Debates of April 25th, 2013

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Winnipeg North for his support.

I realize that sometimes with private members' bills the wording is not perfect. I would accept any amendments that would really enhance the clarity of what the bill attempts to do. We want to ensure that this is just another tool at the disposal of the courts, and that we are focusing in on the most brutal murderers who would be incarcerated, people who would be so depraved and sadistic that they would carry out the abduction, sexual assault and ultimately the killing of our innocents.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not keep members in suspense. I will therefore say from the outset that the NDP cannot support Bill C-478 for a number of reasons.

I agree with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake that this bill deals with horrific, unspeakable crimes. I could add a number of others to the list that are just as horrific and unspeakable. I am thinking about the parents of a murder victim. Under the terms of the act, I should say someone who was “only” murdered, because all three offences were not committed. Kidnapping and murder would not be enough for this type of thing, nor would rape and murder. The three offences are required.

From the get-go, my colleague's bill is problematic. However, there are even more fundamental problems than this.

I just heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North express his support for the bill and congratulate its author for allowing the courts to retain their discretionary authority. The problem is that I am not convinced that this is a matter of discretion under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Rome statute. It is a matter of the period of time someone is required to wait before they have the right to appear before the parole board. That is the problem.

Technically, according to the Rome statute, which Canada signed, all the countries agree that people are freed even after being given a life sentence in cases of genocide, war crimes, mutilation, rape and murder. Their eligibility for parole is reviewed after 25 years.

I am concerned about ensuring that, when we introduce and pass legislation, we are not passing something that inherently goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or about which there are serious doubts. Sometimes, I give the benefit of the doubt to the government or to bills that come in through the back door, meaning bills that are introduced by government backbenchers. That is the strategy that is often used. The government hopes to make serious changes to the Criminal Code with this type of provision. That is still quite a leap.

Take for example a jury that makes recommendations to a judge in an absolutely appalling case similar to that of Paul Bernardo. I have no doubt that a jury of peers would sentence the accused to life in prison with the maximum number of years before he was able to appear before the parole board, because the case was so appalling to anyone who followed it.

That person is going to die in prison and will never be released. However, being able to review the person's case is part of our system. At some point, there may be an exceptional case where the individual will not be seen as a dangerous offender. It is important to understand that the Clifford Olsons and Bernardos—especially Bernardo—will not have to appear before the board every two years.

It is absolutely horrible for victims to have to relive the events. I have spoken to a lot of victims when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has studied various bills. Neither this bill nor any of the bills introduced by the government gives victims the slightest comfort, except for maybe a brief moment when the bill is passed and they tell themselves that someone has thought about them. The next day, they go back to thinking about their child who was mutilated, raped and murdered.

People tell us that if the justice system was designed to be more respectful of victims' rights and if crown attorneys were to speak with victims when they are in court—and with the parents, in those cases—to explain what is happening, that would already be more respectful.

Using this bill to suggest to victims that they will not have to go before the parole board every two years is just misleading and makes them believe something that is not true. It is like telling people that, with Bill S-7, we are all safer now. That creates a false sense of security, a false sense of something that does not exist. We do not play those games in the NDP. We think these issues are much too serious to spread falsehoods.

As I started to say, imagine a situation where a jury suggests to a judge to have an offender serve 40 years before he is eligible to go before the parole board. Then, imagine that the judge decides to support that recommendation, regardless of the jury's reasons. Obviously, that would be challenged. It would probably go straight to the Supreme Court of Canada, because there may be completely different sentences for a crime that is probably similar, even with the wording in question.

We must remember that the Conservatives have a goal, one that was set when they arrived in government, that they are pursuing today and that will ultimately result in a victims' charter, which I am anxious to see. I thought we had identified victims' needs. However, it seems that the minister needs to hold further consultations. The Conservatives consult instead of taking action. That is their style at present. That said, this is a major and complex problem.

