Debates of Dec. 14th, 2010

Official Languages

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties and I think you will find agreement for the following travel motions. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the development of linguistic duality in Northern Canada, twelve members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to travel to Whitehorse, Yukon and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in the Winter of 2011, that the Committee be authorized to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to)

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to its study on the Biotechnology Industry, eight members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be authorized to travel to Calgary, Alberta; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Guelph, Ontario; Quebec City, Quebec; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and Truro, Nova Scotia, in the Winter of 2011, that the Committee be authorized to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the third time and passed.

Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I put a few words on the record with regard to Bill C-21.

I want to pick up on the point on which the previous speaker concluded his comments. He asked who is being affected when we pass this type of legislation. We need to put it into perspective for those individuals who are affected by Ponzi schemes or things of that nature.

Not that long ago we had an issue in Manitoba, and the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be very familiar with it, where a great number of Manitobans, 33,000 plus, invested in the Crocus share fund. I am not trying to say there were illegal activities, but I would suggest that more transparency through criminal laws such as this could save thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of dollars.

I want to reflect on the Crocus fund. Back in the 1990s the government of the day wanted to see more investment coming into the province, so it created this fund and promoted it among individuals living in the province of Manitoba. There were tax breaks and so forth. It went off quite well. When it kicked off, there were hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. There was a great level of interest from average Manitobans. It went along reasonably well until 2000 and 2001. At that point in time, we are not sure exactly what took place. There seemed to be a great deal of secrecy. Where was some of this money being spent? There were a great deal of questions. It became a fairly controversial issue by 2003-04 to the degree that the fund was actually frozen.

I raise this issue because of the number of people it affected. Hundreds of millions of dollars were lost. Over 33,000 Manitobans, many of whom invested retirement funds into that fund, suffered literally thousands and thousands of dollars in losses on an individual basis. I had the opportunity to meet with many of the individuals and heard about the problems those losses incurred. They had believed in good faith that what they were doing was for the right reason.

Indirectly the government was supporting this fund. It was helping in terms of creating jobs. Investment funds at the best of times can be a challenge in some jurisdictions. They felt they were doing the right thing. The problem was there was a need for more transparency.

To what degree legislation of this nature could have had an impact, I am not too sure. I do not really understand the finer details of it, but what I do know is at the end of the day we are talking about trying to protect average Canadians who want to use investments as a way to ensure they will have a better retirement, as one of the possible venues in terms of getting money out.

Whether it is an investment fund like Crocus or these Ponzi schemes, I find it very difficult to understand how some individuals could try to con or fleece, or whatever word one might want to use, money from people. They exploit individuals, many of whom are seniors who have accrued money over the years in order to have a relatively decent lifestyle in their retirement. It is hard to comprehend how some individuals think they have the right to take actions of this nature.

It is one of the reasons it is important that we have legislation such as this to look at ways in which we can minimize the amount of white collar crime. One member mentioned the goal was to eliminate it. I do not believe we will ever be able to eliminate white collar crime but there are things we can do to make a difference.

A member mentioned that we should strive to have the best possible legislation. It interested me because it came from a member of the New Democratic Party. I was not in the committee at the time, but I believe the Liberal Party proposed an amendment which would have made this legislation that much better in terms of its strength. My understanding is it would have added into the legislation market manipulation of stock prices, shares, merchandise or anything that is offered for sale to the public. This would have made the legislation that much better. I do not understand why the government did not see the merit of that amendment.

Quite often governments want it to look as if they are the ones who are taking the action and do not want to act on good ideas that come from the opposition benches. I do not necessarily agree with that, but I can understand why there may be some resistance on the part of governments. They do not want to develop good ideas if they come from the opposition benches. It is unfortunate, but it is the reality.

I am told that the Bloc and the New Democratic Party did not see the merit and did not want to support the Liberal Party's amendment. That surprised me. I do not understand why those parties would oppose something of this nature. Had that amendment passed, it would be here today and the bill would be that much stronger in protecting the interests of victims. It is very important.

