Pat Martin

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate at this stage of Bill C-2.

Let me start by laying the foundation of the remarks that I hope to make. I firmly believe that if we did nothing else in this 39th Parliament other than to pass the federal accountability act and give meaning and substance to the clichés of transparency and accountability, we would at least be able to say that we spent our time well and we would have something to show the Canadian people.

I start my remarks with that note because I can say without any fear of contradiction that the federal accountability act is in a very fragile state as we speak. We run the risk, and I believe due to political mischief, of losing the federal accountability act, this great project that we undertook many months ago. At that time we cautioned that if we did not move swiftly, with a collective will and with some cooperation, a project of this magnitude is fraught with pitfalls and could easily collapse under its own weight or fall vulnerable to political influence and political mischief that have nothing to do with making the nation-state of Canada more transparent or the system accountable.

The debate will become very complex as we debate 154 amendments from the Senate. A comprehensive amendment from the Liberal Party has just been moved, as has a comprehensive subamendment from the Bloc Québécois. Let us bring this back to basics.

What we started back in April with Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, would have given us for the first time ever comprehensive whistleblower protection. That alone I would have voted for in Bill C-2, just to be able to have done that one thing in this 39th Parliament.

The public appointments commission, the PAC, alone would put an end to patronage. Imagine, on behalf of the people of Canada, putting an end to pork-barrel patronage in the 39th Parliament. We could tell our grandchildren that we did something in this Parliament if we could deliver on that one chapter of Bill C-2 alone. It would be spectacular. It would be sensational. Those things are at risk as we speak.

The parliamentary budget officer, the director of public prosecutions, all of these worthy initiatives that are not very controversial and have broad support from all the political parties, are now vulnerable. They could crash and burn as we bicker and toss back and forth between the Senate chamber and the House of Commons amendments on the most minuscule, trivial, virtually meaningless things.

Let us strip it down to basics. The one thing that is holding up the bill right now is whether or not a single ethics commissioner would administer the two codes of conflict of interest for this chamber and the Senate or if there would be multiple ethics commissioners. We are debating how many ethics commissioners can dance on the head of a pin. That is really what the whole thing boils down to. All of these wonderful initiatives will fall by the wayside if we cannot agree to something that silly.

To hear the senators tell it, it would be a constitutional crisis if there were two ethics commissioners. Constitutional crisis is a phrase that is tossed around in modern day Canada, saying constitutional crisis is the last refuge of a scoundrel in Canadian terms. It is a smokescreen to stall and delay the important reforms that Canadians expect, Canadians demand and which Canadians sent us here to put into place.

People tuning in or trying to weave their way through this quagmire that is the federal accountability act and all the amendments, subamendments and compounding amendments, should just remember that we are trying to implement whistleblower protection. We are trying to implement a public appointments commission so we cannot make political patronage appointments to unqualified nephews, et cetera. We are trying to put in a parliamentary budget officer, and we are hung up on things like how many ethics commissioners shall administer our codes of conduct. It is so petty that a lot of people would not believe that we could be tripped up so readily, to have such a noble pursuit held up, intercepted and sabotaged by such trivial arguments.

I am very proud of the role that the New Democratic Party has played in trying to make sure that at least the key elements of this bill are salvaged and come to possible fruition.

I should pay tribute to the contribution of my former colleague, the former leader of the New Democratic Party and member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Ed Broadbent. In the 38th Parliament it was Ed Broadbent, in coming back to the House of Commons after many years of doing other work, who recognized there were enormous gaps and lapses in the ethical standards and conduct of the Parliament that he left those many years ago. He put in place a seven point ethics package. A great deal of the elements from Ed Broadbent's recommended package of reform for this House of Commons found its way into Bill C-2.

It was a natural match. For those who may think it is strange bedfellows to see the NDP in support of an ethics package put forward by the Conservative government, we did not find it to be contradictory at all. Nobody has a monopoly on ethical standards. We were pleased to see some of the things that were suggested and recommended by Ed Broadbent in Bill C-2, so we could say that we would support it.

