Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Howard Sapers]

Yes. The 1,000 was just for those who were released on full parole, not on day parole. About 1,500 a year who are eligible are processed for day parole.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay. The government doesn't think Canadians need to know how much this costs. They seem to think that Canadian taxpayers' dollars.... We can't know how much it's going to cost, but I'm going to do some math.

If we have 1,000 people a year who have to stay in prison for one-third of their sentences instead of one-sixth of their sentences and the cost differential is at least $100,000, right off the bat you have 1,000 times $100,000 for every person who would have to stay in prison, as opposed to being in a community. Is my math wrong?

We have a problem with overcrowding. There was a memo released a week and a half ago by Correctional Service. It estimated that just two bills of this government will result in 4,000 more offenders coming into our prisons in the next two or three years, and we will have to hire an extra 3,300 new prison staff. On top of that, this bill means that 1,000 people a year would have to stay in those prisons, so that would be 5,000 more people in our prisons in the next two to three years. That's out of a total of 13,000 prisoners. So we're going to add about 40% more prisoners.

Do we have room in the prisons to put all these people in cells in the next two years?

[Howard Sapers]

The Correctional Service of Canada is adding cell capacity. They have projected their capacity out over the next five years to, I believe--and I could be corrected on this--another 2,700 cells, and that was based on their estimates of what the legislation to that point would require, in terms of increased capacity. In the meantime, of course, crowding continues, particularly in medium security facilities.

[Kim Pate]

And that is the case particularly in women's prisons, all of which are already overcrowded, and this will impact women prisoners disproportionately.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

So let me summarize. The result of this bill will be to drastically increase costs, both operational and capital. It will drive up overcrowding, which will result in more tension and more violence for both staff and inmates.

We have what sounds to me like a successful program, through which the vast majority of people who get out on accelerated parole do not reoffend. Do we have any evidence that keeping these people in jail for longer will have any positive effect?

I also note, Mr. Chairman, for the record, that there's nobody here from the National Parole Board. We tried to get someone here, and I just want to read into the record that they said:

Given the extremely short notice the Parole Board of Canada was provided to prepare for today's meeting, literally hours ago, the PBC must decline the committee's invitation to appear later today. PBC officials would be delighted to appear before the committee at a future date.

I want to ask the committee this. The Bloc and the Conservatives have joined together to ram this through Parliament in a matter of a week. Is there any urgency, based on evidence, that you can tell us about, to passing this bill today, as opposed to studying the impacts of this bill, determining the costs, finding out who it would affect, and determining the policy implications of this?

[Kim Pate]

It's quite the contrary.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Last, I just want to ask the two victims something.

You more than anybody know the impact of having your financial situation likely devastated by people. As taxpayers, do you want to know how much this would cost you before we embark on a program that would put a thousand people in prison a year?

[Pierre Gravel]

I see this from the perspective of a victim, rather than a taxpayer,

Those of you who have never been through something like this would not want to experience what I have in the last five years. Like some of the other victims, I decided, right at the beginning of the process, to forget about my money and carry on, because I was able to do so. Some 9,200 people were swindled by Mr. Lacroix. Here we're talking about 5,000 offenders. We're comparing apples and oranges.

For five years, the lives of the vast majority of these people have been completely destroyed. They waited five years for the system to finally kick in and tell them that, yes, they would be taken care of. We realized that this is the way the system works. However, that does not give us back the five years we lost. Some people committed suicide. Terrible things occurred. Things just as terrible, if not worse, than what happened to the people you referred to, who brought on these situations themselves. Here we've been talking about fraud, but we could also talk about all the other types of crimes.

I'm wondering about the arguments I've heard. It is clear to me that opinion is deeply divided at this table. On the one hand, we are told we mustn't touch this because it could have a negative impact on certain people. But if I were to do a study, I'd be curious to see how much this has cost the Government of Quebec, if you consider all the people who had to be hospitalized or received treatment, the people who died, the effect it had on their family, and so on.

I came through it all right. Why? I couldn't say. I decided to move on. But the majority of the Norbourg fraud victims could not do that. I know people who committed suicide. I, personally, know of two people. And I know about others who ended up in hospital. That is what happened to one of my friends. He spent nine months receiving psychiatric care in hospital.

These are major impacts that cost a lot of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gravel. Your time is up.

We'll now move to Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It certainly is nice to hear the side of a victim, because frequently all we hear is the other side. I'm wondering if the panel would be surprised that this passed following a unanimous vote in the House tonight. All the parties support it. Everyone in the House supported it, so to come here tonight--

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

A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I will take the point of order.

Mr. MacKenzie, I think it's important to note that it's been moved to committee. They didn't just defeat it; they said that it's worthy of at least coming to this committee tonight.

Go ahead.

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

On that, because it's an extremely important distinction, we have made it pre-eminently clear that we support elements of the bill that would target large-scale fraudsters. But to hold it out that we support the whole bill because we want a discussion at committee--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll take that point. That's debate.

Continue, Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It did pass unanimously in the House.

I appreciate, sir, hearing a victim. I have something here that came from the Earl Jones organizing committee. They have asked me to read it, and I will:

In response to the current debate in Ottawa on the newly proposed parole law, Bill C-59, the victims of Earl Jones would like to express their support for the ongoing efforts of both the Conservative government, and the Bloc Quebecois, in their combined efforts to better protect the rights of all victims of white-collar crime.

