House of Commons Hansard #151 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

November 5th, 2003 / 3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has given the Chair a notice of a request for an emergency debate.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, this is an application for an emergency debate concerning the allegations surrounding the arrest, deportation and imprisonment of Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was held without charge and tortured in a Syrian prison for one year.

There is ample evidence that officials of the Government of Canada were involved in his arrest and in the decision by the United States to deport Mr. Arar to Syria and not to Canada.

In deciding the merits of this application, the Speaker I know is required to take into account several criteria found in Standing Order 52. I would like to address those.

First, it must be a specific and an important matter requiring urgent consideration. I would argue that it is urgent because just days ago leaks came from certain government agencies, unnamed agencies, that actually put Mr. Arar and his family at risk now.

It is also urgent because there is another Canadian in the same prison. We have learned from Mr. Arar's presentation that there is another Canadian in prison by the name of Mr. Abdullah Almalki. He could be being tortured right now as we speak.

Yesterday, Mr. Arar spoke publicly for the first time since his release from prison and his return to Canada. What requires immediate attention by the Parliament of Canada is the suggestion that Canadian officials, or rogue elements in the employ of Canada, were complicit in his deportation to Syria for torture.

There are now indications that information that was leaked by Canadian officials, while Mr. Arar was in prison, points to the fact that Canada was receiving intelligence reports based on confessions that were extracted by the torture of a Canadian citizen. This requires immediate consideration by the members of the House. The responsible ministers of the crown should make full and complete statement on this issue. It cannot be defended by a scrum and sound bites.

Second, consideration should be given to the degree to which the matter comes within the scope of ministerial responsibility.

It is evident that ministers are responsible and answerable for the actions of all agents of the Government of Canada, including officers of the RCMP and CSIS and other intelligence agencies. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is answerable for the actions of Canada's diplomatic and consular services that were involved in this case in New York, Syria and elsewhere. The Prime Minister has told the House that he made representations to the Syrians.

Third, the Speaker is to consider if there are other opportunities to raise this issue. Just a few minutes ago the foreign affairs committee tabled a motion that was passed in committee asking the government to hold an inquiry.

There are no allotted days available to members until the new supply cycle begins in 2004. I believe the Speaker has also noticed that there are certain political activities afoot that could lead to a prorogation of the House. In any event, it is clear that the ministers who were in office during this incident may not be in place much longer. The House needs to hear from them while they are still in office.

The Speaker may note that this case has been the subject of examination in committee. Mr. Arar's statements of yesterday are such that the entire House should be seized with the issue, rather than just a few members who are participants in the committee.

I respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, that you allow this emergency debate because it is an urgent situation.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair thanks the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for the arguments he has put forward in advance of this case.

I point out that one item that he left out of his list of considerations that might make the matter urgent is the possibility for other debates in the House on the same subject.

I note that today a report was tabled in the House dealing with this very matter. A motion for concurrence in that committee report could be moved at the next sitting or two of the House, but very shortly. In my view that would provide ample opportunity for a debate on the very subject that the hon. member is seeking to have raised by way of an emergency debate.

Accordingly, I do not find that his request meets the exigencies of the standing order at this time.

The House resumed from November 3, consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital markets fraud and evidence-gathering), be read the third time and passed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-46, which, as you know, establishes new offences under the Criminal Code with regard to capital markets fraud, particularly when it concerns employee pension funds.

People tend to think that only large investors will be affected by the kind of legislation before the House today.

However, when it comes to investment interest rates, those investing the most in the stock markets and even banks are often big companies investing their employee pension funds.

On a daily basis, public sector funds even undergo a certain number of operations to leverage the savings of both private and public sector employees. As a result, when they retire, these people will get a decent pension. So it is extremely important for us to ensure that we protect these small investors.

Recently, there have been major scandals that Quebec and Canada have so far managed to escape. However, it is feared that what has happened in the United States might happen here.

Everyone remembers the infamous Enron scandal. Several U.S. companies had misappropriated funds, but Enron, in particular, truly created a crisis in the retirement fund of its own employees, who had been convinced to invest their retirement money in Enron shares or the like.