Once again, section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we cannot impose “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. I will be told that the crime itself is cruel. I completely agree. None of us would rise and say that kidnapping, raping and murdering a child is not horrible or despicable enough to warrant being punished. However, the perpetrator is already punished with a life sentence. The Bernardos of this world will never leave jail. The Conservatives should stop implying that we are not tough enough on this type of crime. We are.

In this case, we are talking about the right to appear before a board. I have spoken with a number of human rights experts such as legal scholars, criminologists, criminal lawyers, crown attorneys and defence attorneys. They have told me that there is a risk.

Take the case of Clifford Olson, which involved kidnapping, rape and murder. Did the crown attorney have to prove the rape and kidnapping? No. He put all his efforts into proving the murder and he sought the life sentence for the offence of murder.

What this means is that this bill will change what happens in courts of law. That is why I asked my colleague the question. He says that he has spoken to people at the justice department. I do not doubt him, but I would like to hear from them.

We will be voting against this bill, with the support of the Liberals, which surprises me. The Liberal Party justice critic is a human rights expert, so I was really surprised to hear that. That said, they are changing everything on this issue.

I cannot wait to hear from someone from the justice department tell us that he or she seriously doubts that this will pass the tests. Should we leave it up to the courts to decide whether these people should be incarcerated and whether there is any doubt? If, like the individual wrote on their website, the goal is to prevent victims and their families from having to go before the parole board, it would have been much better to find ways so that these people—in cases like Bernardo, Olsen and other such cases—do not have to do so, or have the choice, unless the offender is very close to being released, or unless it would be dangerous to release him. Much like my colleague, I am 95% or almost 100% sure that they will not be released. It is therefore quite possible that victims and their families would not have to attend.

I will listen to the rest of the debate, but I can say that this bill definitely does not meet the criteria. Indeed, a major change in how these cases are dealt with in court and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight in favour of Bill C-478.

First, I would like to ask the indulgence of my colleagues to say a few words about a case in Nova Scotia, with which I think we are all familiar. It is a case that has received national and international attention over the past few weeks. I am speaking about the very tragic case of Rehtaeh Parsons.

I know all members would join me in offering our very sincere condolences to the family and friends of Rehtaeh Parsons on what is truly a tragic loss. All members, I think, are looking forward to the Minister of Justice introducing legislation that we hope and expect will recognize the dangers that our children face in today's world and help us put an end to cyberbulling.

I do not know how we legislate to stop people treating others in a way that is ridiculing, demeaning or making false statements about them, because that is part of the bullying in this case. What has happened in more than one school, as we know, is of great concern, so I look forward to what the minister has. I hope we can, as a society, not just bring forward laws that deal with this, but go beyond that to face up to what has happened and try to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

Let me turn my attention to Bill C-478. It is certainly interesting legislation from my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, and I appreciate him bringing it forward. I welcome this change. It is a change from the usual Conservative practice in that the bill does not seek to limit judicial discretion. I do not know if that is the result of the discussions he had with the Department of Justice. Maybe it was his own approach to begin with. What we normally see from the government is not to allow any discretion from judges, which is a Republican approach that it seems to have adopted and with which I do not agree. We have to look at each case and the facts of each case separately, which is what the member has proposed that judges do in this instance. It is based, in part, on the recommendation of the jury, which the judge could consider.

Like Canadians everywhere, the Liberal Party believes that our courts should be empowered to impose severe sentences where warranted. I do not think this is a case of a cruel sentence. We are talking about people whose sentence is life imprisonment. We are talking about what the parole situation is.

Often it is positive and it makes sense, depending on the kind of crime, to have the possibility of parole. In many cases, it improves the chance that a convict will perhaps be more co-operative in prison or will try to rehabilitate. This is not to say that all convicts can be rehabilitated, but they will hopefully make some effort so when the time comes that they can apply for parole, they might have a chance. The experts have said that and there are some benefits to it.