I have had the opportunity to have discussions with constituents who have experienced first-hand the loss of considerable sums of money because they had a certain element of faith and confidence in what they were being told. I have had that opportunity on many occasions. People do not take pride in the fact that they made a mistake and as a result lost thousands of dollars. People do not come forward to admit it when issues of this nature occur, but it does happen.

The individuals who have touched me the most in regard to schemes of this nature are those who are on a fixed income, those who had confidence in a system they thought would be there ultimately to protect their interests. At times the system does fail, unfortunately. We need to look at ways in which we can protect those interests. When I talk to seniors I often find that a disproportionate amount of their savings go toward different schemes that come up and are ultimately sold to them. They come in many different forms. It is easy to say that consumers should beware and they should read the fine print and so forth. I appreciate that. When people talk to me about the potential of investments, I am very careful in terms of what I say.

I am not, have never been and will never be a financial adviser but I am able to balance my personal chequebook. However, I will leave it at that and leave it with the professionals. However, I do caution people to be very careful, especially if they are on fixed incomes and going into their retirement years because, the end of the day, we need to do what we can in terms of protecting the funds of those who are on fixed incomes and are not in a position to get involved.

It is very difficult when something is sold to them in such a fashion that it gives the impression it is a no-lose situation, that they cannot go wrong by investing x number of dollars, and they are being sold this by someone who is a fairly smooth talker or coming in from an agency of different sorts. I can appreciate why many of the victims make some of those bad decisions.

What does Bill C-21 actually do? The most significant thing is that it does is it makes mandatory minimum sentences for those who are found guilty of defrauding the system in excess of $1 million. I for one see the value in terms of that. I believe it can be a meaningful way to ensure there is a detriment to committing a crime of this nature. I know that minimum sentences have been somewhat of a controversial issue. It is controversial because of the issue of judicial independence. A lot of the judicial system and the stakeholders affiliated with that love to leave the discretion with our courts. I can appreciate that and I understand why they would say that.

From my perspective and with the dialogue and consultations that I have had with my constituents, I have found that in certain situations there is room for mandatory minimum sentences. In looking at Bill C-21, I believe that is a reasonable component to have in this situation. Hopefully it will be effective in terms discouraging some from entering into this whole area. We will need to wait to see what happens but I do believe there is some value to it.

The bill would also require consideration for restitution for victims. As has been pointed out quite often, all it takes is making some individuals, some of the different stakeholders or individual companies that might have been a recipient of some of the funds, aware that it is a crime to manipulate, extort or get money out of the hands of seniors and others. Quite often, a responsible business or a corporation will make resources available to minimize the impact on victims.

Requiring our courts or our legal system to look at where it is possible for restitution is a positive thing. We have had experience, and going into the future I suspect I will make reference to some of my involvement with youth justice committees, as I already have, that restitution can be an effective tool in all aspects of law. I suspect that it is one of the ways in which we can ensure that the victims themselves are receiving something in return for what they have had to endure.

However, if there are ways in which we can somehow compensate victims through restitution, we need to move in that direction. I would have thought that would have already been in place, and I suspect that it was to a certain degree, but this is a bit better definition to ensure that it occurs. This will make a difference.

The bill would also allow courts to consider the possibility of community impact statements or would encourage the legal system to take them into consideration. I have always been a very strong advocate for restorative justice and this goes even one step further. I believe restorative justice is the most effective way to get victims to the table with the perpetrators to ultimately come up with a resolution that brings all parties a higher sense of justice. Restorative justice would be very difficult to achieve in this situation, but at the very least requiring, where possible, that there be community impact statements is a positive thing and it is something we should be moving toward.

In going through the bill, I noticed that the government did not really address the need for enforcement. We can bring in whatever type of legislation we want but if we are not prepared to enforce it and provide the resources necessary in order to monitor and discourage, it will not be as effective.