Consequently, when Enron started to take on water and sink, the entire employee retirement fund sank with it. People who had worked there for several years are now without a pension.

I have here some data on Canadian trusteed pension funds. For instance, Canadian trusteed pension funds have over $500 billion in assets. It is easy to understand the importance of the bill before the House today.

It must be said that $500 billion is a lot of money. Some day, these funds will be used for retirement; they are already being used for that purpose today. Indeed, when people retire and stop working today, they are often at retirement age and want the company they have worked for to pay their pension beneifts.

It is the same thing in the public sector in Quebec and in Ottawa. There are procedures. People are entitled to a retirement pension. They apply and receive their pension; in the public sector it is no different. However, the public sector is somewhat protected by the government.

In the private sector, the Criminal Code must be very clear on punishing people, especially people who commit fraud, which can have extremely harmful consequences for private sector pension funds. It is important to tighten up the Criminal Code to try to prevent such a thing from happening.

There is also the example of Singer, in my riding. Not only did the company not pay into the fund, but it took off with the rest of the fund. Instead of improving this fund over the years, it stopped paying premiums, often without the workers' knowledge. Some former employees in Saint-Jean receive a pension of roughly $20 a month.

This goes to show that it would be very useful to tighten up criteria and warn fraudsters and inside traders—I will explain what insider traders are in a moment—that they will have to answer for their actions, probably face severe fines and even a prison sentence.

Out of the $500 billion I mentioned earlier, $115 billion is invested in Canadian stocks. Once again, if a group of companies tampers with or benefits from specific information to make money or sell stocks before their price declines, we can see how this can affect the little guy.

The little guy goes to work every day. He relies on his employer, his union and his pension fund to see to it that his money is invested properly. We must be confident that the companies in which the funds invest are protected against such fraud.

Also, $57 billion is invested in foreign stocks. More than 4 million workers contribute to these funds. Clearly, when 4 million Canadian workers are affected by these kinds of funds, it is important that the lawmaker step in to ensure that everything is above board.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier on the excellent work he has done. I must admit, however, that we are not happy with the bill as it stands. Several of our recommendations and amendments have been incorporated into the bill, but the main one, with respect to duplication or interference by the federal government in Quebec's areas of responsibility—once again—was not. For that reason, we will not be supporting the bill.

Nevertheless, we did win on some points. We should be proud of that and recognize that it was thanks to the Bloc Quebecois that the amendments were accepted. We have improved the bill. Even though, on the whole, we are not in favour of this bill, some of the provisions we have suggested have been accepted.

Among others, there is the whole issue of insider trading. What is insider trading? One hears or reads this term often in the business and financial press. For example, we see that someone is going to be sentenced by a court for insider trading. It is not complicated. Insider trading is a situation where someone is in a position to give friends and family an unfair advantage. Having received privileged information, this insider will pass it on to someone else, who will become richer because of this privileged information.

For example, the chairman of a large company might see in the financial statements he receives that there is a serious operating deficit for the current year. He will also realize that, as soon as this information becomes public, it may have a negative impact on the value of the company's shares on the stock market. Therefore, he might say to people he knows, who have many shares—often family members and friends—that there is a report forecasting a serious operating deficit in the quarter. He warns them in advance that it would be wise to sell their shares because when the news comes out, they will drop in value by 20, 30 or 50%. That is insider trading.

The opposite is also true. If the president of a different company sees in the statements that earnings are very high and that the stock will probably rise in value, once again, he may engage in insider trading. He may say to his friends and family that perhaps they should—say, tomorrow morning—buy some company stock. He has an excellent financial statement and he believes that the value of the stock will rise as soon as the news is known.

Currently, Quebec legislation prohibits this. The securities commission prohibits this kind of behaviour. In Quebec, such acts carry consequences.

