Jack Harris

[Business of Supply, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I do not have the eloquence of my colleague from Outremont. It seems the question may be more directed at him than at me.

I have a great deal of confidence in the people of Quebec, given the kind of recognition this motion brings forward. I look forward to the support, not only of the colleague who has asked the question, but all members of members of the House, for this motion so we can demonstrate that Quebec can reach its aspirations within Canada, preserve and protect its culture, language and identity and do so with this.

There is no need for sovereignty for my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, nor for the member for Outremont.

[Business of Supply, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Outremont, for the presentation of this motion today.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada means, in particular, that Quebec has the right to ensure that immigrants to Quebec must learn French first and foremost.

Unfortunately, I will not be speaking French during my speech because I do not have the level of French required to do so.

So I will speak in English, and I will also speak from the perspective of a member from Newfoundland and Labrador.

We in particular have an understanding of what it takes to be part of Canada when there are strong differences. We of course joined Confederation in 1949 and we too have questions about our place in Canada. In fact, a royal commission on the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada was called just that, “Our Place in Canada”, and it did a study of all of the issues and grievances that may take place.

We understand the uniqueness of Quebec, just as we understand the uniqueness of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I also speak as a Canadian citizen who is concerned about the future and the unity of our country. I want to reflect upon the importance of this motion and the future of French language rights in Quebec to the unity of this country.

I recall vividly, as I am sure members do and those listening across the country do, the events of 1995 when we had thousands and thousands of Canadians from across the country attend in Montreal, the last day or so before the referendum vote on separation, to express their concern that Quebec continue to be part of Canada. We want to ensure that Quebec remains a part of Canada and that Quebec and the Québécois recognize that their future lies in a united Canada.

Key to that is a sense that the Québécois can continue to survive within a united Canada, and the Québécois have the ability to protect the vitality of the French language and culture. What is important to that of course is this very issue of language law. We do not want to see the French language diluted in Quebec through waves and generations of immigration, and of course Quebec has the responsibility to itself, in terms of its preservation of its language and culture, to do that.

In fact, my colleague from Outremont detailed some of the issues and attempts to do that over the many years, and in some detail looked at the Supreme Court of Canada. While the decision is open to serious criticism, I do want to underscore two things that the Supreme Court of Canada did say which I support very much.

It looked at the legislative objectives of Bill 104, first, to resolve the problems resulting from its attempt to get around the language law; and second, the objective to protect and promote the French language in Quebec. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its legalistic language, said that these legislative objectives were valid; in other words, that the Government of Quebec has the legitimate right to undertake these activities and to protect and promote the French language in Quebec.

It says in paragraph 40:

Moreover, this Court has commented several times on the importance of education and the organization of schools to the preservation and promotion of a language and its culture

It also quotes, with approval, a report from the office of French language in Quebec entitled “Rapport sur l’évolution de la situation linguistique au Québec 2002-2007”. This is the translation:

In both the Canadian and North American contexts, French and English do not carry the same weight and are not subject to the same constraints in respect of the future. The durability of English in Canada and in North America is all but assured. That of French in Quebec, and particularly in the Montréal area, still depends to a large extent on its relationship with English and remains contingent upon various factors such as fecundity, the aging of the population, inter- and intraprovincial migration and language substitution.

It is very clear. The Supreme Court quotes this with approval and recognition of the importance of this. It is very clear that the Supreme Court of Canada, as our signal national legal institution, does recognize this. We may argue over what this particular decision is, and my colleague and learned friend, as a fellow lawyer, is quite capable of doing that, but the Supreme Court suspended the application of this particular decision to allow the National Assembly of Quebec to recraft a law to meet these same objectives, but in a different way. I would hope that it has the capability of doing that over the next year and I look forward to seeing result achieved.

However, I want to say this. I think all of us across this country, from coast to coast to coast, from Vancouver to Victoria as they say, to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, have to understand that the diversity of our country includes a strong and vital Quebec, with the first language of French.

It is important to me, I must say. I have three children who are all studying in the French immersion program. I regret to say that I did not have the advantage of doing that. We have a bilingual province in Quebec. We have important francophone populations in Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba. I think that the support for those populations, and the language and culture that is shared with the Québécois depends on a vibrant first language culture in Quebec that is French, I think we accept that.

