Scott Simms

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

It is a perfect point, Madam Chair. We have already experienced it. AbitibiBowater sued the government for $500 million through chapter 11 in NAFTA. We had to settle out of court. I would love to have been a fly on the wall to hear some of the discussions, because I have a mill, quite frankly, operated by them for a hundred years that they have not cleaned up and I hope that they will. That discussion should have been had.

I will leave that for another day, but nonetheless, I will talk about the fact that yes, in many cases, the local municipalities have to have some built-in way to bolster their own economies. We already see it, and to face penalties that are major from a foreign nation will be a crippling one. I think that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has some very good ideas about this and I certainly hope it brings them to the table.

I will give a good example. Ontario's Green Energy Act has some built-in policies that would bolster the local economies. Would that face a challenge under an investment regime set up by this free trade agreement? It possibly would, but we have got to address that by showing an example. The Europeans want to protect their own as well. Let us not kid ourselves. Let us come out with something comprehensive. We have a year and a bit to go. It is time to start talking turkey, as it were, with these comprehensive trade agreements and sub-national governments.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, I wish I had more time to talk about this. I will get into it point by point.

First, welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Crosbie treated the hon. member well, obviously.

The other point is that when it comes to the agriculture and the Wheat Board issue alone, there is no doubt about it, there will be elements of our agricultural policy, and I am no expert, that it infringes upon. Keep in mind, as a working document, as I like to call it, this thing has to be worked out or it will fall.

He talked about $107 million. That is certainly punitive by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly hope that this will be one of the things that continues to be discussed and it looks like it will be. Whether it satisfies everybody, I doubt it, but nonetheless our farmers have to have that ability to be the principal beneficiaries of their own labour, and to do that, we have to build in some comprehensive, flexible policies to allow it.

I will give another example. There is a movement around the world that is talking about eliminating fisheries subsidies. That will be a problem for us who invest in small craft harbours. That will be a problem for us who receive EI based on fish landings. That is the second element of it, and in addition to the agriculture elements that he brings up, I do want to say to him, however, that there are problems here.

I talked about the sub-national government level of procurement. That too is going, in company with organizations like the FCM. However, I hope that we all engage in what will be an incredible opportunity for us to receive goods and to put our goods abroad much easier than we have. We are an island on the east coast. We do not have the access to the American market that the rest of the country has. We do have access, and hope to get better access, to the European Union. We are getting it and we want to get it improved.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, what we are looking at here, the comprehensive element of this particular trade deal, is what I mentioned earlier, but the sub-national level is something that we have to be extremely careful about. However, there is no doubt about it. This trade deal, when it happens, and I do believe it will at the end of 2011 into 2012, is going to raise the bar in many respects. Even with agriculture, it is going to do that as well.

Investments is another thing, the protection of investments in nations.

I am not worried so much about the Germanys and the Englands, Great Britain as well as France. It is getting into the former eastern European nations, we have to look after our own businesses as they attempt to expand into Europe. That is something that we have to watch out for. An investment regime similar to chapter 11 in NAFTA is something that has to be discussed.

There have been problems with it, no doubt. Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, we just went through a major issue on chapter 11, but at the same time, we have to provide the balance so that we become the principal beneficiaries of our own resources. Some of that may fly in the face of trade negotiations across the way, but we cannot turn our backs on any opportunity it provides for us.

I would love to get into one sector, very briefly, that is going to benefit in my province. The seal hunt, not so much, but there is an insatiable appetite for shrimp in western Europe right now and we have a tariff currently on our northern cold shrimp that is a punitive measure that we can erase. We can open up the shrimp market and provide value-added products from our shrimp into that particular market.

I appreciate the question. I wish I had more time because I could go on and on, but apparently I will not.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, I will begin by saying that although this is something we have been talking about for quite some time, it seems like it has been sort of on the periphery. We have never really engaged in a full-on debate about Canada-EU and the future that we have with it on this comprehensive free trade agreement.

I congratulate my colleague, the previous speaker, on a fine speech. He is the president of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, an association on which I also serve. I have also served with him on several excursions to Europe. I will not go on about the discussions we have had with European parliamentarians. I think my colleague did that quite well, as have other colleagues in the House.

When I debate in this House, I always want to raise the bar on whatever new policy we are discussing or debating. I have never wanted to be one who opposes simply for the sake of opposing.