I honestly think sometimes that we in the NDP over here in this corner are wearing blue helmets, like peacekeepers, in this initiative. We are the honest brokers in this. There is politics being played over there. There is politics being played over there, and yes, there is politics being played by the federal government in trying to achieve secondary objectives with Bill C-2. We in fact have a sincere and genuine interest in trying to fix the things that are broken so that we can be proud when we go home and tell our people what we did for them when they sent us to Ottawa.

Let us be clear. The power to kill Bill C-2 rests totally with the backrooms of the Liberal Party as we speak. It is the Liberal Senate that has been holding this bill up unreasonably. I heard comments from my colleagues. Maybe they did not notice but the Senate had this bill for months and months. It heard the same witnesses that we heard, asked the same questions that we asked, endless and needless hours of study that we believe was designed to stall this bill until the Liberal convention was finished. They were hung up on how the election financing changes would impact the Liberal leadership convention. They pretty much served notice that they were going to sabotage and undermine the bill when it was introduced in April, at least until it got past that hurdle.

I am asking them now to stop their delay and stalling tactics. They got away with it. They managed to delay implementation of the bill until their convention is over. The implementation date is January 1, 2007. They should stand down on that issue because the undemocratic and unelected Senate did not just amend the federal accountability act, it took it hostage. Today we are debating the outrageous ransom demands that still threaten to kill Bill C-2 unless we give in. Well, we have given in on a great deal, incidental issues that simply do not weigh enough to justify blocking the passage of the whole bill.

Now we are saying that it was the rudderless Liberal Party that allowed those rogue senators to run amok, as it were. It would be interesting if some of the Liberal leadership hopefuls would show some leadership and maybe intervene at this point and rein in their rogue senators, those senators who have blocked this bill and still threaten to kill it.

Let us not kid ourselves. If we send this bill back to the Senate again and the senators still do not like it--let us say it still calls for separate ethics commissioners--they have the ability to debate it endlessly, send it back to committee, make more amendments and send it back to the House of Commons, until we reach an absolute impasse, a logjam. If we delay it much further, we can all acknowledge we will be at the polls sooner rather than later. This entire project could collapse and I do not know how it would ever get rebuilt.

It is really only in minority parliaments that we can do these kinds of comprehensive amendments. I do not like our chances of getting a sequel, bill C-2 the second, through in a majority parliament, whether it be a Liberal majority or a Conservative majority. Maybe if it was an NDP majority government this initiative would survive. We would be proud to make it our first bill in an NDP government.

In much of what the Senate did, and my colleagues in the Bloc should be very sensitive to this, the Senate exceeded its place in the Constitution. It is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. It is supposed to watch for constitutional or legal errors that may have been made by this chamber. It is never supposed to interfere with a piece of legislation from the elected chamber to the point where it would be a serious policy shift. It is not supposed to undermine the government's initiatives or the initiatives of the elected chamber.

Many of the amendments that the other place put through did all of these things. Many of the amendments that it put through are spurious, mischievous, raise constitutional problems and some of them are simply in error. I will point out some of those should time permit.

I know that I am speaking broadly and in general terms. I will narrow my remarks to the amendment moved by the Liberal Party. I can support half of what the Liberals put forward as an amendment to the motion put forward by the government and I will have to reject the other two. Let me speak specifically.

Part A of the Liberal amendment speaks to the Senate ethics commissioner. It brings back the notion that there should be separate ethics commissioners, one for the Senate and one for the House of Commons. I do not care. It is not that important to me. I am not going to jeopardize the success of this whole project arguing how many ethics commissioners can dance on the head of a pin. I do not care if we have 10. I will recommend that the NDP vote in favour of this amendment that the senators have their own separate Senate ethics commissioner. I do not buy their line that it is a constitutional crisis, but I do firmly believe that if they are going to get stubborn and ruin this whole project, the senators can have a separate ethics commissioner.

