Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2009

Status of Women

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal Party made more spending promises with no plans on the funding. From a 45-day work year to a national child care program, the Liberals continue to promise to spend billions.

Canadians know that this must mean the Liberal leader's plan must include raising taxes. Could the Minister of State for the Status of Women please respond to these reckless promises?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Minister of State (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals demonstrated again just how desperate they are by making very careless, very reckless big spending promises in the billions: $6 billion for day care, $4 billion for a 45-day work year.

Canadian women are looking for action, not more Liberal rhetoric. They know that our government is acting on their real concerns, such as child care, the economy, and ensuring we have safer communities. This is real action. This is what women are looking for and it is exactly what they are getting from this government.

Nortel

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and again today, this government dismissed the concerns of retired Nortel workers, saying that their retirement pension was a provincial matter. Yet it is federal bankruptcy laws that are jeopardizing the pensions of more than 17,000 Canadians. The Leader of the Opposition promised to do everything he can to amend that legislation to ensure that this never happens again.

How can the Conservatives turn their backs on Canadians in need?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, of course there has been a lot of market turmoil around the world, not only in Canada, that has put enormous pressure on many pension plans and many pensioners in this country.

The fact of the matter is that this particular pension plan is registered and regulated by the province of Ontario. Therefore, it falls within provincial responsibility.

Having said that, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I are working together. We have included cross-country consultations to look at comprehensive changes to the federal pension framework. Obviously we are working with the provinces and territories to make a better pension system, whether it is private or public, not only federally but across the country.

Museums

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, employees of the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Museum of Civilization have been on strike for several weeks now. They are denouncing the government negotiators' attitude and demanding employment security as protection against subcontracting and as better protection for contract employees.

Why are these museum employees being denied the same conditions that are offered in other federal museums?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is a legal work stoppage. A federal mediator has been working with the parties since before the strike even began. The mediator will continue working with those parties to find a solution. The mediator cannot impose a settlement on the parties. That would be up to an arbitrator accaptable to both parties.

Harmonized Sales Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis is not behind us yet and while workers are looking for solutions to help their families, the Conservatives are saying, “Do not forget to pre-arrange your funeral, because after July 1, dying is going to cost you more, thanks to the Conservatives' new tax”. The HST is being criticized by none other than the finance minister's wife.

Why does this government want to increase taxes for consumers and for the bereaved?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member opposite knows, whether or not a province chooses to harmonize its sales tax with the federal GST is decided by that province. Some provinces did choose to do this in the late 1990s, and some more have now decided to do so. That is a decision that is entirely up to the individual provinces.

Justice

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is aware that illicit drugs play a big part in gang violence across this country. Drug production and trafficking are the most significant sources of illicit money for organized crime groups.

Our Conservative government has introduced legislation to ensure mandatory jail time for serious drug offences that involve organized crime, violence or preying on youth. This bill has been passed by the House.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us the status of Bill C-15?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, last June the government called on the leader of the Liberal Party to show some leadership by pushing his Liberal senators to pass this drug bill before they recessed for the summer. They not only refused to pass the bill, but they adjourned the debate and took a summer vacation. Now we are hearing rumblings that these same Liberal senators are doing the same thing and want to delay this bill.

I can understand why drug dealers would not support this bill. I can understand why people in the grow-op business would not support this bill. What I cannot understand is why members of the Liberal Party will not support this bill. Mr. Speaker, can you help me on that?

Search and Rescue

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, questions are being raised about the ability of search and rescue operations to save lives. Now, search and rescue volunteer groups are asking the government to help pay for liability and accident insurance for the volunteers so that they will not be forced to quit.

If the government is not prepared to do everything possible to protect Canadians by making sure that there are fully staffed and equipped search and rescue operations in the country, will the Minister of Public Safety at least say yes and provide the money to pay the insurance for volunteers?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the outstanding work done by the volunteers. These are volunteers who do land search and rescue. Federal responsibility for marine and aerial search and rescue has been in place for quite some time.

