2009-10-23

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to be the first to speak today in favour of Bill C-52 regarding white collar crime recently introduced by the Minister of Justice.
I am a carpenter by trade and a union leader by occupation in the years before I was elected. Let me be the first to say here today that white collar crime is in fact very much a blue collar issue. Ordinary working Canadians should be very much concerned and consumed by the issue of white collar crime because if for no other reason we need to be able to trust the financial statements, companies, corporations and institutions where our pension plans, our workplace health and benefit plans, and in fact our savings are invested.
In recent years that confidence has been shattered to the core. Working people across North America are starting to wake up to the fact that what is happening around us today has put our retirement security in profound risk. Even playing by all the rules and following the recommendations of our financial investors and doing all the right things, like prioritizing our pension security in labour negotiations as opposed to a wage increase for today, all of that has been thrown into question. In fact, it has been more than thrown into question, it has been compromised and jeopardized to the degree that we are facing an income security crisis in our elder years.
It is very appropriate and timely that today's debate is about increasing the penalties for those who would put at risk the savings of the good working people of this country. 
Let me begin by saying that what we are experiencing today is a predictable consequence of the frenzy throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s to deregulate our financial institutions, to deregulate the marketplace, to get the heavy hand of government out of the way of the free market. That was the mantra throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. 
Now we are seeing the predictable consequences of what I call the Reaganomics, this international trend toward deregulation with Maggie Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney cutting, hacking and slashing all the oversight and regulatory regimes in our financial marketplace. At the same time, in concert with that, the financial community was putting in place the most incomprehensible financial instruments one could possibly imagine, increasingly complex. 
Fewer and fewer young people were going into engineering school and more and more were going into financial engineering school so they could devise these incomprehensible financial instruments like derivatives, hedge funds, and God knows what, as a smokescreen for a level of malfeasance and conspiracy to defraud that has never been seen before in the history of mankind. 
I am not overstating this. There was a conspiracy on Wall Street and Bay Street to cloud financial activity to such a degree that they could get away with murder. As soon as greed entered that formula, the consequences, I say, are predictable.
Woody Guthrie had a great line. He said, “some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen”. The fountain pen guys have been robbing us blind, fleecing us mercilessly, shamelessly, revelling in it, and building new financial instruments to rob us with.
There is a famous poem, Mr. Speaker, that you may be familiar with. The frustration that I am experiencing dates back many centuries. It reads:
  The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common But leaves the greater villain loose Who steals the common from off the goose. The law demands that we atone When we take things we do not own But leaves the lords and ladies fine Who take things that are yours and mine. The poor and wretched don't escape If they conspire the law to break; This must be so but they endure Those who conspire to make the law. The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common And geese will still a common lack Till they go and steal it back.  
This is a poem from 1600 in medieval England that expressed the frustration of having a two-tiered judicial system where if people stole a loaf of bread they ended up in prison. My colleague from Edmonton is agreeing with me. But if people in fact stole the common from the goose, they were more likely to walk free.
It has been pretty common knowledge in Canada and in fact in North America until, hopefully, today that rich guys just do not go to jail. Rich guys might get caught up in some fraud or Ponzi scheme or financial scheme that defrauds seniors. They might get caught and they might get embarrassed or humiliated down at the country club, but they are not likely to go to prison.
 If they did, they went to some country club where they played golf with their buddies. They were allowed to bring their horses to the prison so they could groom their horses in the private stables at the prison. They would not want to deprive a guy of being able to play polo, that would be cruel and unusual punishment to separate people from their polo ponies just because they are in prison. They are country club prisons.
That infuriates people. I know why they do not send rich guys to normal penitentiaries. It is because there is no room for them. Those jail cells are full of young aboriginal kids who stole the hub caps off of BMWs. They locked them up instead of the guys who own the BMWs and who might be guilty of a far greater crime in terms of this financial mischief that they have been up to.
