Roger Pomerleau

[Father and Guns, October 27th, 2009]

In closing, I invite all of those busy shouting across the way to go see this Quebec film, which has English subtitles to help—

[Father and Guns, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Father and Guns will be screened here in Ottawa tonight. A police comedy starring Michel Côté, Louis-José Houde, Rémy Girard and Caroline Dhavernas, the film has grossed nearly $11 million at the box office.

Quebec's filmmakers make miracles with the resources available to them. As we all know, the Conservative government, which scorns both artists and their work, froze the budget for Telefilm Canada's feature film fund.

Yet this same government does not hesitate to claim the Quebec film industry's success as its own, calling it Canadian film. Contrary to what some have claimed, Canadian film does not account for 20% of the market in Canada. It accounts for barely 1.4%, while nearly 18% of the market belongs to Quebec film. That is an important distinction to make.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think we already have institutions in place governing the matter before us today, namely, Bill C-52, but perhaps they are not being properly enforced, that is, they have not been given enough teeth.

I cannot believe that Mr. Lacroix did everything he did with anyone keeping a close eye on him. I think that someone, somewhere, was not watching him closely enough. Although it happened in Quebec, it is all the same. Mr. Lacroix was not watched closely enough, otherwise, he would not have been able to do what he did. It is appalling to think that our current institutions do not have enough teeth, nor the regulations, financial resources and other means needed to ensure that things are done properly and to prevent crimes before they are committed.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague has raised an issue that has been brought up a number of times in the House, and for which there is never a solution. It is a question that has never gotten a response. I do not know the answer to this question, except that the government chose a figure that would be high enough to have an impact on the public, without really having a reason for it.

I remind my colleague that the government is currently trying to impose a minimum sentence for fraud over $1 million, and in doing so, would direct judges and give them a specific obligation. It would take power away from the judges, whom the Prime Minister referred to—I am sure my colleague remembers—as left-wing ideologues.

Perhaps this is an attempt to take power away from the judges by requiring them to do things that they might already be doing in a better way. Mr. Lacroix was given 14 years instead of two mandatory years. The problem is not with the sentence he received. The problem is that the system allows Mr. Lacroix to serve only one-sixth of his sentence. That is the fundamental problem that needs to be fixed.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-52, to impose harsher sentences for economic crimes. However, in our view, this bill does not always take the right approach.

This bill introduced on October 21 includes a minimum sentence of two years for fraud over $1 million, as has been repeatedly pointed out. It provides additional aggravating factors for sentencing such as the financial and psychological impact on victims, the failure to comply with a professional standard or a licensing requirement, and the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud. It also includes a broader definition of victim. The court could receive a written statement of the repercussions of a fraud on a given community, describing the losses suffered, for example, by a senior's club, or an entire neighbourhood or club. The bill also enables the courts to order restitution for the loss of property. If they do not, they will have to provide an explanation and justification for their decision. The bill also makes it possible for the courts to prevent fraudsters from engaging in certain activities in the future, once convicted of fraud, of course.

The Bloc Québécois wants to improve this bill in committee, as the Conservative member is asking us to do, and correct the major flaws that we see in the bill. We will therefore vote in favour of this bill at second reading. That is why, as my colleague from the Liberal Party was saying earlier, we have no objection to this bill being referred directly to committee.

In matters of justice, however, the Bloc Québécois strongly believes that the most effective approach is still prevention. We must address the causes of crime. This bill does not go far enough to address the causes of crime and we will look at that in committee and propose a few options. We believe there is a flagrant lack of monitoring over people in this field who manage to defraud others even though they are supposed to be monitored much more closely.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that the current justice system needs improvement in many ways and that some laws need to be amended. Parliament and the government are responsible for taking action to ensure that Canadians and Quebeckers feel safe wherever they are in this country. Therefore, on June 15, 2007, which was a while ago, in response to the Conservatives' ideological approach, the Bloc Québécois recommended measures to curb economic crime. Our constructive approach is already working. In the 2008 budget, the Conservative government adopted some of the Bloc Québécois' ideas. It allocated extra resources to the national crime prevention strategy and to Crown prosecutors. As for this particular bill, even though we think the government is missing the mark in many respects, we will still support it at second reading if only to enable the committee to conduct a thorough study so that all members have the opportunity to recommend significant improvements if they want to.