It does not mean that we have to be forced to speak French. We do not hear any more the language that we used to hear 30 or 40 years ago, complaints about French being shoved down our throats on the back of boxes of corn flakes or that sort of nonsense. I think we are past that.

My colleague from Outremont smiles at that. Perhaps he is not old enough to remember that. But that was the kind of thing that used to be said back in the 1960s, or thereabouts, when talk of bilingualism and biculturalism began to come about. I think we are way past that in this country, and I think many people in this country look with envy to some of the European countries where it is quite common for people to be bilingual or, in some cases, trilingual.

I remember in my own student days travelling in Europe, as I was reminded by my colleague from Nova Scotia, and meeting with students from Holland. They spoke English, Dutch, German and French, all as a matter of course, as part of their lifestyle; particularly if they were students having to learn subjects in different cultures and languages, and watch television and entertainment . It was marvellous to see that. They took it all for granted.

We are at a point in this country where we can respect and acknowledge not only the right but, I would suspect I would go further and say, the duty of the province of Quebec and the Government of Quebec to promote and protect the French language and to find ways of doing that, particularly with respect to immigration.

When people come to Canada, they have a choice. They can come to Toronto. They can come to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we would welcome them. However, if they choose to come to Quebec, it is reasonable to have a rule that says that part of that choice is that their first language of instruction will be in French. If they want to learn English, too, that is good. They could be trilingual with their original tongue, with French and English. They can come and learn to speak French and they can learn to speak English, and be all the better for it in terms of their ability to operate within Canada.

In summing up, I support this motion. I thank the hon. member for bringing it forward. It is important for us as parliamentarians to understand Quebec and to understand how vital this particular role for the people of Quebec and the Government of Quebec is, but to also try to explain to the various parts of the country, our own ridings, our own province, people all across the country, how uniquely important this is for the preservation of our nation. I do not want to see another referendum about separation. If we are going to recognize the rights here, I think we can support the existence of Quebec in a unified Canada with these kinds of rights.

[Afghanistan, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have one of Mr. Colvin's reports from June 2007 where he stated that detainees have been burned, “whipped with cables and shocked with electricity” while in Afghan custody in Kandahar. Colvin continued, “He showed us a number of scars on his legs, which he said were caused by the beating”.

Canadians need to be assured that the torture has since stopped. Can the government guarantee that all provisions of the current prisoner transfer agreement are now being followed by Afghan government officials, and will it table the reports that are required by this agreement?

[Afghanistan, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for over a year from June 2006 diplomat Richard Colvin reported concerns about torture of prisoners while the Canadian Forces continued to transfer prisoners to Afghan authorities. Included in these reports were firsthand accounts from victims.

The government's latest defence is that they received thousands of reports on torture. Is it the government's position that the more reports it received, the less attention it paid to the issue of torture?

Even chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier refused to transfer prisoners in the fall of 2007 because of inadequate safeguards.

How can the government claim to have fixed it?

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments remind me of the former existence of crimes compensation boards across this country that were at one time funded by the Government of Canada but no longer are.

As a result, a number of provinces including my own have shut down their criminal injuries compensation boards, which provided some support for victims of crime. Perhaps the government would consider reintroducing those.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that is a bit of a theoretical question.

This legislation is going to committee. The member's suggestion is a philosophical point. I thought he was going to get up and ask why we voted against salary increases for RCMP officers when we voted against the budget. That is the usual kind of tactic that we hear from the other side.

However, I think the member asked a fair question. Mandatory minimums are a bad thing. We do not need that in legislation. We are suggesting to the House that we will support this legislation in principle at second reading because it provides some direction to the courts and sends a little bit of a signal that perhaps a more serious approach might be taken to white-collar crime and fraud, but we do not think this bill really provides a lot of tools.

The kind of tools that I suggest that the RCMP or the police forces across the country need are more resources to be able to do a more effective job in investigating these crimes.

Whether we will support the bill at the end of the day, I am not prepared to say at this point. We are sending the bill to committee, and the committee will discuss it. Mandatory minimums are a problem. They have been unsuccessful in the United States and we will have to wait and see whether this is in the bill when it comes back to the House.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is right. There is a proliferation. There is way more money around now than there was 20 years ago. I do not think our society has caught up with what to do about that. Individuals who have access to the money for one reason or another do not necessarily have the sophistication to deal with it on their own. They are relying on people who come forward and offer themselves as people who will look after their money. There is a high degree of trust involved, trust that unfortunately is often misplaced.