When I began my comments by saying that we have to be able to trust the financial statements of the institutions where we invest our retirement savings, it is not just the people who deliberately defraud workers we need to be after. We need to look at a corporate accountability regime where the financial statements are easily understood, are transparent, and are without the glaring and ridiculous contradictions that exist.
Let me give an example where we could build off the spirit of this bill and improve the accountability regime of financial institutions. It is still permitted, believe it or not, that the auditor of a company does not have to be independent of the company. In fact, the auditor of a financial institution can provide the tax advice and other financial services to that business and then still be the auditor of that business.
How can individuals who design the income tax strategy for a big corporation be the auditors of those same books that they were in fact contracted to design? It is an inherent conflict of interest that we somehow tolerate when common sense itself would demand that we want the books audited by a fully, completely independent auditors so that the statements that they sign off on are free of any bias or prejudice about that company. That is just one example about how loosey-goosey and wild west our financial marketplace is in this country.
The NDP feels quite comfortable in supporting this bill about getting tough on crime in the white collar sense for a change. In fact, we welcome this shift on the part of the Conservative Party to look at some of the most heinous offences occurring in our system.
In actual fact, getting tough on crime, while we are not opposed to that idea, the Conservatives would have us believe that violent crimes, property crimes and other Criminal Code violations are on the increase when they are actually on the wane. Even in areas of high crime, like my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, the incidents of violent crime is actually on the decline. The incidents of white collar crime is on the increase.
Our attentions are well placed today when we decide to priorize and to look to what I see as a far greater offence in many ways and that is cheating working people out of large amounts of money.
Again, I have tried to sketch what I believe is some of the history and origins of the problem that we find ourselves in today. The rampant push for deregulation was proven to be misguided ideology. One of the reasons that our banking system survived the international economical downturn in a better way than a lot of other countries is that we did manage to thwart some of the deregulation that was being demanded in this country.
Ever since I have been a member of Parliament, there has been a push by the big banks to merge, to deregulate further, to model themselves actually very much after their counterparts in the United States. Thank God we did not because now people are looking to Canada with some well justified praise that we have weathered the financial economic crisis more capably and more ably than other countries.
Therefore, it was ideologically driven, that whole Reaganomics, Thatcherism and Mulroneyism that wanted to get government out of anything, let the free market prevail, laissez-faire capitalism, we will float all boats and so on. We now know that completely unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism leads to some people doing very well and the rest of us being left behind and very vulnerable to the lack of accountability that comes with either deregulating or hiding behind the facade of unreasonably complex financial vehicles constructed for the sole purpose of hiding the true activity that is going on behind the scenes.
I know, Mr. Speaker, you are a big fan of Michael Moore and I would like to believe that you would be a big fan of Michael Moore's latest movie. Interestingly enough, he challenges some of the basic tenets of capitalism as we know it today in his latest film. He stops Wall Street brokers coming out of their businesses where they sell financial instruments to well-meaning pensioners and so on and he asked them, “Just what is a derivative? Let's go for coffee. Can you explain to me the derivatives that you sell pension plan investors and hard-working people? Just what are some of the other complex financial instruments that your financial engineers have designed to show a profit where no such profit really exists to reap a profit on selling short or selling long on things that never existed, that are selling futures, et cetera.” 
The whole system got so corrupted by greed that it bears no resemblance to actual wealth or the creation of wealth. It is not even backed up by any corresponding material, et cetera. We are trading trades. We are trading futures of trading. We are trading on the insurance that somebody bet on losing money on a hedge fund and so on. It no longer has any bearing whatsoever to producing a widget and selling interest in that company, and selling shares in that company which was a much purer form of the financial marketplace.
Those who would deliberately conspire to defraud pensioners and working people should be punished in a special way. It is easy to let anger overtake in a situation like this. I will not overstate the situation but I cannot say strongly enough how we need to be able to put--
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  What about capital punishment?
