Inky Mark

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Justice a question regarding the decriminalization of marijuana bill, Bill C-38. Why the rush in putting the bill through and also who was to be the winner in this marijuana decriminalization matter?

Health Canada says that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that in order to protect our young people they should not be using marijuana.

The whole decriminalization process has been poorly thought out. It is inconsistent in terms of the intent of the bill. I do not know if the intent of the bill is to let the recreational users of marijuana, or pot, get away from being tagged with a criminal record so that they can go across the border and maybe go shopping in the United States. Is the intent to prevent our youth from smoking more pot, or to help the criminal element raise more pot? In other words, it is very unclear.

All the witnesses who came before the committee said there was no advantage to the bill, that it was poorly crafted, and that it was sending mixed messages to our youth.

If the bill were to come into being, it would change the enforcement from a criminal act to one of a parking ticket infraction. That is how the government of the day and the police will be treating people caught with X amount of marijuana. People would no longer be tagged as criminals. They would be fined and written up, like a parking ticket.

Regarding parking tickets, one of the questions that was raised was, how are youth going to pay for these parking tickets? We know the problems municipal governments have relative to the whole issue of collecting parking ticket fines. These fines are not like parking ticket fines in that most parking tickets are $5 and $10. These marijuana tickets will be more.

Youth will get a break. I cannot understand why the government would discriminate against adults and side with youth. For example, in the schedule attached in the act, an adult would pay a fine of $300 whereas a youth would pay a fine of $200.

The whole thing does not make any sense because we do not know who is going to gain or win from the decriminalization of marijuana bill. Even though the government calls it decriminalization, the use or possession of marijuana would still be an illegal act under the Criminal Code.

Let me conclude by saying that the bill sends the wrong message and the government should forget about the bill totally.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-19.

I wish to thank the member for Perth—Middlesex for his work in the aboriginal affairs committee. Having been a former member of the committee, I do have a few things to say. My riding of Dauphin—Swan River has 13 bands and a significant population base of aboriginal Canadians.

It was mentioned earlier that it is so unfortunate that on a day when we pay tribute to the Prime Minister, his biggest failure in 40 years of public life is on the aboriginal affairs file. I know that he always had good intentions in terms of helping the aboriginal community, but unfortunately, the process is fatally flawed. I could say the same thing about our current minister. I am sure the minister is well intentioned to help people, but the problem is that the system does not work.

Having been a former critic for the PC Party going back almost two years, Bill C-19 was already on the Internet. Members of the committee and members of the aboriginal community did not know anything about it. It is a good example of the flawed communication process. We cannot force or expect people to do things unless they sit down at the table and discuss issues.

Bill C-7 is about governance. The change of governance for the aboriginal community which supposedly was to work toward self-government just did not work out. It was well-intentioned. The topic made sense, but the process was flawed.

The aboriginal community opposed Bill C-7, even though there are many good things in it. It is about setting up governance vehicles and making people accountable.

Unfortunately, unless the stakeholders are there, the people who this bill is going to affect, they are not going to buy into it. No more than if the federal government decided that all of a sudden it would dictate how municipalities should operate. People at the grassroots level would not take it sitting down because they want input.

In fact, that is one of the weaknesses of the government as we have heard in this House. Cooperative federalism in terms of relationships between the provinces and this place can certainly be improved. We know there can be huge improvements in terms of the relationship between the federal government and the aboriginal community. It is a terrible relationship which is so unfortunate. We go from a national chief to a national chief. It is poor planning and in no way does it deal with people.

We spend a great deal of money on this file, over $7 billion, and yet people still live in third world conditions. It just does not make any sense. Aboriginal communities and aboriginal people of this land are living in third world conditions.

In a rich country like this where everyone in the world wants to come to Canada because of the opportunities here, our first nations communities are living in squalor in many places. I have 13 reserves and many of them do not have running water. They have probably 10 to 12 people living in one house. It is just pathetic how the majority of people live.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of accountability, there is no accounting for how the money is spent. Again, I blame the federal government.

