House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 38% of the vote.
Immigration September 18th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the department is fully aware of the recent media report of the activities of certain unscrupulous immigration consultants. To avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations, I cannot speak to the specifics of any case. I can say again, clearly, we have zero tolerance on this side of the House for immigration fraud.
Immigration September 18th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that our government takes a zero tolerance approach to immigration fraud. We are very concerned about the proliferation of bogus immigration consultants offering advice on or abuse of our system. Mr. Speaker, you can bet your bottom dollar that we are going to continue working toward that end.
Niagara Wine Festival September 16th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back.
Every September, those of us in the Niagara region celebrate the grape harvest with the Niagara Wine Festival in St. Catharines. This Friday evening, in my hometown and in my riding, the 58th year of the festival will commence and it will attract hundreds of thousands of visitors who will participate in over 100 events.
The festival is a chance for Niagara to put its best foot forward and show the world what the spirit and ingenuity of our community can achieve. The grape growers and vintners of Niagara have put the region on the map as a premier international tourist destination, producing some of the finest wines in Canada and in the world.
This is an industry that all of Niagara and the rest of the country can be proud of. I call upon my colleagues in this House to join me in wishing them the best of luck as this year's celebration begins this weekend.
Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act June 18th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook who did an admiral job this morning describing and outlining Bill C-36. I also wish to thank him for his efforts in moving the private member's bill in the last Parliament that would have rid the country of the faint hope clause and the inspiration of that private member's bill leading to a government piece of legislation. It is not often that happens. It is obvious that the government and the justice minister see the importance of moving this piece of legislation forward.
It is my pleasure to rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-36, Criminal Code amendments that will put an end to the so-called faint hope provision. It is not often that we repeal or eliminate a provision of the Criminal Code, so some explanation of the faint hope provision is needed before we discuss the bill before us.
What is the faint hope provision? The faint hope provision applies to those who commit murder, the most serious offence in our law. The faint hope provision is in fact a section of the Criminal Code, section 745.6, which was first enacted in 1976 when Parliament replaced death sentences for murder with mandatory life terms of imprisonment and parole ineligibility periods: 25 years for first degree murder and a minimum of 10 years and up to 25 years for second degree murder, and 25 years for high treason.
Remember that a life sentence is indeed for life and for a murderer that is exactly how it should be. Offenders may eventually be released on parole after 25 years but those offenders are serving their life sentence under the conditions of parole.
The faint hope clause permits an offender serving a life sentence to apply for a chance to have parole earlier than prescribed. So after 15 years of a life sentence an application could be made for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
I should emphasize that this not a parole application but rather a step before a parole application. The 15 years in prison does not reflect the severity of the crime of murder and the chance of parole after 15 years. It simply does not reflect what Canadians expect of a life sentence.
This government promised Canadians that we would get tough on crime, that we would hold offenders to account and we would show compassion and respect for victims and the families of victims.
The government has delivered with important reforms including addressing dangerous offenders, gun crime, organized crime, drug crime, auto theft and identity theft. This government delivers what it promises and Bill C-36 delivers on our promise to get rid of the faint hope clause and ensure that murderers serve sentences in jail until they are ready to be released on parole.
The people of Canada have long questioned why a murderer who receives a life sentence and is required to serve 25 years before seeking parole should be able to get any chance of parole earlier. Many victims have said that it is the victims that receive the true life sentence because their family member is gone forever.
Ironically, while 15 years may seem like an eternity for families mourning the murder of a loved one, 15 years seems far too soon for families to deal with a faint hope application by the offender and the possibility of a parole hearing.
Victims who have attended faint hope hearings have said that this process causes them to relive the whole tragedy of the family member's murder and the trial process that led to the conviction of the offender. No one asks to be a victim and no one should have to be revictimized again and again by our justice system.
Our justice system has changed over the last 20 years and victims now have a greater role. I have witnessed firsthand what victims' families have to go through in the St. Catharines community, what it means to have to face the possibility of a murderer getting out earlier than the sentence that he or she was given.