As my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake has said, we are talking about a different kind of case. We are talking about cases like Clifford Olson and what happens to the poor families of victims that have to go through a series of parole hearings over time. How horrible to think that the perpetrator has the power over those families to force them to go before a parole board and relive the whole thing, not every year, perhaps, but multiple times.

I appreciate very much what my hon. colleague is working to achieve here. It is important to also remember that what he is talking about is where a perpetrator has not only committed murder, but has abducted someone, sexually assaulted and then murdered that person. He is saying that a person has to have all of those three crimes, which is a pretty severe instance.

The other thing he has said is let us leave it to the discretion of the judge to make the assessment. Is this person a Clifford Olson type of person who is going to be there forever and who might be trying to take advantage or cause humiliation and upset to the families over that period? In a case where the judge comes to that conclusion, he or she can say that the perpetrator will not have the chance of parole until 40 years from now.

That is what my hon. colleague is trying to do, and our party will support the effort to ensure that criminals of the type we are talking about would face a sentence of imprisonment for life, without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering a recommendation, if any, of the jury.

Having said all that, I am supporting the bill and I appreciate it.

However, as we have seen a lot in this House, the Conservative approach to crime focuses on punishment. I do not have a problem with the idea of promoting public safety or the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. That is why I support this bill. However, I would like to see more focus from the government on the actions to prevent crime. I will speak more about that, because preventing it at the outset is obviously a very important goal. It is far better to not have the crime occur than to punish someone for it afterward. There are still going to be crimes and we would still have to have punishment, but let us also do as much as we can to protect the public and keep criminals off the street in that way, because then they would not be criminals.

However, when it comes to criminals who commit serious offences, let us absolutely get them off the streets. I do not think any member would disagree that preventing the victims from becoming victims to begin with would be our primary goal.

To be specific, this new provision would apply to offenders convicted of one of the following abduction or kidnapping offences: kidnapping and forcible confinement, abduction of a person under the age of 16, abduction of a person under the age of 14, abduction and contravention of a custody order, and abduction. It would apply as well to the following sexual assault offences: sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault. As well, as I said earlier, it would apply to murder. The new provision would apply in the case of any one of those in the first category, any in the second category, and murder.

The intent of this bill is to lessen the burden on victims' families, for whom parole hearings can obviously be horrendous and horrific. My colleague spoke of the offences as horrific, but clearly reliving them is horrific as well, and that is something that needs to be addressed.

This bill would give the courts the option of denying parole for up to an additional 15 years without limiting their discretion. That is why we can support this bill.

Meanwhile, the House should be looking at other measures we can take to fight crime and, if possible, prevent it from happening in the first place.

To reduce the occurrence of serious violent offences, Canada could improve the funding and training of police forces, enhance neighbourhood watch programs and enhance school security. I am not advocating what we heard from the National Rifle Association in the U.S., which talked about having armed guards in schools. That is not what I am suggesting, but there are things we can do to improve the security of schools.

I am sure most members here today had meetings earlier this week with front-line police officers. I met with officers from Halifax, who talked about the fact that the economics of policing is a major issue and that the police need to be involved in developing policies that affect those economics. In particular, they raised the fact that they are often dealing with mental health issues, and that type of situation diverts their attention. They might arrest someone who really has a mental health problem, take the individual to a hospital because he or she has been injured, and then sit there for six hours having to wait until someone can take over. That obviously diverts those police officers from their other duties and is a drain on police resources.

They talked also about people who breach their parole and the concern that the person could remain out on the street if that situation is not dealt with quickly. I hope the government members will listen and address these concerns of the officers.

We do accept and support this bill as an acceptable amendment to sentencing guidelines.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code contained in the private member's bill before us today.

Let me begin by stating that the amendments contained in Bill C-478, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, are based on the same fundamental propositions that underlie many legislative initiatives passed by Parliament in the interests of victims of crime and of their families and loved ones. The fundamental proposition is a straightforward one. The families and loved ones of murdered victims should not become secondary victims of convicted murderers by being forced to relive the details of their terrible loss every time the killer applies for parole.