The victims have worked hard over the past 20 months with the Conservative government in bringing forward their many crime bills, and are very pleased with these legislative efforts. We do not want to see this important piece of legislation scuttled by the opposition parties that place the rights of offenders over the rights of victims.

The elimination of the so-called 1/6th access to early day parole for crimes committed by non-violent offenders not only better protects these victims, but also serves to provide the strongest deterrent in our society against any acts of serious fraud, and theft resulting from such fraud, from white-collar criminals.

Most notably, Vincent Lacroix was recently eligible for early day parole, and has subsequently been released from prison, and is on the streets of Montreal.

We do not want to see the same thing happen to Earl Jones, and we are petitioning all political parties in Ottawa to stand up for the victims of Earl Jones, and asking them to do the right thing to act now, and support the passage of Bill C-59.

“As a victim of the Earl Jones Ponzi Scheme, I know first hand how devastating the effects that white collar crime has had on the lives of the victims, their families and their descendants. Almost every week there is a new Ponzi Scheme discovered in Canada and to date there is little incentive in our current criminal code to discourage criminals from taking this lucrative path. White collar crime is fast becoming the most debilitating crime for Seniors in the country. We have been left without our savings and have been shamed and ridiculed in the press. Time is of the essence in this matter.”

“Do you know what it feels like to be ready to retire, knowing you have enough money to enjoy your home and to do some travelling, but suddenly to have the carpet pulled from under your feet? We have gone through this because of Earl Jones and the fraud he perpetuated for so long. We have lost our nest egg, as well as the money we wanted to leave to our children. We have had to go back to work. We don't want to see this man out on parole as early as next December. This is not a good system. Please work with the other parties to come to a good conclusion for all of us that have been victims of 'white collar crime'”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Could you slow it down a little bit, please?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Sorry.

“Obviously you [or] your loved ones have not been victims of white-collar crime. As a victim of Earl Jones, I can tell you that the way the law stands now, Jones will be free long before any one of us regain any semblance of normalcy and closure. It makes no sense that a man, sentenced to 11 years in jail for ruining the lives of 158-plus people will serve only 22 months in jail. I can tell you that my father died and his whole estate was stolen, all within 3 months, leaving us completely devastated. Two years later, we are still scrambling to pay Dad's 2008 taxes.... This is a very serious crime with serious long-term repercussions--the penalty should be proportionate to the crime.”

If I could ask Jackie Naltchayan, can you tell us the sense you have as a result of being a victim?

[Jackie Naltchayan]

I feel betrayed. I feel as though I have been violated. I no longer trust people.

Based on what I have heard today, everyone seems to be very concerned about the state of mind and rehabilitation of people who did things they should never have done, but no one seems concerned about the lives of their victims, who have to carry on. All these people are very concerned. We have to rehabilitate them. But what about us? How are we going to be rehabilitated? How do you keep on going when you are suffering from psychological problems such as depression, when you see people committing suicide around you, when you see elderly people who have lost everything? No one is concerned about that.

What I think is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have here in Canada serves to protect criminals, instead of the victims or the people of this country who work and pay their taxes. I find that very frustrating.

In addition to that, we have to keep paying. We cannot even get a tax credit, because we were swindled. We are still paying taxes.

These people are concerned about overcrowding. We have to build more prisons because it's going to be the disease of the century. It won't be bank holdups, it's going to be fraud — by the white-collar criminals we hear about every day. They are coming out of the woodwork.

We have to find a solution; we have to get them to stop. We have to scare them and tell them they will suffer the consequences. That is something you learn when you're very young. You are told that there are laws you have to abide by and that, if you do not, there will be consequences. We shouldn't be giving them opportunities or saying that, for psychological reasons, we have to help them become reintegrated and all of that.

Who here is thinking about us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have two minutes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Pedram, could you give us a sense of what it has done to you?

[Ali Reza Pedram]

I just want to say I took this money from the line of credit that I had in the business. Since 2007 I have worked 18 hours a day just to pay the interest and service charges to the bank, and I still cannot come up with the money to pay the full amount to the bank.

Until this moment, I struggle just to pay the interest on that money I gave to Leon Kordzian. I don't know how long it's going to take me to come up with the money to pay off the bank and get free. This is part of it. Every night the family, my wife, tell me it's my fault; I shouldn't have trusted this guy. Psychologically, it affects you. Everybody's blaming me for this wrongdoing, trusting the person. It's the trust. I was trusting a person to invest money. Investment is different from being defrauded. That is the thing that comes to your mind. It affects your morale, your mind. Emotionally, you are a victim. It's like getting raped.

That's all I can say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly. You have about 20 seconds.

[Jackie Naltchayan]

We're still lucky in a way because we continue to work. We're young and we're still working. What about all these elderly people?

The elderly and the women who don't speak our official languages, who are very vulnerable and sick, who is thinking about helping them? Who is thinking about rehabilitating them into society, so that they can carry on living?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. Your time is up.

We'll now move to Mr. Kania.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Campbell, in a response to Mr. Holland's question, when he asked you about what this bill would cost, you indicated that's a cabinet confidence and therefore you can't answer. I'm going to ask you to be a little more specific.

Are you aware of the answer and you're saying because the government says it's a cabinet confidence you will not provide it? There's a difference. Do you have that information and you can't provide it, or do you have it at all?