Some may suggest that victims of crime should simply rely on the crown and the judge, and avoid the additional trauma, but every family member of a murder victim will agree and will tell us that they are there for the memory of the victim, and to ensure that the judge is aware of the impact that the murderer has had on their lives. They want to ensure that the safety of the community and their safety is considered.
Bill C-36 addresses these concerns, but what exactly does the bill do? This reform will bar everyone who commits murder or high treason in the future from applying for faint hope. Those who commit murder after this law comes into force will no longer be eligible to apply for an earlier parole eligibility date after serving 15 years of their sentence.
The reforms in Bill C-36 respect the fundamental legal principle that the law cannot change retroactively to, in effect, change the sentence of a person who is already serving or awaiting that sentence. The bill will not bar an offender completely from access to faint hope in the same way as is proposed for future offenders. But even though some “lifers” will still be entitled to apply for faint hope, there will be new rules and new procedures in place.
These new procedures will apply to offenders who are already serving a life sentence, to those who are awaiting a life sentence, and to those who have been charged, but not yet convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason.
There is currently a three-step process involved for offenders applying for faint hope. The new procedures in Bill C-36 will make some changes to these three steps. First, an applicant must pass a screening test conducted by a superior court judge who will decide whether the applicant can go on to the next stage of the process.
Some courts have suggested that this test is relatively easy to meet. Bill C-36 makes this a higher test for offenders from “a reasonable prospect” to a “substantial likelihood” of success. This will screen out most of the most undeserving applicants.
If unsuccessful at the first stage, the applicant can apply again in two years unless the judge makes the period longer. Bill C-36 will increase this to five years. This will mean an offender with a 25-year parole ineligibility period, for example, can only make two faint hope applications at the 15 and at the 20 year mark.
The change from two to five years will create more certainty for victims' families about when a faint hope hearing will occur and reduce the trauma that these hearings often inflict on them. Victims' families will know that if they must face a subsequent faint hope hearing, it will be at least be five years down the road. It still is not easy, but it means it simply will not happen every two years.
Second, at present, an applicant who successfully gets past the first stage must convince a 12 member jury that he or she should be able to apply for early parole. If the jury unanimously agrees that the offender should be able to apply early, it also decides when that application may be made. If the jury says no, the offender can reapply to a judge at two years unless the jury makes that period longer. Bill C-36 will change this to a five year period.
Under the current system an offender can apply for faint hope at any point after reaching 15 years in his or her life sentence. Bill C-36 will set a three month window on faint hope applications. This means that once an offender is eligible to apply for the faint hope, the application must be made within three months of the date of becoming eligible. If this three month window is missed for whatever reason, the offender will have to wait a full five years to apply again. This offers victims some certainty about when the faint hope application may arise rather than wondering when they will be faced with an application that the offender could bring at any time after the 15 year mark.
Third, in the event that the offender is successful and they are given a chance to apply for parole earlier than prescribed in their sentence, they must then apply to the National Parole Board which will determine whether parole should be granted and on what conditions.
Bill C-36 is not making any changes to the law that governs parole, only to the faint hope or the step before parole.
In summary, these procedural changes will apply to everyone who commits murder, or who is arrested for murder, or who is convicted for murder before the date the amendments come into force. All those who commit, or are arrested for, or who are convicted for murder on or after the coming into force of the bill will not be able to apply for faint hope at all.
Bill C-36 closes what has been described as a “loophole for lifers” in a way that balances respect for the law with respect for the rights of victims and their families.
This government stands up for victims of crime and stands up for law-abiding people of Canada. Bill C-36 is an important step in our strategy to hold offenders accountable and to ensure truth in sentencing. Serious crime deserves serious time and Bill C-36 reflects that goal.
I urge hon. members to give the bill their full support.
Questions on the Order Paper June 18th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, CIC does not systematically collect statistics on the number of live-in caregivers who have not been able to successfully become permanent residents of Canada.
