Marlene Jennings

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to Bill S-6, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and another Act: (a) in follow-up to question Q-460, for every case in which the date of application for judicial review under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code is known, how many days have passed between this date and the date on which the offender was either granted or denied parole; and (b) for what reason does the government feel it is not necessary to provide notification to the families of victims that application has not been made, in the event that an offender does not make application under section 754 of the Criminal Code?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With regard to the $33 million dollars spent by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to finance the hiring of private security firms for the G8 and G20 Summits, as indicated in Chief Superintendent Alphonse MacNeil’s report to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security: (a) what were the names of each of the private security firms hired; (b) what were the specific duties, services, undertakings and other such assignments undertaken by each of the private security firms hired; (c) what was the exact amount paid to each of the private security firms hired; (d) what was the duration of each of the contracts entered into with each private security firm; (e) what were the names of each of the private security firms whose contracted duties, services, undertakings and other such assignments included direct interaction with members of the public; (f) what was the specific number of security officers or agents hired from each of the private security firms; (g) what were the specific powers, authorities, protections and privileges to which any and all of the employees of the private security firms were entitled in the performance of the duties for which they were contracted; (h) what was the legislative framework authorizing the RCMP to hire private security firms to support security operations during the Summits; (i) what has the total number of arrests made by employees of each of the private security firms hired for the G8 and G20 Summits; (j) did the Minister of Public Safety enter into any arrangements, with or without the approval of the Governor in Council, with the government of Ontario or with any other province or territory for the use or employment of any private security firms during the Summits to (i) aid in the administration of justice in the province, (ii) carry into effect the laws in force in the province, (iii) support security operations during the G20; (k) did the Minister of Public Safety enter into any arrangements with any municipality in any province or territory for the use or employment of any private security firms during the Summits, to (i) aid in the administration of justice in the province, (ii) carry into effect the laws in force in the province, (iii) support security operations during the G20; (l) if the Minister of Public Safety entered into any arrangement with the government of any province for any of the purposes described above, did the Minister of Public Safety cause to be laid before Parliament a copy of every such arrangement and, if not, will a copy of each of these arrangements be tabled in Parliament, as stipulated in subsection 20(5) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; (m) were the employees of each of the private security firms made to undergo any training or other such programs aimed at ensuring that the discharge of their duties was carried out in accordance with Canadian law; (n) in what way were these officers identifiable, either (i) to distinguish them as peace officers distinct from Canadian peace officers or (ii) to make them indistinguishable from Canadian peace officers employed for security operations during the G20; (o) why was it necessary to hire private security firms for the summits, rather than rely on provincial, municipal or territorial law enforcement agencies accountable to the public; (p) in what country, province, or territory is each of the private security firms hired for the summits headquartered; and (q) on what specific site(s) used at the summits did each of the private security firms hired operate?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice in the current session: (a) for cross-country consultations conducted in 2008 in review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and in advance of the introduction of Bill C-4, An Act to Amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, (i) on what dates, at what times, and at what locations did every consultation or roundtable discussion take place, (ii) who attended each consultation or roundtable discussion, (iii) what briefing materials were submitted by individuals attending each consultation or roundtable, (iv) what was the cost, including travel and accommodation for the Minister of Justice, political staff and public servants, for each consultation or roundtable discussion that took place, and in total, for this cross-country consultation, (v) why was the report produced in follow-up to these consultations not presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights until December 9, 2010, despite being completed on March 5, 2009; (b) in understanding that the dollar-amount costs associated with Justice bills are subject to Cabinet confidence, as indicated in the response of the Minister of Justice to question Q-457, (i) for each bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, has any estimate of the costs associated with such bills actually taken place, (ii) why were bills introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, as well as Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act, not subject to such cabinet confidence as dollar-amounts were provided for estimated costs of these bills in response to this question; (c) for Bill C-48, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, (i) why did the government introduce this Bill 216 days after the Speech from the Throne, despite there being minimal changes from a similar version of this Bill introduced in the previous session of Parliament, (ii) for each person convicted of more than one murder under the Criminal Code of Canada, what is the amount of time that this individual has spent in custody; and (d) for Bill C-21, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), for what reason are activities under subsection 380(2) not subject to a two year minimum sentence?

