Conservatives are introducing a bill that suggests that first nations are not being transparent. This is ironic, coming from a government that is not very transparent itself.

Before preaching to others and imposing such conditions, the Conservatives should start by looking in the mirror.

Transparency is always a good thing when it comes to public funds. Canadians deserve to have their money well spent, and they deserve to have all the necessary means to know what governments are doing with that money. We must speak out against any misuse of public funds at every level of government.

This is also true for first nations, which deserve to have the funding they are given properly managed and used to develop their community. Like everywhere else, the money is sometimes mismanaged, and it is the members of these communities who suffer for it.

This bill could stigmatize first nations by giving Canadians the impression that aboriginal reserves mismanage their resources and must be put under trusteeship by Ottawa. That is insulting and disrespectful to aboriginal communities, which were not even consulted before the bill was drafted.

I would like to specify that, although it is possible that some communities mismanage their resources, this type of problem is not limited to first nations communities. Many municipalities and governments—federal and provincial—have done a shoddy job of managing public funds. We have seen this frequently in Quebec since the beginning of the Charbonneau commission. Such practices must be stopped at all levels.

We believe that public funds must be managed in a transparent manner. However, imposing transparency, as the Conservatives are trying to do today, is insulting and reminiscent of colonial times. The Conservatives are forgetting that they have a constitutional duty to consult the first nations before making changes to laws that affect them.

However, as they have been in the habit of doing since they won a majority, the Conservatives are acting unilaterally, as though the other levels of government did not exist. The Conservatives are not even trying to examine the amendments proposed by the opposition or even hold consultations with regard to their own amendments. In short, this government is continuing to turn a deaf ear.

The paternalism of this bill is also of great concern. The first nations should have the same amount of freedom as the provinces and municipalities to manage themselves as they wish.

When the federal government sends the provinces equalization cheques, does it tell them how to do their accounting? The provinces pass their own laws, and we have confidence in their justice system.

With Bill C-27, we are acting as though the first nations belonged to the federal government. We are acting as though the first nations needed to be put under trusteeship, as though they were unable to take care of themselves.

Can we require that first nations communities be transparent toward their members? Likely. However, do we need a bill that tells them exactly how to do that?

Aboriginal communities do not all operate in the same way and do not all have the same resources.

By unilaterally passing a bill that will tell them exactly what to do, we will be imposing an administrative burden that will cause problems for many of them. For example, why force first nations to have a website where the public can consult the documents this bill requires, when some of them do not even have drinking water?

For a community of 200 people, for example, being forced to maintain a community website is an unjustifiable burden, especially since the Conservative government is not offering any financial compensation. Disclosing certain information to all Canadians can also cause problems for first nations businesses, which will be put at a competitive disadvantage, as the member for St. Paul's described.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill puts a huge administrative burden on aboriginal communities that have limited means. The first nations already provide at least 168 separate financial reports to the four main federal departments and agencies—Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the CMHC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Health Canada. The administrative burden imposed on the first nations is excessive, and the government is not doing anything to help them with this bill. Their resources are limited, so let us help them by reducing their spending on the administrative documents we force them to produce.

The Conservatives must stop treating the provinces and first nations with contempt. Not only does the Conservative government break our laws and frequently waste taxpayers' money, but it goes so far as to lecture others and to try to control them. A first step for the Conservatives would be to achieve transparency by providing documents in a timely manner when asked to do so by Elections Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. And the Conservatives should consult the provinces and the first nations when considering changes that affect them.

The Liberal Party is not the only one saying it: the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal and the provincial governments have an obligation to consult aboriginal peoples before making decisions that affect their rights, and that they must respond to their concerns.

So why impose this kind of legislation without consultation?

Canadians are afraid of this obsession with control. The provinces no longer have a say. The Conservatives have decided to cut transfers and services, and to increase provincial costs with complete disregard for the principles of federalism. Even the premier of Quebec, a sovereignist, was surprised and disappointed that the Prime Minister of Canada is not attending the meeting of the Council of the Federation in Halifax. We know that we have a serious problem when even a separatist seems to take Canadian federalism more seriously than the Prime Minister of Canada.

Today, the government is treating the first nations in the same way by unilaterally imposing its conditions. For the Prime Minister to have such control over his caucus that he forces them to read texts prepared by his office is one thing. But to have such contempt for Canadian federalism that he passes the costs on to the province and the aboriginal communities is, quite frankly, an insult to Canadians.

We must put an end to paternalism and the colonial mentality towards first nations. We must treat them like partners in our federation. The first nations are not government agencies; they are not the property of the federal government. The Conservatives must negotiate with the first nations in order to find common ground rather than being confrontational. The Conservative government must face the facts, reconsider its approach and take into account the opposition's concerns.

