André Bellavance

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Parliamentary Secretary needs a geography lesson. That is not my riding. Second, what I get out of his answer is that he could not care less about SRM, because that was my question. His answer had nothing at all to do with the SRM issue.

The Levinoff-Colbex slaughterhouse has been losing $4 million to $5 million a year for the past two years because of these SRM regulations, which the Americans refuse to enforce.

When will we see some financial assistance for producers and processors that would help them stand up to this unfair competition? That is my question.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec has said that the survival of the cull cattle slaughter industry depends on finding a resolution to the specific risk material issue. A study by the Canadian Meat Council revealed that it costs $32 more per head of cattle to slaughter in Canada than in the United States, because of Canadian SRM regulations.

What does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to do about this competitive disadvantage that he created?

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, given that oral question period is imminent, this major 20-minute speech that I am about to give will unfortunately be interrupted. But no one will miss anything, for I will be back to finish my speech on Bill C-35.

The purpose of this bill is to lift the immunity of states that support terrorism and expose them to private civil actions. The Bloc Québécois has already pointed out its many reservations about this bill, but we are prepared to examine it in committee. As I have always said, all legislation deserves to be examined in committee, unless it is completely absurd or goes against our values. We can study it to determine if this kind of bill can be improved in any way. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have many questions. There are a number of irritants in this bill that will definitely have to be eliminated in order to obtain the Bloc Québécois' support.

Right now, the State Immunity Act prevents victims from suing states. The act gives foreign states jurisdictional immunity before Canadian courts and prevents anyone from suing foreign states in Canada, even for crimes recognized under international law. This jurisdictional immunity also applies in cases where the victim is Canadian, as in the cases of Zahra Kazemi, William Sampson and Maher Arar.

In criminal cases, the law currently permits legal action against foreign officials. Legal action may also be taken against agents of a foreign government for abuses perpetrated outside of Canada. However, both the victim and the perpetrator must hold Canadian citizenship when the crime is committed, or the perpetrator of the abuse or crime must be in Canada. Even so, criminal law does not provide for compensation for the victim. That is the current situation in Canada.

I will now turn to the government's proposed changes. In creating the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and amending the State Immunity Act, the federal government is lifting that immunity and authorizing Canadian citizens to sue individuals who participated in acts of terrorism and organizations and states that financed or protected terrorists in Canadian courts. At first glance, it seems like a very good way to ensure that justice is done for victims of terrorism.

Right now, state immunity prevents anyone from taking any action whatsoever to obtain redress. Some damage can never be repaired, and people tell themselves that that is what the law says, so it must be all right. But we can obtain redress and punish the guilty parties to ensure that justice is done and that the people who were hurt, the victims, have a chance to confront the ones who victimized them. However, several of the parties in this House have detected significant oversights in this bill. Because of these oversights, there will not really be any victims who succeed in obtaining compensation. The intention is good, but we have to take a closer look at how it will play out. As legislators, we have to ensure that a law will truly be effective, and that is not the case with Bill C-35.

Under the bill, foreign states and terrorist organizations can only be sued if they are on the government's list. We do not know yet which countries will be listed. Foreign states can be sued only if they did something for the benefit of the listed terrorist group that actually caused the harm in question. It appears that the cause of action does not cover situations where a state was involved directly. This refers to whether they committed one or more of the following acts: providing property for terrorist activities, providing property or services for terrorist activities, possessing property for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities, participating in the activity of a terrorist group, facilitating a terrorist activity, committing an indictable offence for the benefit of a terrorist group, instructing a person to carry out an activity for the benefit of a terrorist group, instructing a person to carry out a terrorist activity, and, harbouring a person whom he or she knows has carried out or is likely to carry out a terrorist activity.

The courts may hear the cause of action only if the action has a real and substantial connection to Canada, in other words, if the victim is Canadian, the defendant is Canadian, the harm occurred in Canada or on a vessel or aircraft in Canada. That sums up what Bill C-35 is all about.

As I was saying, the Bloc Québécois has a number of questions. There are a number of irritants in this bill, but we would nonetheless like to refer it to committee in order to discuss all aspects of it.