As hon. members may recall from past debates, both first and second degree murder is punishable by life imprisonment and is subject to a period, set out in section 745 of the Criminal Code, during which the murderer may not apply for parole. While all murderers are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murders are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with first degree murder that justifies the longer mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

While the mandatory minimum period of parole for second degree murder is ten years, it may be increased in two situations. First, if a person who is convicted of second degree murder has been convicted of either a prior murder or of an intentional killing under the crimes against humanity and war crimes acts, the parole ineligibility period is automatically the same as for first degree murder, namely 25 years. In such cases, the fact that the murderer has killed before is considered to increase his or her moral blameworthiness up to the level of first degree murder.

Second, even if the person convicted of second degree murder has not killed before, a judge has the discretion, under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, to impose a period of parole ineligibility of up to 25 years based on the murderer's character, the nature and circumstances of the murder and any jury recommendation in this regard. In short, the higher the degree of moral blameworthiness associated with a second degree murder, the longer the parole ineligibility period that may be imposed to reflect it.

It is important to bear in mind the concept of moral blameworthiness in considering the proposals put forth in Bill C-478. These proposals are directed at the most morally blameworthy murderers, those in which the murder victim has also been subjected to a kidnapping and to a sexual assault by the murderer. It is hard to imagine a more heinous series of acts committed against the same victim.

The issue before us today is that, with the exception of the case of multiple murders, the maximum parole ineligibility period for a murder permitted under the Criminal Code is 25 years. This is true no matter how terrible the circumstances in which the murder may have been committed.

As for multiple murderers, as members will recall, the government introduced and passed the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. These Criminal Code amendments permit a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period on a multiple murderer for the first murder in accordance with the provisions I have already described. The judge is also authorized to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods of 25 years, one for each victim after the first, to ensure that the life of not one murder victim is automatically discounted at sentencing.

However, as the current law stands, a parole ineligibility of only 25 years would be applied to an individual who has committed one murder and has also kidnapped and sexually assaulted the same victim. This is the exact situation Bill C-478 is attempting to correct. That is, the bill would eliminate the current devaluation of the suffering of the murder victim as well as the apparent disregard of the extreme level of moral blameworthiness exhibited by the murderer. One has only to recall the murder of Tori Stafford by Michael Rafferty to realize the truth of this statement.

Allow me to be more specific about what Bill C-478 would do. First, it would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to require a mandatory parole ineligibility period of 25 years for anyone convicted of murder who has also been convicted of committing one of the listed kidnapping and abduction offences as well as one of the listed sexual offences against the murder victim.

Second, the bill would authorize a sentencing judge to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years, based upon the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any jury recommendation in this regard.

As I described earlier, in the context of second degree murder, these are well-established Criminal Code criteria that permit the judge and jury who have heard the evidence at trial to make this important decision.

The purpose of the bill is very clear, very important and very simple. As the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake himself said when he introduced the legislation on February 27:

This bill is not about creating stiffer penalities for sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts do not qualify for parole. My bill is about saving families of victims from having to go through the agony of attending unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings.

In other words, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that families of the victims who have suffered such horrendous violence are not re-victimized by the justice system.

It is far too often the case that the families and loved ones of victims experience a greater degree of pain and experience a greater sense of loss because the justice system has failed to protect them from being re-victimized every two years when their murderer applies, in vain, for parole.

It could not be more appropriate that we are debating the issue raised by Bill C-478 during National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. In this regard, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the theme of this year's event: We All Have a Role. In this regard, our role as members of Parliament during this important week is clear. It is to reflect on the obvious merits of Bill C-478 and agree to move as quickly as possible to committee and to third reading, thus to ensure it becomes the law of the land in the shortest possible time.