If we want to minimize white collar crime, we need to have a stronger presence in that whole area. I am not convinced, given the very nature of this particular crime, that the government has been overwhelmingly supportive of allocating additional resources to combat white collar crime. We can talk about getting tough on white collar crime by passing legislation of this nature, but until we are prepared to acknowledge the need to adequately resource our police services, as an example, we will not achieve what is expected, which is that the government is serious about dealing with white collar crime.

It reminds me of a commitment that was raised during the byelection where the Conservatives had made a commitment to hire additional police officers. I believe it was in excess of 2,000. The additional staff could have been allocated to commercial or white collar crime. If I had a choice, I would suggest that if we have adequate resources at the grassroots level to ensure accountability with legislation or the laws currently in place, that could be just as effective as this particular bill.

I would also suggest that the bill itself will no doubt draw some media attention. The government can issue its press release saying that it is getting tough on white collar crime and will have the legislation it has passed. In fairness, the caveat is that the Liberal Party tried to make it a better bill but the government chose not to support it. In any event, the government can issue its press release making it very clear that it brought in legislation.

However, if the government is not prepared to put in the resources that are necessary to make this bill work, then I would suggest—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has elapsed.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad I was here to hear my newly elected colleague's comments on this bill. I congratulate him on his election.

It is right for Liberals to be standing up on this because if anybody knows about white collar crime, it would be them. We certainly support tougher rules to protect investors, pensioners and business owners from corporate fraud.

Let us just look at the Liberals' take on this when we look at the history: Senator Raymond Lavigne alleged use of Senate resources for personal gain; Benoît Corbeil sentenced in December 2009 to 15 months in jail for his role in producing fake invoices while he served as the director of the Liberal Party of Canada's Quebec office; Gilles André Gosselin, former head of Liberal-friendly ad firm, pled guilty to charges of fraud and forgery totalling $655,276 in the Liberal sponsorship scandal; Jean Brault, the former head of the Liberal-friendly ad firm, plead guilty to five charges of fraud connected to his involvement in the Liberal sponsorship scandal; and Suzan Pawlak, the former treasurer of the federal Liberal riding association in Elgin—Middlesex—London, sentenced to 12 months of house arrest for committing fraud that a high level party official tried to cover up.

When we see that, I can see why the Liberals are such experts on this. With respect to that, maybe the member would like to comment a little bit more about some of the weaknesses in this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I see that hypocrisy within the New Democrats is not just limited to Manitoba.

If we want to look at the people who shafted seniors of their pensions and investment funds, I only need to refer to Gary Doer and the New Democrats in the province of Manitoba who did not stand up for the 33,000 Manitobans who lost $100 million-plus.

If we want to revisit history, let us talk about recent history. It was the New Democratic Party inside this chamber, just recently, that voted against the Liberal Party amendment that would have given more strength to the very bill that we are talking about today. It would have included the market manipulation of stock prices. It was that member and her party who actually voted against it and did not allow it to be a part of this legislation.

We can talk about the New Democrats and the Liberals but the Liberals are far ahead in terms of much higher moral standards and in protecting the seniors in our country, much more so than the New Democrats, especially when they were in power in the province of Manitoba. I can guarantee that much.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with our new colleague from Winnipeg North. He brings a lot of experience and knowledge, even on this bill.

I want to give the member an opportunity to maybe elaborate a little bit more on some of the initiatives that maybe the provinces have done already. In fact, some have said that the provinces have leapfrogged the federal government in terms of these matters of restitution, et cetera, through the property and civil rights laws under the seizure and forfeiture principles, which may be helpful.

The other point I want the member to comment on is with regard to the deterrence principle. I think it is important for the justice system to have a balance between punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration, as well as prevention.

It seems that the deterrence factor of a minimum of two years would not be a deterrence to people who know that if they get caught for a crime of over $1 million, they will go to jail for probably 10 to 14 years, which is the maximum for fraud over $5,000. I doubt very much that people being assured that they will to go to jail for at least two years will scare them off when they know they will probably go to jail for 10 years.