The Indian Act seems to have the attitude that father knows best. It is just as the Bloc member said. They are just like modern Indian agents; they decide how the money is spent and to whom they should give the money. I guess the band councils learned from their masters at this level about rampant spending and not having to account to anyone. It is very frustrating. It is frustrating for the people who live on reserves. They do not know what to do.

I have many contacts with the people who are on reservations in my riding. I forward them on to the minister and I am not even sure what happens, even on the issue of third party debt. There are millions and millions of dollars of third party debt incurred by what I say is the federal government but the minister said it is not his debt, that it is the bands' debt. Unfortunately someone gets hurt and it is usually the third party. There is no fairness in this.

The biggest irony is that this country believes in democracy and human rights. We travel all over the world promoting democracy, transparency and accountability. I met with Mr. Roy of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development which was established in 1988.

We do this yet at home we do not look at what we are doing in our own backyard. One would think that in 2003 as rational people in this place we would try to figure out a solution. After a contribution of 40 years to the country by the Prime Minister, surely it is time to sit down and work this out so that the aboriginal communities, the first nations of our land, have an opportunity to grow and to create wealth like other Canadians. Otherwise we are not going to go anywhere.

We have heard about the self-government initiative. It is not going to happen. It is not going to work as long as the Indian Act is in place. The Indian Act is a millstone around the first people's necks. The only way to have true autonomy and self-sufficiency is to let people manage their own affairs.

We are a country of regions. We are a country of first nations, distinct francophones and distinct anglophones. The strength of the country is that we have many differences and many regions. They can all learn to work together, not only the east, the west and the centre but also the north.

The government has a lot to learn. I will close by saying it is so unfortunate on the day we have been praising the Prime Minister for his contribution to the country that a file in which he has great interest is a total failure.

[Foreign Affairs, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that leads me to ask another question. What is the value of Canadian citizenship?

Citizens of Canada must be assured that the government will do everything possible to protect them if they are detained in another country. Now we hear of Abdullah Almalki, another Canadian, who is imprisoned in Syria without charges.

When will the Liberal government come to the aid of another detained Canadian?

[Foreign Affairs, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the Arar case will not become a black mark in Canadian history. The way this man was treated goes against basic human rights. Canada's reputation is at stake. Canada is known around the world as the protector of human rights.

Mr. Arar's family and friends, the Liberal backbench, and the opposition are unified in calling for a full public inquiry.

My question is for the Prime Minister. To clear the air, why will the government not hold a full public inquiry?

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be involved in today's debate at report stage of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

The reason I read the title of the bill is because we pass a lot of legislation in the House with great intent, but when it comes to the actual effectiveness of the legislation, it becomes very questionable.

I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague from Vancouver East for her success in having one of her amendments accepted. That in itself is a success because most times it is not easy to have amendments accepted in any legislation. I have been successful in the past with some amendments I have put forward on bills. The problem is that when amendments come to the House for debate and a vote, most times they end up being defeated.

The PC Party of Canada supports the amendment regarding the deletion of clause 7. Clause 7 probably took up half the time for public hearings on the debate over artistic merit and exactly what public good meant. Both sides of the argument were heard. There was no agreement as to how effective this clause would be if left in the bill. Even opponents were not sure of its affect and how it would relate in court. The artistic community felt it was unnecessary. Some individuals felt the clause was too broad. The PC Party does support the amendment in that it will delete clause 7 of the act.

We need to come back to the focus and intent of Bill C-20. The bill is about the protection of children in this country. A large majority of members in the House are parents themselves and have raised children. Perhaps many are grandparents. We all know that children are our most vulnerable and precious gifts. Whatever we can do to protect them from harm is laudable and that should be our prime focus.

Unfortunately, when we get into legislation, we tend to lose touch with its intent. We are so busy trying to make everybody happy that we lose focus of its intent, which is the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

Canadians have great expectations of members in the House of Commons. On this very subject, Canadians want the House to remove all loophole wording in Bill C-20. The deletion of clause 7 is a good step.