Traditionally, land search and rescue has been a provincial and local responsibility. That being said, my office did contact the organization today and has spoken to them. We look forward to receiving the letter that was reported in the media yesterday, and I look forward to meeting with them.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, farmers in Saint Amable who had to give up on the 2006 potato crop because of golden nematode still have not received adequate compensation. This summer, the Conservative government said they would have to settle for the $5 million on the table, which will not even cover the interest on their mortgage loans for the past three years.

This government was able to find $10 billion for the automobile industry in Ontario so why can it not find adequate funding to help these potato producers cope with this disaster?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, first, the people who were affected by golden nematode received $8 million to help them through their difficulties. There was also an agreement with the Government of Quebec that provided an additional $5 million to help people affected by golden nematode, not to mention other measures in the AgriFlexibility fund that could help them.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader his plans for the work program in the House for the rest of this week and next week in particular.

I wonder if he is in a position today to designate the next allotted day that will come along in the normal series.

Just on one point of absolute clarity, I would note that the Senate finished yesterday with Bill C-25, which is the bill dealing with the two-for-one remand issue. The bill as it emerged from the Senate is in exactly the form passed by the House. I would note that the Senate took one-half as many sitting days to deal with the bill as did the House of Commons, so the Senate moved rather quickly on the matter.

I would also note that Bill S-4 on identity theft was also done.

I wonder if the minister could confirm that royal assent has already been given to both of these bills.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will proceed in the same order in which my colleague presented his questions.

We will continue today with our government's justice program because this is a justice week. We will be starting with our latest edition, Bill C-52, the retribution on behalf of victims of white collar crime bill.

That bill will be followed by Bill C-42,, the conditional sentencing legislation; Bill C-46, the investigative powers legislation; Bill C-47, the technical assistance for law enforcement legislation; Bill C-43, legislation to strengthen Canada's corrections system; Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure legislation; and Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism act.

All of these bills are still at second reading, but members can see from the long list that we do have many pieces of legislation to debate and hopefully move through the legislative process.

We will continue with these law and order bills tomorrow and next week when we return from the weekend. As is the normal practice, we will give consideration to any bills that are reported back from committee as well.

On the issue of an allotted day, Wednesday, October 28 shall be the next allotted day.

We will then resume consideration of the government's judges legislation on Thursday following that opposition day.

As my hon. colleague from across the way mentioned, speaking of our justice agenda, I should add that I was extremely pleased to see that despite the Liberals' best efforts to try to gut the bill, it was passed in the other place. For those who are not aware, there were 30 Liberal senators in the other place at the time when they were voting on those amendments. All of them voted for the amendments that would have gutted that legislation. Fortunately, the Conservatives in the other place were sufficient in number to defeat those amendments and actually pass Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing legislation. It actually received royal assent earlier today.

I would like to thank my hon. colleagues, the Conservative senators, for all the good work they did in pushing that bill forward and for all the good work they are doing in pushing forward other legislation.

The House dealt with Bill S-4, the legislation to crack down on identity theft. It was passed and received royal assent as well today.

Oral Questions

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Twice today in question period government members referred to what they call the 45-day work year, which is their derisive and misleading definition of a 360-hour national standard. They can call it what they want, but they know the cost of it is not the $4 billion they continually refer to.

This may seem like a point of debate but this is a point of clarity and of importance to Canadians. Canadians deserve better from their government than to have these misleading comments made continually in the House where government members are supposed to represent the national interest.

I hope government members might consider that and not do that in the future.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

As the hon. member mentioned in his comments, it does sound like a matter of argument. Hon. members sometimes feel that statements on one side or the other are not accurate or are misleading or whatever, and sometimes I even hear these words used in respect of other statements.

As I have indicated on many occasions, it is not for the Chair to decide what is accurate and what is not. I am only sticking with what is within the rules and what is not, and points of order deal with rules. I am afraid the hon. member's point does not strike me as a point of order.

