Dick Harris

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes to respond to that question. I am sure we could have a four hour emergency debate on the loopholes that the government has left in the Criminal Code, or in many respects, deliberately put in the Criminal Code so that the outcome of the courts would be more appropriate to the Liberals' philosophy that criminals should not go to jail, but rather should serve time in the community so that they could commit more crimes.

Let me deal with the promise made by the Minister of Justice yesterday. After it was brought up that a child rapist was given a conditional sentence under house arrest, he promised he would fix that.

We only have one thing to say to Canadians, to the House and to the Liberals. The Liberals should hang their heads in shame when they think about this. How many promises since 1993 has the Liberal government made to Canadians time after time after time and how many promises have they broken? That is the response that we give to the Minister of Justice. He should not talk about it if he cannot do it.

The Liberals have talked about getting tough on crime so many times and they have not followed through. They came back with some mishmash watered down addition to the Criminal Code that really means nothing except that it will be easier for crooks to get off. That is what they do. They have broken every other promise they have made.

Before the last election the Prime Minister said, “I will fix health care in this country for a generation and I will do it within a year”. It came out a couple of days ago that one year after the Prime Minister made the promise to fix the waiting lists, the waiting time has improved by one day. Instead of 18 weeks, it is 18 weeks less a day. That is the improvement the Liberal government has made in the waiting lists for operations in this country.

The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They stand up and so self-righteously declare themselves as the saviours of public health care in this country. That is a joke and a fraud. Private health care in this country has never had such a rapid increase. Under that Liberal government with a Prime Minister who was the second most important person in the Liberal government for so many years, the Minister of Finance, who oversees all the money that goes into health care. It is phony. The Liberals' promises to fix health care are phony. They are now and they always have been.

The Liberals' promises to fix the justice system are phony. They always have been and they still are.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I just love it when Liberal members hand me gifts like that.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge River knows that Mr. Cadman's intention was that anyone who wholly or in part alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle ID number without lawful excuse is committing an offence, when it is proven that the person has done it, period. That is the offence. That makes it very easy for the crown in any court in this country to convict a person on the act of removing or defacing wholly or in part the VIN of a vehicle. That is the criminal offence Mr. Cadman wanted in his bill.

The government said that would make it too easy for any crown attorney to put someone in jail, so the government added “and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”. The crown now has to tell the judge that the case has been proven and the person charged did indeed destroy or remove the VIN.

Because the Liberal government added that obligation, it now has to be proven that the individual did it to hide the identity of the vehicle. More time will be needed because this addition in Bill C-64 to section 377.1 of the Criminal Code makes it necessary to prove the person did it because he wanted to hide the vehicle's identification. His lawyer could be right and say he was doing it just because it was fun. The crown has to prove that he really wanted to hide the vehicle's identification number.

That is the part of the bill that the Conservative Party has a problem with. The government has provided a loophole to people who destroy vehicle identification numbers on vehicles. I hope that is clear.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-64, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with the tampering or removal of vehicle identification numbers.

The bill has been referred to as being in the memory of Chuck Cadman. Chuck Cadman, as we know, presented a bill to the House after years of imploring the government to deal with the situations of tampering with vehicle ID numbers and the tremendously rising rate of auto thefts across Canada, particularly in the area of British Columbia where Mr. Cadman resided, which was the Surrey lower mainland area where car theft is rampant and has been for years. Mr. Cadman had been imploring the government to deal with this in a substantial way in respect of organized crime that has created these car theft rings. They steal cars and change the ID numbers or destroy them in some way so that they cannot be identified.

The way things are at present is that people who are in possession of vehicles that have tampered ID numbers can be charged with possession of goods obtained through a crime if the crown can prove that case. However the thing that has been missing in the Criminal Code is the crime of the act of changing a vehicle identification number or defacing it in some way that would benefit the criminal involved in the theft of the vehicle.

It is kind of confusing as to why this was not in the Criminal Code because the act of defacing or removing VIN numbers is in fact for criminal intent and not many other reasons, which is why Mr. Cadman was so anxious to get the government for some years to act on this.