Canadians want the age of consent for teens having sex with adults raised from 14 to 16. The greater public expects the House to add tough minimum mandatory sentences to all laws regarding adults having sex with underage teens or children.

Canadians have great expectations of members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we will probably fail them again like we did yesterday during debate on the sex offender registry, Bill C-23. The greatest shortcoming in that bill was the lack of retroactivity. In other words, what about all those convicted pedophiles of the last 10 years? We will not know where they are. We know that for repeat offenders the probability is quite large, especially for those who have been convicted of pedophilia.

Let me go back to clause 7. Under Bill C-20, the existing defence of child pornography, which is artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical purpose, is reduced to a single defence of public good. This leaves in the hands of judges the determination of what constitutes public good.

In fact, I am surprised and disappointed that the parliamentary secretary said this morning that the government will be opposed to this amendment. Furthermore, despite the minister's attempt to sell Bill C-20 on the basis that the artistic merit defence had been eliminated, he admitted recently in the justice committee that it is still included under the broader public good defence.

The PC Party calls for the elimination of all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography. Of course, the criminal possession of child pornography does not apply to those in the justice system for purposes associated with prosecution, or by researchers studying the effects of exposure to child pornography.

Another shortcoming I alluded to, was the age of consent. Bill C-20 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. Instead, the bill would create a category of exploitative relationships aimed at protecting people between the ages of 14 and 18. In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, a judge must consider: the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person. This category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It would not serve as a real deterrent and would simply result in longer trials and more litigation.

It was already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority, or with whom a young person, someone between 14 and 18, was in a relationship of dependency to be sexually involved with that young person. It is unclear how adding people who are in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person would add legal protection for young people.

As well, Regina v. Sharpe carved out two exemptions to the child pornography law: material such as diaries or drawings created privately and kept by that person for personal use, and visual recordings of a person by that person engaged in lawful sexual activity, kept by the person for personal use. The latter exemption would have the potential to expose children aged 14 to 18 to further exploitation by child pornographers since they would be engaging in legal activity.

By the government's failure to prohibit all adult-child sex, children continue to be at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent would children be truly protected under the Criminal Code. We are not advocating criminalizing teenagers. As with other jurisdictions with a more reasonable age of consent, such as the U.K., Australia and most U.S. states, a close-in-age exemption would apply to ensure that teenagers were not criminalized.

Another aspect where Canadians expect change is in the sentencing of those convicted. Bill C-20 would increase maximum sentences for child related offences. These offences include sexual offences, failing to provide the necessities of life, and abandoning a child. This is meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences, and we know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed are mandatory sentences, truth in sentencing by eliminating statutory release, and no conditional sentences for child predators.

It is high time that the House, in passing legislation, protects the intent of the legislation, in this case Bill C-20, in regard to our children and other vulnerable persons.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in private member's business, Bill C-452.

Let me begin by congratulating the member for Lakeland for his bill. As we all know in the House, any time we can personally make a contribution to the country and to the safety of Canadians, it is certainly laudable. I know the intent of the member for Lakeland is to save lives. That is also the intent of his legislation, which would help to keep drunk drivers off our roads.

I also agree with the former speaker, the member from the Bloc, that the least we can do with the legislation is pass it, send it to committee, so the committee can do its work, do some research and debate it.

It is really unfair to private members' business. We have good ideas come into the House. The problem we had before we changed the rules for private members' business was we would have one hour of debate on a non-votable bill, then it would be squashed and that would be the end of it. All good ideas should have a clear hearing before the committee. That is my personal opinion. I will certainly say that it is supportable on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I also want to congratulate MADD. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has led the charge in terms of keeping drunk drivers off our streets and highways. However, in spite of all the work Mothers Against Drunk Driving has done, very little change has occurred in terms of the rules and laws in dealing with drunk drivers.

We still lag far behind the world leaders in traffic safety in terms of the high percentage of alcohol related crash deaths and injuries, even though most of the leading countries have far higher per capita rates of alcohol consumption. These nations have succeeded to a far greater extent in inducing their populations to refrain from drinking and driving. Their laws are deterring impaired driving and protecting the public.