Lately, there have been a lot of financial scandals around the world, in the United States, in Canada and in Quebec, such as Cinar, Norbourg and Earl Jones, and, in the United States, Madoff and Enron. These scandals have focused attention on some of the gaps in our oversight and our battle against economic crimes. That is why, on September 2, 2009, the Bloc Québécois introduced a number of measures to improve the system, making it harder for people to commit these crimes and easier to discover them and punish them more severely. Ours is the kind of comprehensive approach we need if we want to understand this kind of crime and wage an effective war against it.

In response, the government panicked. On September 16, well after our proposal was made public, it announced a bill that would include mandatory minimum jail time and aggravating factors, and enable the courts to order restitution of assets. We have Bill C-52 before us now. In many ways, the government's bill is so much smoke and mirrors. We all know that mandatory minimums are useless. The Bloc Québécois is not alone in saying that. Over and over again, people have said that the United States has the harshest sentences in the world. Their jails are full, yet the crime rate in every category is the highest in the world.

Fraud in excess of $1 million is actually a very rare occurrence. Yesterday, I heard a member of this House give a few examples of frauds in excess of $1 million, perhaps seven or eight instances, but his assertions were totally unsubstantiated. He talked about someone who had been sentenced to 24 months for stealing $1.2 million, but mentioned no name, case or references.

So far, we know of very few specific cases of individuals who have stolen $1 million and have not been sentenced to two years of imprisonment. In those instances where we are told that they did not receive a two-year sentence, most of the time, it might be because they were granted a remission of sentence after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. The fact of the matter is that the usual sentence for such offences is six or seven years of imprisonment.

This could in fact send the wrong message to the courts and result in shorter sentences being handed down. As we know, even with a reduced sentence, Mr. Lacroix was sentenced to more than two years. Had guidelines like the ones proposed been applied to him, he would have almost automatically been sentenced to two years of imprisonment. Instead, he got 14 years. The problem is that he will not be serving the full sentence. It is not that the sentence was wrong. The sentence was the right one, and he should be serving it. That is the problem.

The courts already take into account the prescribed aggravating factors. This bill provides for some, but it is already being done. What is being added here does not make much of a difference. Here is a specific example: almost all, if not all, the aggravating factors listed in the bill were mentioned in the ruling concerning Mr. Lacroix.

Restitution orders are also already in use. Their use may be broader in scope in the bill, but that does not substantially change what already exists.

As for the prohibition orders limiting the activities of convicted offenders, that is something interesting. However, many have suggested that they might be difficult to enforce. This should be looked at much more closely in committee.

What is missing from the bill is the abolition of parole after an offender has served one-sixth of his sentence. This is one of the two most important elements. Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix will be able to use this mechanism to get out of prison before they have served an appropriate sentence, the one that was imposed on them, which in Mr. Lacroix's case was just over 14 years. With parole after one-sixth of his sentence, Mr. Lacroix will serve two years and a few months, including time already served. This is not nearly enough time for what he did. The solution in the case of Mr. Lacroix and all those who do the same thing is not to sentence them to a minimum of two years, but to require that they serve their full time, without parole after one-sixth of the sentence. The government is not doing anything about this, yet it is a key measure for dealing with this issue.

I listened earlier as a secretary of state told us that the committee would be open to any suggestions we might have. I hope it will be open to this one, because it is one of the key measures we should put in place.

Before imposing minimum sentences, which are inherently unfair, because they force the judge to impose overly harsh sentences on people who deserve less, should we not start by limiting non-judicial decisions? It is not a judge, but a parole board that decides to parole an offender who has served one-sixth of his sentence. This is therefore a non-judicial intervention in a judicial process to reduce a sentence that has already been handed down in accordance with the rules.