I will begin by saying that there are opportunities, not only for this country but for the riding that I represent and in Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole. There is an incredible amount of opportunities within this agreement that we need to engage in.

I am proud to see that all of us, even at this late hour, are engaging in this debate because it is a very important agreement that we must strive for but one that needs be thorough and one that needs to be debated thoroughly, which I hope we are able to do tonight.

I want to get into the nuts and bolts of this agreement as I want to talk about some of the foundations that have already been laid. Negotiations started around 2004. The discussion opened with many of the dignitaries from the European Union, Brussels and from Ottawa. Three negotiating rounds were held in 2005-06 covering issues such as regulatory co-operation and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which is a major issue on this continent as part NAFTA and other trade agreements. It is a very important issue for most of us.

At that point we had failed to reach an agreement. However, we suspended negotiations in May 2006 pending the outcome of the Doha round of negotiations with the World Trade Organization. They were not as successful as we had hoped but at least we were able to lay down some of the markers that we were striving for and some of the achievements that we were hoping to make to open markets to our own talents and economies, in addition to receiving products that were cheaper and provided inputs to our own economy.

In many respects this is highly essential and it has been essential since 2004, as we continue with this under two governments of different political stripes.

The 2007, the EU-Canada summit in Berlin conducted a joint study to explore the expected costs and benefits of a closer economic partnership. The European Union started out enthusiastically and, from all accounts, continues to be enthusiastic about this deal. The EU will gain $18.6 billion in extra activity, so this is something it obviously believe in and is enthusiastic about.

Canada could experience a $13.1 billion annual increase in GDP. Annually, this additional economic activity represents a .08% increase in the European Union's GDP and a .77% in GDP or 1%, which may not sound like a lot but it certainly is in dollar value when it translates into jobs.

One of the reasons we call this the comprehensive agreement is because of the benefits. Those numbers, of course, benefit us because we have a smaller country. We are looking at the largest commercial market that stands in front of us in excess of 500 million people and countless numbers of opportunities in what I consider to be an advanced nation of the 27 nations of the European Union.

I want to get into some of the numbers but I also want to touch upon some of the issues that may be considered to be contentious and will certainly receive a lot of discussion over the next little while.

I want to talk about agriculture for just a moment. As we know, agriculture in this country is dear to our hearts as we are a country with some of the largest agricultural land in the world as we know it. As a result, it deserves a lot of attention. Over the past little while we have seen a lot of attention being focused on agricultural issues with any trade agreement regarding Europe and Canada. The European Union made an agreement with South Korea that also involved a lot of talk and discussion around agriculture.

The European Union has a heavily subsidized agricultural system. It is the common agricultural policy. It is heavily subsidized. I do not know if the House is aware of this, maybe it was discussed earlier, but half the EU budget is invested into its common agricultural policy. They hold it near and dear. We have seen protests in the streets of France and Germany when they made even the slightest change in agricultural policy and food safety as a result.

Canada's top imports from the EU include wine, beer, liqueurs and chocolate. I am sure there would be some debate as to whether that is a noble gesture or not, but nonetheless it represents a lot of commercial activity.

Canada's exports to the EU are dominated by primary agricultural products.

The pattern here is that a lot of the products that come into Canada from the European Union are value-added products or, obviously, products that have been processed, whereas the products going out have been less processed, have less value added.

I am assuming that under a comprehensive free trade agreement that element could change dramatically. Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, that seems to be the emphasis in economic activity. Certainly when it comes to exports, we want to create more value in the products that we put out there. We just do not want to take a fish out of the water and send it on its way without it being worked upon. I say that because it adds value into the product. With processed goods that are transported, I do believe genuinely, like what happened with the United States and Mexico, we could add more value to our products in a far greater free trade regime that we could achieve with the 27 nations.

We certainly seem to be achieving that now with the other association in Europe and nations such as Iceland, Norway and so on and so forth.

We have exported $1.6 billion in bulk agricultural products to the EU but less than one-half as much, $603 million, is in processed foods. I hope that this is something that would change.

When it comes to agriculture and agri-food trade through regulatory barriers, this is one of the issues that I discovered when I went to England. The minister of finance of Great Britain of the day was talking about how some of the agricultural products had been banned from the United States, in other words, products from the United States coming in, and it was under the guise of public safety, public health. But some of the nations pointed out to them that some of the tough restrictions that they have on some of their products, especially when it comes to agriculture, are way too restrictive, overly restrictive, and that the remedies they put in place were overly prescriptive, to the point where they were obscure. The issue became obscurity. It became a trade policy. It became a protectionist measure as many other nations did that.