In fact, I can think of nothing that would honour the meaning of this week more than if we could see this bill pass through the House and the other place within the year so that we may celebrate it in time for next year's National Victims of Crime Awareness Week and take pride in the role we played in bringing this about.

In closing, I thank all members for their attention and urge them to come together in the interests of the families and loved ones of victims of horrific crimes targeted by Bill C-478, this important legislation that would meet a real need. I strongly urge all members, therefore, to give their full support to the bill and urge its swift passage.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau and our justice critic. She has done an excellent job as our critic, as always. It is a pleasure and honour to work with her on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

We heard from the bill's sponsor. I understand his position. We are all moved by crimes when we hear what the families of victims must go through or when we must relive these situations, even if it is only at a trial.

I cannot imagine the feelings and emotions these families must experience. I can understand why the bill's sponsor wants to prevent victims from having to attend parole hearings.

Bill C-478 would increase the term for life imprisonment without parole from 25 years to 40 years in the case of offenders who are convicted of three crimes: the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim.

As my colleague mentioned, it is not clear whether this bill is consistent with the charter.

The bill's sponsor mentioned that the Department of Justice had been consulted. However, we recently learned from department employees that the department does not always check to see whether bills are consistent with the charter. There is a problem there. We have some doubts about what this bill does and whether it is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My colleague from Gatineau said it was very surprising to see the Liberals support this bill, especially when we see what kind of impact it could have.

We have been seeing a shift in the Liberals for a while now. The Liberals supported Bill S-7 and now they are supporting this bill.

Again, I understand my colleague's intent. I know how much everyone wants to avoid making the families suffer.

However, Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, said that this bill was all smoke and mirrors. If someone is accused of first degree murder, the Crown generally does not bother to deal with less serious offences. When Mr. Olson was found guilty of murdering 11 children, the Crown did not bother with charges of kidnapping or sexual assault, even though he obviously also committed those crimes.

The Crown would have had to prove each crime and could have used that to encourage a plea bargain, but it always depends on the judge's willingness to give more than 25 years, which he thinks is unlikely. He does not think that many judges would sentence a criminal to life with prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. Judges simply would not do that. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with a chance of parole after 25 years, this already takes into account that if the person represents a danger or a risk, they will not be granted parole. He thinks that this is a false promise, despite good intentions. The measure would be used at most a few times a year, but would change nothing for the families of victims.

That is where our concern lies. We understand the sponsor's intention, but he himself said that judges are not bound by the change and do not have to increase the ineligibility period to 40 years.

Our concern is about the law. Members have mentioned the charter, but we also need to talk about our obligations with regard to international law. Canada signed the Rome statute. Paragraph 110(3) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states that life in prison is the maximum sentence, but that it must be reviewed after 25 years. That applies to all serious crimes.

I can understand why my colleague wanted to mention certain crimes. However, what international law dictates and what Canada decided to apply is a maximum of 25 years for all crimes. Can one crime be considered more or less serious than another? These are crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. These crimes are very serious.

Our role is not really to say which crimes are most serious. Our role is to define the law. That is why I am really very surprised that our Liberal colleagues supported this bill. Once again, I understand the intention. However, this seems to be a trend with the Conservatives. They claim that they are introducing bills because they want to try to fix a problem. However, they fail to consider Canada's obligations with respect to our legal system and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A former Department of Justice employee made this very clear. He said that the government no longer looks into that. This means that opportunities to determine whether a government bill conflicts with the charter are reduced, if not virtually eliminated.

Members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asked for a review of the existing system to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives voted against that, so we were not able to carry out such a study. As a result, we have no certainty on that point.

The trend is getting worse. We know that the bill's sponsor had the support of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. This is yet another trend with private members' bills. We know that this government's policy is to attack law and order by adding more and more offences. Obviously, their main goal is to put more and more people behind bars and build bigger and bigger prisons.