Now the government has responded in somewhat of a fashion and has said that it is introducing Bill C-64 to respect the wishes of Mr. Cadman, who was a member in the House. However one has to question the government's sincerity because it has taken the wishes of Mr. Cadman and how he wanted this bill to be dealt with and made some additions to it, which, in effect, have dramatically watered down the original pleas of Mr. Cadman to deal with this.

What Mr. Cadman wanted to have is a bill that said, “Everyone commits an offence who, partially or wholly alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle ID number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse would be subject to an indictable offence”. The crown would have a relatively easy time of proving its case. When someone is charged and appears before the judge, the crown could give the evidence that the person was caught engaged in the act of removing one or more vehicle identification numbers and provide the evidence that he or she did it. Under the wording that Mr. Cadman originally had in his bill, that would be it. The crown's case would be fairly straightforward.

However, the Liberal government, in its wisdom, has altered the bill to make it easier for someone to get off the charge. Instead of the Crown now having to prove in a straightforward way that the people charged were engaged and had altered or defaced, wholly or in part, a vehicle identification number, the Liberals want to give the people charged, despite all the evidence that they did it, some wriggle room in the courtroom.

They want the Crown to prove that the people who took the ID number off the car, defaced it wholly or in part, did it because they wanted to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle. One has to ask, why would someone alter, deface or remove a vehicle identification number unless they wanted to conceal the identity of the vehicle? It does not sound like a popular past time to me to just go around doing it for fun and I am sure that my colleagues, even on the Liberal side, would have to agree with me on that.

It defies even imagination why the government would want to add this piece of legislation to the original thought that Mr. Cadman had to arrest the proliferation of vehicle theft. Why would the government want to add this? Now the Crown has to prove that the people really did it because they wanted to conceal the identity.

By looking at the bill, one has to automatically conclude that this is the Liberals up to their old tricks again, of finding ways to keep criminals out of prison rather than to put them in prison for the crimes they commit.

The addition says, “—and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle.” This addition adds considerably to the Crown's job of proving the offence. It gets away from something that is very straightforward. When people are caught with a vehicle that is not their's and it is proven that the people removed, or defaced wholly or in part the identity of the vehicle, that is straightforward. That is what Mr. Cadman wanted in his original pleas to the government to do something about auto theft.

The government has said it will do that, but it would add a loophole, so people charged can get out. As everyone knows in this country, Liberals have been and continue to be soft on crime and that is why we have the rate of crime in the country that we do. It is like a revolving door in our courtrooms because of the legislation that the government has passed. There are criminals charged with crimes, anywhere from vehicle theft and altering vehicle identification numbers to crimes like sexual abuse, murder and manslaughter. It is like a revolving door.

The criminals in this country have no fear of the courts because the government has continually adopted a no go to jail policy. It is not like Monopoly where people go to court and get proven guilty. It is like landing on go directly to jail. The government does not play that game. It has a no go to jail policy and its reasoning for all the years that I have been in this place, about 12 or 13 years now, is that we do not want to put in jail people in this country who commit serious crimes. We would rather, as we have seen in so many cases, give them a conditional sentence and put them under house arrest.

We just had one case referred to in this place yesterday. Someone was found guilty of sexual assault and rape of a minor. It was brought up in a question to the Minister of Justice. The person had received, if one can believe it, a two years less a day conditional sentence that allowed the person to be under house arrest.

Is that not something? Some eminent politician said, and I think he is in this chamber, that if a government cannot protect our children, then it has no right to claim to govern this country. The children of our country are the most vulnerable. If a government cannot protect them, then how can Canadians trust it to run this country? No truer words were ever spoken and I thank the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

This addition to Mr. Cadman's original intent of this bill is simply another example of how the Liberals have a habit, almost a thirst, to water down the Criminal Code, so that we do not have to put criminals in jail for the havoc they wreak on society. As I said, the government's excuse for that is that our jails are overcrowded. Our courtrooms are overcrowded and behind schedule in every respect. The government's answer to that is not to expand the court system, not to expand the prisons, but simply not put people in jail any more. That solves the problem.