[An hon. member]

It is the golden rule, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Yes, it might be the golden rule, but I am not affected by that.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to my response to the hon. member for York Centre. I said the website was www.fightflu.com and it should be www.fightflu.ca.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 9, 2009, by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1 to disallow further amendments and subamendments at the second reading stage of Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. Minister of State and Chief Government Whip for their comments.

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel argued that the motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, having been moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, should be ruled out of order since it does not fall within the definition of a routine motion as prescribed in that Standing Order. Instead, he argued that the Standing Order was used to limit debate, in the same fashion as moving the previous question.

In addition to agreeing with the arguments raised by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the member for Vancouver East expressed concern about the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 and the “creeping, sort of incremental change” accompanying this, which then led her to question the appropriateness of its use in this case. She added that there are other mechanisms available to the government to manage the amount of time allocated to debate on Bill C-23.

The chief government whip contended that the government was applying Standing Order 56.1 correctly and that there had been previous instances where the Standing Order was used in this fashion.

For the benefit of members, the motion adopted on October 9, 2009, reads as follows:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the second reading stage of Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.

As mentioned by the member for Vancouver East, similar concerns over the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 were raised in 2001 when it was used for the disposition of a bill at various stages. When I ruled on that point of order on September 18, 2001 in the Debates at pages 5256 to 5258, I expressed reservations about the trend toward using that Standing Order for purposes other than for motions of a routine nature. My predecessor had already urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the use of Standing Order 56.1, and I reiterated this need for the committee to do so at the earliest opportunity.

In the absence of such feedback, on May 13, 2005 in the Debates at pages 5973 to 5974, I allowed a motion that provided for the completion of the second reading stage of two bills to be moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. Again, I highlighted the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs still had not undertaken a study of Standing Order 56.1, and as such, I was not in a position to rule definitively on the appropriateness of that Standing Order's use and I stated the following on that occasion.

I believe having had nothing back [from the committee] I can only allow this one to proceed at this time, particularly so when the time allocated here is much more generous than would be the case under closure or under time allocation…Accordingly the motion appears to be in order.

Similarly, on October 3, 2006, I allowed a motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 which in part disallowed further amendments or subamendments to the second reading stage of Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006. Another motion with such provisions was allowed to proceed on December 12, 2007, in reference to Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007.

As was the case in those two most recent examples, even though the current motion disallows further amendments and subamendments, it still allows members who have not yet done so to speak to the amendment and the main motion. Furthermore, as I then stated in my ruling in the Debates on October 3, 2006 at page 3571:

The motion does not set a deadline for completion of the proceedings, as would be the case under time allocation or closure...There is a significant difference.

This does not, however, negate the concerns expressed by members over time about the need for a clearer and agreed upon understanding of this Standing Order. The following quote from my 2006 ruling still applies in this case:

My predecessor and I have both encouraged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of the Standing Order. To date I am not aware of any report by that committee on this question.

Should the House feel the need to change the parameters pertaining to the use of Standing Order 56.1, I would suggest once more that members bring their concerns to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Since the committee has not yet offered clear direction on the definition of Standing Order 56.1, and since motions disallowing amendments and subamendments have been ruled admissible in the past, I rule that the motion moved by the Government House Leader on October 9, 2009 is in order.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

In the debate that was taking place earlier on this matter the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had the floor. There are 13 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to finish off what I had started because this is such an excellent bill. I think it deserves the due attention that it is going to receive.

Where I had left off was in relation to the six measures that this particular bill contains, and I had outlined at least three of them. The first was in relation to minimum mandatory sentences; the second being the additional aggravating factors that would be added to section 380.(1) of the Criminal Code; and the third being that the judge or justice state on the record those aggravating or other factors that determined his or her sentencing in relation to the alleged accused as a result of being convicted.

The fourth is a new sentencing tool. I really think this is a good factor in relation to this particular bill because it would give the courts a brand new sentencing tool for fraud offenders, aimed at preventing the commission of further frauds and victimizations. Indeed, often these particular individuals who commit these types of crimes will continue to do so because this is the only mode in which they earn a living.