That is why we need the kind of regulation that we are talking about. It is not simply a matter of the prosecutors and judges letting us down. On the police side, I do not know if they have at their disposal the resources they need.

If it is a question of the police not having enough resources, this is something that the Government of Canada can help with. If someone came into the House on the government side and said, “We have a proposal to increase the ability of the RCMP at the national level or police forces across the country to investigate and get quickly to the bottom of any allegations of white-collar fraud”, we would be all for it.

That would be fighting crime of this nature, but we cannot just blame the police and blame the prosecutors and judges. We have to say we have a solution that actually will provide some measure of support for people across the country.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, many a fraud takes place in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. A few years ago a funeral director took money from hundreds of people for their funerals and spent it money on his own lifestyle. When people died, their family looked to this individual for the funeral costs. In Newfoundland it is colloquially called burying money. It is very important for seniors, certainly in my province, who believe they have a responsibility. They do not want to be a burden on anyone when they die, so they save money for their funeral costs. Even people who are not at all wealthy ensure they have a small fund available to take care of the burial costs when they die. The pity of it is individuals who are concerned about that have entrusted their money to an individual and then find that trust has been betrayed by a fraud. It is particularly devastating.

How was that fixed? Obviously by criminal prosecution, but also by establishing particular rules for setting up trust funds, reporting and regulation. A better set of regulations is needed. When people take funds from individuals, they have to be regarded as the trustees of those funds and there should be control of those trusts. There should be a regime of inspection and reporting.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-52 which proposes amendments to section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with fraud and affecting the public market.

This is one of a series of crime bills which are brought before the House as part of the government's PR attempt to make it look as if it is tough on crime and other people in this House do not seem to be. I say that with some deliberation because it is part of the PR campaign. Otherwise, why would the government release this bill to the media before it even presented it to the House? I know that was the subject of a debate earlier today, as to whether it is a breach of privilege or not, and I understand the Speaker will rule on that at some point, but as part of the government's approach to this, it seems this is aimed at public relations.

Now that does not mean we will not support it because I think Canadians do want to know that parliamentarians care about white collar crime. It is important, particularly the kind of crime that affects people whose savings have been taken, supposedly in good faith, by people for investment or other purposes and they are defrauded of their savings, their pensions or their right to benefit from the money they entrusted to other people.

However, this bill would not create any new crimes. In fact, the real problem with white collar crime, in particular frauds of this nature, is not the lack of sentencing tools available but the lack of prosecution and proper investigation.

We see lots of frauds when they are complained about but the investigations take one year, two years, sometimes three years before they are actually prosecuted. That seems to be the real weakness in the prosecution of crimes.

If we are going to be tough on crime, supposedly, we ought to be very adept at conducting prosecutions, doing investigations and providing resources for that particular purpose, but that is where our system is lacking. It is not lacking at the other end. I will give an example.

One of the provisions of this bill, and perhaps even the major provision that the government likes to wave around, is one that would provide for a two-year minimum sentence for frauds involving over $1 million. Again, that is not necessary because judges will recognize the value of the fraud in determining a sentence.

We had a sentencing in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador six or eight months ago involving a fraud of considerably less, perhaps less than $200,000, and the sentence given was two years less a day for a fraud involving about one-fifth of the million dollars that has been put forth here as a minimum sentence.

It is a perception that the government is trying to use for a public relations purpose as opposed to the reality of the need for a mandatory minimum sentence.

The bill itself is not a very strong reaction to the need to provide protection to the public on issues of fraud, particularly fraud affecting the markets, securities and the type of fraud that goes on in our country that receive a lot of headlines when they happen. It is the tools of prosecution and the tools of investigation that seem to be inadequate. On the sentencing end, that is a different story.

What do we have here? Well, the judges can consider restitution. In fact, the Criminal Code has provision for restitution orders under sections 738 and 739. There is no compunction here for the individuals to pay restitution. It really just stipulates that the court shall consider making a restitution order under sections 738 and 739.