That is the answer that the Liberal government has given to members of Parliament like myself for the last 12 years that I have been here. The Liberals want to solve the overcrowding conditions in our prisons. They want to solve the workload of our courts and our country. So, this is what they will do: they will just simply not put criminals in jail. They will make it easy for them to get out on bail, so, that will ease the burden on the court system. That is what this Liberal government has been all about.

Our official opposition justice critic said that the two bills tabled by the Liberal government, in fact, soften the impact of the proposed laws of the late Chuck Cadman. Mr. Cadman had been asking the government for many years in this place to implement legislation that would provide stiff penalties for the alteration or removal of vehicle identification numbers.

Chuck Cadman was a tireless fighter for the people of North Surrey and the lower mainland, and for the rights of victims of crime across the country. He believed in what he was doing because he saw that crime happening in his community on a firsthand basis. He was aware of the rapid increase in auto theft.

The lower mainland and the Fraser Valley, as we know, are the areas where auto theft has just expanded at an incredible rate. It is controlled by major crime now. It is costing somewhere around $600 million. A $600 million a year business, and a good portion of that is happening right in the lower mainland and the Fraser valley.

One of Mr. Cadman's priorities in the last number of years was to address the growing concern of the misuse of motor vehicles. Like many regions of Canada, Surrey faced an astronomical increase in the number of auto thefts, as well as an increase in death and injuries caused by the irresponsible use of motor vehicles on public roads. With the theft of vehicles, we are not just dealing with, and the Liberals know this, the fact that the vehicle was stolen and sold for parts or sold overseas on the black market.

However, in the commission of an auto theft, far too often we read in the newspapers that there has been a police chase. When a vehicle has been reported stolen, the police have a responsibility to apprehend the person who is driving it. Far too often we see a tragic result or end to the police attempt to apprehend people because the stolen vehicle has gone through a stop light or rammed another car with a death involved.

Let us give the police credit. They have implemented a number of rules that they operate by whereby they decide when to give up on that chase if they feel that the public is in danger. Even operating within those rules, we must understand that the people driving those stolen vehicles have no responsibility. They just want to get away. Far too often we see it resulting in an automobile accident that causes death and serious injury.

What do we do to curb the actual theft in the first place? Mr. Cadman seemed to think that if we implemented some legislation that made it a little tougher on the people who would steal a vehicle and remove the identification number, that might curtail the actual thought of stealing a car in the first place. There is almost no deterrent at all now. If somehow Mr. Cadman could have had his bill passed in the spirit of what was presented with the strictness of the bill, that would have produced a deterrent for people involved in the theft of vehicles.

The government has said that Bill C-64 was respectful of Mr. Cadman and his wishes, but it has been watered down so much it fails in so many ways to respect what Mr. Cadman wanted in a piece of legislation in the first place. The government continues to practice a policy of governing that is soft on crime and we see it again in this case. It practices a policy to leave even violent criminals out on the street rather than putting them away in jails and protecting society. The government believes that a holistic approach to crime is a better way of keeping our community safe.

I can assure everyone that we in the Conservative Party, as the next government of Canada, for the first time in 12 or 13 years, will take steps that will address crime and the criminals who commit crime in this country in a way that the government has abrogated its responsibility to do.

I cannot wait until I see the minister of justice from the Conservative Party stand in the House introducing real legislation to fight crime in this country instead of watered down mush that comes from the Liberal government. Criminals are laughing at the justice system in Canada and they are allowed to laugh because the Liberal government will not do the right things to address crime. The Conservative Party will do just that after the next election.

[Bank Act, October 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am well aware of what the member is talking about concerning the guidelines and the safety nets that the government has set out for itself in the operation of how it handles the taxpayers' money. On the surface that looks pretty good.