The court, in this case, would be able to order as part of the sentence that the offender actually be prohibited from having work for remuneration or in a volunteer capacity, often these types of cases involve some sort of volunteer non-profit organization, and that involves having any authority whatsoever over another person's money, over another person's valuable securities, or over any real property that a person would have.

The order is discretionary and available for any period of time. What I like the best is that it can actually be ordered for life and in some circumstances, it certainly should be, especially where we see that particular person continuing to behave in that same manner and continuing to travel around the country.

I, myself, had a case in which this actually took place. That person defrauded a curling club in one location in the province and then moved some 400 or 500 miles to a new location and then defrauded a particular service organization of upwards of $50,000, in that particular case. It could have been prevented if this type of order would have been in place. In fact, the gentleman's credentials were such that, in the first case, he received a two years less a day conditional sentence, which means it was provincial time and he, in this case, would not have to serve that time in jail. He actually served that time at his house and as a result of that, he moved, went to a different location, got a job as a manager of a restaurant, and then defrauded that person of up to $50,000.

So, this is a really good addition to the Criminal Code and I think it will be used by justices and judges according to need.

The two final measures are actually aimed at improving the responsiveness of the justice system and the sentencing process to the needs of victims.

As members know, we in this Conservative government stand up for the rights of victims and we ensure that Canadians and Canadian families continue to enjoy the freedoms they have and, at the same time, do not have to succumb to criminals and criminal activity.

Data from 2006-07 showed that approximately 20% of fraud convictions resulted in a restitution order. I was somewhat shocked at that. However, in order to encourage greater use of these orders, first, sentencing courts would be required to ask the crown prosecutor in the case whether reasonable efforts were made to give victims a chance to indicate whether they want restitution. I cannot imagine many cases where a victim that has been defrauded would not want restitution. That is usually not the case. As a result of that, courts would also be required to consider restitution in all fraud cases and to provide reasons if restitution is not ordered. That would set this as a new precedent, another proof that we in this Conservative government will stand up for victims of crime.

I just want to digress for a moment and speak about a particular part of my practice that I found very refreshing from the federal government. It was approximately 11 to 12 years ago. It was in relation to child support guidelines.

As a practitioner in northern Alberta, I would see cases, especially because we had justices from all over the province of Alberta come up to Fort McMurray at that time, with the same circumstances where court orders would be double the amount for children or even half the amount for children in other cases. So, the child support guidelines giving clear indications to judges and justices across the country as far as what people made, as far as income and what they should pay in child support is very similar to this.

I think we will find this to be a very welcome approach, not just for crown prosecutors but also for justices so they know the starting point, the absolute minimum and what those aggravating factors should be once case law is established, and what people should receive based upon what kind of offence they committed.

Three points of caution are needed. First, no criminal law reform can change the bottom line, namely, that if the offender does not have any adequate assets there cannot be restitution. Indeed, it cannot help. Our hearts go out to that, which is why we are looking at other regulations and doing consultations across the country to stop this before it actually happens, and to put in place regulations so that fraud of this nature cannot continue to happen.

It should also be kept in mind that the crown prosecutor is responsible for making the sentencing submissions and victims will not have standing to advance their restitution requests. They need to work with the crown prosecutor and ensure they fully disclose how much this has hurt them and their family through a victim impact statement. They also need to disclose how much was taken by providing proper accounting records in order to prove the case and then the crown prosecutor can put that forward to the justice.

The last measure in the bill would specifically acknowledge that courts may consider a statement prepared by a representative of a community or definable group for consideration at sentencing for fraud cases. This is new but this is a great application to allow all those victims who have been taken advantage of by a particular criminal or criminal organization to put forward exactly what this has done.