In contrast, our laws in this country are shielding impaired drivers from criminal sanctions and discouraging police and prosecutors from pursuing criminal charges. I believe that is the intent of Bill C-452. In fact the preface in the summary says:

This enactment strengthens the laws surrounding the investigation and prosecution of impaired driving and related offences by

I would like to read the summary for the viewing audience. It states:

(a) extending from two to three hours the time allowed for the taking of breath or blood samples from an accused in the investigation of an alleged offence;

(b) allowing a court to use the results of the analyses of the samples, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood at the time of the alleged offence was not less than the concentration shown in the results;

(c) where the accused challenges those results, placing the evidential burden on the accused to establish, on a balance of probabilities, factors that affect their reliability; and

(d) requiring a court to consider other evidence in deciding whether the accused has discharged the burden of proof.

In other words, it tightens up the enforcement powers of the police, and that is where we need to go.

Other ideas for the government, in terms of keeping drunk drivers off the road, is to lower the current Criminal Code blood alcohol concentration to 0.05. That would contribute to reducing impaired driving and its tragic consequences. Moreover, MADD Canada believes that these traffic safety benefits could be greatly increased if Canadian police were given the powers they need to efficiently apprehend impaired drivers and gather the evidence necessary for laying criminal charges.

Although alcohol related traffic deaths have fallen from the record levels of the 1980s, impaired driving remains, by far, Canada's largest single criminal cause of death. Canada lags far behind the world leaders, as I indicated earlier, in traffic safety in terms of the high percentage of alcohol related deaths, even though most of the leading countries have much higher rates of per capita alcohol consumption, but their laws and their enforcement appear to be deterring drinking and driving.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in Canada. Millions of Canadians continue to drive after drinking, many on a routine basis at levels of impairment that pose substantial risk. Although the estimates vary from year to year, it would appear that there are tens of thousands of drinking drivers on Canadian roads each night.

Relatively few of these drivers ever come to police attention and an even smaller fraction are detained and investigated. Even if the police conclude that a driver is legally impaired, criminal charges may not be laid. The federal impaired driving law has become so technical, time consuming and unrewarding to enforce that many officers are deterred from pursuing criminal charges.

In a recent national survey, 42% of Canadian police officers admitted that they sometimes or frequently released impaired driving suspects with a short term provincial suspension rather than proceed with criminal charges. One-third of the officers indicated that they sometimes or frequently released suspects without any sanction and merely arrange for safe transportation home.

This police reaction is not surprising. The officers who were surveyed indicated that it took an average of 2.6 hours to process a simple impaired driving case to the point of laying the charge. Moreover, the task of gathering evidence against impaired driving suspects had become exceedingly exacting and frustrating. Indeed, three-quarters of the officers stated that they were discouraged because impaired drivers routinely escaped convictions on legal technicalities.

This problem of under-enforcement appears to be getting worse. A government study published in 2000 found that almost half of the police in British Columbia simply refused to lay criminal charges, even if they concluded that the driver was legally impaired. Forty per cent of those who did not lay charges indicated that their reasons included concern that the driver was unlikely to be convicted.

Despite their rhetoric about the toughness of the federal impaired driving laws, the reality is police officers are increasingly reluctant to lay criminal charges. In effect, these barriers to enforcement are resulting in the ad hoc decriminalization of impaired driving. The police must be given the power they need to stop vehicles, detect drinking drivers, gather evidence of alcohol and drug impairment and streamline the process of impaired driving cases.

Just imagine what will happen if we decriminalize marijuana. The House has been busy talking about Bill C-38 this last week. We do not even know how to deal with alcohol. We are still having a problem with drunk drivers on highways. If it gets to the point where we do not deal with drunk drivers on the highways, imagine what the country will be like if we have people high on drugs driving on our highways.