The difference between the government and the institutions that are going to be affected by Bill C-57 is that under this bill, when banks and financial institutions and insurance companies fail to abide by the rules of the game in their operation, they are subject to very heavy penalities because of the regulation. They are subject to being charged with criminal activity.

The government has made, and may continue to make, all the rules of operation of how it spends taxpayers' money that it wants and it all sounds good. The difference is when the Liberals do not live by the rules, when they break their own guidelines, when they break their own regulations, they set themselves up while they are in office as the judge and jury of their own misdeeds. We know what the outcome of that is, just about zero penality.

That is the difference between what the Liberal government does within the guidelines it sets and what happens when it breaks its own guidelines as opposed to the regulations laid out in Bill C-57. The member knows that very well.

[Bank Act, October 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I did exactly that yesterday. I outlined the importance of the bill.

The member brought forward a couple of points that I would like to address in talking about the building that was not moved into for a year after it was built, although the lease was paid. That is not the fault of the builder. That is the fault of the government.

The other thing Canadians expect from good government is good business planning. If a government, with all the resources and all the expertise it says it has, cannot plan something as simple as a date to move into a building when it is ready, if there is a year delay because of bad business planning, that is really letting down Canadians. I think Canadians would expect more than that.

In talking about the efficient operation of banks and financial institutions, that is the very thing Canadians expect from a government as well, efficient operation. That has not happened with the Liberal government.

The sole sourcing issue is something we could probably debate all day. There could be example after example where it was probably close to rightly perceived that some of the sole sourcing examples may have been created so that they could happen. We will just leave it at that. I think the member knows what I am talking about.

In closing, Bill C-57 is a good bill. We have had a lot of input into the bill and we will certainly take credit for that. It gives the financial institutions some real guidelines to operate under. It lets them do some long term efficient business planning now, something the government apparently is incapable of.

What still remains in the minds of Canadians is if financial institutions are expected to operate under very strict governance guidelines, at the very least the government should practise what it preaches.

[Bank Act, October 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as I say, in a courtroom I intend to show the relevance of my presentation to you, and you will find out how it unfolds. I can understand the member wanting to jump up and defend his government against, quite frankly, the indefensible.

What I was trying to point out is that Canadians have to form an opinion about everything we do in this chamber that affects them. They have formed an opinion about Bill C-57 and they like it. It gives them some security. Canadians will draw a comparison between Bill C-57 and how the government wants these financial institutions to operate, and they will draw a comparison between that and how Canadians want their government to operate.

The question they are asking themselves, I am sure, is the question of how this Liberal government can demand that financial institutions operate with honesty, transparency, full disclosure and accountability when the Government of Canada, those Liberals, fail to do that themselves. This is the question that Bill C-57 raises among Canadians. I am drawing that comparison to point out that a government is responsible not only for talking the talk but, in addition, for walking the walk. This government has not done it.

The member wants some examples. We can go right back to early in the first time I was in Parliament, to the infamous sale of the Grand-Mère Golf Club, when the Prime Minister himself was perceived to have been involved in a golf course and hotel that received government financing. We can go from there to the office building leases not too long ago, when the government leased an office building from a Liberal friend, it turned out, that it did not even move into for about a year.

There was the flagrant use of the Challenger jets, the sole sourcing of government contracts to Liberal friends, and the sponsorship scandal, when hundreds of millions of dollars went into the pockets and companies of Liberal friends. The list goes on and on. Now we have the famous David Dingwall case where, as an unregistered lobbyist, he received a success fee of $350,000 for successfully placing a request for several million dollars in government funding for the company he was representing, and he is not paying it back.

The relevance is this: Canadians are looking at Bill C-57 and saying, “That is really nice and it gives us some comfort, but why can the government not learn to live by its own rules?” Why has this Liberal government failed to be accountable? Why has it failed to be transparent? Why, in many cases, has it been involved in cover-ups? Why can the government itself not do all the things which Bill C-57 is designed to ensure that these financial institutions do? That is what Canadians are asking.