In this case, I am not sure that mandatory minimums are an effective deterrent. In fact, the whole bill is all about mandatory minimums.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the question from my colleague. He is quite right in his assessment that provinces have moved toward a lot of civil rights law where organizations can be taken to court as a way in which to recover moneys that have been acquired through crimes within communities.

The federal government has really fallen behind in trying to get that form of restitution, especially where there has been gang activity. I think we will find that there are pockets of increased gang activity across Canada. The federal government has really not done very much in terms of being able to equip, or better equip, the provinces to recover merchandise or dollars. We are talking about millions and millions of dollars in regard to things acquired in an illegal fashion.

We should look at what some of the provinces have done. It is something on which the federal government should spend a bit more time. There is so much out there that we can really make a difference in terms of restitution. All it takes is an open mind and a willing government to really make a difference.

As we get to debate more legislation, I look forward to add more on some of the initiatives, both private and public, particularly in the province of Manitoba. I would love the opportunity to share that with the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I want to bring a couple of things to his attention.

We are not against the fact that there is a mandatory minimum on this bill, but we know the government has tried to put mandatory minimums on a lot of bills. I guess that is basically to fill the prisons that it wants to build because there has been a 43% increase in the budget: $230 million in 2009-10 and $329 million in 2010-11. This has been approved by the Liberals.

Paula Mallea, one of my constituents, wrote me and said, “Aside from my personal feelings as a long-time criminal defence lawyer, I have marshalled a lot of facts that contradict the efficacy of the Conservative agenda. I have tried to point out that the agenda will increase crime while vastly increasing the deficit”. Her concern is that, with all these mandatory minimums, we have to be mindful of how much of the cost would be borne by the provinces.

Perhaps my colleague would like to mention the impact on the provinces.

I also want to clarify something. We talk about community impact statements because the bill proposes this. In looking at a crime of this magnitude, whether this is in there or not, a judge will usually order a pre-sentence report and the impact statements from the victims will be taken. I do not know if the member wants to comment on that part of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I used to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. I had the opportunity to tour our jail facilities. There is no doubt about the fact that there currently is a capacity issue. I anticipate that the more we get into mandatory minimum sentences, it will be an issue in which the federal government will have to sit down with the provinces and tell them to what degree it is prepared to get involved.

Minimum sentences are not necessarily the answer. People really want to see less crime on the street. For the last number of years, the government has talked a great deal about being tough on crime, but at the end of the day, it really has not been effective, even with all the discussion about minimum sentences.

We need only to walk in the streets of Winnipeg north and ask people if crime is any better today than it was five years ago. We might find that 2% or 3% of people will say it is better, if that. I think people want to see results.

The government seems to be more content in delivering a message of tough on crime, but it is not necessarily delivering a message for resolving the crime issue, and I am more interested in doing that.

I look forward to being able to add comments as to how I believe we will ultimately be able to move in the direction of resolving the crime problem.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-12, A third Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the third time and passed.

Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and always a pleasure to speak to any bill that come before Parliament, particularly this bill, which has been a long time in the period of gestation. It began as Bill C-52. One would have hoped it would have had time to morph into a bill that was somewhat more acceptable, but Bill C-21 is still very much the same bill that was brought to us some time ago.

There has been criticism that the opposition parties have delayed the passing of the bill, but, as we all know, it was the government's own action of having introduced the bill and then, last December 30, taking the tremendous liberty of proroguing the House and causing all the legislation that had previously introduced to simply fall off the order paper. The government brought back a new bill. Even though it had supposedly been recalibrated during that time, the bill was virtually identical to the bill it had originally presented.

As part of its overall supposed tough on crime agenda, the government has attempted to tackle this crime but with only a very limited effectiveness.