Pat Martin:  No. I am not arguing for capital punishment, as my colleague suggests. I might be getting there, as tempting as that may be for those like the Madoffs of the world who conspire to defraud seniors out of their heard earned pensions. 
It is imperative and it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should condemn in the strongest possible terms these activities with new legislation that contemplates mandatory prison sentences for violators of this nature.
It is not often members hear an NDP member advocating mandatory prison sentences. In most cases we do not agree with that. We like to leave the choice whether to apply prison time to the judges. Our rationale for that is we do not believe the average street criminal is deterred by mandatory prison sentences and therefore it is not justified to take the discretion away from a judge.
In this case we believe white collar criminals will be deterred by the prospect that if they get caught in this type of Criminal Code violation, they are going to go to jail for a mandatory minimum sentence. They are not just going to have to hang their head in shame around the cocktail parties for a little while. They are going to actually go to prison. They are going to go to prison and they are going to serve hard time. It is not going to be hopefully some country club where they can bring their polo ponies with them and keep them in their own private stables.
That is why we can support the bill. It proposes fairly modest and simple amendments. This is not a long piece of legislation amending section 380 of the Criminal Code dealing with fraud affecting the public market. We think this same principle could be applied further and we would encourage the Minister of Justice to investigate other places this same reasoning and rationale could be applied. At least one example of where it could be applied would be to crimes regarding the environment. 
We think mandatory minimum jail sentences for the board of directors and the CEO of a company that knowingly and willingly dumps PCBs into the Red River, for instance, should be introduced if we really want to deter that kind of heinous crime against large groups of people. That really perhaps sums up why this is justified as well. This type of crime is different from a break and enter into a house where someone's television set is stolen. These crimes by their nature and by their very design are intended to affect large numbers of people.
These Ponzi schemes suck in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of unsuspecting seniors who quite often are concerned about their retirement security. They hear an offer that sounds too good to be true, but they do not want to believe that cliché, so they buy into a Ponzi scheme that again is a hollow shell, or a shell game. It is not based on any substance.
I would argue that to a great extent, a lot of our financial marketplace is one big Ponzi scheme. When there is the type of trading that takes place on derivatives on the insurance against the losses of a company that has not even been set up yet, what is that if not a gigantic, complex Ponzi scheme? We have people investing in mines for which a shovel has not even been put in the ground and it is at three or four degrees of separation that people are investing. People are investing in the futures to offset the insurance based on a projection of earnings that might exist when they finally dig the hole. That is not security of any nature. People do not own a piece of a goldmine, but a piece of an insurance policy that someone else bought to protect themselves to hedge off the losses.
 It is just incomprehensible gobbledygook and ordinary Canadians need someone to translate all this, because when it is translated, it turns out it is again some hollow shell game designed by a clever financial engineering student who put up a smokescreen so that they could loot people's goodwill and best interests. That is where we come full circle to the time-honoured poem that was used as a protest chant appropriately in the Commons in Westminster instead of the Commons in Ottawa:
  The law locks up the man or the woman Who steals the goose from off the common. But leaves the greater villain loose Who steals the common from off the goose.  
We have to put these things into perspective. I raised the fact that I understood why white-collar criminals were often sent off to country clubs instead of to real prisons: the real prison cells are full of some young aboriginal guys who have stolen a loaf of bread to feed their family, speaking figuratively. There is no room because of the appalling overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our prison system.
 I recently read a book by Pierre Berton, about 1967, the last time Canada was happy. He talks about the Kingston Penitentiary, the women's penitentiary in your own riding of Kingston and the Islands, Mr. Speaker.