To that end, the Conservatives should vote with the Liberal Party against this bad bill, and they should go back to the drawing board.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. I sit on the immigration committee and we have had a chance to look at Bill C-45. The creation of electronic travel authority and the details of how the ETA would be created, the criteria for qualifying, et cetera, were not going to be in the legislation. They would be in the regulations, which of course can be changed very easily by a minister.

Why is it that, in Bill C-27, the government seems to feel it needs to put into legislation the details of the disclosure requirements for chiefs? First nations communities and chiefs have audited financial statements. New Democrats believe the audited statements should first be presented to the first nations communities. We do not need legislation to control what they do. It could be a requirement of the funding arrangements that each of the communities signs.

I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to play politics. However, we had an agreement, which was called the Kelowna accord, in 2004, when the NDP helped to make the government fall. We then had a change of government, and all of a sudden the Conservative government does not acknowledge that the Kelowna accord even exists. All of these items, whether they are targets, accountability, are in the Kelowna accord.

As I said in my speech, we have no problem with transparency. The problem is that first nations were not consulted. As the member was saying, there are financial statements and they are audited. If the government needs these audited statements to be propped up a bit, that is fine, but it should also compensate for that added transparency with some funding. First nations have a lot of administrative burden already.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the importance of accountability and transparency, as well as with the Kelowna accord and the proposal for a first nations auditor general.

Does my colleague think that a bill like this is necessary six years after the Kelowna accord?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a complex question and therefore not an easy one to answer. I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from St. Paul's, who is doing a great job for first nations people in her role as aboriginal affairs critic.

If the Kelowna accord, which was reached six years ago, were in effect today, first nations people would be living in a completely different world. Our prime minister at the time consulted all first nations, which is why it was called an accord. It had a budget attached to it.

The accord included five criteria, among them transparency and accountability. It even proposed appointing an independent auditor responsible solely for the first nations file. Thus, a solution could have easily been found and we would not be dealing with the issue here today. Everyone would have had the opportunity to live together in harmony.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, and specifically to speak about the need for Bill C-27 as a way of re-establishing basic lines of accountability between a first nations chief and council and its members.

I begin by referring to a statement made by the Assembly of First Nations, which referred to this bill as “tinkering”. In a document prepared for the Special Chiefs Assembly held in December 2011, it said:

...federal led tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act with legislation that addresses aspects of core governance is not the answer. It will not provide long-term governance certainty and stability for our Nations.

Is this bill nothing more than tinkering with the Indian Act? Absolutely not. The Indian Act is silent on transparency and accountability. There is not a word in the Indian Act that deals with the preparation of financial statements and ensuring they are accessible to the public. The Indian Act is certainly not modern legislation that supports first nations governments. This is why the first nations financial transparency act is so needed.

To be clear, this bill would change the status quo. It would provide long-term governance, certainty and stability. The status quo as it relates to financial transparency is that there are currently no statutes or regulations to outline the financial transparency requirements for first nations governments or to guide the setting of salaries for chiefs and councillors. To the extent that there are any rules anywhere that require first nations to make their financial information available to their own people, it is not in that law, but in the funding agreements with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In accordance with provisions of these agreements, first nations governments are required to provide the department with audited consolidated financial statements and a schedule of remuneration and expenses for all elected officials. However, it is also a provision of these agreements that the statements be made available to the first nations members in their own communities. These agreements do not stipulate the manner or timing for disclosure. As a result, some individuals have found it quite difficult to access these documents. The practices within individual first nations communities vary widely. Some communities may not consistently disclose financial statements or information concerning salary and expenses while others distribute the information to members or post it on community websites.

This bill would change all of this. It would indeed change the status quo for first nations communities. Under the proposed legislation, each first nation would need to make its audited consolidated financial statements available to its members, as well as to publish them on a website. The information found in the audited consolidated financial statements relates to the major activities undertaken by the particular first nation being audited and details how the first nation expended its moneys. The statement with respect to what information is provided in these statements would be determined by the generally accepted accounting principles. Information that would be disclosed in the schedules to the financial statements include the salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honorariums, dividends and any other monetary or non-monetary benefit that chiefs or councillors are receiving. The expenses of first nations leadership, such as transportation, accommodation, meals and hospitality would also be included. Chiefs and councillors would also be required to disclose remuneration paid to them by any entity controlled by the first nation. This would reflect current practice, as first nations are already required to report the remuneration and expenses, in separate categories, paid to the chief and councillors as part of their agreements under the funding agreement with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be required to publish the audited consolidated financial statement and schedule of remuneration, when received, for each first nation on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website. This would ensure the information would be available and accessible at all times, and by everyone. The department already publishes on its website a document entitled “Schedule of Federal Funding” for each first nation as a result of the Federal Accountability Act. The bill would require first nations and the department to publish the audited consolidated financial statements and schedules on their websites, as well as remunerations and expenses of first nations to which the legislation would apply. If a first nation failed to do so, anyone, including the minister, could ask a court to require a band council to publish it.