As most members know, we will support the bill, but it is with some difficulty that we take those steps. We know the bill, while it will probably not cause a great deal of damage, as many of the government's other bills do, it will not be effective in tackling the problem it purports to tackle.

This problem we are talking about is not simply an issue. It is about real people who have trusted their life savings and their very lives into the hands of people who have abused that trust. These people have taken their money and have invested it in schemes that have been fraudulent in nature. This has often resulted in them being left in the care of their families, or friends or on public welfare rolls. This is a serious problem that requires serious attention, not simply window dressing.

Bill C-21 will probably cause no more harm than is already in the system, but it will not be effective. It will not reduce the incidence of this type of crime. Nor will it provide more resources to the prosecution of this kind of crime. Unless we stop the crime before it happens or, failing that, prosecute those who are criminally involved in fraudulent activities, it does not matter whether we have mandatory minimums or various other aspects of this that the bill purports to add to our Criminal Code. It will not help the people who the government says it will help.

The government is fond of saying that it has a bias toward victims and is against the criminals. Everyone in the House has a bias against those who commit crimes and a bias for those who are victims of crime. Whether those a crimes against their person, against their property or against their life savings, every member of the House cares about it. As the government presents its so-called tough on crime agenda, no one can take seriously any longer that it is truly trying to address crime.

This summer I had the opportunity of doing a fair amount of canvassing through the different neighbourhoods of my riding of Don Valley West. About this time, the President of the Treasury Board announced that the government was planning to spend $9 billion on new jails. He baffled most of us who care about reducing crime when he referred to a dated survey about so-called unreported crime. While all statistics continue to point to a slow but steady reduction in crime rates in the country, the President of the Treasury Board pointed to this survey to justify building more and bigger jails.

This is the obvious question. In the event of an unreported crime who exactly will go to jail? If that cannot be answered, then his rhetoric is another example of ideology over reason, fiction over fact and policy based evidence rather than evidence based policy.

It is certain that Canadians care about all kinds of crime, including white-collar crime. While canvassing in Leaside, York Mills and Don Mills, a number of residents raised issues of vandalism, property crime, auto theft, personal violence and fraudulent white-collar crime as well.

Flemingdon Park residents expressed concerns about separate violent incidents that left people feeling personally threatened. Residents in Thorncliffe Park noted an increase in graffiti and vandalism in the community garden. Northlea residents expressed concerns about traffic safety and the high accident rate.

However, statistics show that crime prevention strategies and especially community policing, good education, programs that strengthen family life and a stronger social safety net do more to stop crime, all sorts of crime, than the building of megajails or than bills that have cute, trendy titles as though the government is actually doing something serious about crime.

One Don Valley West resident was eloquent when he said to me, “A bigger prison won't stop my car from being stolen and the higher insurance rates that come along with that. We have to find ways to stop the crime before it's even contemplated”. This means taking a look at the whole of the fabric of our social safety net, about the fabric of society, about the way we fund education and health care, the way we deal with people who are poor, or people who have committed one crime and how we help them get back into society to make meaningful lives and contribute to our communities.

Ironically the work that was called upon by the President of the Treasury Board was done by Statistics Canada just as the government was planning changes to the census, which has been decried by experts around the world. To govern this complex, constantly changing country, more information about crime, not less, is essential. Reason and intelligence should never be replaced by fear and ignorance when it comes to any sort of policy making.

Equally essential, when dealing with crime, is listening to the experts. The government is loathe to bring in experts to talk about what it is we need to do to fight all kinds of crime, including white-collar crime. The government does not want to listen to the chiefs of police across the country when it comes to talking about a long gun registry. I do not know who Conservatives consulted when they came up with this bill, but I know that when I talk to police officers and regulators who deal with these kinds of crimes, they tell me they do not have the resources to have effective, constant prosecution of the kinds of crime.