The police should be authorized to stop any vehicle to determine if there is evidence of a violation of the Criminal Code's impaired driving provisions. The police should be authorized to use passive alcohol sensors. If a police officer reasonably suspects that a driver has alcohol or drugs in his or her body, the officer should be authorized to demand a standardized field sobriety test and to videotape it. It should be an offence to refuse to comply with the officer's demands.

If a police officer reasonably suspects that a driver is impaired by drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs, the officer should be authorized to demand that the driver participate in a test under the drug evaluation and classification program and videotape it. It should be an offence to refuse to comply with the officer's demands.

If a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a driver is impaired by a drug, drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs, the officer should be authorized to demand a saliva, blood or urine sample from the driver. It should be an offence to refuse to provide such a sample.

In closing, let me again praise the member for Lakeland for bringing forth this private member's bill. I know that if it makes it through the House, it will certainly keep drunk drivers off the highways.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments regarding the very important bill on the sex offender registry. The Progressive Conservative Party supports Bill C-23, but not because it came from the Liberal government. Like many other bills, it seems that we have had to wait forever.

In 1996 President Clinton signed Megan's law which requires notification of sex offenders in neighbourhoods. Following his signature on that law, all 50 states had the authority to implement their own registration requirements for such offenders.

Those whose families or friends have experienced a tragedy of this nature understand why it is important that we keep track of convicted pedophiles. Everyone agrees that our children are very precious to us.

The provinces have been pushing for a registry for a long time. In 1995 my own province of Manitoba created the community notification advisory committee to review cases of convicted sex offenders thought to be at high risk to reoffend. That was eight years ago and it has taken all this time for the federal government to put together a bill dealing with the issue.

There is no doubt that the province of Ontario took the lead in this matter. It set up its own sex offender registry three years ago under a bill dubbed Christopher's law. The bill was named after 11 year old Christopher Stephenson who was murdered by a convicted pedophile who was out on parole.

Statistics show that a vast majority of sex offenders commit their crimes within a two kilometre radius of where they live or work. Many abducted children are killed within 24 hours of being abducted.

Members of Parliament have a duty to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society and their families are protected. That is the biggest concern that has been raised by provincial governments. They want the legislation that comes from the House of Commons to have some teeth.

One of the criticisms about this legislation is the lack of retroactivity. Gord Mackintosh, the minister of justice of my own province, said:

The provinces agree the proposed registry, which is now before Parliament, will be useless for 10 to 20 years because it will be restricted to people who are not sentenced until after the registry becomes law.

He has a point. Are people who have already been convicted not considered a risk to the safety, health and welfare of our children? They certainly are.

Some concerns have been raised by attorneys general from across the country. One concern is about limiting conditional sentences in which offenders serve time at home instead of in jail. They are worried about that. They are worried about who is going to monitor those individuals. Some of them may already be convicted pedophiles. Another concern is about imposing automatic first degree murder charges on suspected child killers. That should take place. Tightening the terms for people to be released on bail is another concern which we have heard many times over. Tougher penalties are also needed for those who kill peace officers. The last concern is about ending preliminary inquiries in court proceedings.

Bill C-23 is a step in the right direction. The Progressive Conservative Party supports the legislation.

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Alliance Party is correct about proposed section 425.1. There is no doubt that we need to extend the criminal offence to threats or retaliation against an employee who has already provided information. I agree with him. There is no way that employees will come forth in any circumstances unless they are protected. Perhaps we need to follow the lead of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the United States, which also has whistleblowing protection for employees.

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to represent the Progressive Conservative Party on third reading of Bill C-46, which is a response to the recent spate of corporate scandals that have plagued the United States and weakened investor confidence in capital markets around the world. Scandals associated with companies, such as Enron, WorldCom and ImClone, have precipitated calls to strengthen corporate governance standards and to better enforce laws governing capital market activities.

Governments have responded to the fall-out from these events by moving to improved corporate governance, enhanced auditor independence, increased corporate accountability, facilitate and ensure holder oversight of corporate activities, and increased penalties for wrongdoing.