In this case, I understand that our colleague is genuinely trying to protect families. He wants to protect people from having to listen to all the details of a crime again during parole hearings. Unfortunately, as we have said, this bill does not solve the problem. Not only does it not solve the problem, it conflicts with our obligations and violates the integrity of our legal system. This is about Canada's obligation to respect certain basic rights, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our obligations in terms of international law.

We also wonder whether this will open doors, whether it will once again come before the courts. Taxpayers will again have to assume even higher legal fees. All this will go before the Supreme Court, as has happened often already. Since the Conservatives came to power, we have seen an increase in legal fees. Not just in challenges by the provinces, but also from the Supreme Court with respect to the compatibility and constitutionality of certain Conservative bills.

Once again, we support the idea behind this bill. Why not look at another option, such as changing the way hearings are held? Why not try to see what we can do to ensure that families do not need to relive these cases? We do understand the intention, which is to avoid trauma every time families have to attend the hearing. However, even my colleague knows that his bill will not prevent families from having to come back every two years to hear it again. Nothing guarantees that.

There was mention of the very serious case of Clifford Olson. He murdered 11 people between the ages of 9 and 18. Let us look at the facts, though. In the case of Clifford Olson, it does not make a big difference. After spending 25 years in prison, he applied for parole in 2006 for the first time. That application was rejected, and so was his second application, made in 2008. The third application, made in 2010, was also rejected, because the court deemed that he was still a danger to society after 30 years in jail. He died in jail in 2011.

I understand the good intentions of the bill's sponsor. However, the NDP will oppose this bill at second reading. We believe that it is a political move made without considering the rule of law or examining what has to be done to comply with the fundamental rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île has only two minutes left.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say to my colleague that I hope he will not hold it against me.

The member will not hold a grudge against me because he knows that I respect him and he is a really good member of Parliament.

As a law student, and because I have so much respect for our institutions, I think it is important to bring the debate back to the question of international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both of my colleagues mentioned these at the outset. I think it is important to take a step back to ensure that our laws fall in line with international law, on the one hand, as well as basic human rights, on the other hand. Otherwise, I think we would be making a serious mistake.

I can understand the sensitivity and the emotions surrounding this bill. I want my colleague to know that we support him and we understand why victims are so sensitive, but we really need to avoid destroying and completely dismissing our justice system.

We need to focus on the importance of the fundamental principles that make up our values and our justice system, which is recognized around the world. Many nations look to Canada as a model for their own principles of justice and criminal justice systems.

I think it is really important to highlight the fact that this bill might be in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our international obligations.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty interesting that so many colleagues are here, including my friend from Edmonton—Leduc. They are all waiting for the supplemental here and the late show performance.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

We wanted to be inspired.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

They want to be inspired over there.

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are talking about today in this adjournment proceeding is one that has created a great deal of concern among a great number of Canadians.

As the human resources and skills development critic, once the revelation came forward, I was inundated with notes of concern from Canadians who had their security breached in what has been referred to as the single largest security breach in the history of this country. As my colleague would know, almost 1 in 60 Canadians were impacted by this security breach. It is fairly significant.

We will not get into the technical aspects of the actual breach or what the government is going to do around that breach, because we know there has been a significant breach since. I think what I would like to focus on here with my question is those who are impacted and who are exposed.

When a Canadian has his or her identity stolen, we know the complications that brings. It has an impact on banking accounts, credit ratings and a whole variety of issues in how we go about living life from day to day. It certainly exposes people to a great deal of risk. The nub of my concern is about what the government has done, or what it has not done, to make sure Canadians' information is protected.

Back on February 14, when department officials appeared at the human resources committee, I asked why the government was not following the recommendations of its own agency, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. As a minimum, whenever Canadians have their security breached and are exposed to identity theft, both organizations recommend that people should place a fraud alert on their credit file.

There are two agencies that provide that service in Canada: Equifax and TransUnion. The government itself accessed Equifax. It secured the services of Equifax. However, both of its own agencies identify, even on their websites, that the services of both Equifax and TransUnion should be secured going forward.