I would suspect that the judges do not need to be told. These judges are intelligent, educated people who are administering the Criminal Code and who are being advised by prosecutors when a situation calls for restitution. Surely, the government is not suggesting that a judge would not consider making a restitution order where one was warranted.

How strong is that in terms of an additional tough on crime sanction? Surely, particularly in the case of fraud where a victim has been deprived of his or her savings, pension or income, that restitution would be a top priority in any sentencing regime without the need for some specific direction to the court.

The government seems to be suggesting, and I hear it as part of their rhetoric from time to time when its talks about these liberal judges, et cetera, that somehow these judges do not care about the victims of crime. As of next April, I will have been a member of the practising bar for 30 years. In my experience the judges are extremely concerned about the victims of crime, particularly when there is an economic crime where the possibility of restitution exists. That would be the number one priority.

Obviously there have been a lot of changes in our Criminal Code over the last number of years concerning victim impact statements and the possibility of those individuals who are victims of crime coming before the court and telling of the financial and psychological impacts, the kinds of things for which the bill provides. That happens all the time.

The aggravating factors must be considered and I do not see anything particularly wrong with enumerating them, but they are also part of the precedence of our court. Aggravating factors in sentencing would include the kinds of things that are suggested, the impact of the fraud on the victim, whether the offender complied with applicable licensing rules or professional standards, the magnitude, duration and complexity of the fraud and the degree of planning. Degree of planning and premeditation is always a consideration when a judge is looking at sentencing.

While these things may add, to some extent, to the recognition that there are particular issues with respect to fraud that ought to be taken into consideration, the bill is substantially weak in that regard.

What is really needed to protect Canadians from the kind of frauds that we are talking about is better regulation, the kind of regulation that needs to ensure that the individuals who are taking people's money and investing it in trust are protected by significant regulations. This is the kind of thing that the government seems to avoid. It wants to have a free market. It does not like big government, too much bureaucracy or too much regulation. However, the way to help Canadians avoid being victims of this kind of crime is prevention.

One of the most significant deterrents to criminal behaviour is not necessarily the sentencing, and this is also true for many other criminal laws, it is whether people will be caught. That is a big, or bigger, deterrent. There is no point in having a sentence available if they are getting caught and we see no prosecutions. We see individuals not being investigated properly. We see people not being protected.

There is a lot of media attention being paid to the kind of sentences that take place in the United States. Recently, Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in jail. Somehow people think that is a great disincentive to committing a crime. I do not see how that is more of a disincentive than 120 years, or 130, or 75 to a 60 or 70-year-old man. It is only foolishness.

That is the kind of hyperbole that the Americans have gone to in order to somehow convince people there is a deterrence effect. Bernie Madoff carried on his fraud for 25 years without being caught. That is the biggest incentive to commit crime, that people can get away with it for many years without being caught.

We need a system that better regulates, investigates and ensures that people who handle the money of individuals are subject to the kind of regulation, intense scrutiny and high standards that should be expected of people who act in those kinds of positions of trust. That is where the problem is.

First, if we want to be tough on crime, we should ensure that the people who commit crimes have a disincentive because they will be caught if they carry on this type of behaviour. Second, if there are any complaints being made, they are thoroughly and swiftly investigated. These are perhaps more important, by far, than the kind of measures that exist in this legislation.

The mandatory minimums, we have a problem with that. Our party is committed to sending the bill to committee, so we will support it at second reading.

The bill itself is weak. It does not provide the kind of protection that people need and it is not really much of an improvement over what we have had before. However, there does need to be a message sent that white-collar crime is taken seriously. It is important that society is not satisfied to let people, who happen to engage in this kind of fraud and behaviour, get away with it. They should not be treated any differently than other criminals. These are serious crimes and that they ought to be taken seriously.

If we really take them seriously, we would ensure that they are investigated promptly, that every complaint be followed up seriously, that there be considerably greater regulation and control over people who handle money from members of the public who have been offered rates of return. The Government of Canada needs to play a stronger role. It is not simply a matter of the government saying it is tough on crime. It wants to have mandatory minimums for any crime it can think of and make it look as it is tough on crime but the other parties do not support that. There has to be some sense in this kind of amendment. We just cannot willy-nilly amend the Criminal Code and hope people will believe that somehow they are better protected. In my view the increased protection provided to ordinary Canadians by this legislation is not very strong.