It does not matter whether minimum mandatory sentences are instituted if we do not prosecute the criminals. If we do not have the resources to go out and get the bad guys, then we cannot impose mandatory minimum sentences. It is like building megaprisons for unreported crime. These crimes may in fact be reported, but they are not prosecuted. Whether it is unreported crime or unprosecuted crime, the government is not taking crime seriously. It is window dressing, it is slogan making and it is simple electioneering, which constantly goes on.

When it gets to actually dealing with crime, I think what Canadians want is a smart, strong response from our government, from our police forces and from the judiciary. This year I was part of a party that supported many of the projects of law that the government offered us because parts of our system had grown lax. However, the overwhelming mandate of our judicial and corrections systems still must be the rehabilitation and reintegration into community of those who have committed crimes. We are not going to change crime rates in our country and further reduce them without a sense of stopping the crimes before they happen. If they have happened, we rehabilitate the criminals so they do not offend again. This is common sense. This is about making a stronger society. This is about actually doing something positive and about making our world a better place.

As a member last year of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I toured federal prisons across the country. I was appalled at the poor mental health capacity at all facilities, the lack of programming for inmates and the fact that more inmates left with drug and alcohol addictions than came in with them. Think about the fact that when people enter jails, they are healthier than when they get out. When they enter jails, they come with certain problems, but they are exacerbated by their life in prison. The mental health capacity, the alcohol and drug treatment capacity is simply too limited to actual criminals who will, even if we have mandatory minimum sentences, get out of jail one day. They will be back on the streets in our communities. If we do not take the time to help them, they will be in trouble.

We have a government that talks about a thicker border with the United States. The government cannot keep drugs and alcohol out of our jails, out of maximum security prisons with thick walls already, yet we expect it to actually stop the drug trade from coming across the border from the United States.

The reality is that we have problems in our prisons, we have problems in our communities, and this kind of law-making does not further our goal of making a better Canada, better families and better communities. It takes a reasoned approach. It actually looks at evidence and bases policy in real facts and real evidence and has a sense that we work with human nature and we actually believe that we can be a better human race.

We obviously have to have incentives in those systems. We actually have to have a way to make our world a better place, and I think we tried to do some of that in committee as a party when we were offering some amendments to this bill.

Building superjails for unconvicted criminals of unreported crimes, adding mandatory minimums without providing resources for prosecution, attempting to solve a problem that is complex and involves several levels of government with a simple bill with a cute title is not good governance. We need to support stopping crime at a community level, in our school systems, with a sense that what we are doing is about making a better society.

Smart on crime is truly tough on crime, and this bill is simply not smart enough on crime. Yes, we will be supporting it. Yes, we will add our vote to it to get it off the table so that we can actually get on to some more important work, but the government needs to hear the lack of enthusiasm we have in this. It needs to hear that we think it could have been a better bill.

We think a mandatory minimum without truly a system of restitution is actually going to be a problem. We have to find better ways of saying to the elderly or to the young in our society who lose their life savings to a fraudster that we are going to find a way, through a banking system that is more effective, through checks and balances all through our regulatory bodies, to get some of that money back.

If there is a fraud that is $27 million in nature and there are several hundred people who have actually lost their savings in that scheme, that money, I am quite convinced, did not disappear. We have to figure out where that money is. If that money has gone into the international banking system, we have to find a way to build a system that Canada is part of, that can actually take this issue seriously and find where that money has gone, so that it can go back to the people who were originally the losers in the fraud scheme.

That, of course, would take an international stature. That would actually take a prime minister and a minister of finance who knew their way around the international tables of this country, of this world. We would have to have the kind of status and stature in the world where the other nations at the United Nations would give us a seat on the Security Council, where they would respect us because of our standing on climate change, on border security, on our role in peacekeeping missions around the world, or on our diplomatic ability to actually solve the problems that need to be solved.

It is that kind of government that can actually effect a change, find the money and get it back to Canadians who need to have true restitution of what they lost. They need to have a recovery.