In practice, and I was saying this a few moments ago, the recourse offered by the government through Bill C-35 could never provide justice or redress to the victims. The state being sued could quite simply refuse to compensate the victims, despite any ruling.

I will continue immediately after question period with all my concerns about this bill.

[Supply Management, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, agricultural producers operating under supply management are very concerned. They do not understand why this government would jeopardize supply management by putting it up for negotiation with the European Union. Considering that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, one wonders why this government would jeopardize over 73,000 jobs in Quebec.

When will this government recognize that supply management is a sound economic policy and that it should not be up for negotiation? This means that if we do not want to put it up for negotiation, then we should not put it on the table.

[Supply Management, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, whether they negotiate swiftly or not, supply management is in danger. The director of the Canada Europe Roundtable on Business claims that defending supply management is an obstacle and a source of frustration, and a government representative has stated that supply managed producers are holding the rest of the agricultural industry hostage.

Will the government stand by supply management and take it off the table in talks with the European Union?

[Supply Management, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time, the federal government is putting supply management up for negotiation in the context of free trade talks with the European Union. The Minister of International Trade has even said that this is a good strategy. Now he finds himself in the absurd position of having to negotiate something that he says he does not want to negotiate. Clearly, these negotiations are off to a bad start.

Will the minister do what he should have done at the very beginning and make it clear to the European Union that supply management is non-negotiable?

[Income Tax Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised, but at the same time, I am flabbergasted. What I just said may be contradictory, but I cannot get over hearing yet another Conservative member talk about the supposed cost of the measure in Bill C-290. The Conservatives have been coming up with figures like $10 billion a year since we introduced what was then called Bill C-445. But they have never proven that this measure could actually cost that much.

One thing is certain, though: by shaving two points off the GST, this government is willing to sacrifice $12 billion to $13 billion a year, yet it is not willing to shell out any money to help retirees who have been cheated.

That is why I ask that this bill be sent to committee. I want the Conservatives to come with their figures and prove that this measure would cost that much. I did my homework. According to the economists we consulted, it would not cost anywhere near the ridiculous figure of $10 billion a year.

I want to see the Conservative Party prove its claims, prove how much it will cost, and show up in committee to discuss this file and this bill. If amendments need to be made or if any measures need to be added in order to correct anything that does not make sense in terms of sound management, we are prepared to look at it all together. I have always said that I am very open in that regard, but at the end of the day, we must do something to help those retired workers who have been cheated.

Nevertheless, I must thank the members who have spoken in favour of Bill C-290, which would provide a refundable tax credit to taxpayers whose employer has failed to contribute to their pension plan. My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, spoke earlier about the Jeffrey Mine in my riding in Asbestos, and about Atlas Steel and the people of Sorel-Tracy. I prepared this bill with their help, along with that of my colleagues from Chambly—Borduas and Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour.

I think it is important to point out that there are new facts in this matter. More and more people are becoming aware of this problem of workers losing their pension plans. On Wednesday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, a number of colleagues from my party and the two other opposition party leaders—the Liberal leader and the NDP leader were there as well—took part in a demonstration by thousands of retired employees of Nortel and other companies, who came here to call for change in the pension plan system, which is not protecting them properly. Unfortunately, I did not see any representatives of the Conservative Party there, and, as we heard again today, they are claiming that Bill C-290 would cost far too much. As I was saying earlier, this same government, by cutting the GST by 2%, is depriving itself of $12 billion to $13 billion a year.

I am challenging the Conservatives to vote in favour of my bill to refer it to committee and to prove their claims about the cost of this measure, which they have not done to this day in any of the speeches made since I introduced this bill for the first time in May 2007, when it was Bill C-445.

Bill C-290 is one of many measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois in response to the needs expressed by demonstrators who were on the Hill on Wednesday.

There are other measures: the federal government could put pension funds in trust. The federal government could reverse its decision to gradually raise the threshold for automatic review of foreign acquisitions to $1 billion and reinstate the $300 million threshold. It could raise the contributions ceiling to 120%. It could also give disabled workers insured by a self-insurance plan preferred creditor status.