I hope that we set up a regime whereby these issues are dealt with quickly. We have a lot of exports going out, as I mentioned. If we were faced with some of these trade barriers, the regulatory barriers, that would not serve the best purpose of this particular pending deal by the end of 2011.

One of the models that we could use would be the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. It is called the WTO TBT. Obviously some of the products out there have to be banned for reasons of public safety. We genuinely do not disagree with that. But when they skew it and when they take it and twist it in such a manner that it becomes a protectionist measure, then there has to be that measure to allow the oversight so that it does not happen and it becomes an efficient system, far more efficient than what many nations now deal with.

Also, I want to talk about the major elements of this particular deal and some of the issues, such as market access for agricultural products. Trade in services is going to be a huge amount of this. Up to 70% of the services back and forth deal with the services sector alone. There does not seem to be a lot of contention with this, but let us hope this moves much more smoothly than it has been.

Then there is government procurement. My colleague from Guelph brought this up earlier. From what I can gather, one of the major issues that allowed us to get to the table is when the Europeans were able to engage our governments at a sub-national level, as the provinces were brought on board. Most, if not all, the provinces signed on in the beginning, with the exception of my own province, but that has to do more with seals, and I will leave the seal hunt to another day. Nonetheless, the procurement one is actually an issue we really have to watch out for because in this particular situation some of the municipalities could be constrained to the point where they do not receive the flexibility they had before.

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

Madam Speaker, I would love to promise him that I will not be so verbose as to not provide him time at the end, but I cannot since I make a living speaking, though I will see what I can do.

The two points he brought up earlier are very valid. Restitution orders and community impact statements are certainly profound measures within the bill that go a step in the right direction. For the very reason that we are all in the House trying to support this legislation, I have the same concerns he does, definitely.

I looked at some of the evidence that was put forward through the IMET back in 2005 and, for example, in 2008-09 17 individuals were charged with 979 counts. A total of five individuals have been convicted, as he pointed out, since the IMET program was established. It is a valid point that he brings up because, again, let me repeat the numbers, a total of five individuals have been convicted since the IMET program.

I mentioned some of the statistics earlier. More than 10,000 people were charged, more than 80,000 were reported, 88,286 incidents of fraud in 2007 alone. Yes, there is a discrepancy that we need to address, and I hope that in the future we will be able to do that. For these reasons of restitution orders and community impact statements, we need to pass this legislation immediately, but we need the broader discussion to take place.

That is why in the future, community impact statements will be very important, because we have seen the absolute devastation, which fraudulent behaviour creates, played out on the news each and every night, especially with seniors, as my hon. colleague from Sudbury pointed out. The average age in my riding is the mid 50s. Do the people committing the frauds know this? Darned right that they know this and they take advantage of it every day.

It is hard enough to educate people on the fraudulent behaviour that is out there, but there are people like Earl Jones and Madoff conducting these Ponzi schemes. They are cleverly crafted, incredibly well thought out and they can fool the smartest of people, as evidence has shown in Ponzi situations especially.

The devastation is no less severe because someone considers him or herself to be smart in all areas of finance. Therefore, it falls upon us to become the protecting agent, especially of those who are most vulnerable. If the most shrewd in our society and those who are incredibly smart in the financial ways of the world are getting fooled, what does that say about the average seniors who know very little about financial securities, other than the fact that they balance their chequebooks? That is the only financial responsibility that a lot of seniors have participated in for the past 30 or 40 years.

This is where this legislation needs to be more proactive, and I agree with the broader aspect of what my colleague is saying.

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

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on some of the comments that my colleague from Ontario brought up earlier on the cut-off of $1 million.

What makes $900,000 below the mark, not as important as $1 million? That is a significant amount of money. As I said earlier, I know of people, who I will not bring up here for reasons of privacy, but they were seniors defrauded of close to $100,000. It was absolutely devastating. The rest of the family now has to carry these people through the rest of their years. How embarrassing is that for someone who has been a victim of fraud? Those who are at the extreme low level of the pool of morality, if I could use that term, victimized these people.

Is it strong enough? No, it is not, and that is one of the issues, plus the fact that this needs to be publicized. We also need to put strong enforcement measures in place.