 I challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to guess the percentage of inmates who were aboriginal women in the Kingston Penitentiary in the year 1967. Some might say 50%, which would be shocking, or 60%, but no, it was 100%. All of them, every single prisoner in that penitentiary was an aboriginal woman in that particular snapshot in time. When they represent 4% of the population, to have 100% of the prison full of aboriginal women means we have an appalling and embarrassing overrepresentation and we are punishing property crimes and even crimes that often are not violent with real prison time while we are letting white-collar criminals walk free. They get a hearty slap on the back and a handshake when they show these big rates of return to a privileged few, but they are actually ripping off thousands of Canadians. It is about time they went to prison, and they can rot there as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad I got over my recent illness in time to come back and listen to the speech of the member for Winnipeg Centre this morning. 
While I would like to congratulate him and his colleagues for supporting this bill, in his presentation he is being a little unfair to the vast numbers of people who are accountants, lawyers, financial advisers and people who work in banks. The aspersion that he is casting in his presentation is that they are all crooks. That is most unfair. In any sector, we will find a small percentage of people who in fact like to work outside the law, which is a nice way of putting it, but we cannot paint everybody with the same brush, so I think he was unfair there.
I have a huge question though. The member for Winnipeg Centre and his colleagues have stood in this House and opposed mandatory sentences for crimes such as child molestation, murder and other heinous crimes such as those. They have opposed mandatory sentences when we have brought them forward, and they have filibustered bills that we have had in committee to get tough and impose mandatory sentences on those who commit crimes such as these, yet they stand today and appear to unanimously support mandatory sentences for white-collar crimes. 
While we thank them for their support in this bill, there is a strange contrast between them supporting mandatory sentences for white-collar crimes but resisting and opposing so strongly mandatory sentences for people in our society who molest children, who commit sexual assaults against women, who murder people, who rape people, or who injure people severely through aggravated assault.
I wonder if the member could just stand and tell us why he would support mandatory sentences for white-collars crimes but not for these other heinous crimes that I have just mentioned. His party has opposed mandatory sentences at every single turn.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, we voted in favour of every piece of legislation he just cited. The only place where we found fault was that lumped into the mandatory minimum sentences, they also included theft over $5,000, which means if that some teenager were to steal a car worth $5,001, that crime would fall under this category for mandatory minimum sentences. Nobody in their right mind would object to sentences for certain heinous violations that he outlined with great sensation.
The second thing is that we do not really need more apologists for the big banks in Ottawa here. They have plenty of champions. 
The one thing for which I will give due credit to the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, is that he opened the door for the legislation that we are seeing today on while-collar crime, which would put white-collar criminals in jail, when he banned political contributions from businesses, unions and corporations under Bill C-24. It was no longer necessary to suckhole to Bay Street. It was no longer necessary to treat bankers with kid gloves, because the bankers used to be the biggest donors to both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party, to its credit, decided to end that. 
Nobody should be able to buy an election. Nobody should be able to buy public policy. Nobody should be able to buy soft sentencing for white-collar criminals. 
Now there is nothing stopping us from treating white-collar criminals as what they are, a scourge on society who do far more damage, one could argue, than the kid who steals the hubcaps off a BMW. The guy who drives that BMW might be guilty of far more heinous offences. We should reserve a jail sentence for him, not just for the kid who steals the hubcaps.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a specific question. He mentioned some amendments that he was bringing forward. Some of them involved the Criminal Code and sanctions for those who commit environmental offences.
I would like to describe an event that happened in my riding. I want to explore his amendment and how it would take effect and be implemented. In one particular case, land in the town of Buchans was contaminated with high amounts of lead. AbitibiBowater is responsible for that and they are going through the process of remediation.
How would his amendment affect that particular company, which affected the land on which the people of Buchan live?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I intended by encouraging the Conservative government to expand this notion of white-collar crime and mandatory minimums to include those who commit environmental offences, who offend mother earth.
I concur with him that the CEO and board of directors should be accountable for the present and past activity of the company that they represent. This is a board of directors issue. There is a fiduciary obligation to watch over the financial well-being of a company, but there is also a duty and obligation to ensure that environmental laws are not violated.