It is also understandable that such behaviour often has a negative impact on the funds. This is important. If I am a former employee of the Quebec government, I know I am entitled to the government and public employees pension plan. I am entitled to a pension at age 65, based on my years of service. My pension will be 2% per year of service based on my best five-year average salary. I know that the Quebec government has money and this means I am sure of getting paid.

However, if the government or governments do not take an interest in capital market fraud in relation to the funds that have been invested, there could be a negative impact on the overall amount in the fund, meaning that it could decrease.

There is also the danger of retired workers being told, “Sorry, you were entitled to certain benefits, but we can no longer maintain them, because the fund is no longer able to pay and so we are going to impose restrictions”.

As a result, it is important for us to be able to control this, throughout the business world, and ensure that those guilty of insider trading realize that, from now on, they will be subject to prosecution and heavy fines and even prison time, if convicted.

Thanks to the Bloc Quebecois, we managed to improve protection for whistle blowers in this bill. This occurs more and more frequentlty. We also asked the President of the Treasury Board to apply this to the federal public service. When a federal government employee, a Quebec government employee or a company employee learns of insider trading, they should be entitled to protection.

It is a difficult situation for an executive secretary, for instance, who attends a company board meeting and finds out the CEO is guilty of insider trading, telling those present at the meeting to buy or sell shares because they are going to increase in value. This secretary is often bound by confidentiality, but could perhaps give a warning by saying that some people are considering insider trading.

All those who currently work in business know that there are many pressure tactics that can be used on employees or officials. They can be asked to keep quiet, and warned that otherwise their lives could be made difficult.

I think it is important to provide some protection in the bill for what I would call the guardian angels, those who are not necessarily involved in the scam, but are witness to it and could, at some point, say they do not accept what is happening and denounce it to the appropriate people.

That is not what is happening; the code of silence applies. People have to live with a situation that they know poses a problem and they cannot say anything about it because they would become victims of repressive measures.

Again, I must commend my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, who insisted that this measure be included in the bill. The problem is what happens when the case goes to court.

The major problem with this bill—and there have already been indications of this—is that the federal government wants to interfere in the entire securities issue, while it is very clear in the Canadian constitution that this comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

The same is true for administering the law. The administration of justice is Quebec's responsibility. Yet, this bill would allow federal prosecutors to take cases to court. I wish to point out that there already are provisions in Quebec's legislation and the provinces' legislation with respect to insider trading.

In fact, we did put forward amendments to prevent the government from interfering in fields of provincial jurisdiction. I mentioned the index. I was elected in 1993. Quebec has a securities commission, which does a fine job and checks, in a very proper fashion, any propsectus put out by a company. Before investors buy stocks, the companies should normally provide them with a prospectus. There had been abuse in the past, and Quebec's securities commission corrected this abuse.

I remember that in 1993-94, the federal government wanted to create a Canadian securities agency. Once again, this was in direct contradiction with the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec, of course. Nation building had probably started, but that may not have been evident at the time. Today, it is increasingly evident, with massive intrusions in Quebec's jurisdictions.

In those days, the Bloc Quebecois was already the guardian of the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces; we had formally opposed the creation of this Canadian securities agency, which would have overseen the provincial commissions, including the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec.

Such an agency would have had some control over Quebec's commission. Again, it would not have minded its own business and would very obviously have intruded in an area of responsibility that belongs to Quebec.

From now on, federal prosecutors will be allowed to prosecute, to lay charges, and to do so under national terms and conditions. We are familiar with these kinds of national terms, which are often in contradiction with the ones in Quebec. Often, whatever program is developed in Ottawa will be imposed on Quebec.

In Quebec, we see things differently. We have a very distinctive way of doing things within our own jurisdictions. We often hear that federal legislation takes precedence over provincial legislation. We have seen what that led to in the case of the Young Offenders Act, which is probably the best example we have seen in this House. In Quebec, we had a very good rehabilitation rate. Our young offenders policy was based on reintegration into society, while the government's bill sought to break the young people, to send them to them to crime school and even to lock them up before they were adults. That is one example.