I am sure the word “hypocrisy” must be on the minds of Canadians as they listen to the presentations that have been made by the Liberal members throughout this debate. Canadians must be saying that it is all very nice and they like Bill C-57, but where is the accountability, the honesty, the set of strict guidelines, and the application of opportunities for redress to the government? Where is this within the government itself? Why can it flagrantly abuse the very rules that it is setting down for the financial institutions? Those are questions that average Canadians must be asking themselves.

It is very simple. This bill talks about the standards and duties and the ethics of the directors of financial institutions, including allowing for a due diligence defence and clarifying conflict of interest. There is a provision to make minutes of board meetings available to the public where conflicts are disclosed. Could these same rules not be applied to the cabinet of the government? The cabinet operates in much the same way, with much bigger numbers than financial institutions. Cabinet members handle a budget well over $100 billion a year, yet they are not expecting themselves to operate within the same guidelines that they want the financial institutions to operate within.

There are four simple rules which the government, and every government in the world, should operate by if they want to earn and maintain the confidence of Canadians: Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not steal. Do not pay off their political friends with taxpayers' money. It is so simple, yet the Liberal government has a hard time grasping it.

I speak on behalf of so many Canadians who are asking themselves that if the government expects, and demands through law and legislation, that financial institutions and insurance companies operate within this very clear set of guidelines as far as their governance goes, why on earth can the government itself not adopt the same policy? That is the question. The Liberals have not done it. They have been wrought with scandal, rampant with corruption and rife with patronage payoffs. Canadians have had enough. When Canadians look at Bill C-57 they just roll their eyes and say, “what hypocrisy”.

We in the Conservative Party are always vigilant about how our financial institutions, insurance companies and credit unions handle the money of Canadians. We will always be vigilant in ensuring that the investments of Canadians are safe and sound, and that the companies that look after them are operating in an open, transparent and honest manner. At the same time, I would like to say on behalf of Canadians that it would be nice if the government could do the same.

[Bank Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to continue the presentation I started yesterday. To quickly review, Bill C-57 is about the governance laws of banks, insurance companies, their holding companies, and credit unions. It is to provide a framework that they are going to be obligated to operate within. It also brings this in line with the Senate bill, Bill S-11, which was a standards update that occurred in 2001.

I am sure that Bill C-57 is going to give a lot of comfort to Canadians who invest and who have savings and business with financial institutions. I think this is a good bill. My party agrees with it, of course, because while the Liberals failed to mention this in their presentation, it is here because of the insistence of members of our finance group, the member for Medicine Hat, the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove, the member for Peace River and the member for Portage—Lisgar and, of course, also the insistence of the chief member of the finance committee from the Bloc. They have insisted that the government not delay the introduction of this legislation to provide this framework and to update the governance regulations, basically so these institutions will have a clear understanding of where and how they are supposed to operate within these guidelines. I know that does give a level of comfort to Canadians.

As part of my presentation on the bill, I want to now move to what Paul Harvey might refer to as “the rest of the story”. Canadians who are watching the progression of this bill through House and who have read about it are no doubt, as I mentioned earlier, getting a great deal of comfort from knowing that the trust they have in their financial institutions is going to be even more secure and they are not going to be troubled by having another Enron or a WorldCom here in Canada. That is a good thing for Canadians, and I think all parliamentarians should take credit for getting the bill into the House.

The rest of the story is this. Let us imagine the average Canadian watching the progress of this piece of legislation about how these financial institutions are going to be governed and how they are doing their business. Let us imagine the questions they must have in their minds about how this Liberal government, which has shamelessly, over the last 12 years that I have been in the House and probably longer than that, been followed by scandal after scandal, by corruption after corruption, plagued by evidence and accusations and acts of patronage that are just beyond the comprehension of—

[Bank Act, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-57. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has given a pretty good explanation of what the bill is all about.

It is very important to mention the participation of the corporations, such as banks, bank holding companies, the insurance companies and all the corporations for which the bill would set, modernize and update governance rules.