The bill would not only empower first nation members but it would also change the status quo in another fundamental area.

Currently, when first nations members raise questions or concerns about the non-disclosure of financial statements or remuneration and expenses for chiefs and council members, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada encourages them to raise these issues directly with their chief and council, respecting the principles of local community accountability.

If the department becomes aware of a situation where a first nation member cannot gain access to his or her community's financial statements, the department will work with the first nation government to ensure that the information is released. If efforts to have a first nation government release the statements to a member are unsuccessful, the department releases the financial statements or schedule of remuneration and expenses directly to the member.

Not only does this place the minister in a difficult position between the first nation council and its members, it makes no sense to require individual first nation members to have to appeal to the minister just for access to basic financial information relating to their own community that they should be able to get from their own band.

Bill C-27 would create a direct relationship with a clear line of responsibility, accountability and transparency between council and first nations members. The bill would underscore the fact that first nations governments are accountable to their own communities for the decisions they make, in addition to being accountable to taxpayers for the funds that they receive.

The bill would change the status quo by finally putting in place the same rules with respect to financial transparency that apply to other governments in Canada to first nations governments. The bill would provide long-term governance certainty and stability by creating a direct line of accountability between a first nation and its chief and council for access to basic financial information and for the decisions that led to the information that those documents contain.

It is worth noting, too, that the bill would achieve this without increasing the already significant reporting burden on first nation governments. Because the preparation of these documents is already a condition of their funding agreements, there are no new reports required. The bill proposes to place the same requirements in legislation with the only additional requirement being that some of the information already prepared for the department is posted on a website, maintained by the first nation or on its behalf, and on the department's website as well.

I know that members will agree that Bill C-27 is a necessary step forward in empowering and improving the lives of first nations members.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member say that there would be no additional work for first nations. Many first nations do not have a website and, in fact, their Internet access is somewhat spotty. Therefore, it is misleading to say that the bill would create no additional work.

I want to touch on the member's comments about long-term governance. It is interesting that the Canadian Bar Association believes that the proposed bill would not improve the capacity of first nations to assume control over their own affairs. It says, “By focusing only on the expenditures of first nations, the proposed legislation fails to address larger systemic issues of funding and responsibility for those issues”.

The member said that posting information contributes to long-term governance. I wonder if the member could provide more details on how simply posting financial information improves governance.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, posting information that should be widely accessible to the members of each band means that the chiefs and leaders of that particular first nation are being accountable to their own members. I think that is something that we must remember. This is available in every other government across our great nation. Whether it is a federal, provincial or municipal government, it is a requirement. The only exception right now is first nations. The bill would actually bring them in line with the rest of Canadians.

The member asked a question regarding the absence of a website or access to a website. One of the reporting requirements would be that the information be posted on a website. However, I will point out that the legislation does not necessarily require the website to be within that first nation community. It could be tasked to another organization to post it or, as I indicated in my speech, on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development website, which would make it compliant.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to basically reduce the difficulty for an individual band member to find information on the band's financing. If that particular band member went to the member's office and asked to look at her books as a member of Parliament would she say yes or no?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would know that all of the expenses and so forth of members are posted online for my constituents to see, as well as for constituents across Canada.

With regard to the fact that the member is concerned about the inquiries made by first nations, I would point to some statistics. There were approximately 250 formal complaints regarding the mismanagement and misappropriation of remuneration and expenses of officials that were posted or inquired upon over a period of slightly over a year.

The fact that there are complaints out there and the fact that first nations are not accountable right now, this legislation would actually—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I see that members are getting concerned about the accountability. I want to point out that many first nations across this country actually go far and beyond exceeding the requirements required by the government. It is only a few that we need to bring in line.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I know there has been great discussion in the House about the reporting requirements in this bill. I wonder if the member could just clarify some of those disclosure requirements.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in my speech, some of the specific requirements in the bill relate specifically to salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honorarium, dividends and any other monetary or non-monetary benefit that the chiefs or councillors are receiving.

As a side note, this bill would also require first nations to make their audited consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration available on a website for a period of at least 10 years. I think that is important as well, especially to the members of that particular first nations band.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 is part of a pattern that I have noticed as a non-first nations person here in the House of policies and practices of the government that are paternalistic, punishing and somewhat prejudicial. This pattern is quite disturbing to me as a non-first nations person in that the government should actually be protecting and enhancing the first nations people of this country rather than punishing them.

The genesis of the bill, as I understand it, was a report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation about the remuneration received by a band chief, or maybe other band chiefs, that was in excess of what we pay the Prime Minister. There are lots of corporations in this country that pay significantly in excess of what the Prime Minister makes. Whether a band has the resources to be able to pay its chiefs appropriately is not something that we should concern ourselves with unless there is some evidence of fraud or of other nefarious means. That is not the case here. There was no indication and no expectation on the part of the band that the chief was being paid in some manner that was inappropriate.

