Robert Goguen

[April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of the amendments to the conditional sentencing regime contained in Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. We will have another go at convincing the opposition to stand up for law-abiding Canadians.

Canadians support the government's commitment to make our streets and communities safer, which includes ensuring that house arrest is not a sentencing option for serious and violent crimes. The safety and well-being of Canadians is fundamental.

The government has been forthright about its estimated federal costs of the impact of Bill C-10. As the Ministers of Justice and Public Safety said during their October 6, 2011 appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the costs to the federal government to implement Bill C-10 will be $78.6 million over five years. These costs relate to the reforms on child sexual offences and on serious drug offences. They also confirmed that there are no federal costs associated with Bill C-10's proposed conditional sentencing reforms.

To understand this, one need only look to the actual criteria governing when a conditional sentence is available. Bill C-10 spells out clearly that identified offences will not be eligible for conditional sentences rather than leaving it to the interpretation as to whether an offence is ineligible because it is a serious personal injury offence.

Bill C-10 would not change the criteria that say that a conditional sentence is only possible if the sentencing court is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years is warranted. As we all know, federal correctional responsibility only relates to sentences that are two years or longer. Therefore, it should be clear to the members that Bill C-10' conditional sentence reforms do not apply to federal sentences of imprisonment.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of the amendments to the availability of conditional sentences contained in Bill C-10 raises many questions about how he arrived at his cost estimates and the basis for making many of his assumptions.

For instance, one of the most troubling assumptions made in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis is that the proposed amendments to the availability of conditional sentences will result in less individuals pleading guilty. This consideration is not applicable to conditional sentences because there is no certainty that house arrest will be given for a particular offence, only that it is never available if the offence in question is punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment.

Guilty pleas are often the result of plea bargaining, which will continue to be available in appropriate cases. The incentive to plead guilty should be the same after these amendments come into force as it was before. There has been no change.

Another puzzling assumption in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report is that it estimates that about 4,500 offenders would have to serve a prison sentence because they will no longer be eligible for house arrest once Bill C-10 comes into force. However, the analysis does not differentiate whether the offence was prosecuted by indictment or by summary conviction. I would remind all members that offences prosecuted by summary conviction and that do not carry a mandatory minimum penalty will still be eligible for house arrest.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report also assumes that offenders who receive a conditional sentence of imprisonment successfully complete their sentence. However, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has noted that up to 37% of conditional sentences are breached, which represents additional costs as a result of subsequent court appearances.

Consequently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer underestimates the current costs related to conditional sentences and consequently overestimates the cost impact of the proposed amendments. That is a total misdirection on his part. In my view, the estimates are very problematic.

Canadians have given the government a strong mandate to bring forward these reforms and that is what Bill C-10 delivers.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, credit unions play a very important role in Canada's economy. Many of the credit unions are in the smaller areas where the bigger banks have pulled out because of lack of population. The fact that they are now becoming full members of this competitive process will benefit consumers. We know that credit unions, being of a smaller nature, pay very much attention to their members. They will offer more competitive rates. This will sharpen the pencils of the bigger banks which are sometimes subject to criticism.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the House has a very busy agenda and has very capable members, as does the other house, the Senate, which is equally capable of coming up with a very well crafted bill such as Bill S-5. In its field of competency, it has come through with what we feel is a very good piece of legislation.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the legislation when read in its entirety has all the elements of transparency necessary to ensure the best protection of the public. Consumer protection is at the heart of this very legislation.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues have discussed many of the important features of Bill S-5 which would strengthen Canada's financial sector to its advantage. I particularly appreciate my hon. colleagues' characterization of the financial system as being only as strong as its weakest link and for outlining some of the key areas where the government has acted, both within Bill S-5 and elsewhere, to strengthen those links that needed the most attention.

The banking sector has expressed its strong support for this mandatory legislation. For example, Terry Campbell, president of the Canadian Bankers Association has explained, “In Bill S-5, the government has stepped up to the plate and is proposing what we think are very needed clarifications”.

I also agree with my colleagues' emphasis on the importance of considering the health of the whole financial system as fundamental to the growth and success of the entire economy. With this in mind, I would like to dedicate my allotted time to considering one special crucial link in the system which Bill S-5 would act to fortify, and that is Canada's payment system.

Our payment system is the set of instruments, procedures and rules used to transfer funds among financial institutions, either on their own behalf or that of their customers. This is not to be confused with the various other payment instruments Canadians use, such as cash, cheques, debit cards and credit cards to purchase goods and services, to make financial investments and to transfer funds from one person to another. The two are not unrelated, however, because these payment instruments, with the exception of cash, normally involve a claim on a financial institution such as a bank, credit union or caisse populaire. Financial institutions therefore need arrangements to transfer funds among themselves, which is why the payment system exists.