The asbestos industry is a perfect example. There was a big asbestos mine in Newfoundland. As far as I am concerned, the asbestos cartel has gotten away with murder in this country for the better part of a century. The current board of directors of W. R. Grace and LAB Chrysotile in Quebec should be hauled up before a court of law and charged with criminal violations for contaminating most of the country. They should have mandatory minimum jail sentences imposed on them, because they have known full well since the 1920s that all asbestos kills. Yet, the federal government has supported the asbestos industry. The Canadian government has demonstrated some irrational affinity for asbestos year after year.
I look forward to the day when some federal government has the courage to stand up and challenge that kind of environmental degradation, which has affected the health and well-being of so many communities. The asbestos mine that I worked in closed due to normal market forces.
The asbestos industry that remains in Quebec is still artificially supported and propped up by cowardly federal governments that will not do the honourable thing, and shut that appalling industry down and charge the perpetrators with the criminal offence of putting the health and well-being of Canadians at risk year after year. That is an absolutely appropriate use of mandatory minimum jail sentences. I thank my colleague for asking the question.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is certainly raising false hopes with the public when it suggests that this bill is going to require restitution for victims. 
We all know that these white-collar criminals spirit the money out to tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Panama and other places. By the time these Ponzi schemes are broken and the white-collar criminals are caught, the money is all gone.
So why should we hold out hope? It is a good idea to have it in the bill, but to emphasize that people are somehow going to get their money back is to delude and misrepresent the bill to the people of Canada.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, some necessary prerequisites should be put in place in concert with passing this bill. One of those is to plug the offshore tax haven loopholes that exist so that these characters, after they serve their mandatory sentence, cannot spirit their money offshore and then simply enjoy the hundreds of millions of dollars that they have stolen from Canadians.
We have been calling for years to have the federal government plug the last offshore tax havens. The former Prime Minister of Canada eliminated 11 of these tax treaties. He left in place the one tax haven where he himself had 13 dummy shell companies for Canada Steamship Lines.
It is about time that we closed those tax havens too so that we can get access and perhaps reimburse some of the people who have been cheated, as well as punish the offenders.
Mr. Daniel Petit (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud). This bill contains a number of provisions that are designed to ensure that people who devise and carry out serious fraud offences receive tougher sentences. 
 The objective of this bill is clear and simple. It would amend the Criminal Code to improve the justice system's response to the sort of large-scale fraud we have been hearing about so much lately. 
The bill would send a message to those who think they can outsmart Canadians and dupe them into handing over their hard-earned savings. It would make clear that fraud is a serious crime for which there are serious consequences. 
 It is also designed to improve the responsiveness of the justice system for victims of fraud. These proposed measures would send a strong message to the victims of fraud that the crimes committed against them are serious and the harms they suffer will be taken into account and addressed to the greatest degree possible.
 Overall, the measures in this bill would do much to increase Canadian's confidence in the justice system. 
 Before I describe the measures in the bill, it is worthwhile to consider the current state of the law. The Criminal Code already addresses all known forms of white collar crime, from security related frauds, such as insider trading and accounting frauds that overstate the value of securities issued to shareholders and investors, to mass marketing fraud, theft, bribery and forgery, to name a few of the offences that may apply to any given set of facts. 
 The maximum penalties set out in the code are high. In particular, for fraud with a value over $5,000, the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years. This is the highest maximum penalty in the code, short of life imprisonment, obviously. 
 Also, mandatory aggravating factors for fraud offences are already in place. They require sentencing courts to increase the penalty imposed to reflect, for example, where the value of the fraud exceeds $1 million, the offence involves a large number of victims and, in committing the offence, the offender took advantage of the high regard in which he or she was held in the community. 
Our courts have clearly stated that for large scale frauds, deterrents and denunciation are the most pressing objectives in the sentencing process. The courts have been clear that a serious penitentiary sentence must be imposed in large scale frauds. We routinely see sentences in the four to seven year range for large scale frauds. Most recently, of course, Vincent Lacroix was given a 13-year sentence for the massive security fraud he perpetrated in my province, Quebec, just a few years ago.