Indeed, the bill does not even touch on the appropriateness of compensation. It does not provide any guidance as to what would be a conflict of interest or what would be a conflict in terms of remuneration. Instead, it seems to punish the bands that are providing many financial statements already by making them provide even more by increasing the reporting requirements in an extreme way. That, again, seems to be a punishment for bands, perhaps for having spent so much on their chiefs.

In terms of it being paternalistic, once again we see that the government will not consult with the first nations themselves but instead prescribe for the first nations what they must do. We have heard time and time again in the House and from first nations themselves that what they want is be free to run their own affairs and, where the government provides some money, they want to be consulted. By the word “consult” we mean consent. We do not mean just spend a few dollars and bring a few people in to talk. We actually mean that the bands should give consent where there are major changes to how the government provides its services to them and the relationship between the Canadian government and the governments of the first nations people.

It gets even more paternalistic when the government says that if bands do not follow its rules it will hold back money. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would do that to a band, to punish the children of the band perhaps if the money is for education, or to punish the mothers of the band perhaps if the money is for food or shelter. Why on earth are we punishing these people for the actions of a few? We have tried at committee to move significant amendments to the bill to deal with those issues that have been raised with us by the first nations and the issues that we can plainly read in the text of the bill, and yet every one of those amendments have been rejected by the government. As is the case in almost all the bills before Parliament, there is no attempt to be co-operative or consultative with the other parties in the House. The government does it all on its own.

The bill is punishing to the first nations because, in many circumstances, it would require the proprietary business information be released to the public. We are not talking, as the member for Scarborough Centre suggested, about ensuring that band members have this information. In fact, the requirement is that the information be made completely public and, when it is made public, if it is proprietary information, it puts the band at a disadvantage. It is punishing the band.

Some of these bands have been quite successful in creating businesses and trying to lift some of their members out of the extreme poverty in which we often find Canadian first nation members. The government's reaction is to punish them for doing that by making them release proprietary information in their financial statements that would put them at a disadvantage to non-first nation businesses in Canada and elsewhere. That is just wrong. We should not be putting first nations people at a disadvantage.

When we talk about proprietary information, the thing that I find most ironic is that when a freedom of information request is made of the government, most often the excuse that it gives when turning down the release of information, whether it is financial or otherwise, is that it is proprietary information and protected by the privacy of the dealings with another business or entity. Yet first nations are not given the same ability to protect their information. Instead, they are being told they must disclose it or the government will step in and withhold money.

I believe the government has fallen 30 places in the world's rankings in terms of freedom of information requests. Yet it is telling first nations they have to release information. The government is not practising what it preaches. As we know, the government's accountability is always in question when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to take the government to court in order to get information released. Yet the way the government treats first nations is to say that if they do not release information, it will withhold their education money or money for housing or food.

There are some who have spoken at committee about the punishing nature of the required information. John Paul from the Membertou First Nation on October 24 stated:

In addition to what we do publicly, our first nation community must also still comply with all the detailed reporting requirements as decreed by the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada reporting handbook, developed by AANDC alone, as per the conditions of the five-year multi-year funding agreement that we have signed with AANDC. The time my staff has to spend to complete these obligations is significant and is done at our own first nation's cost.

The government does not help with any of this.

These reporting requirements and the need for documentation seem to have increased, even though a few years ago the Conservative government committed to an improved funding relationship. The continual and increasing reporting burden on our first nation must be addressed.

We are going in the opposite direction with the bill. We are creating a greater burden and more funding requirements, and there is no additional money to provide for it.

In terms of the policies of paternalism and some would say even prejudice toward the first nations, I am reminded of the comments of the Prime Minister when the Attawapiskat First Nation crisis came to our attention last fall. His knee-jerk reaction was to say, “We gave them lots of money. Where did they spend it?”

That was not the problem. The problem was not that the government gave them lots of money, it was that the government did not give them enough money. It has frozen their funding at 2% raises since 2000, first by the Liberal government and continued by the Conservative government, when their population is increasing at a greater rate than that and the inflation rate in Canada is higher than that on many occasions. Every year that funding arrangement stays in place, first nations fall further and further behind.

We are told that 85,000 new homes need to be built on first nation reserves. The Conservatives bragged yesterday about how it built 16,000 houses since 2005, which we should remind them was money that Jack Layton got out of the Paul Martin government to create new housing. In fact, the Conservatives voted against providing money for housing. Native North Americans in Canada are 85,000 houses short and yet the government is going ahead without providing any new housing infrastructure money for first nations. It is frozen at 2%.

As far as education goes and as far as we can tell, the first nations who must report on this money now are being paid half of what other Canadian children receive in terms of education dollar spending. In some cases this paternalistic attitude toward the first nation education system is such that when a first nation is given space to have a school, the government deducts the value of that space from the money it gives the first nation for education, even though it did not cost anyone anything. It is shameful that the government—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time allocated for the member's speech is finished.