We talk about statistics all the time, but sometimes we have to put a face to this and look at ways to make changes, amendments, to further this legislation into the future. Down the road as the circumstances change, when it comes to the fraudulent behaviour of some people, the legislation has to be flexible and nimble enough to take care of this.

Talking about statistics, for example, 10,001 cases were found guilty in 2006-07. There were 88,286 incidents of fraud reported. That is a big number. Behind those numbers are families and individuals, absolutely devastated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where I left off and in the meantime one thing I wanted to bring to this debate, which I did not have a chance to do, is to note that even today we had the crown prosecution in Newfoundland and Labrador recommending a businessman involved in a 2006 spending scandal in Newfoundland and Labrador's legislature be given a three-year prison sentence and be ordered to repay $450,000.

That was coming from the situation we had in the province where some elected members of the day as well as some administrative members had defrauded the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, which in turn defrauded the population of the province of several sums of money well in excess of $1 million. People were charged and brought to court for that and sentenced. Many of the sentences have been served, but nonetheless today we see one of the people involved in that case and the extent to which this can go to.

Picking up on Bill C-21 once more, I want to go through some of the notes that I discussed earlier talking about minimum sentences applying solely to a person convicted of the general offence of fraud, subsection 380(1). It does not seem to apply to other related offences and that is what I want to pick up on, that it is one of the reasons why we need to make this a much stronger piece of legislation. These are some of the loopholes that we brought up earlier as well, and I would like to touch on some of this such as fraudulent manipulation of stock markets, insider trading, fraud affecting publication.

In these three cases, however, where the value of the subject matter exceeds $1 million, that would remain an aggravating circumstance and therein lies the strengthening that needs to come back to this piece of legislation. Nonetheless, when we talk about criminal offences to institutions, that was also brought up by one of my colleagues. The institutions exempt are the larger offenders. In this situation it becomes a milder offence for the few that are charged even though they do receive extensive charges.

Clause 3 of the bill adds four aggravating circumstances to the list. That would be the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud committed was significant. In the form of sentencing this is a very key aggravating factor. The offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances including their age, health and financial situation.

The third aggravating factor: The offender did not comply with a licensing requirement or professional standard that is normally applicable to the activity or conduct that forms the subject matter of the offence. Finally, the fourth one contained within clause 3 is: The offender concealed or destroyed records relating to the fraud or to the disbursement of the proceeds of the fraud, which are prominent in many of the recent cases, which I will not go into because there are far too many to mention.

In addition to these specific aggravating circumstances, the general aggravating circumstances contemplated in paragraph 718.2 of the code will continue to apply. That includes the abuse of a position of trust or evidence that the offence was committed in association with a criminal organization. Moreover, the court shall cause to be stated in the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances they took into account when determining the sentence. That is contained in 2.2 and that is the aggravating circumstances one must consider when talking about sentencing, which I agree with in this case.

With respect to restitution order 2.4, under the existing provisions a judge passing sentence for any offence under the code may order the offender to make restitution to the victim for damage to property or for bodily or psychological harm. That is very important. The court must give priority to restitution before imposing a fine on the offender. A restitution order is discretionary however, meaning that the judge may decide not even to grant it.

The bill states, “the court shall inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to provide the victims with an opportunity to indicate whether they are seeking restitution for their losses”.

That is a new subsection within this legislation. In addition, “If the court decides not to make a restitution order, it shall give reasons for its decision and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record”.

In the few minutes I have left, I would like to talk about one of the issues that came up in this particular legislation, and in other pieces of legislation, which is the victim impact statements. I have always ascribed this to be a very important element when it comes to the sentencing of people convicted of crimes. In this particular bill, clause 4 talks about that.

The code currently provides for a victim impact statement to be filed at the sentencing stage. For the purpose of determining the sentence to be imposed for any offence under the code, the court is required to consider any victim impact statement describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim arising from the commission of the offence.

Each and every time these frauds take place, we see in the evening news, in all the newspapers, that the impact of this is absolutely immense. So much of this occurs. Thousands and thousands of cases are reported. I would say the vast majority in this House know people, family members, maybe their own parents and children, who were victims of fraud. It is excruciating to go through and it could last for quite some time for those people defrauded of their life savings, their nest eggs, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course, in this particular case, we focus on the $1 million mark.