The bill we have before us is more or less the same. They want federal prosecutors to take to court cases that fall within an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to them. We have asked for many amendments, but unfortunately to no avail. Consequently, we will be forced to vote against the bill.

Overall, I believe the Quebec securities commission works well. It is equipped with the means to correct situations in its area of jurisdiction, and so there are fewer insider trading offences. There are fewer in Canada than in the U.S., but likely even fewer in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.

I feel it is important for governments to get involved, but the problem here is that the federal government is getting involved in something that is not its own business but that of Quebec. This is the fundamental reason for the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to this bill.

Even though it is likelihood that this bill will be passed, because as usual the Liberal majority will side with the minister who is sponsoring the bill, we will at least have the consolation of knowing that there have been improvements made as far as insider trading and whistle blower protection are concerned. This is a very important measure which, incidentally, ought to be extended to the entire federal structure, the entire federal public service. That way, by providing protection to people who witness abuse, a system that is cannot readily be improved could eventually be improved.

Overall, given federal interference in areas of Quebec jurisdiction, the Bloc Quebecois will be forced to oppose this bill. We will at least have the consolation of having improved certain aspects of it.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Jean and congratulate him. Whenever he speaks, no matter what the subject, I am impressed by his abilities, and not only as the defence critic.

He just spoke on a bill I am somewhat familiar with, because I worked on the stock market. I was also a bit disappointed to see that the federal government is still trying to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction; Quebec's securities commission does an excellent job.

The hon. member talked about a number of important issues, like insider trading. At one point, he also mentioned capital markets fraud or tax evasion. I do not know if my question relates to how this term is defined in the bill, but when we talk about it and realize that the government wants to interfere in such matters, I wonder if the bill has anything to do, for example, with individuals doing business in Canada but flying foreign flags.

Could we amend the legislation so that people working in Canada have to pay taxes in Canada, particularly those who own companies, get rich here and, to a certain extent, destroy our resources. I am thinking, for example, of a particular shipping company. The St. Lawrence River is important to me because I live close to it. When I see a shipping company belonging to Canadians fly a foreign flag, pay taxes abroad and refuse to repair the shores it has ruined, this might come under the broader meaning of tax evasion.

I would like the hon. member to tell me a bit more about this kind of fraud; when I came in, he was talking about it and unfortunately, I missed some of what he said.

I would also like him to talk again about insider trading. This is extremely important. He has touched on it. We see that bad or dishonest decisions have led to the almost total disappearance of a certain pension fund over the past few years.

I ask the hon. member to explain this in greater detail.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Champlain for his question.

If the bill before us were passed, there would be the whole whistle blower aspect. It would be interesting, for instance, if someone on the board of a company like CSL were to inform us of an insider trading offence. That might be important. As we speak, no one can do such a thing because there is no protection in place. Perhaps this bill will make it possible.

When I speak of tax fraud, there are many ways of committing this. In the bill of concern to us here, there is the whole issue of insider trading. There are many other ways, though, but I will not go into them here.

As for insider trading, I think it is indeed important for workers everywhere to know there are laws to protect them, to reassure them, when part of their salaries is invested in a pension fund.

If they know that governments have made a commitment and are on top of the situation, they will be reassured. We must ensure that there are no more horror stories like the one in my own riding, at Singer in Saint-Jean. For years the government was in charge. The federal government was the trustee of their pension fund, and unbeknownst to the workers, allowed the employer a break from contributions. Thanks to that contribution holiday, people are now receiving pensions of $20 a month.

I feel that the government has a responsibility. This certainly looks good, but once again we are obliged to object to the bill because of its interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. My colleague from Champlain has already said so. At the time, we had no idea they wanted to create a Canadian securities agency with control over securities in Quebec and in the other provinces.

Today we can see the direction in which the government is headed. Nation building has been going on for a long time. One need only look at the interference in health, education, justice, and now securities, all of which fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. In light of all these inconsistencies from government, along with its insistence on interfering in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, we must oppose this bill.