Part B argues that the Wheat Board should not be subject to the Access to Information Act. I also will vote in favour of this. I support this, notwithstanding what went on at the committee meeting on C-2. Since that time the government has launched a full-blown attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. An absolutely mad crusade has begun to undermine the important work of the Canadian Wheat Board and I will not be a party to it.

I will officially state that I will not support anything that will undermine that great prairie institution the Canadian Wheat Board. I will proudly stand in my place and vote in favour of the Wheat Board. I will not participate in this lynch mob mentality, tactics that Mussolini would be proud of, in trying to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board, denying its members even the right to vote. Their statutory guaranteed right to vote on their own future is being denied to them by the Conservative government. I will not be a part of it. I will not be a party to it. I will support the Liberals' amendment regarding whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board should be included under the ATI provisions of the act.

Part C deals with internal audits and papers. It says that the Liberal Party believes that internal draft documents should be subject to access to information as well. I would only ask that my Liberal Party colleagues look at what the Auditor General had to say about that. She does not believe this is a good idea. She specifically spoke to this at committee not only once, but twice. She feels it would be a serious error if all of the working documents and draft notes dealing with an audit were subject to access to information requests because much of her work relies on the free communication of background information. People would bury that information and would simply not have it available if they were worried that it would become public. This is a bad idea. I wish my colleagues of the Liberal Party would reconsider this. We will vote against this one which amends Senate amendment 118.

Also, on Senate amendment 119, the Liberal Party would have us introduce the concept of a public interest override within the context of the Access to Information Act. The NDP will not support this either. There is good background for that. NDP members are not being stubborn.

We believe that if the public interest override were introduced to the bill as contemplated by Senate amendment 119, it would put the public interest override in the hands of the head of the institution and not in the hands of the Information Commissioner. It actually would weaken the Access to Information Act and the discretionary authority of the Information Commissioner. Again, I do not think the Liberals thought this through, but I wish they would reconsider. The NDP cannot support this at all.

The last element of the amendments put forward by the Liberal Party deals with convention fees. This has been the second source of mischief that has delayed and stalled this bill, the first being the dual ethics commissioner and the second being the whole sensitive subject of convention fees, election financing limits, et cetera.

NDP members read the current Elections Act the way we always have. We have no conflict. We have no misunderstanding. We do not believe it should be changed or altered in any way. We believe the election financing limit should be $1,000 per year and that convention fees should be viewed as political donations and should be treated that way, just like we have always treated them.

I know that the other parties are having problems, partly due to their own greed. When a party charges $995 for a convention fee and the donation limit per year is $1,000, that party is going to run into trouble. NDP convention fees are $135, with an early bird fee of $95. We in the NDP do not have that problem, so I would advise the parties that are having difficulty fitting in underneath the new election campaign donation limits to look inward, to have a look at themselves in the mirror. That may be where they find the problem, not within the Elections Act.

As far as the subamendments that have been put forward by my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are concerned, I know that Bloc members are not big fans of the accountability act. It is no secret that the Bloc Québécois will do better in the next federal election if the federal government is still corrupt. Those members do not really want the federal government to be cleaned up, because they have to be able to point to a corrupt federal government to justify voting for the Bloc Québécois. We in the NDP do not buy into that and will not support that. So the Senate ethics--

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and I thank his ancestors who were founders and leaders in the credit union movement, doing us all a service.

We need to keep in mind that our charter banks were given the exclusive monopoly on certain very lucrative financial transactions, such as credit card transactions, in exchange for providing basic services to all Canadians wherever they are in the country and even sometimes when it is not the most profitable thing to do.

Nobody needs to have a tag day for the banks. They are making record profits every quarter and yet they are abandoning rural Canada and the inner cities, such as this flight of capital, this vote of non-confidence. Fifteen bank branches from the five charter banks have closed in my riding in the last five years and, in the riding of my colleague from Winnipeg North, which borders my riding of Winnipeg Centre, another dozen. That is 27 bank branches.