Maybe the message will get out somehow so people feel that being tough on crime is going to deter those people, but what is the mandatory minimum of two years going to do? Will that convince someone only to defraud someone to the extent of $900,000 instead of $1 million? Can they get under the wire and avoid the mandatory minimum sentence? This is foolishness, the very idea of mentioning it brings up the fact that this is a fairly arbitrary type of number.

As I mentioned earlier, we can give greater than two year sentence for a fraud of significantly less than $1 million when it is deserved, when the aggravating factors are there and when premeditation is there. When the victims have been harmed to the extent that they have been harmed in other cases, the courts have adequate tools to provide the kind of deterrence as required. That is what we are talking about.

The Criminal Code is supposed to be a tool for the use of society and of courts and judges to satisfy the prevention of crime, the protection of society, the punishment of criminals and to help victims as much as they can be helped by the courts in these circumstances.

The question is this. Does this make that tool more effective? Maybe it sends a message, but I have never been a big fan of mandatory minimums. They can be a deterrent to a proper sense of justice. I am not suggesting there may easily be circumstances where someone defrauds more than $1 million is not entitled to a sentence greater than two years. I do not think we need to tell judges that. In fact, perhaps all we are doing, by suggesting a mandatory minimum of two years, is playing catch-up with what the judges are already doing.

Anyone who closely follows sentencing decisions, the courts always take into account what the community feels, the reaction of a community to a particular type of crime. An offence is more than just an offence against certain individuals. It is also an offence against community standards. If the community is very concerned about this type of crime, about people being taken advantage of in fraud circumstances, there will be a stronger response from the judiciary.

We have seen that already when the white-collar criminals get before the court. Our problem is, despite all the high profile cases we see in the United States, we do not see very many in Canada. How many prosecutions have there been? There have been so few that they are sensational when they come forward. What jail is Conrad Black in? He is not in a Canadian jail. He broke all these laws in Canada, but he is not in a Canadian jail, he has not been prosecuted in Canada.

We do not see many Canadians who have been prosecuted for white collar crime. There is a lack of substantial action by the Government of Canada to ensure white-collar crime is pursued, investigated properly and brought quickly to the courts for a decision. I do not assume anybody who is charged is guilty, but it should be brought quickly to the courts. A proper investigation should be done and the matter should be brought before the court. If a decision is made that the person is guilty of this kind of crime, the person should be treated as quickly and as appropriately as possible.

Passing legislation in the House for the sake of passing legislation and for the sake of having another bill to add to the government's list of tough on crime bills, which for various reasons other parties may or may not support, is just playing politics with the reality of a serious problem about which Canadians are concerned.

The people in Montreal who have been victims of Mr. Jones, who has yet to be convicted of any crime, have lost the money they invested with him. He has been accused of serious crimes. The consequences for those individuals are absolutely devastating. When people are dependent upon an income from funds they have deposited so they can live in an apartment and have a lifestyle for which they have saved and are all of a sudden thrown out of that and cast into poverty, it is absolutely devastating and ought not to happen. That is why it is a crime.

Why does that happen? It does not happen because the sentences are not strong enough. It happens because the kind of regulation under which this activity takes place is not strong enough. People need the ability to complain about alleged fraud and have those complaints taken seriously. When someone does complain, it should raise a red flag, an investigation should be triggered and it should be stopped and prevented long before it gets to the stage where hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been defrauded and have lost their savings and investments. A more vigorous approach to investigation, prosecution and prevention are the important factors we would like to see pursued, not merely some changes in the Criminal Code, which are frankly quite weak.

[October 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the resources are only finite because the government has not seen fit to respond to the need and to the recommendations of the Ocean Ranger commission 25 years ago when the level of activity in the oil and gas offshore was minimal compared to today when we have in excess of 600 people offshore 24/7 on 3-week rotations where they are working 12 hours a day, rotating back and forth on a permanent basis.

It is at least 600 people, and sometimes many more than that. Plus there are vessels going back and forth, helicopters doing the travel and all of the need and the risk that is there.

We are not talking about the number of incidents because we hope there will not be any incidents. It should be based on the risk that is present because of the dangers associated with this particular activity. Cost should not be a factor. We do need to see that this recommendation be followed completely, not the way it is being followed now.