What this bill lacks is a true sense of where the victim is. If the crime is of a personal nature or a physical nature, or if someone has been killed or hurt, it is impossible to restore that person to where he was or she was before the crime happened. This is not an impossibility. This bill, frankly, is only about money, which is not hard to restore to the person who has lost it. The government needs to know where it is, though, and it needs to find ways to do it.

What is lacking in this is not only the international scope but even within the federalism of Canada. What this bill also requires to be effective is a system where Canada works more effectively with the provinces to understand where the jurisdictional interplay is in the various regulatory systems that affect Canada.

Obviously, if I am in a regulated profession that is part of a provincial jurisdiction and I am going to be disciplined, the federal government needs to find a way to co-operate with the provinces and territories. That means sitting around a table with them.

When is the last time there was a first ministers' conference? When is the last time we had the premiers and the Prime Minister of this country gather together and deal with some of these important issues: financial issues, economic issues, building a country, safety issues, public security issues and how it is that we gather together our federal resources with a federal vision, which my party believes in if there is a place for the federal government to be involved in the aspects that we are given responsibility for, and to work with provinces and territories in the areas where they are given responsibility?

This takes a certain style of government that is co-operative, that likes to listen, that likes to add value and knows that others will add value at the same time. That is what is sadly lacking in this bill.

Liberals proposed several amendments to this bill that I think we need to be sure are on the record, that we were not able to accomplish. We wanted to strengthen the bill. We may be the official opposition, but we are also a party of constructive criticism. We will take a bill and try to strengthen it, try to make it better, try to actually help it accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish.

The Liberal justice critic introduced an amendment at committee that would add market manipulation of stock prices, shares, merchandise or anything else that is offered for sale to the public, through the definition of what could be punished by the mandatory minimum sentence. The amendment failed at committee, with the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP all voting against it. It would have expanded the scope of this legislation to make it possible to go into other areas of economic activity that absolutely needed to be considered.

The Liberal justice critic also recommended that an amendment be introduced to modify the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to eliminate the one-sixth accelerated parole review rule for white collar criminals. This amendment was ruled out of order by the chair and that was subsequently upheld on a challenge, due to support from the Bloc Québécois.

One would have to ask why. The reality is that Liberals were attempting to make an important amendment that we felt was within the broad scope of this bill, that was not out of character with it and could actually make it more effective. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois did not support that.

Yes, indeed, a technical amendment by the Liberal Party was adopted. This amendment, supported by the opposition parties, requires that the court would issue an explanation of a restitution order only when a victim seeks restitution and the court decides not to make such an order. This amendment addresses concerns that were raised by the Canadian Bar Association to relieve some pressures on an already taxed criminal justice system.

Liberals want to find a way to make legislation work. Legislation needs to be more than advertisements. It needs to be more than signs that are placed in front of projects as though the government is actually doing something. We will come back to this legislation when we are in power. We will have an omnibus return-to-sanity bill that will look at the kinds of things that were done. We are going to try to find a way to fix the things that were inappropriate and take the things that we hope would be effective but will probably be proven to have not made the kinds of differences that the government promised.

We will come back to these issues. It was the last Liberal government that brought in the first changes to make sure that white collar crime was taken seriously. We are a party that cares about crime. We are a party that actually wants to reduce crime. We are a party that wants to rehabilitate criminals. We are a party that is aware that no matter how long people are sentenced for, they will one day get out, and if they get out in worse condition than when they went in, our streets, homes, villages and cities are not safer. They are simply not better.

The government needs to know that no matter how long people are locked up for, one day they will be once again living in our neighbourhoods and once again committing crimes if they have not had the kind of care, treatment and effective programming that will help them rehabilitate themselves. We in the Liberal Party actually believe in humans and the human ability to restore ourselves, to make our communities better, and that we can move from poor behaviour to better behaviour.

We actually think there is a chance for redemption, if I can use that word at this season, for individuals. There is possibly even redemption for political parties, and we would pray for that as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have a 10-minute period for questions and comments the next time the bill is before the House.