Nevertheless, please note that the approval rate for permanent residence applications from members of the live-in caregiver class is high. For example, the rate in 2007 was 97.3%. In 2008 the rate was 98.6%. This suggests that most applicants are able to meet the eligibility requirements, including the cumulative two-year period of work as a live-in caregiver.
The Immigration Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, and its regulations do not provide for special recourse mechanisms for workers or specific monitoring, control and enforcement mechanisms for ensuring adherence by employers to the terms of contracts. Where CIC is made aware of possible abuse, the case can be referred to the appropriate investigative or enforcement agency such as the Canadian Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial employment/labour standards offices or the police.
As a result, CIC does not collect statistics or report on the number of complaints of mistreatment. Employees and employers who contact the call centre are encouraged to contact provincial authorities responsible for labour standards or, if the mistreatment might constitute a crime, the police. In case of immediate danger, the call centre contacts the police force. Section 124 of the IRPA provides that “Every person commits an offence who employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this act to be employed”. Enforcement of this provision is the responsibility of the Canada Border Services Agency.
Provinces and territories have primary responsibility for enforcement of labour standards, which apply equally to temporary foreign workers, TFW, and Canadian workers. The TFW program relies on these standards, and the enforcement agencies designed to uphold them, to protect the rights of TFWs while working in Canada.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act June 16th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting patiently, but certainly looking forward to concluding my remarks on Bill C-309, which proposes, at a significant cost to the taxpayer, to create a new federal agency, with its own deputy minister and bureaucracy, to administer economic development programs exclusively to northern Ontario.
If we are to make these kind of expenditures, I think it should be on the stimulus package and the efforts that have gone forward in this budget to help Canadians versus to build a larger bureaucracy.
Nonetheless, to summarize, in addition to some of the initiatives that I had mentioned previously, the FedNor organization today administers two very important programs that directly benefit northern Ontario: the northern Ontario development program, which is the program that represents the organization's original mandate to serve these areas; as well as the community futures program. These programs serve as a foundation of FedNor's holistic and highly successful approach to community economic development. Unfortunately, the organization's evolution, which I have tried to capture in my comments, has led to confusion about FedNor's role and responsibilities.
Please allow me to clarify.
Because of its original mandate to serve northern Ontario exclusively, some have been led to believe that FedNor funding aimed at northern Ontario is somehow flowing south. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What is important to understand is that what used to be referred to as the FedNor program has now become the northern Ontario development program. Through this program, FedNor, the organization itself, funds economic developments exclusively in northern Ontario. Even though FedNor has grown and some programs have involved delivering provide-wide funding, each of these programs, including the northern Ontario development program, has its own distinct budget.
In fact, the northern Ontario development program and its budget has steadily increased over the years. Today, it is much larger than it was when FedNor started assuming responsibility for the other two programs. This means that funds destined for northern Ontario are not flowing south, contrary to what is being claimed by some members in opposition.
Let me be clear. Even though the organization has received increased responsibilities over the years, these have not detracted from FedNor's focus on northern Ontario. Bill C-309, in essence, aims to create an agency to do what FedNor is doing today through its northern Ontario development program. However, as it stands, the bill would effectively turn back the clock on the progress made by FedNor. The bill, as written, would remove the flexibility that has helped make FedNor so valuable to the people it serves.
Recently the Government of Canada announced Canada's economic action plan, which will provide much needed support for businesses, industry and all Canadians during economic slowdown. As part of that plan, FedNor will be administering northern Ontario's share of the $1 billion, over two years, allocated to the new nationwide community adjustment fund. FedNor's flexibility to deliver this type of programming is what makes the organization so effective.
I should also note that delivering additional programs like the community futures program and the community adjustment fund actually creates jobs in northern Ontario. By delivering these initiatives through an established organization like FedNor, instead of creating new layers of bureaucracy, the Government of Canada and all citizens benefit from important cost savings.