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, clearly there is a loophole. There is an issue that the bill does not address and we have not heard from the government as to whether or not it intends to bring forth legislation that would address the issue and that is of financial institutions that commit fraud, that clearly, intentionally develop products and services with the intent to defraud individuals of their hard-earned and hard saved money. The bill does not deal with that.

That is the point that was raised by the retired investment broker in the article that I read out where he talked about how there is a loophole. In the United States there is the case of Goldman Sachs, which is currently being sued by the U.S. national securities regulatory body. Here in Canada the criminal offences would not cover any of that.

My question for the government would be why is it not bringing--

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, the justice critic for the New Democratic Party.

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh is entirely right. The bill addresses a very small, teeny-weeny aspect of white collar crime.

Witness after witness came before the committee and said that in order for the government to really tackle white collar crime, it has to work with the provinces in order to establish real, coordinated, integrated teams with proper resources. As long as our court system and our prosecutorial core is overtaxed and overburdened because of a lack of financial resources and human resources, then they will continue to be put in a difficult position, as were the prosecutors in Ontario, in Toronto, with that major fraud case recently where they dropped the criminal charges against alleged fraudster because they said they simply do not have the resources. They had some major rape cases and they had to make the choice, either they prosecute the alleged offender, the perpetrator of the rape, or they go after the alleged fraudster. They had no choice but to put their resources behind the rape case at trial.

That is untenable. We do not hear Conservative members of Parliament speaking up and calling on their government to bring new resources to our court system, to the prosecutorial core. We are not hearing that.

When we look at what the government has done in terms of victims, the government, with the House, adopted a budget. In the budget there was $10 million annually for programs and services to be given directly to victims of crime. The government did not spend all of the money. I believe it was $4.9 million or $5.9 million that the government actually spent in services and programs given to victims. It turned the rest of the money back to the consolidated revenue fund, but then turned around and spent over $6 million, I think it was maybe $10 million or something, more money on advertising that victims matter. How cynical is that?

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member is creating fantasies. Yes, I challenged his ruling in committee at clause by clause, and it took literally between 30 seconds and 90 seconds to dispose of it.

Compare that Liberal delay to the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament, and suspending and paralyzing all of the work of Parliament for two and a half months.

It is laughable. It is risible that the member would get up and use that as an example of Liberals delaying this bill, with 30 to 90 seconds compared to two and a half months of prorogation, over 60 days before reintroducing the bill and then over 200 days before moving second reading debate.

I rest my case.

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I take note of your statement. I also take note of the fact that you did not declare it to be unparliamentary. You stated that it comes close to the line, but you did not make a statement that using the term untruth, with regard to a member, is unparliamentary. I take note of that.

I will simply conclude my speech on Bill C-21 by stating again that the official opposition supported it. We demanded, asked, requested and begged the government to bring it forward in the last session of the 40th Parliament. We attempted to work with the government to get it through the House of Commons quickly. The government and the Prime Minister, in their wisdom, decided to kill the bill through prorogation. They waited, after the throne speech, over 60 days before reintroducing the exact bill, now under the label of Bill C-21, and then let the bill sit at first reading for over 200 days before finally proposing second reading debate.

It is clear. The official opposition supports this bill. We will be voting in favour of this bill.

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the use of the term “untruth” is not unparliamentary. It is very factual. I did not accuse that member of lying. Had I done so, that would have been unparliamentary.

What I did say is that the member and any member of the Conservative Party and government who claims, in this House or outside of this House, that the official opposition has in any way opposed, in the past or today, Bill C-21, or in any way delayed Bill C-21, is saying an untruth.

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, this bill is long overdue. The government introduced this bill in the previous session of the 40th Parliament and played political games with it. The government killed this bill with prorogation. Basically, the Prime Minister decided that prorogation would be good for his party and his government.