As for Canada Steamship Lines, I hope that we will one day hear from some executive secretary who knows she is now protected. It would be most fascinating to learn that the company president had committed an insider trading offence. For the moment we do not know that, so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Madam Speaker, I realize I do not have much time left for questions and comments. In fact, I only have three minutes left.

I simply want to tell my hon. colleague that he has all my admiration for his speech, and also for his conclusion speaking of nation building, this infamous steamroller set in motion following the 1995 referendum to give the federal government visibility in all jurisdictions. It is rolling over everything, in provincial jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions alike. Nothing stands in its way. Step aside, the government is rolling in. Quebec and the other provinces can skip their turn.

There are many examples of this, like the ones given by the hon. member. Is he not surprised, however, by the attitude of the Liberal members from Quebec who sit in this place and say absolutely nothing?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Order please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, but I want to remind hon. members that cell phones are not allowed in the House.

I would ask that members currently on their phones please step outside. This is unfortunately not the first time this has happened.

The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member you quite rightly asked to take his call outside the chamber should have paid closer attention to the remarks of my colleague from Saint-Jean.

I was asking my hon. colleague if he did not find surprising this attitude of Liberal federal members from Quebec who are allowing themselves to be manipulated and stay silent in the face of all these bills steamrolling over provincial jurisdictions and, thus, their own identity, since they are steamrolling over Quebec's jurisdictions. They are watching in silence.

The fact is that no member of that party ever stands up for the interests of Quebec. What would we do, in Quebec, if the Bloc Quebecois were not there to at least speak out, even if many a good battle often ends with a negative vote?

Does the hon. member for Saint-Jean not find it somewhat surprising that the Liberal members from Quebec would go along with this kind of thing?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The hon. member for Saint-Jean has one minute and a few seconds to answer the question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, it is not that I am surprised, but disappointed.

For the ten years that I have been here, I have noticed a type of syndrome on the government side. I have always referred to it as the keys to the limousine syndrome. Backbenchers will have to pay close attention to the actions of the Prime Minister and the ministers if they want to be in the spotlight one day.

My colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour is right to say that this syndrome does not affect the Bloc Quebecois. Everyone knows we will never form a government. It is not possible because our candidates are only in Quebec. That is what allows us to defend Quebec and take a position on this type of bill and state whether we are for or against it. At least we are presenting Quebec's vision.

For us, it is not a question of being in power, but of faithfully defending the interests and principles of Quebec. I hope the voters in Quebec will realize that in the next election.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party to discuss Bill C-46, capital markets fraud and evidence gathering.

I admit this file is not my area of expertise, but I have been following it quite closely because of media events around the world and what is going on in our own country.

The reality is that we are a market based economy. We do have government assistance in that regard, but the markets will be tainted if there is any perception of insider trading through white collar crime.

These corporations and businesses hire many thousands of employees throughout the entire country. That is good because it assists our economy; however, we must ensure that these companies are on the up and up and are not siphoning off, for example, profits and investments, and employee pension funds from within. A classic example of that is what happened at WorldCom, ImClone and Enron in the United States.

They were apparently going well, life was good and the next thing we know they crashed. Thousands of employees lost their savings and pension funds. What do these people do now? There are thousands of people who invested in the companies, had pension funds and their life savings with these companies. What do they get to do now? They are out on the lam. They will have to turn to government assistance. All the other taxpayers in the country will have to assist them.

We saw what happened in our own country with Bre-X. It was the darling of the stock market. A lot of people made a lot of money on Bre-X and what happened? It is that old adage, if it is too good to be true, it probably is, and thousands of people lost an awful lot of money being scammed on that particular issue.

That is something that the bill should address. I sure hope my hon. colleague for Lethbridge did not lose too much money on that particular issue.

By the way, Madam Speaker, just for the record, Saskatchewan will defeat Edmonton in the final game on the weekend and go on to win the Grey Cup because even though I am from Nova Scotia, I do have Rider pride. So, go Saskatchewan go.

My colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle moved a couple of amendments forward which were not adopted because the bill was fast tracked through the committee. In fact, it was presented so quickly that no witnesses from outside the House were heard on the bill.