In most cases, as I have mentioned, the victims are primarily seniors and retirees, but curling clubs, not for profit groups, hockey clubs, figure skating clubs and even arts clubs have also been victims. It seems that criminals will stop at nothing to take money and to personally enhance their own lives. Especially bad is defrauding church groups, flying clubs and, therefore, taxpayers and the government because, ultimately, we, the people of Canada, the taxpayers, must pay that. When they defraud the Government of Canada, it is we, the taxpayers of Canada, who ultimately pay because they are actually stealing from us.

This is an excellent bill but I would like to go over some of the case law. There have been some suggestions by the Liberals and even the Bloc that this is not the case, indeed when is there a two year or less sentence for these people who steal that kind of money. As a result, some investigation was done and a review of case law does suggest that the average sentence for large frauds is around four years, although some people do receive much longer sentences and some shorter. When people receive lesser sentences, it usually is in a case where there is a joint submission by a crown prosecutor and a defence lawyer. They come together and negotiate a plea based upon a certain amount of time being spent in jail and then present that to a judge based on usually good evidence. Sometimes they negotiate it for other reasons, primarily as a result of getting an early guilty plea so victims do not have to deal with it. Now we have a two year minimum and it needs to be over that.

I would like to talk a bit about some cases that have come forward. In one particular case, the Queen v. Cioffi in 2009, where the accused was convicted of fraud, more than $4 million were taken and the scheme lasted four years. It was quite a complicated scheme. It required some form of planning and a large number of fraudulent transactions. However, in this particular case, the accused had no criminal record and did not personally benefit. Someone else benefited. The individual who stole this money received two years less a day, which means provincial time. It is not even under federal jurisdiction. Two years less a day means that the individual is eligible for house arrest, which, quite frankly, I do not think should be allowed in these particular circumstances. Now people will not be allowed because this government has that two year plus mandatory timeframe.

In another case, R. v. McCarthy, a 2008 case, two loans were involved totalling in excess of $3 million, aggravating factors included, obviously the breach of trust, a considerable number of victims and there was no criminal record in this case either. The individual in that case received a conditional sentence of two years less a day as well, followed by a year of probation. So, $3 million and two years less a day in jail.

In the 2008 case of R. v. Wilson out of Nova Scotia, $1.8 million were defrauded in a one month period and, unbelievably, the $1.8 million fraud resulted in 26 months in jail.

In the case of R. v. Lafleur, it was 28 counts of fraud spanning four years and totalling over $1.5 million. The individual received 42 months of jail time and a restitution order. In this particular case, there was a guilty plea and other mitigating factors were taken into account, such as age and the lack of a criminal record.

In the 2006 case of R. v. Coffin, the individual received 18 months in jail for 15 counts of fraud totalling $1.5 million. Eighteen months does not seem like much time, especially given some of the circumstances and facts that I will be mentioning at the end of my speech today.

In the case of R. v. Nottingham, the individual received a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community. The individual was allowed to stay at home for the entire length of the sentence and do normal activities for the most part. Aside from some semblance of house arrest, the person still had the big screen TV and all the rest of the amenities. More than $1.1 million in that particular case was defrauded.

The last case I will refer to is R. v. Toman. This was another case of two years less a day for defrauding $2.5 million over a six month period. That might sound like lot of time to some Canadians, but I want those Canadians to recognize that two years in jail does not mean two years in jail.

Two years in jail usually means maybe 15 months in jail, at the top, or two-thirds of the time. However, more often than not, the person will do half time as a result of credit or whatever else, which means 12 months in jail. As we heard earlier from some of our colleagues across the way, some people often only spend one-sixth or one-third of their time in jail, even up to less than eight months.

It seems like a fairly good rate of return when one can steal a couple million dollars and do six months behind bars. This government is about to change that particular circumstance. We have made many changes in relation to protecting victims, but those were some of the cases that I think Canadians were not aware of.

Quite frankly, two years is not enough for those people who are prepared to steal from seniors and non-profit groups. They should do more time and this government will ensure that if people do the crime, they will do the time.