The courts are starting to take these frauds seriously, but this government believes that still more can be done to strengthen the Criminal Code's responses in these cases to send a clear message that Parliament is in agreement with this trend toward tougher sentencing. 
To this end, Bill C-52 proposes reforms that are designed to ensure that sentences imposed in these cases adequately reflect the severe impact they have on the lives of the victims, many of whom have lost their life savings or retirement savings.
One measure in this bill that is particularly significant is a new mandatory minimum penalty of two years for large scale frauds. As I mentioned, more and more courts across the country are recognizing the devastation that can be caused by large scale frauds and have emphasized that deterrents and denunciation must be front and centre in sentencing offenders in these cases. 
The government wants to carry this message forward and clearly establish a minimum penalty for frauds with a value over $1 million. Many frauds cheat Canadians out of significantly more than $1 million. We have read recently of frauds in the hundreds of millions, such as the case in Alberta.
But the line must be drawn somewhere, and this government believes that if a person orchestrates and carries out a fraud of at least $1 million, this is a very serious crime that demands a term of imprisonment of at least two years.
Of course, this two year mandatory jail term is a floor, not a ceiling. If Parliament declares that a $1 million fraud must result in at least two years in prison, then, naturally, larger frauds will result in even higher sentences. The application of aggravating factors to the sentencing process will also help guide the process for determining the ultimate sentence. 
The Criminal Code already contains several aggravating factors that can be applied to a fraud conviction to enhance the sentence.
The bill would add several more aggravating factors, such as: if the fraud had a particularly significant impact on the victims taking into account their personal characteristics such as age, financial situation and health; if the fraud was significant in its complexity or duration; if the offender failed to comply with applicable licensing rules; and if the offender tried to conceal or destroy documents which recorded the fraud or the disbursements of the proceeds.
These aggravating factors reflect various aspects of fraud that are deeply troubling. The clearer Parliament can be with the courts about what these factors are, the more accurately sentences will reflect the true nature of the crime.
Another important measure in the bill is the introduction of a power which would enable the sentencing court to order that a person convicted of fraud be prohibited from having control or authority over another person's money or real property. This prohibition order can be for any duration the court considers appropriate. Violating a prohibition order will be an offence. 
This measure is aimed at preventing future crime. The idea is to prevent the offender from having the opportunity to commit another fraud. There are several prohibition orders already in the Criminal Code, such as the one which can be imposed on individuals convicted of sexual offences against children, prohibiting them, among other things, from working in schools or other places where they would be in a position of trust or authority over young people.
I would like to devote a few minutes to the proposals in the bill which address the specific concerns of victims of fraud. Consideration of, and support for, victims of crime has been a hallmark of this government, and this legislation is no exception.
There are two measures in the bill that touch directly on the interests of victims: our proposals on restitution and on community impact statements. 
Let me begin with restitution. Restitution is defined as the return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner. It is distinct from compensation which, in the Canadian legal system, is a scheme of payments managed and made by provincial or territorial governments to assist victims of crime.
Restitution is the payment by the offender of an amount established by the court. The Criminal Code currently provides for restitution for criminal offences including: damages for the loss or destruction of property, bodily or psychological harm, bodily harm or threat to a spouse or child.
 An order for restitution is made during the sentencing hearing of a convicted offender. It is part of the overall sentence provided to an offender as a stand-alone measure or as part of a prohibition order or a conditional sentence.
Restitution orders are particularly appropriate in the case of fraud offences. In several recent high-profile cases, we heard media accounts of thousands of dollars taken by offenders. These shocking cases of duplicity have deprived many innocent Canadians of hard-earned savings, and in truly awful cases, of retirement funds. It will be the judge's decision in each trial as to whether restitution is appropriate.
Our proposals provide that in the case of fraud, the sentencing judge must consider an order of restitution as part of the overall sentence for the offender.
