Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I am going to respond to that, because Mr. Lobb referred to the ability to bring private members' bills. That is true, except that only the government can propose bills that spend money. So if Mr. Lobb was aware of the system, he would know that this would not be possible. It has to be a government bill. I challenge the government to bring a bill that would actually help the victims at this table.

I see all the victims nodding yes. They would like that help, and we'd like to help you, rather than dealing with these sorts of political games.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Are you finished, Mr. Kania?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Yes, I am finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

One of the really serious issues, which everybody understands when he talks about what the government has done and hasn't done, is that the Liberals were in power for 13 years and they did nothing.

We have a victims ombudsman. We have a variety of other things.

They could bring forward a private member's bill. It might not get through, because it needs a royal recommendation, but there are all kinds of private members' bills introduced in the House that do not—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That you always vote against.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'm sorry, if I could finish here, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Order.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

There are private members' bills that do get presented to the House, that do need royal recommendation, but they at least get debated. They've never done that, so they shouldn't take that high horse.

To the victims, I am truly sorry for what you have had to go through here, tonight particularly. You've all come here on your own at short notice. I appreciate the others too, but I do recognize that for the other folks who are here, this is part of your career, part of your job. The victims are here purely on their own, and from that perspective, we do truly appreciate your being here and telling your story.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

I want to also thank all of you for being here, for appearing before our committee. We've had a long day here in the House and we still have at least an hour to go.

I think Mr. Kania did make one statement. He said he wishes that people would pay back their money before they got out of prison. I think that's a novel idea. If any of us have our way in being able to see that restitution is made to the victims, I can assure you we will.

This particular bill takes a step. Many other steps, many other bills, many other pieces of legislation can come forward later. I hope many of those will come forward to help address some of the concerns you victims have had.

We are going to suspend for about five minutes. That will give our witnesses the opportunity to exit. I thank you again for appearing. We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call the committee back to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed. That's the short title. That will be postponed until the end of the bill.

So we will call clause 2. There are no amendments on clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Please slow down, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have the legislation in front of me. Give me a few moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll slow down a bit.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

One minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

One minute.

Just as an aside, I see we do have some amendments coming up on clause 5. I haven't been given any notification of any others before then.

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to on division)

(On clause 5)

Mr. Holland is moving his amendment, and I'll allow him to speak to that amendment.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it required that I read the amendment, or has it been circulated?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Everyone has it, I believe.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'll speak very briefly to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

We have been clear throughout this process that as it pertains to large-scale fraud, we agree, the accelerated parole process needs to be terminated, but I think we've heard very compelling testimony before this committee, and frankly outside of this committee, as to the imperative need to not cancel it for everybody.

Madam Pate, along with other witnesses, talked about how this disproportionately affected women. More than 60% of the people who would be impacted by eliminating these provisions in total would be women. Many of these women are coming out of situations of poverty. Many of them would have been in abusive situations, in situations where they were being used or placed in vulnerable situations. We know that well more than 80% of women in prison face addiction issues. We know that more than 30% of women who are incarcerated are aboriginal, even though they make up only 4% of the overall population.

So this legislation disproportionately targets women, disproportionately targets aboriginal women, and, in all of those circumstances, disproportionately targets those who are extremely vulnerable. The clause that's in front of us here would, if the intent is honest, if all the discussion that I've heard around the table about going after fraudsters, large-scale fraud, is in fact honest...this should fix the problem. We can get to unanimity, and I think we can move forward quite easily thereafter.

So I would urge members to support this. I think it targets it where it needs to be. It doesn't place an unneeded, unnecessary burden on our correctional system, and it makes sure that we're not ensnarling all kinds of individuals who, from any of the deliberations, I don't think it was intended to catch.

I say this particularly given the fact that all evidence that has been given to us, not just by the Correctional Investigator but overall, has shown that the accelerated parole process has been highly effective in terms of rehabilitation. The rate of recidivism, as you have heard, is 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively, and on that basis, I think, Mr. Chairman, it needs to be supported.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. As you know, when we come to the clause-by-clause, we look at each amendment that comes forward.

The ruling for the chair on this amendment is that it is out of order. Bill C-59 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide for the elimination of accelerated parole review through the repeal of sections 125 to 126.1 of the act. This amendment proposes to leave intact those sections and amend section 125 to include offences under section 380 of the Criminal Code wherein the total value of the subject matter of the offence exceeds $100,000.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, by proposing to retain sections 125 to 126.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the amendment would be contrary to the principle of Bill C-59 and is therefore inadmissible.

So that amendment is inadmissible.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We are being challenged, and that is a non-debatable motion.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

They're asking for a recorded vote. That's a prerogative they are allowed to have.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now move to NDP...we'll use the last three digits of his amendment reference number, number 356.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really will be brief.

The amendments the NDP proposes target what we believe is the real mischief at issue. We agree that the kind of fraud that Mr. Jones and Mr. Lacroix perpetrated against many hundreds and perhaps thousands of Canadians is unacceptable. We believe those types of offenders should not qualify for accelerated parole.

But what we also know is that...and we refer to evidence that there are 1,500 offenders per year who qualify under this program and that many, many of them benefit from the accelerated parole program. It helps them not reoffend. So what we've done with our amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to add in the section under which Mr. Lacroix and Mr. Jones were convicted, as well as a number of other sections, all of which represent sort of white-collar crime offences.... To put some sort of scope on the bill, we've said that anybody convicted of these white-collar crimes where the value of the offence exceeds $1 million would be ineligible for accelerated parole, as this bill suggests.

In this manner, it separates the wheat from the chaff. It targets those people who really shouldn't get accelerated parole while retaining the benefits for the many types of offenders who do benefit, saving the taxpayers money, making reintegration better, allowing a lot of people to get access to community services, and also lowering the repetition of their criminal behaviour.

Once again, this still preserves this accelerated parole for first-time non-violent offenders, but it makes sure that we as parliamentarians remove accelerated parole for white-collar fraudsters like Mr. Jones and Mr. Lacroix.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Again, in the opinion of the chair, by proposing to retain sections 125 to 126.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the amendment would be contrary to the principle of Bill C-59 and is therefore inadmissible.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have another challenge to the chair.

Should the chair's decision be sustained?