After the throne speech was read on March 3 and the House resumed sitting, the government waited 60 days before reintroducing the same bill. It was identical to the bill that came before the House in the second session of the 40th Parliament. Not one comma was changed. Every dot on every i was the same. Not a single letter or word was changed. It was identical. This Conservative government nevertheless waited about 60 days after the throne speech before reintroducing the bill. The Conservatives finally reintroduced it at first reading. Those familiar with the House rules know that only the government can introduce a bill at second reading. Neither the official opposition, nor the Bloc Québécois, nor the NDP can do so. Only the government can. So how long did it take the government to propose debate at second reading of Bill C-21on white collar crime? The government boasts that it alone looks after the victims, believes that victims' needs are important, and is working on criminal justice.

The government left Bill C-21 at first reading for over 200 days. During that time, who was asking, praying, urging and begging the government to move debate at second reading? The victims. The official opposition. The Bloc Québécois. The NDP.

I have not heard a single Conservative member publicly ask his or her government to stop dragging its feet with Bill C-21 at first reading and to move forward with a debate at second reading. I have not heard one single Conservative member publicly demand that, but I heard the opposition demand it. I heard the Bloc members calling for it. I heard NDP members calling for it. I also heard many victims wondering why this Conservative government, which claims that victims and Bill C-21 are important, was not following through.

The Minister of Justice used every possible opportunity this weekend to say that there were criminal justice bills that absolutely had to be passed in the House and that he urged the opposition to stop opposing these bills. We just heard the same things from the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who rose to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He asked the parliamentary secretary to explain why the opposition was opposed to this bill. That is not true. The opposition has always supported the government's desire to act quickly and effectively with respect to white collar crime and fraud. During the other session of the 40th Parliament, we tried to work with this government to ensure that this bill would pass.

However, the government and the Prime Minister decided to kill this bill by proroguing the House and Parliament. Then, when the House resumed, they waited some 60 days before reintroducing it. And once it was introduced, they waited more than 200 days to move debate at second reading.

How many days did the House spend debating Bill C-21 at second reading after having waited more than 200 days to debate it at second reading? The House took only two days to debate this bill because the opposition parties, notably the official opposition, want this bill to become law in our country. The opposition does not oppose this bill, and none of the three opposition parties slowed down the process of passing this bill. It was the government.

I believe it is important to remind the members of these facts because I am not making this up. Anyone who has a calendar can figure this out based on the date that the government prorogued the House in December 2009. The prorogation lasted nearly two and a half months, and the House resumed its work on March 3, 2010, with the Speech from the Throne. But it was not until about 60 days later that the government reintroduced its bill. Then the government waited more than 200 days to debate it at second reading—if my memory serves me correctly, it was 216 days. I know that it was more than 200 days; I am quite certain about that.

And now for the content of the bill. The bill establishes mandatory minimum sentences for those found guilty of fraud. That is what victims were calling for. Victims called for other things as well, but the government, in its wisdom, decided not to include them in this bill.

The victims were asking for two things. One, they wanted to see stiffer sentencing for white collar criminals; and the government, with its mandatory minimum sentencing of two years for criminal offences that are what we would deem white collar crime, responds to the victims' request.

However, the victims had a second request. The victims wanted the government to eliminate accelerated parole review for white collar criminals. The bill does not address that at all. This is something that opposition parties have been asking for, for several years now, and the government has not addressed it. It does not address it in the bill.

Liberals attempted to bring an amendment to the bill that would have amended the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to eliminate the accelerated parole review for the criminal offences that are dealt with in Bill C-21. The chair of the committee ruled it out of order because nothing in Bill C-21 dealt with the conditional sentencing and parole legislation.

I challenged the chair's ruling. However, I have to admit that his ruling was correct because my amendment, which would have eliminated the one-sixth accelerated parole review for the offences contained in this particular legislation, was in fact beyond the scope of the bill.