In Canada, the national systems for clearing and settlement of payment are run by the Canadian Payments Association, also known as the CPA, a not-for-profit organization of federally regulated financial institutions. This system has served Canadian financial institutions and their customers well. However, in a world of ever-changing demands, technological innovation, increased global integration and competition, no responsible and effective government can afford to let such a system remain static. That is why Bill S-5 takes action to ensure that this system can meet the ongoing demands of an increasingly dynamic, innovative and globalized financial system. I must note that the CPA provided input on these measures through an open public consultation process and has told the House finance committee that it welcomes ”the incorporation of technical and housekeeping amendments to the Canadian Payments Act legislation to provide greater clarity surrounding our membership”.

It is clear that the payments landscape is changing. For example, since 1996 we have seen in Canada and abroad increasing cases where clearing and settlement systems do not include banks as direct participants. To better accommodate this development, Bill S-5 proposes to amend the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to remove the requirement that there must be at least one bank involved. The new definition would allow more flexibility in establishing systems to clear such complex financial instruments as over the counter derivatives, or OTCs. This change has the added benefit of allowing the Bank of Canada to oversee the transactions of these complex financial instruments to help ensure they pose no systematic risk to the financial system. Not only is this prudent, it is also in keeping with Canada's commitment to our G20 partners that by 2012 our OTCs be cleared through central counterparties.

Bill S-5 also proposes to change the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to allow the Bank of Canada to disclose information to other regulators of payment clearing and settlement systems and to coordinate activities across current federal and provincial jurisdictions as well as with foreign regulators. This would also help us meet our G20 commitments by ensuring that Canadian prudential and market conduct regulators have the authority, tools and information they need to maintain effective ongoing oversight over the Canadian OTC derivative market. Moreover, the information sharing would help all parties understand the potential risk in these linked systems, building upon lessons learned from the 2008 financial crisis and helping in our efforts with our international partners to prevent such instances in the future. Failing to form such links could actually delay our ability to link to foreign systems and undermine Canada's ability to meet the commitments all G20 nations made. This is a key fact for hon. members to consider when debating the timely passage of Bill S-5.

If that does not convince hon. members to get behind the bill, I will offer another good reason.

As many hon. members appreciate, Canada's credit unions are a valuable source of financial services in communities across the country. In recognition of the important role credit unions play, in budget 2010 our government created a new legislative framework for federal credit unions to accommodate growth and expansion of the Canadian credit union system, putting them on a more level playing field with other financial service providers.

Once implemented through regulation, this would enable those credit unions that choose to do so to extend beyond provincial borders and pursue business strategies that are not limited by provincial incorporation. This change would encourage competition among financial institutions and promote a more level playing field within the financial sector, supporting a stronger and more stable system overall. It would also give credit unions a way to expand their sources of funding and diversify their geographic risk exposure.

Bill S-5 supports these efforts by amending the Canadian Payments Act so that credit unions fall within the co-operatives class in the act rather than the bank class, giving federal credit unions a more effective voice in the CPA. I am pleased to report that this measure has been very positively received by the federal credit unions.

According to Credit Union Central of Canada, the national voice for credit unions across the country, these changes would help credit unions represent their members more effectively at the payments table.

In the words of David Phillips, president and CEO of Credit Union Central:

Placing the federal credit union in the cooperatives class will preserve and strengthen the credit union system's representation at the Canadian Payments Association. It ensures that a federal credit union will be represented by a director who can bring the perspective of cooperative financial institutions to CPA matters.

At the same time, credit unions would still enjoy the long-standing, well-understood and robust governance, liquidity and clearing and settlement frameworks that they use today.

For these reasons, I would encourage hon. members of the House to support the timely passage of Bill S-5. They can do so with the confidence that by making these important improvements to Canada's payment system they will be strengthening key links in Canada's financial system and better connecting it with the world.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, certainly no one measure comes without costs. What is particularly important in this case is making sure that refugees and immigrants who come to Canada do so in a legitimate fashion without abusing the system.

Those who do not come here in the fashion that is anticipated by the law will be detained. Of course, there is a cost to that. Obviously there is an offset to this cost of keeping these people here. By getting them out more quickly moneys are saved. There is a trade-off. Certainly we have to put first and foremost the fairness of the system before the costs associated.

We are all immigrants to Canada and we welcome those who come here legitimately.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a valuable point. Obviously the bill will be the subject of further debate. No one has the market cornered on good ideas. Certainly, we will welcome any improvements to the bill that may make the bill more effective and fair to Canadians and immigrants coming here.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the act meets the scrutiny of the constitutional requirements and, obviously, knowing that some people may be detained when they are irregular or illegal immigrants, we are certainly mindful of their human rights and their needs. No system is perfect, but first and foremost we must protect Canadian society by ensuring that we have an immigration system that is fair to all.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

All Canadians should be concerned about the increase in refugee claims in recent years from countries that are generally considered to be safe and democratic. That is because the numbers clearly demonstrate that an increasing number of refugee claimants in Canada simply do not need our protection. This has been a concern for some time. Allow me to provide an overview of the statistics that demonstrate this from the last year alone.