We are not even certain if all the people who have had their security and privacy breached were made aware of it. I think it was up to about 85,000 people who had been contacted and notified. The government indicated at the time that it was going to embark on a campaign of contacting Canadians. As well, the agencies would also be in contact with Canadians.

My question is simple. Why are we not using TransUnion, the other company, as advised by those two agencies? Why are we not securing its services to protect those who had their security breached?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the loss of personal information is completely unacceptable.

That is why we have taken measures to ensure that such things do not happen again.

The matter has been referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it will decide how and when to proceed with respect to this matter.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is investigating, and the HRSDC officials have been instructed by the minister to provide their full co-operation, as we have outlined at committee.

Individuals whose information was involved were contacted by the department, and public notice was given to all Canadians, to reach those whose contact information was no longer valid, to answer the member's question directly.

All affected social insurance numbers are being annotated by the Social Insurance Registry so that at any time a request to modify the SIN record or replace a SIN card is made, agents will ask for additional information and photo identification.

An agreement has been signed with Equifax Canada so that affected clients can request that a notation be placed on their credit files free of charge.

What does this mean? This is to protect credit ratings for those students whose information went missing. When creditors view a credit file with the client's consent, they will see an alert that will advise them to look for additional proofs of identity. This enables the creditor to confirm the identity of the individual they are communicating with, and helps protect individuals from having accounts opened or their names used.

We have implemented stricter security protocols to prevent such things from happening again.

Officials have been instructed to implement disciplinary measures for staff up to and including termination should the strict code of privacy and security not be followed and the new measures include the prohibition of portable hard drives in all departmental offices. Unapproved USBs will not be connected to the department's networks. Mandatory training for all employees regarding the proper handling of sensitive data is being implemented and new data loss protection technology is being developed to control and prevent future sensitive information from going amiss.

These measures are being implemented in order to prevent such an occurrence in the future.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we know is that when we posed these questions to the government a number of months ago, the standard lines were, number one, “We are very concerned”, and, number two, “We take this very seriously”. If it was very concerned and took it very seriously, then it would pay attention to the advice of both of the federal agencies.

Let me read from the Privacy Commissioner's website, under “Frequently Asked Questions”, which states:

What should I do if my personal information is compromised by a data breach?

The answer is simple:

Contact the fraud departments of the two major credit bureaus. Request that a "fraud alert" be placed in your files. Order copies of your credit report, and repeat this step in six months.

If the Conservatives are concerned and take it seriously, why would they not contract TransUnion to protect the security of these individuals?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, this loss of information was absolutely and completely unacceptable. That is why we brought in the Privacy Commissioner and asked the RCMP to investigate. As I mentioned in my previous answer to the member opposite, we have spoken with Equifax and it is providing a service to Canadians.

When the data loss was first discovered, we moved to strengthen and improve what was occurring at the department with regard to the handling and storage of personal information. The protection and security of personal information remains our priority, and we are acting to ensure that such things do not happen again in the future.

Employment Insurance

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer in February did not address the question I posed, which was why Service Canada was unable to accurately inform the public on its website. A closed office, the only office in my riding, was still listed as open and the hours for another office were off by a full day. The minister's facile answer was to repeat that Canadians could use the website to get information. It is a joke.

When the minister is questioned about office closures and staff reductions, her response is always, the Internet, the Internet. Well if the Internet is not accurate, what use is it? There are many disabled individuals in my riding of York South—Weston and when the local office closes and they must travel farther, it is another burden on an already stressed individual. To tell them to use the Internet, when the Conservatives have cancelled the community access program that provided Internet access to disabled individuals, adds insult to injury.

Do not get me started on using the telephone service. If individuals are not hung up on by a message saying “please try again later”, constituents wait for hours on hold. Whole days have been wasted on hold. Often, speaking with an agent is, according to Service Canada, the only way to deal with a situation and in person is best, but not possible when the office is closed. Waiting on hold means the person is not looking for work. Does this mean he or she will be cut off EI if they state on the form that they could not look for work that day because they were on hold with EI? It might.