This is extremely important. Regardless of our viewpoints on particular legislation, we must include the viewpoint of Canadians. We must, in fairness, even afford those corporate directors and businesses the opportunity to speak before a parliamentary committee to address their concerns, whether they support or disagree with the bill. They do have a right in a democracy to present their concerns in person to a standing committee of the House of Commons.

It should not be fast tracked. The legislation is too important to rush through. Eventually, what will happen is that somebody will take it before the courts and it will be tied up for years and years. In the end, nothing will get done.

If we are going to present legislation of this nature, let us take our time with it and see that it is the best legislation that we can bring forth with input from all stakeholders, not only those in the business community but employee groups, and people within the bureaucratic world as well.

Among the biggest things that the New Democratic Party has pushed for over the years is the protection of pensions and whistleblower legislation. We honestly believe, and we stand by it as a party, that if employees of a particular company or agency feel that something is drastically wrong within a corporation, business or government department, and they feel they have no other choice, they should be able to express their concerns.

It may be on a serious health issue. I forget the name right now, but there was an individual in the United States who blew the whistle on the tobacco companies. He was ostracized, threatened and everything else. However, that man showed a lot of bravery and in the end, he probably saved many lives down the road by exposing the tobacco companies in the United States for what they really were.

In Canada, when four scientists, I believe, in our Department of Health expressed serious concerns about the goings-on within the Department of Health, they too were ostracized and shunted to the side. These people are professionals. They have every right to do this. If they feel that in their professional judgment something is seriously wrong and they cannot mitigate the concerns through the proper channels within their own department, they should have the right to be able to express those opinions freely, either to the media or to other members of Parliament for that matter. They should be able to express the serious concerns they have.

They may be saving lives in the end. They should not be threatened with losing their jobs or the loss of the future enhancement of their careers or anything of that nature. If they are wrong, they will be proven wrong, but if they are right, then they will have done justice not only to their employment but also to their bureaucratic concerns as well.

We in the NDP support the proposed legislation, although with reservations. We do wish that the government had accepted the amendments we proposed on insider trading and of course on whistleblower protection.

There is also one concern I have on a personal level. If we set out maximum sentences of 10 years or 14 years, that really means maximum. A judge can offer the minimum, which could be anywhere from no time in jail to a fine or house arrest. The judge has that leniency.

I believe that if we want to send a strong signal to these people we should tell them what minimum sentence they are going to get, similar to the outrage we expressed in the House a couple of weeks ago when we discussed concerns about child pornography or pedophilia. There is no sense in stating a maximum sentence if we are never going to do it. We should make it a minimum sentence of 10, 15, 20 or 25 years and make sure the offenders serve every single day of that sentence. There should be none of this good behaviour nonsense.

A classic example of that is a person in my riding--and I refuse to use the word gentleman--who had eight previous impaired convictions. On the ninth impaired charge, he got it right: he killed a young girl of 18 years of age. He was sentenced to eight years in jail. He served only two years and was released.

What signal are we sending people when a person who has nine impaired convictions kills a young 18 year old girl on the ninth conviction, only gets an eight year sentence and serves just two years of that sentence? What are we telling the victim and the victim's family? It is an outrage.

There is no difference in terms of corporate crime. If we are going to send people to jail, we must send them to jail for the length of their time and ensure that they serve every single day so they know that if they commit this white collar crime they indeed will face serious consequences if they are caught.

I have another concern. We have to ensure that our government, our police forces and all the agencies have the manpower and the financial resources to follow up on the investigations and tips they receive. Many times our police forces and the RCMP are underfunded and undermanned. They simply do not have the resources to do the job effectively.

The proposed legislation sounds good. We can put it into law and on paper, but if we do not provide the tools and the teeth to back it up, it means absolutely nothing.

With that, we give cautious support for the bill. We wish that members on both sides would have the opportunity to speak to it. We would like to see further dialogue happening when it gets to the Senate. We are definitely in support of the proposed legislation, although it is not as strong as we would like it to be.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Research and development; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Softwood lumber; the hon. member for Davenport, Agriculture.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC

Madam Speaker, once again, I have heard a colleague give an excellent speech explaining what this bill is all about.