The chair ruled my amendment out of order. I challenged the chair, and unfortunately the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP upheld the chair's ruling.

There is a piece of legislation in front of the public safety committee of the House of Commons that deals with the issue of accelerated parole review. However, that as well is a bill that the government has been playing political games with and has been holding up, not moving second debate reading and letting it sit on the order paper at first reading for days and days.

We believe the government must act to respond to the request of victims, and not just the victims but of a variety of civil shareholders, that the one-sixth accelerated parole be removed, be eliminated, and not just for the white collar criminal offences but for virtually every offence, if not indeed all offences. In fact, one could describe it as being an offence to the sensibilities of Canadians and of our criminal justice system.

There is another point of white collar crime that the bill does not address. That is the issue that it does not in any way, shape or form attach these criminal offences to institutions.

I would like to read an article by Darcy Henton that was published in the Edmonton Journal on May 5, 2010, headlined “Alberta wary of white-crime bill”. It states:

A white-collar crime bill reintroduced by the federal Conservatives this week received a lukewarm reception Tuesday in Alberta from both a financial crime crusader and a fraud victim.

The justice bill, which had to be reintroduced after it died on the order paper when the prime minister prorogued Parliament last winter, sets a mandatory minimum two-year sentence for frauds over $1 million.

The bill also requires judges to look at several aggravating factors that could increase the sentence and to consider victim impact statements and restitution.

Retired investment broker Larry Elford, who advocates on behalf of investors, said the new bill still appears to contain a loophole that exempts it from being applied to investment institutions.

“It's a wonderful gift to the investment industry,” he said. “It would exempt the largest fraudsters in Canada. I can't understand why they would reintroduce the law with the same loophole.”

Elford said the law wouldn't apply to corporations like Goldman Sachs which is currently the subject of a civil fraud suit brought on by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the national securities regulatory authority in the U.S.

“Any Bay Street operator could sell any product in any fraudulent and misleading manner and this bill would not apply,” Elford said.

Edmontonian Jason Cowan has been pressing for tougher white-collar crime laws since he and a partner were allegedly defrauded of more than $2 million in 1996.

“I think it's absolutely necessary that there are some checks and balances,” he said. “These white-collar criminals are getting off all the time.”

[The federal justice minister] said the legislation will make jail mandatory for fraudsters who bilk their victims out of more than $1 million.

“Our government is standing up for victims of white-collar crime,” he said when the bill was reintroduced Monday.

The justice minister then waited over 200 days before moving second reading debate. That is really what I would call standing up for victims of crime: using their misery, using their hardship as a political ball game. It is shameful.

The official opposition supports this bill. We have from the outset. We have never hidden that. Every single member of the Conservative Party and every single member of that Conservative government knows that the official opposition supports the bill. We supported it in the last session of the 40th Parliament. We made it clear. We were very public about our support. So for any member of the Conservative Party to rise in this House, or outside of the House, and claim that the opposition is opposing this bill or holding up this bill is simply an untruth. Pure and simple, it is an untruth, and no Canadian should believe that Conservative MP who rises in this House, or outside of the House, to claim that the official opposition does not support and has not supported Bill C-21, the white-collar crime bill.

Canadians should then ask themselves, if a Conservative, a member of Parliament, is willing to tell an untruth on something that is so clearly not true and easily refuted, what else are they telling untruths about? What other issues are they not telling the truth about? What other issues are they spreading untruths about? Canadians should ask themselves that question, because why would someone tell an untruth on the issue of claiming that the opposition, the official opposition, is opposing or has opposed this bill or attempted to hold up this bill when the facts clearly show that the government has held up its own bill in order to play political games with victims of crimes? That is despicable. It is scurrilous. It is deplorable.

[Elections Canada, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have the right to know whether political parties cheat during elections by fraudulently circumventing spending limits established by law. According to the chief electoral officer, that is precisely what the Conservative Party regional offices were being used for.

Is the minister responsible waiting for another RCMP search of Conservative Party offices before requiring his government and his party to stop cheating? Is that what he is waiting for?