The United States was first off the mark with the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002. Signing the law on July 30, 2002, Sarbanes-Oxley introduced far-reaching measures designed to heighten corporate disclosure and accountability, improve auditor oversight and independence, create new offences, and increase penalties for corporate fraud.

The question I raise is why it has taken this government so long to put in place legislation. The Americans have been at least a year ahead of us.

Let me read the key amendment to the Criminal Code in Bill C-46, clause 2, subsection 380. This is the focus of the legislation. Part 2 states:

Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, with intent to defraud, affects the public market price of stocks, shares, merchandise or anything that is offered for sale to the public is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Fourteen years is a long time; only if it is implemented. Again we have heard in the debate today that the government of the day certainly make all kinds of legislation but when it comes to enforcing penalties that is a totally different issue. Until the track record on the enforcement side changes, obviously the confidence in this government and its legislation will certainly be questionable.

For most people who work hard for a living and who contribute to a pension on a weekly or monthly basis, their pension contribution is very important. Most Canadians are not in control of their pension funds. They rely on agencies or brokerage houses to ensure that there is some security for the money that has been put into pension plans.

As a former teacher, I have invested 26 years of hard labour into my pension plan, and I, like most Canadians, would like some sense of security that our pension money will not be stolen.

Most Canadians work hard, believe in pension savings and somewhere down the road, whether at 50 or 60 years old when they retire, they want to know there will something there for them. They do not want to worry that someone took their pension money and lost it, and that there was no recourse for the people who took the money.

That is why we should have had this legislation in place, certainly after the Enron scandals in the U.S. Canadians expect that. It is not good enough for the government to say that it is a provincial mandate and authority.

The federal government gets involved in all kinds of issues, health care being one example. As members know, the government only contributes 15¢ on the dollar, yet it wants to set standards for the country. Canadians agree that there needs to be national standards but that the government should be paying its share.

In Canada, the federal and provincial governments, as well as security regulators, share responsibility for enforcing laws pertaining to corporate and securities activities. Consequently, both levels of government have been moving to confront the governance and regulatory issues raised by these recent corporate scandals and their concomitant impact on investor confidence.

Ontario, for example, has enacted new legislation and the Ontario Securities Commission has issued draft rules relating to the role and the composition of audit committees, certification of corporate financial statements by chief executive officers and chief financial officers, and requirements for the financial statements of publicly traded companies are to be audited by a firm in good standing with the Canadian Public Accountability Board.

There are many changes in the bill and hopefully they will have an impact in terms of developing a regime of greater security for the money that is put into the investment business. Canadians expect that.

The bill would amend the definition of attorney general in the Criminal Code to give the Attorney General of Canada concurrent jurisdiction with provincial attorneys general to prosecute certain capital market fraud cases, including those currently outlined in section 380 of the code, fraud; section 382, market manipulation; and section 400, distributing false prospectuses, statements or accounts; as well as the proposed new offences of illegal insider trading.

The federal government should work to coordinate activities with the provinces in relation to such cases by establishing prosecution protocols. Furthermore, federal involvement in this area is expected to be limited to cases that threaten the national interest and the integrity of capital markets. As I said, it should be and hopefully it will be so that we have a greater sense of cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments.

As we have heard many times in the House, there is too much conflict in this country between the federal government and provincial governments. Certainly, in the interest of Canadians, which is why we are here and which is the intent of this place, the federal government should work closely with the provincial governments. At the same time it should realize that it should not intrude into provincial jurisdictions without sitting down and working through the process with a sense of cooperation.

Bill C-46 would increase the maximum prison sentences for the existing offences of fraud and fraud affecting the public market under section 380 of the Criminal Code from 10 to 14 years. Again, as has been alluded to in the House, it is not the numbers on the paper, it is about the enforcement and the application, so that we do not bargain away, in a judicial process, the penalties that are in the legislation.

As was said today by a lawyer who attended the hearings on Bill C-46, “it is not what is on paper, it is what it is in reality”. Unless we put on paper mandatory requirements, mandatory sentencing, and certainly in cases of jail time, then it will not apply. We can send these folks away for 50 years but that does not mean it will happen.