I will return to the issue I was discussing a little earlier with the hon. member for Saint-Jean. Why does the federal government, yet again, feel obliged to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction? Why do they operate this way, always complicating matters? Instead of improving things, the federal government is always trying to take over fields of jurisdiction that do not belong to it.

My colleague mentioned the example of Bre-X. He is perfectly right. Something quite serious happened: a company sold stock under false pretences. I will note here that Bre-X stocks were also sold in Quebec, but such sales were not governed by the Quebec securities commission.

In passing, I should say that I think the Quebec securities commission does the best work in all of Canada. As the hon. member for Saint-Jean said, it is certainly better than what is done in the United States. We have seen the Enron case, in the United States, which was quite an incredible scandal.

I would like the hon. member to answer my question. How can he explain that the government does not look after its own jurisdictions? For an example, look no farther than the environment. At home on Friday, I listened to a televised debate during which they showed that there is an incredible amount of work to be done in Lake Saint-Pierre.

This government has the jurisdiction. Why does it not work within its own jurisdiction? Why is it always meddling in areas of jurisdiction that are none of its business?

Beyond that, there is no doubt that a law that makes investing safer is a good law. What is bad about this legislation is that it is no business of the federal government. I would like to hear my hon. friend's ideas on this.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, the member asks why the Liberal government feels it has the right to move into areas of provincial jurisdiction and gives Quebec as an example. One reason is that the government thinks it can. There are 35 members from Quebec sitting on the Liberal side.

Being in the fifth party of the House of Commons and sitting on the backbench, I can only assume that the government feels that what it is doing is absolutely correct.

In areas of provincial jurisdiction, I would propose that the federal government should work with provincial governments to ensure that they meet all provincial and federal obligations together. Both governments should work together. To impose something on another is always a bit of a challenge and certain provincial premiers will get up on their hind legs and oppose it.

Yesterday at finance committee hearings in Halifax we heard about 35 presentations from a wide range of groups. We heard from the mayor of the city, the chamber of commerce, literacy groups, groups for the mentally challenged, homelessness groups and so on. When I asked those representatives what the federal government should do, representatives from each and every group said it should show leadership on these issues. When we informed them that these were areas of provincial jurisdiction, they said they did not care, they want the federal government to show some leadership.

I do not know if the same would happen at certain meetings in Quebec. I would prefer that any federal government work with a provincial government in areas of jurisdiction that concern one another, that they work together for the betterment of the people living in that particular province. The much better way to go would be to work with provincial premiers, not set them aside, for the betterment of all people in that particular province.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Madam Speaker, I am very intrigued by the comments made by the hon. member representing the NDP and the question that came from the Bloc, because I have stood up in the House time after time to tell critics and questioners from both those parties that the federal government should not interfere in the area of provincial jurisdiction and the issue of the Belledune incinerator. Both parties have insisted that the federal government should intervene in the area of provincial jurisdiction even if the province does not approve and even if the province will not work with us.

I find it curious that both parties are now talking in a way that is totally contradictory to the way that members of their parties have questioned me in the House. I wonder how the hon. member from the NDP can possibly square the position that he has put forward with the questioning from his own colleague from New Brunswick.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, one of the first things I learned in the House was from a former colleague, Nelson Riis, formerly of Kamloops, who said, “Never lead with your chin because someone is going to bat that one out of the park”.

The hon. Minister of the Environment from the west coast of Canada, whom I respect greatly, knows very well that the federal government has legislative responsibilities when it comes to the Port of Belledune and that incinerator. There is the Fisheries Act and the federal environment act. He does have some responsibility.

What we have said very clearly, in questioning from the member for Acadie—Bathurst, is that we want the federal government to exercise its jurisdiction, not to intrude on New Brunswick, but its jurisdiction, and to work with the province of New Brunswick in this regard. That is what we have been saying.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is the House ready for the question?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.