Citizens themselves have already suggested several measures like these. I remember how, when we started talking about this bill, we were looking for ideas. We were wondering what could be done. It was not clear that something like a refundable tax credit, as it was presented, could be a solution. There did not seem to be any good solutions, but the president of the Jeffrey Mine retirees' sub-committee came up with this idea. Since then, more and more people have become aware of the situation, especially because of the economic crisis we are going through now.

I am proud to have introduced this bill, which is gaining support. As I have said, a majority of members of the House of Commons, the thousands of demonstrators on Wednesday and the 2,000 people who signed a petition in my riding support this measure.

Once again, I urge members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of Bill C-290.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and, had a little over 10 minutes been allotted to me for my speech, I happen to have here notes regarding the banks' requirement to report improper activities. The Bloc Québécois is proposing that banks be required to report suspicious transactions, including discrepancies in trust accounts, to the financial markets authority and to the professional corporation the person involved belongs to. This approach would allow regulatory bodies to quickly identify fraudulent transactions and act before people's entire savings have been misappropriated. I therefore totally agree with my colleague from the NDP.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is himself confused, because I really was very clear, even if in ten minutes, it is not possible to discuss all the ins and outs of a bill. One thing is sure, he has just shown how confused he is. He says that there is a problem with my remarks when I say we have to be critical of the fact that Vincent Lacroix will be able to get out after two years and two months. Why can he get out then? Because the law as it stands allows him to. Parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served is a fact. So, after serving one-sixth of his sentence of 13 years, as set by the judge, who, in my opinion did a good job, he will get out.

What we in the Bloc are saying is that parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served must be eliminated. I do not know if the member was present when Parliament resumed on September 14. Right off, on arrival, we introduced a bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence. Let us take the example of someone like Vincent Lacroix. That is his name. I do not know whether the hon. member has been following the news in Quebec recently with regard to economic crimes, but the man defrauded 9,200 people of $130 million. His name is Vincent Lacroix. If parole after serving one-sixth of a sentence were abolished, he would be in prison for 13 years, not just two years and two months.

That is what we are criticizing, and I do not see how minimum sentences would change anything. Bill C-52 would have told the judge who considered the case of Vincent Lacroix that he had to be given a minimum of two years for his fraud. A fat lot of good that does us. He gave him 13 years. He certainly would not give anyone like Vincent Lacroix two years, or he would have his head taken off in Quebec. This is why I would say the hon. member is confused and not me.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-52 introduced by the government.

I want to begin my speech by making a comment. When this bill was announced, we were surprised, or maybe not that much, since other ministers have behaved this way, to learn through various press conferences held across Canada, in Ottawa, Montreal and Edmonton, that the substance of this bill was being released before we as parliamentarians and legislators knew about it and had a chance to look at the bill and what it entails. This government once again is using a very important matter, that of economic crimes, to do some marketing.

This is not the first time I have seen this. I just want to give the government a friendly warning. They did the same thing during the last budget. Before the budget was tabled, a number of ministers made targeted announcements. Take for example the agriculture portfolio, for which I am the Bloc Québécois critic. The Minister of Agriculture made an announcement on measures that he wanted to implement before the budget was even tabled. When the budget was tabled, it was not at all what the farmers expected and it did not address their concerns. The government leaked information for the sake of publicity but we could not react because we did not have the exact wording of the budget in front of us.

That is how the story of this bill began.

Nevertheless, in order to be consistent with all the interventions it has made in the House, the Bloc Québécois is prepared to go over this bill in committee. It will need some minor and some major changes. Over the next few minutes I will explain what could be done to make this bill acceptable and effective.

The government's Bill C-52 is just not good enough. We will send it to committee, we will study it thoroughly, and we will recommend some much-needed changes.

The first problem is that this bill proposes minimum sentences.That is the Conservative government's pet project. It wants to put minimum sentences all over the place. We have to make sure that imposing minimum sentences for economic crimes will really make a difference. These offences are known as white-collar crimes, or maybe lace-collar crimes if the offender is a woman. Regardless, we are talking about people like Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones, who are fraudsters. We are seeing more and more cases like this. It could be because people are speaking up about it more than they used to. Or maybe it really is happening more often than before. I do not know, but we have to get tougher and tougher on these people.