Maximum terms of imprisonment for market manipulation offences would increase from five to ten years. Market manipulation involves practices that create a market for securities that have little or no bearing on their actual value, which is obviously fraud. It includes activities such as washed sales, where there is a purchase and sale but no change in the beneficial ownership of a security; and match orders, where a purchase order or a sale order for a security are substantially the same size, at substantially the same time and the same price, and are entered by either the same person or two different persons.

Also in the act are new sections establishing four aggravating circumstances that a court can consider when imposing a sentence for market fraud offences. These are as follows: the amount involved in the fraud exceeded $1 million or the offence has adversely affected or had the potential to adversely affect the stability of the Canadian economy or financial system or any financial market in Canada, or investor confidence in such a market. Another new add-on is that large numbers of victims were involved and that the perpetrator took advantage of his or her elevated status or reputation in the community in committing the offence. The presence of these facts will enable courts to impose tougher penalties.

There are also new offences under the heading of insider trading. Bill C-46 creates new criminal offences with respect to prohibited insider trading and tipping information. That is really the key function of the bill. Improper insider trading is already prohibited under the Canada Business Corporations Act and under provincial securities laws.

The new Criminal Code offences are intended to deal with the more egregious cases that merit stiff criminal penalties. Insider trading is commonly referred to in respect of the purchase or sale of securities when using material non-public information that could affect the price of such securities. It also covers tipping such information, that is, providing inside information to a third party for that party's benefit or the benefit of the insider.

The bill defines inside information as information about a company or security that “has not been generally disclosed” and “could reasonably be expected to significantly affect the market price or value of a security”. Persons subject to prosecution include those who: possess inside information because they are shareholders of the company issuing the security, referred to as the issuer; have a business or professional relationship with the issuer; obtain the information in the course of a proposed merger, takeover or reorganization of the issuer; obtain the information in the course of their employment duties or in the office of the issuer or an entity referred to above; or receive the information from a person who obtained it by virtue of the positions or relationships mentioned above. The offence will carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.

Under the heading of tipping, which means to knowingly convey inside information to another person when one knows there is a risk that the person may use the information to buy or sell a security, or to convey that information to another person who will trade in a security, we see that it can be treated as an indictable or summary conviction offence. Under the indictable offence, tipping carries a maximum prison term of five years.

I do not have a lot of time, so I will move on. There are changes in the whistleblowing area as well as in evidence gathering production orders. The government is playing catch-up with United States lawmakers, who have already passed legislation not just to strengthen criminal sanctions but also to reform the way corporations are governed. Boards of directors, auditors and auditor committees all have key roles to play in protecting the interests of shareholders. Indeed, the scandals that rocked the capital market in 2001-02 are widely seen to be the result of poor corporate governance, lax auditing and accounting standards and oversight, and incentives provided by executive compensation arrangements.

In spite of this, the government's background information on Bill C-46 does not once mention the role of good corporate governance legislation. Shortly after the government tabled Bill C-46, the Senate banking committee completed a year long study of the circumstances that resulted in the American corporate scandals. The committee was particularly interested in whether these circumstances might occur in Canada with similar results and, if so, how they might be avoided. The committee called for tougher sanctions, whistleblowing protection for those who report irregularities and increased resources to investigate wrongdoing.

It also recommended legislative measures: to require that a majority of board members be independent; to require the development of a code of ethics to be followed by all board members; to require that audit committee members be independent and financially literate; to limit the non-audit services that auditors can provide to their audit clients; to require an organization's chief executive officer and chief financial officer to certify that the annual financial statements fairly represent the organization's results and financial condition; and last, to prohibit compensation committee members from being a member of management and require them to have expertise in compensation and human resources.

I will close by saying that the Progressive Conservative Party will support the bill.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to take part in the debate on this important and interesting bill.

In principle, I believe the member for Vancouver East has her heart in the right place and the bill has the right intent. I have a lot of questions to ask about the bill which I will bring up later on in my remarks.