Questions and comments. The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments and I must say I disagree with the basic premise of virtually everything that he said. It is obvious that he has not been listening to this debate or to the presentations at the press conference yesterday from band members across the country, from progressive chiefs and from others.

If NDP members wish to align themselves with those people who would deny transparency and accountability, then more power to them. We are in the 21st century. These are basic expectations of the public, whether first nation band members or other Canadians. Other Canadians have this basic ingredient as part of their democracy.

I know my time is limited but I would just like to say quickly that there would be no extra burden. This is reporting that already occurs. It is all about disclosure. That is the only difference. There is no issue with the proprietary business information. It is an aggregation. This is already happening.

Progressive first nations get it. Why does the NDP not get it?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

We do get it, Mr. Speaker. We do not align ourselves with organizations such as the government opposite that would hide information from people, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who must go to court to get financial information from the Conservative government. We do not align ourselves with that. The government should be more transparent than it currently is. It should be quicker in responding to freedom of information requests. It should respond. It should give the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Canadians the information we need.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the Conservatives who do not get it.

Thousands of letters have been sent to the minister about a variety of things. Let me pick something out here from one of the letters that was sent to the minister. The minister received a letter from Chief Shining Turtle on November 6. The chief says:

I have written thousands of emails, and letters on issues like aboriginal and treaty rights violations, UNDRIP recommendations, Youth suicides, Auditor General Reports on band reporting requirements, MRP, health cuts, capital funding cuts for Indian Affairs Regional Offices, elections....

He goes on to say:

To simply the ignore the First Nation[s] that don't agree with your political agenda on assimilating Indian Bands into the fabricate of the State of Canada is absolutely despicable!!

We have heard this from many first nations. They believe that the Crown is trying to assimilate them.

Given the fact that the Prime Minister gave an apology on the residential schools and given his comments at the Crown-first nations gathering, could the member tell me how this piece of legislation fits in with that?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not fit in. It is clearly the opposite direction. The bill is not the result of consultation with first nations. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a discovery by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that some first nation leaders are doing really well. We should be proud of the fact that some first nations are doing well. We should be proud of the fact that some first nations are not in the poverty that the Conservative government would like to keep them in. Therefore, we should be proud of the fact this is happening. We should not be punishing them further.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to my hon. colleague's discourse. First of all I want to congratulate him for all the great work he does in his riding. I do not think his constituents have ever had such a good representative in Parliament.

I was particularly interested in his comments on the lack of housing in first nation communities, the deplorable lack of housing in fact. Could he go further down that road and just explain to me how the lack of housing contradicts what the bill is trying to do? There is incredible poverty in first nation communities. With respect to women whose relationships break up, where exactly are they supposed to go if first nation communities are missing 85,000 homes?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 is part of a pattern of paternalistic and prescribed regulations on first nations that may in fact be leading toward assimilation. However, it also highlights for all Canadians the problems in first nation communities, such as the lack of housing and the fact that women whose marriages break up will lose their ability to live in their first nation because there are not enough places for them to live.

The government is doing virtually nothing to correct the 85,000 spaces that are missing in first nation communities.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and today it is an honour to rise to debate Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act.

Over the last six years, our government has consistently demonstrated our commitment to creating the conditions for a healthier, more self-sufficient aboriginal communities. Fundamental to achieving that are strong, stable and accountable first nations governments. Bill C-27 would strengthen first nations governance by increasing accountability and transparency, giving first nations community members the information they need to make informed choices about their leadership.

Bill C-27 complements Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, which we introduced in December 2011. Together, these pieces of proposed legislation demonstrate democratic practices and would empower first nations people.

First nations residents expect to know how funds are being spent in their communities. Like all Canadians, they want assurance that these funds are being used to improve their quality of life. Bill C-27 would improve their access to the financial statements of their governments and provide information on the salaries and expenses of their elected officials.

Indeed, democracy depends on citizens being able to call their leaders to account and ensure they represent the community's best interests.

Currently, community members may ask for financial information related to their band but unless their leaders choose to release it, it can be difficult for them to access the information required to make informed decisions about their leadership and the direction of their community. There are still community members who have no other option but to contact the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development each year seeking assistance in obtaining this information.

A real or perceived lack of transparency and accountability from first nation leaders can also erode investor confidence and impede a community's ability to take full advantage of economic development opportunities. Ultimately, this delays or can destroy job opportunities and economic progress for the first nation and its members.

I also point out that parliamentarians already have a duty to inform Canadian taxpayers of how their tax dollars are spent, including for first nations.