For the purpose of the code, “victim” means a person to whom harm was done or who suffered physical or emotional loss as a result of the commission of the offence. To me, that seems to be a very valid and important part of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last three or four years, this has become a large issue. We have seen the reports on all the major television networks in North America. Bernie Madoff in the United States was sentenced to 150 years in prison, which gives us an idea of just how serious this has become. It also shows how one particular judge decided to engage the public to find out where the fever was on this. For the general public it is an incredibly large issue. It is beyond imagination. We do not realize how many people have been victims of this type of fraud and scam that has been perpetrated by people of despicable means and measure.

In this country we had the case of Earl Jones. It was so visceral to watch the coverage on television where as he was leaving the court and approaching his vehicle, he was attacked by the masses. I had never seen that before.

It gives us an idea of the heightened intensity about this issue. There are so many people involved and so many stories to be told that we would be amazed at some of the issues. There are people who come to me from my riding in Newfoundland and Labrador to talk about how destitute they are as victims of fraud. They are embarrassed at having lost their life savings. They do not want to bring up the situation with their children and other people in the community because they do not want to be embarrassed.

There are people out there, culprits who prey upon the weakest and most vulnerable of society. They know where they are and they know how to get them.

Bill C-21 goes a way to catching up with that. Perhaps it needs to go a bit further. The bill has been reported back to the House, and I think we are looking at one amendment.

Nonetheless, we will look at this and move on. This is something that we are going to be talking about again and again as the situation becomes more prevalent. In my own personal situation, people, primarily seniors, come to my office and talk about the sheer embarrassment of it. They tried to invest what little money they have to better themselves, and not so much themselves but their family, children and grandchildren.

It is incumbent upon us to have a serious debate about this. I appreciate everybody who is debating this in this House.

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), includes a mandatory minimum sentence, which is an expression we have used a lot in this House. It includes imprisonment for two years for fraud valued at more than $1 million, and provides additional aggravating factors for sentencing, which I will touch on in a few moments.

It requires consideration of restitution for victims, which is a highly contentious issue as we have seen from all the media coverage not just in Canada but also in the United States. In dealing with the seriousness of this issue, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis mentioned that it is such a big issue in his riding. He has fought so well for this issue, and I want to thank him personally.

I do want to move on to the situation we find ourselves in right now regarding Bill C-21. For this side of the House, we proposed earlier that the mandatory minimum sentence of two years should apply to practices such as market manipulation of shares and of course the Ponzi schemes.

Conservative, Bloc and NDP members, in my opinion, need to explain why they refuse to stand up for all the victims of white collar crime. There are some discrepancies within this that I would like to see addressed. However, we are moving in the right direction as the House of Commons is addressing the legislation today and will soon pass it.

Principles behind the stricter sentencing rules are very important, but we also know that they are not enough to prevent frauds from happening, which is why we also have to seriously consider working on the public campaign. That is where we are falling down on the job. We need to do more to improve the way we deal with the situation and public learning of this type of fraud.

Certainly when it comes to enforcement and how our law officials enforce this will be a contentious issue as we move forward with this type of legislation. It is one thing to put these sentences into place, but the enforcement is going to be a tricky situation as we have witnessed in the past. We are compelled in the House to call upon the government to provide those extra resources upon which it can exercise the principles of the bill, which are to bring people to account, people who are the lowest form of life, if I can use that term, and I will use it because I think I am very apt in that description.

We should consider this from two perspectives. On one hand, we have to alert the people of what this fraud is and how they can protect themselves from this type of offence. On the other hand, we have to provide the resources as a government to allow the officials to enforce this and make sure people are brought to account. That is what we have been talking about in the bill right from second reading through committee and now at third reading.

We are glad to finally see legislation on the issue. We have called on the government to act on white collar crime for many years now. We have had this discussion for quite some time. This legislation is going forward and it is good that it is. We have seen the anger heighten dramatically because of people like Bernie Madoff, Earl Jones and what we see in the media regarding Ponzi schemes and the originator of them, Mr. Charles Ponzi himself.

I would like to turn to some of the research that has been provided to us as legislators in the legislative summary from the Library of Parliament. I would like to thank Cynthia Kirkby and Dominique Valiquette, both from the Legal and Legislative Affairs Division, Parliamentary Information and Resource Services.