Disabled individuals face a double jeopardy. Not only is it more difficult for them to access the Internet, but it takes statistically longer for disabled individuals to find a job. No allowance has been made for disabled individuals in the new regulations that force individuals to take a 30% cut in pay if they cannot find work fast enough.

The EI system should be available to all Canadians, regardless of where they live. If the government insists that web access is the preferred means of communicating with Service Canada, then provide Internet access to those who need it, in remote communities, and to those whose means or disability makes it impossible to otherwise access.

Make the Internet services accurate. They are not. When something as simple as whether an office is open or not is wrong, it smacks of incompetence by the persons running the all-important websites, and ultimately the responsibility falls on the minister's shoulders.

If those running the EI system insist on personal visits or telephone conversations, do not waste whole days of claimants' time by having insufficient staff to answer those calls. Or, provide another means, perhaps using that selfsame Internet to create the communications link between the claimant and EI.

Cuts in staffing for telephone access and closure of offices mean huge inefficiencies for claimants. The minister should not glibly suggest using the Internet when for some individuals it is too expensive or not possible. When some of the Service Canada requirements are in person or on the phone, make sure that claimants can easily access the offices or the telephone system. To do otherwise means she is failing Canadians.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the hon. member's comments regarding Canadians' access to employment insurance benefits and Service Canada.

Our government is determined to provide Canadians with the benefits and services that they are entitled to receive.

I am pleased to inform hon. members of the efforts that we have made to ensure that Canadians are able to get the information they need about these benefits and services.

Service Canada's standard is to provide 90% of the population with in-person access within 50 kilometres of where they live. Canadians can also access services through the telephone and the Internet. Service Canada's website, as mentioned before, is kept up-to-date with the latest application forms and information on government programs.

Employment insurance claimants can securely access the website to view and update their EI account through My Service Canada Account or they can call 1-800-O-Canada. Canadians can reach a trained agent who can answer their questions on where to find program information or how to apply for benefits.

Canadians can also use the Service Canada website to locate the nearest Service Canada centres or utilize the 1-800 number to do the same.

Scheduled outreach services are offered for smaller communities without a dedicated Service Canada centre. Trained Service Canada employees travel to these remote communities and offer the same services that are provided at Service Canada centres. These employees assess citizens' individual needs in order to ensure that they are aware of the benefits they are eligible for. They also help with the application process for employment insurance, Canada pension plan, and old age security benefits.

Ninety percent of Canadians live less than 50 km from one of our 600 points of service across the country. That is a fact.

At any time, residents can also access information on the government's services and programs by visiting servicecanada.gc.ca or by calling 1-800-O-Canada.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even in that answer, the member did not respond to my original question, which was this: How is it that people are to rely on the website, when the website's information is completely inaccurate and does not provide claimants with the information?

Also, she did not answer to the issue of how people get to Service Canada, when a requirement is that claimants access it in person or by telephone and they cannot find an office and the telephone wait, if they hang up or are on hold, is a day long, which is wasting their time, time they should be out looking for work. How is that serving Canadians?

The individuals who used to have access to the Internet through the community access program no longer have that access. Therefore, saying that they can get that information on the Internet is misleading, if the information is wrong. It is delaying, if it is the only way they can access the information, and it is not accurate.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing Canadians with the services and benefits to which they are entitled. There are a number of ways in which Canadians can access these services and benefits. By calling the 1-800-O-Canada line, people can reach a trained agent who can answer questions or refer them to someone who can provide specific information. They can access our website, which is updated with accurate information on a regular basis. They can also visit one of our 600 Service Canada centres or visit one of the scheduled outreach sites. In fact, Service Canada's standard is to provide 90% of Canada's population with access to a point of service within 50 kilometres of where they live.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:16 p.m.)