Who is backfilling that need for financial services? It is the payday lenders, the Money Marts, the Paymax, the scourge on society. I have seen the face of evil and it is the payday loan industry in Canada and in my riding.

The only people who can actually backfill and meet the needs of Canadians is the credit union movement. However, a person needs a fair amount of economic stability to even form a credit union or join a credit union. People should know their banking rights and they should know that the charter banks have abandoned Canadians.

The reason we got onto credit unions, and to get back to relevancy, is that the Credit Union Central of Canada made a very passionate submission to the committee citing its reservations about Bill C-25. It stated that it may be handicapped and hog-tied with this added financial burden of meeting the terms and conditions of Bill C-25 in terms of money laundering and tracking every transaction to monitor for illegal activity.

We all want to do what we can to defeat money laundering and illegal transactions by illegal terrorist groups but let us not put the added burden on the credit unions that may hog-tie their ability to serve the needs of Canadians.

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate today on Bill C-25 on behalf of the NDP caucus.

I am going to draw on some of the comments made by previous NDP members in this debate earlier and during other stages of the bill. I note many of the thoughtful comments made by our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and our finance critic, the member for Winnipeg North, who analyzed the bill and added some helpful comments that I will try and summarize here.

I should note by way of introduction that the bill comes to us as one of a flurry of bills dealing with justice issues. There has been an entire suite of legislation in recent months, some of it good and some not so good. In the NDP's point of view, we believe that some of the bills go too far and some not far enough. I hope I will have time to develop this somewhat.

We believe that aspects of Bill C-25 do not go far enough given the worthwhile goals and objectives stated in the bill. This is one of those situations where the government of the day could have exercised even more authority to solve some of these issues.

Let me start with that one point that I have introduced to explain. Should the bill pass, this would be one of the few places in the Criminal Code where the reverse onus would be contemplated and allowed. This has been controversial in other aspects. For instance, we just finished debating Bill C-9 yesterday that introduced an element of reverse onus. Should individuals be convicted for a third time of an offence from a list of serious offences, the reverse onus would be put on them to prove why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders and locked up for life.

There were howls of derision in the House because the NDP had the temerity to raise the caution that we should only venture into this notion of reverse onus with our eyes open and with due diligence. We think we were justified in that respect and we are taking political heat as a result of it.

It was not a pleasant sight yesterday when we were debating Bill C-9. I was not proud at all of the tone of the debate that took place just because the NDP had the temerity to question the idea of “three strikes and you're out” and the idea of putting the reverse onus on individuals who are convicted to prove they are not dangerous offenders.

Bill C-25, the bill we are addressing today, deals with a reverse onus as well. This is one case where I think the Conservative government has gone soft on crime. I cannot understand why it did not go farther. Even though those members hurled abuse at the NDP for being soft on crime yesterday because we raised a question, in a more respectful way I ask them why they could not have gone tougher on crime in this bill. I will explain what I mean.

In the context of this flurry of crime and justice bills that we are dealing with, we have to establish the notion that crime does not pay. I would hope this would be one way to deter criminals from activities that we are trying to discourage. The prevailing wisdom and the common knowledge out there is that crime does pay.

An awful lot of bad people are getting away with an awful lot of things and living a very good life right under the noses of our police officers and law enforcement officers whose hands are tied. They may have darn good reason to believe that somebody is enjoying these luxury goods from ill-gotten gains from the proceeds of crime, but because the burden of proof is so onerous on our police officers and on our criminal justice system, it is rare that the proceeds of crime are actually seized.

Bill C-25 does suggest that in the event of money laundering and fundraising for terrorist activities or belonging to an illegal organization, the government can in fact seize bank accounts and cash assets from individuals and apply the reverse onus. I think that is laudable.

I would point out, though, that we could have expanded this notion to include more things than just the bank accounts. In the province of Manitoba we introduced legislation. It was defeated narrowly by the two Liberal members of the Manitoba legislature who would not allow it to pass, but we introduced legislation that was very broad and very sweeping. If a person was a member of a criminal organization and was convicted of a crime, the crown prosecutor could go to a judge who could then assess the material possessions of the criminal.