A question was raised during the second reading debate of the bill on whether public disclosure of financial statements of band-owned businesses would undermine their competitiveness. It is important to note that Bill C-27 would not require each individual business owned by the band to publish its detailed financial statements. Instead, it is only the consolidated financial statements of the first nation that are covered under the proposed legislation. Some of my colleagues, in their speeches in the House today, have reiterated this point. These statements would not, in most cases, reveal any proprietary information that would undermine their competitiveness. There seems to be some misunderstanding on this. I understand that during the committee stage amendments were made to clarify these concerns.

Members of first nations are ultimately the owners of any businesses owned by the band and they have a right to know the financial position of those businesses, just as other Canadians have the right to know about businesses owned by other levels of government. The bill would ensure that this occurs.

Although some first nation-owned businesses may have concerns about providing financial information to the public, it is important to point out that these reporting rules are not our rules but the rules set out by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. In other words, these are the exact same rules that apply to businesses owned in other governments in Canada. To be absolutely clear, the proposed legislation would not create any additional paperwork for first nation governments. They already produce audited financial statements each year as a requirement for their funding agreements with the department, and this bill would not require anything new in that regard.

Similarly, what we are asking of chiefs and councillors is no more than what we ask of ourselves as parliamentarians. For example, the Government of Canada posts its financial statements on the Internet and each of us, as members of Parliament, now disclose our salaries and special allowances to the public as required under the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act.

Furthermore, Canadians can easily find all of these facts and figures, and much more, since we introduced the Federal Accountability Act. This act has also increased the public's access to information about government activities and spending.

Provincial and territorial governments have adopted similar practices and the vast majority of them have legislation that requires municipal governments to make these documents public, as well. In addition, some provinces, such as Manitoba and Ontario, have extended beyond the legislature to require public sector bodies to disclose the public amount of compensation it pays to its employees over a certain threshold.

In short, under the Indian Act, first nation governments are the only governments in Canada that do not currently have a legislated requirement to make basic financial information public. Again, the bill would address this gap.

Some have noted that not all first nations have websites. This came up in debate in the House today. This is true, and Bill C-27 addresses this point. A first nation will not be required to have its own website as a result of the bill. If a first nation were not able to publish the information electronically, it could ask another organization to post it on the community's behalf. Alternatively, the first nation could ask the department to post the information on its behalf. However, we should be clear that having these documents published on a website does not fulfill a first nation government's obligation to make copies of financial statements available to its members.

Many first nations members do not have easy access to the Internet, a fact the department is also addressing through its connectivity efforts. As a result, first nations will need to continue to find ways to make this information available to their members who do not have Internet access. Many already do this by distributing printed copies to households, or making the information available in readily accessible locations in the community, including band offices.

As I mentioned at the outset, the department receives many requests each year for assistance in obtaining basic financial information from their own first nations government. Enhancing the accountability of band councils more directly to its members would be achieved by making more tools available to its individuals.

All that the bill changes is that first nations government will now join other Canadian governments in sharing basic financial information with its members and other Canadians. Once passed, the bill would also help assure potential investors that they could safely enter into joint financial agreements and business undertakings with first nations. This could and should contribute to social and economic improvements in the lives and livelihoods of first nations members.

I know members will agree that Bill C-27 is a necessary step for empowering and improving the lives of first nations members, and I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of the bill.

I will close with some of the statements I have heard in the House today. There has been some implication that requiring transparency that is similar to other levels of government is somehow paternalistic. I would disagree with that characterization. It is very positive for the bill to undertake the step of moving first nations members in the same direction as other levels of government when it comes to the transparency in the disclosure of financial records to its members and to other Canadians.

I want to note that the proposed legislation is asking that first nations use generally accepted accounting principles, which is consistent with expectations of governments from all other levels. We are not trying to prescribe salaries or the spending habits of first nations communities with Bill C-27. It is simply to move the financial reporting requirements and transparency requirements into alignment with other levels of government across this country.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member to be hard-working and clever. She always does the right thing, and I know she works very hard for her constituents. However, there is a bit of a disconnect in her thinking. She talks about improving accountability for first nations members, but I do not see the connection with all Canadians having to know that information.

I understand that first nations members certainly have a right, and they do now without the bill, to get that information from their leadership. It is sort of like Bill C-377, the so-called union transparency bill. If I worked 45 years for a union and I retired, if that bill passed, every Canadian would have biographical information on me and how much I make in my retirement. Quite frankly, that is not anyone else's business.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, and I know I have one second left, she also talked about all the other governments being transparent. For example, I know for a fact--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are running short of time.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his complimentary comments, especially on a Friday when we are all looking forward to getting home to our ridings to serve our constituents.

The comment was made about why Canadians need to know this information. I, for one, believe that first nations have the same equality, the same rights, as any other Canadian constituent who any of us might serve. When we look at standards of transparency in any other level of government across this country, there are standards for the disclosure of government expenses.