The clients of the community futures program and other FedNor-delivered initiatives also benefit by drawing on FedNor's substantial program delivery expertise and recognized sound management practices. The potential severing of the community futures program, which supports 24 community futures organizations across northern Ontario, would have a particularly negative impact on northern residents. FedNor has established long-term relationships with hundreds of community futures staff and volunteers who serve on these boards. These relationships have been built over many years and have created strong bonds between the federal government and community stakeholders.
Let me illustrate this by making a point. At last year's Ontario Association Community Futures Development Corporations annual conference, prior to the minister's keynote address, the board chair told the 250 delegates in the room that, “Not only does FedNor enable access to the funding which fuels the efforts of our respective organizations, but it's the ongoing management of the program and the advice they give us combine to give us a serious strategic advantage”.
In short, Bill C-309 aims to create a new entity to what FedNor already does, through the northern Ontario development program, yet it would limit the capacity of FedNor to contribute to other economic development initiatives in northern and rural Ontario.
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act June 12th, 2009
That is not true.
Message from the Senate June 11th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I certainly have tried to make it clear to the member and she knows that the efforts made by the minister in terms of the direction that the department has been taking over the last number of months have been extremely positive. Also, we have dealt with this specific issue for numerous days and weeks at committee.
The member for Trinity—Spadina would have to acknowledge that not only have we dealt in great detail with the issue, but we have also ensured that we brought recommendations forward that actually have some teeth in them, that actually make sense, that have actually been carried at committee, that have been introduced in the House and are now in the hands of the minister and the department.
While this is a party that wants to work both here in the House and at committee, I would simply suggest to the member for Trinity—Spadina that she keep her chin up, make the effort and--
Message from the Senate June 11th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina has raised questions about what the government is doing to address the problem of immigrants being taken advantage of by unregulated immigration consultants. We certainly have that much in common. The difference is we have a government that takes this issue very seriously.
The hon. member's concerns follow up on recommendations of the standing committee's 2008 report concerning immigration consultants, which Citizenship and Immigration Canada is currently reviewing. The minister has noted that the government appreciates both the member's concern and the recommendations of the committee.
As I have said, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is reviewing these issues and is continuing to work to protect vulnerable individuals from unscrupulous and predatory consultants. These policy options address prevention and enforcement tools regarding unscrupulous behaviour and the governance of consultants. We are going to act.
Our government is committed to protecting vulnerable immigrants from unscrupulous consultants. On March 23 the minister announced the launch of an advertising campaign to inform potential immigrants how to protect themselves against false claims from dishonest immigration consultants.
Our ads in the ethnic and mainstream media outlets direct people to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website where they can learn how to find an authorized immigration consultant, lawyer or notary, if they choose to use one. The Citizenship and Immigration Canada site also contains links to websites where applicants and immigrants can go to take action if they believe they have been a victim of immigration fraud.
This campaign follows the recent launch of a multilingual warning video, which is now available on YouTube, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website, through overseas missions, and on TV across the country through public service announcements.
The minister is also working with international partners on this issue. For example, during his visit to India in January 2009, the minister received assurances from Indian counterparts to step up efforts to combat unscrupulous immigration consultants in India. In addition to this, our government will take further action in Canada to improve regulation of immigration consultants to protect newcomers to our country.
The government wants immigration applicants to know how to protect themselves against fraud. It wants those seeking to represent these applicants to know that Canada will do everything it can to protect the integrity of our immigration system.
Therefore, the government is acting on the matter raised by the hon. member. We welcome her co-operation in the House and on the immigration committee to strengthen our immigration system and protect vulnerable newcomers and workers.
I know the member and I do not necessarily have a whole lot of things in common on the direction of immigration in this country. We do not necessarily share a lot of things in common, but we do share one thing and that is the treatment of vulnerable individuals who come to this country by choice, because they want to be here. Whether they come here under the temporary worker program, become a caregiver in a home, become a nanny, or work temporarily on a fruit farm, the fact is that under any of those categories, or applying to become a landed immigrant or permanent resident, there is some common ground.
I certainly want to thank the member for her efforts most recently on the immigration committee.