Let us say the person was a member of an illegal organization like the Hell's Angels and the guy was living in a $750,000 mansion with a tricked out Escalade in the driveway, two boats and a Sea-Doo, and all the tools and jewellery et cetera, the trappings of ill-gotten gains and crime. If that individual could not prove to the judge that the toys were purchased by earnings or by some legally obtained wealth, then we in fact could seize the property. The assets would be liquidated and the proceeds would in fact be dedicated directly to law enforcement, so that we can go out and bust more criminals. I thought that was a great bill and I thought that in the bill before us we could have explored some of those notions.

I note that the private member's bill from the Bloc Québécois in the last Parliament proceeded quite a way down the road before Parliament ended and the bill died on the order paper. I think Richard Marceau was the name of the Bloc member who is no longer a member so I can use his name and give him credit. That garnered a lot of support in the House. We thought it was a good idea.

This notion of reverse onus is not foreign to the NDP nor do we oppose it out of hand, but there was derision heaped on us yesterday for raising the idea that we did not believe reverse onus should be used in Bill C-27, the “three strikes and you're out” bill. We opposed it yesterday, but that does not mean that we oppose it all the time.

Some of the legitimate concerns about Bill C-25 that were raised above and beyond that observation from my own point of view were that it would put a burden on financial institutions to monitor, track, and take note of suspicious transactions or even overt exchanges of money that may indicate illegal activity. I think this is a necessary aspect of the bill. We have to rely on the cooperation of the financial institutions to alert us when these suspicious transactions take place.

However, the burden on smaller financial institutions may be quite onerous. I have an email from the director of the largest credit union on Vancouver Island, Mr. Bob Smits. Mr. Smits noticed that we were raising issues about the bill in the House of Commons and was monitoring it carefully.

He raised a concern that in a smaller financial institution like his, the current regulations, even as they exist today regarding tracking, the FINTRAC legislation, and the financial transactions and report analysis legislation have required his small credit union to hire an enforcement officer. He estimates that the cost of compliance with the current law to be over $100,000 a year.

If we compound that burden even further and make the obligation more onerous, we have to accommodate somehow these smaller institutions who want to comply with the law, but who have served notice that they are legitimately concerned that the burden will be passed on to them. They are asking that the government pay attention to the submission made by the credit unions at committee.

I am not sure how the submission was received in committee but I did not notice any substantial amendment in that regard. The only amendment I could find in my research for my speech today was a committee stage amendment put forward by the member for Markham—Unionville. The amendment stated that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, established by section 31, “...shall undertake a review of the operations of the centre in each financial year and shall, within three months after the end of each financial year, submit the annual report to Parliament on those operations”.

That is just a mandatory review process, which is not unusual when we are introducing a bill of this nature. I am not sure we took into consideration the legitimate concerns of the Credit Union Central of Canada in its submission to the bill. I want to recognize today that the NDP did take note of CUCC's concerns and we tried to represent its concerns at every stage of the debate on the bill.

One of the points I highlighted in its submission is where CUCC states that “in the absence of compelling evidence of need, Credit Union Central is concerned that the proposed legislation is largely driven by the perceived need to make Canada's AML-ATF regime formally consistent with the new international financial action task force standards, rather than in response to any substantive threat arising from loopholes in Canada's current AML-ATF regime”.

I suppose CUCC is questioning whether better enforcement in support of the existing regime may have been adequate to plug the loopholes. These are the practitioners in the field who do not want us to pass legislation unnecessarily unless we can have a demonstrated need proven to them. They also point out, and we should take note of this, that they do not necessarily accept that the need is commensurate with the level of activity contemplated in the bill.

The one thing that I do take note of and support in the bill is that the bill does include the foreign currency exchange shops. I think this is a logical extension in terms of financial institutions.