The background on this goes back for quite some time. We have seen prior amendments to the fraud provisions. These amendments created a new offence of improper insider trading, increased the maximum sentence for the offences of fraud and fraud affecting the market from 10 to 14 years, and established a list of aggravating factors to aid the courts in sentencing. I certainly think that provides an ample guide for judges to allow a sentencing situation to take place. When it comes to sentencing, the enforcement is one area we may be falling down on.

Let us look at the integrated market enforcement teams. In 2003, the Government of Canada created the IMET program. Its funding is through the RCMP. Ten IMETs are operational in four of Canada's major financial centres. Their mandate is to investigate and lay charges for serious Criminal Code offences involving capital markets. At that point the enforcement was happening. We need to take that one step further. It was a good start with the IMET teams in the financial centres. The IMETs, continue to this day. From December 2003, when the program began, to March 2008, five investigations led to nine individuals being charged with a total of 29 Criminal Code offences. In fiscal year 2008-09, however, 17 individuals were charged with 979 counts.

There in itself we see a perfect illustration of the criminal intent that permeates throughout the system. These people get into the system and it shows how hard it is to bring these people to law and how important enforcement must be in order for these rules and measures to have some effect on all these people.

As I mentioned, 17 individuals were charged with 979 counts. A total of five individuals have been convicted since the IMET program was established and sentences range from 39 months to 13 years.

Going back on the history alone, members will see some of the statistics from C-21. This gives us a good glimpse of the situation. In 2007, 88,286 incidents of fraud took place in our country. About 10,001 cases of people were found guilty in the years 2006-2007. To break down those 10,001 cases, these are the following statistics: prison sentences, 3,580, resulting in 35.8%; conditional sentences being brought down on those people, only 8.7%; probation was the biggest at 60.3%; receiving fines, 12.1%; and restitution at that stage, 18.9%. Other sentences that were handed down included absolute conditional discharge, community service orders and prohibition orders as well.

Returning to the legislation at hand, let us take a look clause 2.1, which is the minimum sentence for fraud. This is the one that is probably getting most of the attention right now. Currently a person convicted of the general offence of fraud is liable under subsection 380(1) of the Criminal Code to a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years where the value of the subject matter of the offence exceeds $5,000, or two years where the value of the subject matter of the offence does not exceed $5,000 and no minimum sentence is specified.

Clause 2 of the bill introduces a minimum sentence of two years imprisonment in case of fraud over $1 million. My colleague from Ontario brought up a good point earlier. When we try to come up with these numbers, in this case two years imprisonment minimum on a $1 million case, what if someone achieved $900,000? That is a pot of money. I know people who were working on $100,000 as their nest egg. What if they had been defrauded of $100,000? How do we address that in the situation where we make the cutoff at $1 million?

On the other hand, the minimum sentence applies solely to a person convicted of the general offence of fraud, again subsection 380(1) of the code. It does not seem to apply to other related offences, such as fraud affecting the market, fraudulent manipulation of stock markets, insider trading or the publication of a false prospectus. In the latter three cases, however, where the value of the subject matter exceeds $1 million, this remains merely an aggravating circumstance.

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

Madam Speaker, I was amazed earlier to hear some of the comments from across the way about how dare someone delay the proceedings by challenging the chair juxtaposed to that two and a half to three month break that we were under. I remember one of the Conservative MPs saying, we need to shut down the House, take all the bills over the side because we need to focus on the Olympics. I have no doubt in my mind that the four-man bobsleigh were warmed and tickled to death that their MP was at home cheering them on. My goodness, and they get paid $156,000 for that.

Maybe Conservative members should debate a bit more. Maybe they should challenge the chair more often. I am tired of being in the House, as my hon. colleague from the NDP from Manitoba would also agree with me, in that in every debate that we engage in here I seldom hear from the government side. Members must raise the bar, push this debate beyond what it is in the public discourse, beyond the ads, beyond the newsletter. They should come into the House and make their money and actually say something that they believe in.

My hon. colleague actually did that and here is the point. She wants to make the bill tougher. She wants to make this right by making it tougher, and instead all we get is, “You are just delaying”. Maybe the Conservatives should answer this question. Criminal offences of institutions exempt the larger offender. That is a very valid point. Would the member please comment on that?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 14th, 2010]

With regard to the government's activities in Botwood Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) is a human health risk assessment being conducted and, if so, what are its results to date; and (b) what are the results to date of the sediment sampling program?