In 2011 a significant portion of refugee claims came from the European Union. Claims from this region alone accounted for 23% of all claims last year, up from 14% in 2010, more than from Africa or Asia. On average, EU claims were abandoned in 14.5 months or withdrawn in 10 months. In recent years virtually all EU claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. The bogus claims from among the 5,800 EU nationals who sought asylum last year cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. Hungary, an EU member state, has become Canada's top source country for such refugee claims. Hungarians made over 2,400 refugee claims around the world in 2010. Of those, 2,300 were in Canada. That is 23 times more claims made in Canada than in the rest of the world put together. By comparison, the United States received only 32 Hungarian refugee claims in 2010. I think these numbers speak volumes.

Our refugee system was designed to provide protection to those who genuinely need it, people who have escaped brutal regimes, violence, oppression and persecution in these countries. These people need to come to Canada for protection or they risk losing their lives. However, the majority of claims are coming from safe and democratic countries that respect human rights. The fact that Canada receives more refugee claims from the democratic European Union than from Africa or Asia should be a clear wake-up call. Clearly, there is something wrong with our refugee system and it needs to be fixed.

This is how immigration lawyer Julie Taube summed up the situation under the current immigration system. She said:

I’m an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I can tell you from theory and practice that the current refugee system is very flawed, and cumbersome, and definitely needs an overhaul. It takes up to two years to have a claimant have his hearing. And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use very expensive resources at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.

....I have clients who’ve been waiting since 2009, early 2010 to have their hearing, and I represent many claimants from, let’s say Africa, the Mid East countries, who base their claim on gender violence or Christian persecution in certain Middle East countries, and they have to wait, because the system is so clogged up with what I consider to be unfounded claims from citizens of safe country of origin.

The reality is that instead of waiting patiently to come to Canada through the immigration process, too many people are trying to use our asylum system as a back door to gain entry into Canada. These bogus claimants do not want to play by the rules. Instead, they use our immigration system to get to the front of the line. All the while these claimants clog our refugee system and make those who legitimately need it to wait far too long before their claim can be dealt with. Let us not forget the huge expense to taxpayers and the enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. On average, a failed refugee claimant costs approximately $55,000. The simple fact is that the generosity of Canada's social benefits, including taxpayer-funded welfare benefits and our general health care system, which is a source of immense pride for Canadians, is the draw factor for many European claimants.

The designated country of origin policy would provide the minister with a more flexible tool to respond to spikes in unfounded refugee claims. To help reduce the pull factors for unfounded claimants, the designated country of origin policy would allow for expedited processing of refugee claims from countries that do not typically produce refugees. It is important to note, however, that whether or not a country is designated, every eligible refugee claimant would continue to receive a hearing before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Claimants from those countries would be processed in about 45 days compared to 1,038 days under the current system.

All claimants, regardless of country of origin, would continue to have the ability to seek judicial review of their claim by the Federal Court. Claimants from countries of origin that have not been designated would get access to an additional level of appeal for the first time, as they would have access to the new refugee appeal division.

Bill C-31 is necessary since the many days it takes to process refugee claims is what attracts unfounded claimants to Canada in the first place. On average, it can take up to four and a half years from the initial time a claim is made until the failed claimant is removed from Canada. In the most extreme cases, the entire process has taken up to 10 years. As a result of the improvements in Bill C-31, those who truly need our protection would get it even faster and those who do not would be sent home more quickly. Moreover, Bill C-31 would save Canadian taxpayers at least $1.65 billion over five years.

It is no surprise that Bill C-31 has received widespread praise from across the country. This is what the Globe and Mail had to say about the bill:

[The immigration minister's] refugee reforms, aimed at making the process more efficient and decisive, are generally good. If implemented, they will improve an unwieldy asylum program....

The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries such as Mexico and Hungary that are democracies with respect for basic human rights and freedoms....

Fast-tracking the refugee claims from these countries, and ensuring failed claimants are properly deported, is an excellent way to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse.

Canadians are proud to have the most generous immigration system in the world. However, Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country. We must take action to crack down on this abuse and strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system. The protecting Canada's immigration system act does just that. It would make our refugee system faster and fairer. It would put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer-funded health and social benefits. At the same time, this bill would provide protection more quickly to those who are truly in need.

Canadians have given our government a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. We are acting on that mandate. If we want our refugee system to work more efficiently and to provide protection to those who genuinely need it in a reasonable amount of time, then I encourage all members of this House to vote in support of this legislation.

[Justice, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, obviously none of those statements are entirely true. Public protection is essential to Quebec and Canadian society, and we know that police officers have the resources they need. That is one of the reasons we introduced Bill C-10.