I would also note that a lot of questionable activity can be shielded in the completely unregulated financial sector of the payday loan companies, many of which, in fact, offer this foreign exchange and foreign delivery of currency.

As we know, a lot of money leaves Canada every year, expatriated by people who are working in Canada and sending money to other countries. When the completely unregulated payday loan sector started to explode into our communities and started sprouting up like mushrooms on every street corner, we were very concerned. However, one of the things we have not given too much thought to is that one of the services offered by these payday loan outfits is, quite often, wiring money to other countries.

The wiring of money was normally done in a fairly regulated setting until these shops started popping up in every strip mall across the country, sometimes three, four and five of them in the same strip mall. I think we will need to pay better attention to the activity involved in that because questionable people have entered into that industry sector. When people can get 1,000% rate of return on their money, a lot of people are taking note and it is no wonder these little shops are sprouting up.

In one sting case done by the crown prosecutor for the province of Manitoba, they found that 10,000% interest was being charged by one of these outfits. I believe that is a better rate of return than a person can get selling cocaine. There is no other activity in the country where we can get 10,000% return on an investment, other than these payday loan shops, so it is attracting all the wrong kinds of people. I would suggest that might be one place that officials may want to really look for money laundering, illegal transactions, and bring these payday lenders under tight scrutiny and tight regulation.

I do acknowledge that payday loan legislation is pending in this 39th Parliament, and I welcome that.

This bill deals with the legislation governing money laundering as it exists today and tries to strengthen and improve the performance of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC as it is known to the practitioners in the field.

FINTRAC, being an independent agency, does report to the Minister of Finance. It places obligations on certain individuals and entities to keep records, to identify their clients and to report certain financial transactions.

The second concern brought to our attention by the Credit Union Central of Canada is the obligation to report activity. First, the onerous burden that may be compounded by this legislation to track activity looking for suspect transactions, but also the obligation to turn in the names of member clients, otherwise seemingly innocent transactions may cross some line where a red flag pops up on a file, the institution would have no choice other than to report that individual. It could be someone who has been a member of that credit union for 20 years. We all know that credit unions are a lot more community driven than are some of the bigger banking institutions. It could put the manager of a credit union, who is a member of the community and who might be the coach of the local hockey team, in the difficult situation of having to turn in one of the parents of the children on that hockey team because of a transaction that was possibly innocent but set off a little red flag.

There are the privacy elements here that we must take into consideration and there is the awkwardness associated with that.

Bill C-25 seeks to improve and strengthen the performance of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre. I come back to the point made by Credit Union Central that perhaps all that is needed is a more robust administration of the existing FINTRAC regime.

It would be irresponsible to speak to this bill without taking into consideration the projected costs.

As I see I have only two minutes left, I will restate two of the compelling arguments brought to our attention by people we trust, about Bill C-25, the Credit Union Central of Canada.

The budget for FINTRAC, as contemplated currently, is $64 million. It may be that more resources will be necessary to offset the impact of the costs of administering the further obligations under Bill C-25 for these smaller institutions. As a former activist in the credit union movement, I try to advocate on their behalf. Let us not put this added financial burden on struggling organizations that are trying to meet the financial needs of individuals in places where the banks have abandoned them.

Quite often, the credit union stuck with the tough work of providing basic financial services that the banks should have been providing if they were living up to their obligations under their charters. They have abandoned the inner cities. Credit unions have fallen in to take their place and this bill might add an unnecessary financial burden on them.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the undemocratic and unelected Senate has not just amended the federal accountability act, it has taken it hostage. Yesterday the senators sent us their outrageous ransom demands threatening to kill Bill C-2 unless we gave in. The rudderless Liberal Party is letting the Liberal Senate run amok. Who is going to rein in these rogue senators before this whole project crashes and burns?

Bob Rae has 11 Liberal senators in his pocket. Does he condone the unelected Senate undermining and sabotaging the federal accountability act? The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has 10 Liberal senators. Does he support reform or is he trying to defend the status quo of Liberal corruption? The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville's Senate supporters say that Bill C-2 is leading to fascism. Mr. Kennedy's supporters tried to delete whole sections of the bill.