The bill also does not deal with tax havens. This is the second key point, and my colleague from Manicouagan was right to speak at length about it. Yesterday, I listened as hon. members spoke with trembling voices about the victims who should be compensated and supported, but the only way the government is proposing to support them is to send the people who defrauded them to jail. The government must also consider the victims and make every effort to compensate them for the losses they have suffered. The way to do that is to ensure that the people who defrauded them can repay the money they stole by preventing them from hiding that money in tax havens. These are the two main elements the Bloc Québécois will raise in committee in order to improve this flawed bill.

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

Madam Speaker, we have spoken at length today—and some colleagues did so before me—about criminality in the United States as an example for what we should do here. We know that in the United States, much harsher sentences are given to many more people. Their prisons are full and yet their crime rate is at its highest.

I have always thought to myself that often in the United States much harsher sentences are given for fraud and money matters than for attacks against individuals. For example, Al Capone was locked up, not for the murders he committed, but for the taxes he failed to pay. All that because Eliot Ness's team that was investigating him, there were some very good accountants. It is a good example of what we want or need here and that is for police services to be specialized today with accountants to properly pursue people who commit fraud.

I think my colleague should acknowledge, in light of the U.S. system, that there is no real correlation between being tough on crime and reducing the crime rate. That is what I would like her to address.

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

It was Barbados.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member, and I heard him conclude with a sentence that really surprised me. There are some English phrases that sound really good, that really express what people are trying to say. He said “If people do the crime, they will do the time”. That is easy enough to say, but in reality, that is not what happens.

We know that criminals who get caught—and this is what happened to Vincent Lacroix, as the NDP member said—get the sentences they deserve, but once they have served one-sixth of the sentence, they are automatically released, often getting out after a few months even if they have been convicted of serious crimes.

I would like to know why the member said that the Bloc Québécois talks and talks but never does anything. Not long ago, we suggested that the government take a day to eliminate conditional release after serving one-sixth of a sentence before Mr. Lacroix was sentenced to ensure that he and those like him serve their sentences in full. But the government refused to do it. Why?

[Canada Post, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on September 25, Canada Post decided to deprive the citizens of an entire neighbourhood in the new City of Drummondville of the services of a post office. More than 5,000 people learned through a form letter that they will now be forced to travel several kilometres to get to a post office.

Worse yet is that according to the franchisee, the contract signed with the Alain Doucet smoke shop in the Saint-Charles area of Drummondville is valid until October 2010. We have our doubts about Canada Post management's good faith when, on the orders of the minister responsible, they keep trying to cut services, despite the announcement of the Canadian Postal Service Charter on September 12.

Is that how Canada Post has decided to get around the moratorium on closing rural post offices?

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Markham—Unionville before question period. He pointed out fundamental flaws in the measures proposed by the Conservatives with regard to the current economic crisis.

For example, he noted that when the Conservatives tabled their first budget, they announced cuts in government spending, when massive investments were needed because of the crisis. It makes sense. Without the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc, there would have been no backtracking on the part of the government and we would probably have nothing in place today to face the crisis.

He also reminded us that when it comes to infrastructure programs, the government has developed the practice of announcing figures that are never correct. In reality, about 12% of the funding announced has been invested. I found on the Internet a list announcing five projects for my riding of Drummond. But I do not see anything happening right now in Drummond, so the figure for my riding is a lot closer to 0% than 12%. Moreover, when it comes to job creation, the government throws around figures that have no real basis. This is a fundamental flaw.

I understand why my colleague has lost confidence in this government and why he is voting against its measures. We are doing exactly the same thing as the Liberal Party and are saying no to the Conservative government for its performance as a whole.

However, we are talking today about a measure that will give effect to the government's proposed investments in renovation, and that seems good to us.

Can my colleague tell me why he is voting against this particular measure?