The first point I want to make is that minimum sentences are not a deterrent. During question periods and press conferences, the minister has been unable to think of one single major fraud case in which the sentence has been less than the two years proposed in Bill C-52. Under this bill, there will be a minimum two-year sentence for fraud cases over $1 million.

We asked the Conservatives to find one single ruling, one precedent, one case in which the judge sentenced someone convicted of fraud in excess of $1 million to less than two years, two years less a day, one year or six months in prison. The minister himself has been unable to provide a single example.

After researching the issue, we learned that typical prison sentences in fraud in excess of $1 million cases have been around six or seven years. The most recent example that comes to mind is Vincent Lacroix, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison but will be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of that time, so will probably not serve all 13 years in jail. That is the problem. The problem is not what is in the bill, but what is not in it.

The bill talks about aggravating factors, among other things. The courts already take the aggravating factors into account. Most, if not all, of the aggravating factors in the current bill were addressed in the Vincent Lacroix ruling. This means that the judge who presided over this case had full flexibility to add aggravating factors. One need only read the ruling to see that the new Bill C-52 would not have changed much in Vincent Lacroix's case.

This is already the case with restitution orders, which are broader in scope in the bill, but experts have raised concerns about the feasibility of these measures in practice. That remains to be seen. I think it would be good for the committee to hear from these experts and from the government to see how we could make these restitution orders effective.

Orders that limit the activities of offenders are a little better and more useful. But this, as well, is at best an extension of a practice that already exists in the Criminal Code. That is one thing that could be acceptable in this bill. But we believe—and I am not the first Bloc Québécois member who has spoken in this House—that it is missing the obvious.

We believe that the problem with parole is not when they are going in, but when they are coming out. What happens is that criminals—and this is what people object to—receive prison sentences that are standard, appropriate, and accepted by the public, but they are released before their sentence is up.

A guy like Vincent Lacroix gets 13 years in prison for what he did. People in my riding are telling me that a 13-year sentence for what he did makes sense. What does not make sense is that he could be released sooner, thanks to the parole system and the one-sixth of a sentence option that this government refuses to eliminate. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for it to be eliminated.

As soon as the House resumed, we introduced a bill. The parliamentary secretary said it is really complicated. Yet the bill is very simple; it eliminates the one-sixth practice. With this measure, Vincent Lacroix could therefore not get out after two years and two months, which is what one-sixth of a 13-year sentence would work out to. People are upset. They are not happy, and with good reason.

The same thing goes for Earl Jones. Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones could therefore benefit from this practice of parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. I would remind the House that Lacroix's crimes affected 9,200 victims. He stole over $130 million from people and not one cent of it was recovered. They will never see that money again. A sentence of 13 years is acceptable, but if he is granted parole after serving one-sixth of it, he will get out in two years and two months.

The figures I just gave regarding the victims are an indication of what a problem this is. In addition, we are not doing anything about tax havens. We think this presents a good opportunity, at committee, to try to add measures to this bill to eliminate tax havens, since we know that is where crooks stash their spoils.

What good will it do to order restitution of hidden money? Unfortunately, fraud artists are generally smart people who plan ahead. They defraud their victims over a number of months and years, and the smarter they are, the better their scheme will be. Unfortunately, they will manage to hide the money they steal from people. They will even tell themselves that, if worst comes to worst, they will spend some time in prison, but that when they are eventually released, they will be able to recover the stolen money from the tax havens where they hid it.

This is where we can take action to ensure that these people cannot hide the money they have stolen and that the victims can get their money back.

Amending the Income Tax Act to prohibit the use of tax havens would obviously be a big improvement. As we know, tax havens allow individuals and companies to hide money and avoid paying tax.

I will conclude on the issue of tax havens. I would like to make three points before I finish. We want to repeal the provisions that allow companies to use a strategy known as double deduction. The Bloc Québécois proposes to amend a section of the Income Tax Regulations that allows Canadian companies to set up what are known as international business corporations in Barbados. We also plan to oppose the ratification of any free trade agreement with countries that are on the OECD banking transparency greylist or blacklist.

In conclusion, I believe it would be a good idea to send this bill to committee and make the necessary changes to it, especially as regards parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served and tax havens.