Which one of these future Liberal leaders wants to show some leadership and tell the senators to smarten up, know their place and stop sabotaging this important piece of legislation?

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his eloquent and thoughtful remarks. I will dwell only on the one issue that he raised.

In my earlier comments, I said that in fact the Conservatives are being soft on crime on the issue of reverse onus as it pertains to the proceeds of crime. It was a Bloc Québécois initiative that said in situations of organized crime why should we not be able to seize the luxury homes and assets and have organizaed crime prove that it earned that money legally and it was not purchased through the proceeds of crime.

Is it not the Conservatives who are going soft on that policy? They are not going after organized crime nearly as stiffly as was recommended by our colleague Richard Marceau from the Bloc Québécois?

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, coming from Winnipeg Centre, one of the most shocking things, when dealing with criminal justice issues or sentencing, is acknowledging the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our prison system to date.

When I looked at the schedule of offences being contemplated for inclusion under the bill, it struck me right away that it will exacerbate the appalling social situation where aboriginal people are locked up at an alarming rate disproportionate to their size in the population.

Has my colleague given any thought to whether there was any cultural analysis given to the bill when it was crafted in that light?

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

I am only pointing this out, Mr. Speaker, because the member down there wandered way off the subject of the day to accuse us of not being tough enough on crime when in actual fact it is those members who are going soft on organized crime. I do not know who they are worried about making angry.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I just have to point out, from an NDP point of view, that sometimes the government does not go far enough in getting tough on crime.

My colleague has not been listening if he has not heard some of the speeches from colleagues on the benches at this end of the House on the bill seeking to seize the proceeds of crime, the assets of terrorists, because we cannot understand why the government has gone soft on that bill. We think we should be able to seize the proceeds of crime, whether it is a motorcycle from the Hell's Angels or some other item from an organized crime figure. We should not just be able to seize their bank accounts. We should be able to seize their luxury mansions, their speedboats and their tricked out Escalade cars. If they cannot prove they purchased those luxury items through legitimate earnings, we should be able to seize them and put the reverse onus on the crook to prove they did not buy them through the proceeds of crime.

[Judges Act, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the concerns raised by my colleague from the Bloc regarding judicial appointments and compensation. I found it useful for my colleague to outline the way the selection of judges is undertaken in the province of Quebec.

I should point out that it is kind of mystifying that the current Minister of Justice who comes from the province of Manitoba should deviate so wildly from the practice of selection that is used in the province of Manitoba. The difference is that the committee that recommends judges on the federal scene is established by the minister and exists at the pleasure of the minister. The minister can take the committee's recommendations or not take its recommendations as he sees fit. The commission that puts names forward in the province of Manitoba is in fact appointed by the minister. Those people are selected by the minister from a short list developed by other outside agencies as per the provincial court act. Legal groups, the law society, et cetera, would recommend those names.

What we have heard from the current Minister of Justice is that he would like to begin putting police officers on the commission that recommends the names of judges. Does the member not feel that this is politicizing the judicial selection process in that clearly, the Minister of Justice has made no secret that he is frustrated by what he believes are judges who are soft on crime. In other words, he is trying to put people on the commission who will put forward names of people who will suit his own views to rule in the way that he sees fit. That way, to me, lies danger. Alarms should go off when we see an effort to politicize the judiciary. One of the cornerstones of a free western democracy is an independent judiciary unaffected by the current minister of the day.

[Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act, November 3rd, 2006]

As my colleague from South Shore says, they may try. They may only do it once, if it is to him. As members of Parliament, we should acknowledge that trapping is part of the Canadian culture and heritage too and lends itself to the management of our wildlife resources in an area where there is shrinking habitat.

I support my colleague's bill and I will vote in favour of the bill. I acknowledge and recognize the contribution he has made to the debate today by bringing it forward.