First of all, I wish to thank this country for having a family sponsorship program because I would not be standing here today if that sponsorship program had not been put in place. In fact, I would not be in Canada at all if it were not for the program. However, if it was not for the Chinese Exclusion Act, I would have probably been in this country a lot earlier.

Using myself as an example, I am actually a third generation Canadian by immigration because my family was excluded from this country. When my father came here, he just escaped the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923. It was not repealed until 1947. That tax was put in by the Liberal government of the day. I came in the fifties under the family reunification program. The doors were opened and people were allowed to come to this country to join their families.

It is important that we be serious about family unification. All the excuses I heard this morning throughout the debate were just that, excuses. I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not have a relative or who does not know someone personally who came to this country through the family sponsorship program at one time or another, if not in the last decade, certainly 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

We believe that families are the foundation of this country. Who built this country? It was built by families and immigrants who came here, certainly the first and second generations. They came here not to use the country and ask for hand-outs. They came here to contribute to this country, much like the pioneers of the early days in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s. We must not forget that.

We believe that uniting families is important. It is just like our own immediate families. That is how important it is. Imagine being separated from them for decades and not being able to have them come home: our own children, our nephews and nieces. If we were to put a reality perspective on it, I think most members in the House would agree that it makes sense.

I do not believe immigrants or their family members want to come here for a free ride. They want to come to contribute and help this country grow. That is why conditions need to be put in place.

I had a private member's bill put together on the same topic back in February 2002. I did not take the time to table it. In that bill, I qualified the definition of citizen making an application. A qualified citizen meant a person who had been a Canadian citizen for 25 years or more. In other words, people had to show credibility. They had to have contributed to this country, to its growth, and to its success.

Under section (b) qualified citizens would have to satisfy the minister of their ability to provide for the necessities of life and fulfill the legal obligation of a person sponsored under section 2.2 for 10 years following the person's arrival in Canada, either financially, partly financially or partly in time, and undertake in the prescribed manner to do so, if necessary. Also, that the qualified citizen had not previously sponsored a qualified person under that same section. In other words, the citizen had to guarantee that the family member or individual would be looked after, not at the expense of the country, but at the expense of the sponsor.

When we look at families that probably makes sense and is rational, because if we want family members to be here then we should be obligated to look after them.

On the numbers side, even according to the Liberal records, roughly 25% of family members who come to this country annually are sponsored under the family class. This year we are looking at something like 44,227, which met 75% of the target. When the Liberal target is something like 300,000, 1% or roughly a quarter million is the annual average, 44,000 is not a lot of people.

If we put in a qualifier in terms of who is qualified to make the sponsorship, I do not believe we would get an onslaught of applications. First, as I indicated, people should have been citizens who have helped generate wealth in this country for 25 years, which is a number I picked out of the air. We could make it 10 years if it would be more applicable. I do not believe we would get a huge onslaught.

It is so ironic that the Liberal government over the last 10 years has wanted to take the credit for all the immigration numbers, as the member for Vancouver East alluded to earlier in her speech. In the 10 years the Liberals have been in power they have actually lowered immigration levels. That is hard to believe. They are the ones who have been promoting that it should be 1% or 300,000 people. The intent of their proposal is that all these new immigrants will vote Liberal. They are more interested in their vote than how they will contribute to the creation of wealth in this country.

Over the last 10 years the Liberals have actually lowered immigration levels in the range of 232,000 to 257,000 in the last three years. During the last three years of the former Progressive Conservative government, they were actually a lot larger. In fact in 1992-93 immigration levels were about 0.9% of the population and right now they are just over 0.7%. How does the Liberal government explain that? It has been the government for the last 10 years that has promoted immigration and yet the actual levels of immigration are less than they were in 1992-93.

In principle I agree with the intent of the bill. I know that with the diverse population base, the people who are watching this debate, I am sure, support the bill. Diversity and family reunification creates wealth but it has to be done in a qualified and right way.