The parliamentary secretary did not mention this but it is also important to thank the members of the official opposition finance team for the input they gave to the government. I know the government, on many occasions, sought the advice of our finance critic, the member for Medicine Hat; the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove; the member for Peace River; and the member for Portage—Lisgar, who all played a part in the formation of this bill. They have given input to the government over the years at committee and in the House. I know the government appreciated the fact that the members of the official opposition's finance group were able to participate and help the government out when it was seeking advice on some very complex issues of this bill.

The bill would make changes to the corporate governance framework of banks, bank holding companies, insurance companies, insurance holding companies, trust and loan companies and cooperative credit associations to bring them in line with the Senate Bill S-11, which was updated in 2001 for business corporations under the Canada Business Corporations Act. That is a mouthful to the average person out there watching this debate but what it means is to modernize the governance framework that the banks and financial institutions operate under so that what they do becomes more open and more transparent to shareholders and the general public at large that may do business or invest in these corporations or be part of credit unions and cooperatives. They would now be able to sleep a little better at night knowing that these governance regulations on how these corporations operate would be open and transparent. It would give them an extra measure of comfort when they are placing their money in the trust of these people.

The bill also enhances the ability of shareholders to exercise their rights by allowing for the electronic participation at meetings, which is important because many times shareholders may be living in Vancouver or Toronto and they just cannot afford to jump on a plane, fly across the country and be part of a shareholders meeting, even though they may have something important to say or to cast their votes. This would let them cast those votes electronically, something we have talked about in the House here. I am sure the day will come when members of Parliament may be able to cast their votes electronically from the other side of the country if they cannot make it to the House of Commons, which certainly would be a savings to the taxpayer given the cost of air travel these days.

The bill seeks to improve the flow of information from financial institutions to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The important part of the bill is that it would allow medium sized insurers and trust companies to apply for an exemption to the public holder requirement which requires institutions with equity holdings between $1 billion and $5 billion to make at least 35% of their voting shares available for trading on the public stock exchange. That is going to be a huge benefit to credit unions and co-ops that have been seeking this modernization of the rules.

The bill proposes changes to the policyholder governance framework and the Insurance Companies Act, which would be intended to increase disclosure in regard to participating in adjustable policies.

Millions of Canadians have insurance policies and millions of Canadians invest in insurance companies. These companies are reputable and have demonstrated that they are trustworthy, and although Canadians may feel comfortable investing in them, I would hazard a guess that many shareholders and policyholders really do not understand the fine print in their policies. This legislation would give that more disclosure.

It is important to point out that after the next election a Conservative government, this Conservative Party, will protect the best interests of consumers by fostering competition and ensuring that the financial services sector is appropriately regulated for the protection of shareholders and balanced with stability and the opportunity for success and growth. This is a written policy of our party, which we intend to follow through on when we become the next government in this House.

Cooperative organizations and banks have all expressed a level of comfort with Bill C-57. I think it is important to keep a line of communication open to the very companies that Bill C-57 would apply to, particularly banks and other financial institutions in our country.

In many cases, the government has failed to do this. Many times, banks have been left hanging by the indecision of the Minister of Finance on some very key issues such as bank mergers and cross-pillar merging. Credit unions have been seeking some administrative changes.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to perhaps help the member opposite who referred to a party in the House as the reform alliance Conservative Party. I know no party in the House that has those names. There is the Conservative Party of Canada which is the official opposition of this Parliament.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Leader of the Conservative Party travelled to the heart of the massive pine beetle disaster in British Columbia to announce a $1 billion federal aid package that would allow the province to fully implement its 10 year pine beetle action plan.

He did that because he recognizes the disaster that has hit the forest industry and communities in B.C. He did that because he recognizes the importance of the forest industry of B.C. and the rest of the country. He did that because he recognizes the importance of the province of B.C. to the rest of Canada. He announced a $1 billion pine beetle package and under a Conservative government that will be delivered.

British Columbians have long grown tired of ambivalence that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have continually showed to them. They are tired of the federal Liberals demonstrating that B.C. just is not on their agenda.

B.C. is ready for a Conservative government and a new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.