The bill moves first nations communities into alignment with that standard, and this is a very positive thing. As I talked about in my speech, this would help improve transparency. It may increase investment opportunities because of that predictability and transparency. It would also provide easier access for members to evaluate these concerns. I think it is a very positive thing.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order adopted on November 22 it is my duty to interrupt the deliberations and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill, however, pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, November 26 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-37. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-37 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, could you give me some indication of how many minutes I will have?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, my apologies to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Ordinarily, we will let members know about how much time they would have before another rubric in the day's business comes upon us. The member will have approximately three minutes now and, of course, the remaining seven minutes for her remarks when the House next resumes debate on the motion.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-37 at report stage, I propose to speak to the portions and the importance of providing support for victims in my first three minutes and then return in my second period, of seven minutes, to the problems I have with this bill.

Overall, I think all of us will agree that victim services provided by provinces and territories need to be expanded and improved. The title of this bill, increasing offenders' accountability for victims' act, may gild the lily somewhat. This is of course a victim surcharge, which is applied at the time of sentencing. However, I completely concur with the words of Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, in her most recent report in February of this year, “Shifting the Conversation”, that we do need to substantially improve services to victims in this country. It was her recommendation that led to much of this bill.

One of the areas where we particularly need to help victims is not one that comes up in this legislation, but it is a move that is supported by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, and it is one that I want to highlight in my brief opening statement.

I want to highlight it because members on all sides of this House should get behind a measure that we desperately need, and that was encapsulated in something called Lindsey's law, which has not been brought forward yet. It actually relates to a tragic circumstance that happened to one of my constituents. The daughter of my constituent, Judy Peterson, went missing 20 years ago this year. My constituent has never been able to find out what happened to Lindsey, but it has led her on a crusade to find a way to create a database for the DNA of missing persons that could be cross-referenced to crime scenes. Everybody involved in victim services, whom I can find, thinks this is a worthy effort.

In fact, we can go back into the records of anytime the House of Commons has dealt with it. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in 2009, looked at this issue of a DNA identification act and supported it. It was also supported in the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Unfortunately, to this point it has not been brought into law. I should mention as well that even more recently the police chiefs of this country, when they were meeting in Nova Scotia in August of this year, confirmed that they believe we need to create a database for the DNA of missing persons to be cross-referenced to crime scenes. This would be of enormous value to victims, and yet it is missing in this bill.

I will return to the subject of Bill C-37 after question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will have seven minutes remaining for her remarks and the usual five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to the motion before it.

Statements by members. The hon. member for Ahuntsic.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

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

Mr. Speaker, just before question period I was speaking to the reasons why I have grave concerns about Bill C-37. I earlier explained that this legislation is titled the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. It is not a separate act at all. The bill would amend the Criminal Code and these amendments deal with the issue of surcharges and fines that would be paid.

These amendments to the Criminal Code would deal with only one thing, and that is the fine, a surcharge put on someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence. The current surcharge is 15% of the amount of any fine that is assessed against someone at the point of sentencing. This act would double that to 30%. That is, in and of itself, not a concern of mine. It is important that we have adequate funds for victim services.

Just to clarify for anyone who is watching, these fines do not actually go to the victims but to provinces and territories, which are supposed to use those funds for victim services. This is different from the category of restitution, where convicted individuals actually provide funds directly to the victim of their crime. This is a general pot of money that is supposed to go to victim services. I note that some of the witnesses before committee had concerns that we did not know how tightly a province or territory tracks those funds and applies them to victim services, but that is not the thrust of most of what I want to talk about today.

On top of doubling the fines from 15% to 30%, these amendments to the Criminal Code would also create an automatic $100 fine in the cases where no particular fine has been levied. Anyone guilty on summary conviction would have $100 levied, and anyone guilty of an offence punishable by indictment would have an additional fine of $200 if no fine had been levied by the judge.

This would get to a very difficult area. I am very supportive of victims of crime, as the Green Party, and I think every member in this House is supportive. We know that even a relatively small criminal event is traumatic in a victim's life, and the more severe events can be catastrophic in one's life, so it is not for lack of concern. However, one looks at the question of who is victimized in society and where all the victims are. Not all the victims are outside of our prisons; some of them are inside our prisons. This is the point I raise, based on testimony that was heard before committee on November 1 from Kim Pate, who is the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read into the record some of what she said. She said, in part:

...the majority of the women—91% of the indigenous women in prison, 82% of women overall—have histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, talking about a victim surcharge to assist victims, when these women end up in custody largely because of the lack of resources in such other parts of the community as social services and health care, particularly mental health....

She goes on to say:

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that it costs $343,000 per year to keep one woman in federal custody, and provinces range, depending on the range of services and what is costed in, from a minimum of $30,000 of cost up to in excess of $200,000. When we're talking about those kinds of costs, to jail someone for non-payment of either a fine or a victim surcharge seems counterproductive at best.

The essence of this is to suggest that when we remove judicial discretion, which is the essence of this bill, Bill C-37 would do two things. It would double the percentage that would be paid as a victim surcharge fine, from 15% to 30%; and it would impose an automatic $100 on summary conviction and $200 at indictable offence. The other most important ingredient that this bill would do would be to completely remove judicial discretion to waive these charges if it is, in the opinion of the judge, a situation where undue hardship would be occasioned due to the circumstances of the accused.

Our current Criminal Code includes these words under subsection 737.(5):

When the offender establishes to the satisfaction of the court that undue hardship to the offender or the dependants of the offender would result from payment of the victim surcharge, the court may, on application of the offender, make an order exempting the offender from the [surcharge].....

This judicial discretion would be completely removed under this act. The only judicial discretion that would be allowed is judicial discretion to increase the fine.

However, we need the ability to look at the accused and wonder if they, in the circumstances of their lives, have been victims of crime themselves. I think of the case of Ashley Smith, for example. All of us who watched what happened to that young woman recognized that she was less the actor in a criminal act and more, through a series of horrific errors, a victim of incarceration and the impact from incarceration that ultimately led to her death. Had someone in her circumstances—and it would have been a much better circumstance—been released from prison and then at the same time been told she still had to pay that fine, where would she find the resources? How would she go on? Would she then end up having a counterproductive result, as the Elizabeth Fry Society says to us?

I want to close with the advice of the Canadian Bar Association. It says:

In our view, the proposed changes to increase victim fine surcharges beyond the reach of a greater number of people will lead to more defaults and more incarceration of the poor, and prevent judges from using their discretion to ensure a just result.

This legislation does not meet its objectives. Those who are victims of crimes should have access to adequate resources, but this is not the way to go about it.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has an unusual ability to integrate details that many of us miss within a much broader context of social and legal implications. I learned a lot from what she just said. It concerns me as well.

I would like her to take this a bit broader and talk not about the impact of victims within prison walls but about their families and what implications there might be for actually increasing the cost to society in a variety of ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, that has been a concern of a number of the witnesses who testified before the committee. If a fine is levied against individuals for a relatively minor offence and they lack the ability to pay, it essentially could recriminalize them and prevent them from being able to care for their dependents. That was one of the grounds we would now repeal, that a judge could have concern for whether there was undue hardship on the perpetrators of the crime, or on their families.

I remember this well. I was thinking of it earlier when the member for Cape Breton—Canso spoke of the progress that has been made by the Mi’kmaq people of Waycobah. Years ago, I remember reading the story in the paper of the criminal conviction of a young man from Whycocomagh, nearby, for the theft of a pizza from the local store. It was “theft under”. It was punishable by summary conviction. He had jail time, and under this new law he would also be immediately fined $100, for which there would be absolutely no recourse. That is a mistake. It would do damage to families, it would do damage to the individuals involved and it would add nothing to the overall health and wellbeing of our society.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned for quite a while that even when there is legislation that most of us agree with, like this—all of us want to see adequate protection and, if necessary, compensation for victims—the members of the government virtually never vote for any amendments to any of their legislation. They apparently feel that they have it perfect. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may want to add to my comment that I hope this is one time that they will consider a small amendment to an important piece of legislation to prevent a big error and to improve the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to urge that we could, at report stage, make amendments. In this case, as in most cases, we have seen efforts made at committee. I want to particularly note that the former minister of justice, with whom I have worked on this file, who is currently the Liberal member for Mount Royal, has worked very hard on this as well and sees some of the same issues that I see.

Victim services are not advanced if we create more people in prisons. I completely support increasing the fine. I completely support that we track the funds and make sure they are going from provinces to victim services. However, it certainly is wrong to remove judicial discretion. Only a judge, having watched an accused in a proceeding, having tested the evidence, and at the point of sentencing, has the ability to look at the accused person and decide whether applying the fine would be in the interests of public security and safety, or counterproductive.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with interest. However, there are many aspects of this program that she failed to mention, such as the fine option program that is available in virtually every province and territory of the country. There are other systems in place where it is not available. Someone tasked with paying a victim surcharge can pay it off with community service or the like.

These surcharges that we are talking about are $100 for a summary conviction and $200 for an indictable offence. We are not talking about onerous fines, nor will people go to jail for non-payment unless they refuse and are in contempt of court.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that an offender should not be imprisoned for non-payment. However, to someone who has no money, $100 might as well be $1,000 or $10,000.

In the class of those people most likely to be imprisoned, there are people for whom the application of these fines represents the kind of challenge that will prevent them from getting back on the road. That is why the Canadian Bar Association has urged that changes be made to this legislation. The Green Party joins them in that quest. I hope we will find a way to reintroduce judicial discretion at many more points throughout our criminal law system.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code be concurred in at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

I declare the motion carried.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the third reading of the bill.