The court must inquire of the Crown if reasonable steps have been taken to provide victims with the opportunity to indicate whether they are seeking restitution. This step will ensure that sentencing cannot happen without victims having had the opportunity to speak to the Crown and establish their losses.
To further assist victims, our proposals include an optional form to assist victims in setting out their losses. The form identifies the victim and their losses and clarifies that the victim needs to provide receipts, bills or estimates in order to assist the court in making the restitution order. In all cases, these losses must be readily ascertainable. The courts have found that it is not possible to make an order when the amount is not readily ascertainable or when it is difficult to apportion the amount among several victims.
Taken together, these proposals would increase the likelihood of orders of restitution being made. It is our hope that these proposals will increase the responsiveness of the legal system to victims of fraud.
I would note that the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime recommended improvements to the restitution scheme in one of his first recommendations to the Minister of Justice. These proposals, while not as exhaustive as those the ombudsman urged, are steps along the road to improving the experience of victims in the justice system.
The second element of the bill relating to victim issues is the proposal to create community impact statements. 
The Criminal Code currently provides that judges may consider a statement made by a victim of a crime, which is known as a “victim impact statement”. The purpose of this provision is to provide the sentencing judge with additional information on the harm or loss suffered as a result of the offence. This statement is delivered in the context of a convicted offender's sentencing hearing. Jurisprudence has indicated that the victim impact statement serves three purposes: to educate the offender on the consequences of her or his actions, which may have some rehabilitative effect; to provide a sense of catharsis for victims; and to provide sentencing judges with the information on the impact or effect of the offence. The provisions in this bill to create a community impact statement for fraud offences share these three purposes. 
 The Code indicates that the victim impact statement should describe the harm done to or loss suffered by the victim. The Criminal Code details the procedure for presenting the victim impact statement, which includes a requirement that the statement be in writing and be shared with the Crown and the defence. 
The victim impact statement provisions of the Code also provide that the court shall consider any other evidence concerning the victim for the purpose of determining the sentence. The courts have given the term “victim” a broad interpretation, so that people other than the direct victim, including communities, can provide victim impact statements. Victim impact statements made on behalf of communities that have been considered by the courts include: a victim impact statement made by a synagogue on behalf of the congregation in an arson case and a victim impact statement from a first nations band describing the impact of the theft of band money and the murder of a first nations child on a first nations community. These cases and others offer examples of the courts' recognition that communities are affected by crime.
Our proposal would make the recognition clearer in the law. We are proposing that, when a court is sentencing an offender for the offence of fraud, the court may consider a statement made by a community describing the loss or harm to the community. The statement must be in writing, identify the members of the community, specify that the person can speak on behalf of the community and be shared with the Crown and the defence. 
It is our view that these community impact statements will affirm several principles of sentencing that are laid out in the Criminal Code: denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation.
A community impact statement will allow a community to express publicly, and to the offender directly, the loss or harm that has been suffered to allow the community to begin a rebuilding and healing process. It will show the community denunciation of the conduct of the offender. It will assist offenders in their rehabilitation to understand the consequences of their actions. 
In sum, this bill would help to improve the responsiveness of the criminal process for victims of fraud. It would require the sentencing court to consider if restitution should be ordered and it would permit the court to receive a community impact statement in cases where a community, in addition to individuals, has suffered from the fraud.
 This bill represents an important step forward toward improving the current criminal justice system response to serious fraud. By creating a mandatory minimum sentence for fraud over $1 million, adding aggravating factors for sentencing that highlight the serious consequences of fraud, introducing a prohibition order as part of a sentence, and requiring mandatory consideration of restitution for victims, this bill represents a complete package of reforms to reflect the seriousness of fraud offences for communities and individuals.
For these reasons, I urge that all members support this bill. This bill offers members an opportunity to show their unequivocal support for victims of fraud crimes. Victims of crime deserve no less than the respect of the House. I urge all members to support this bill and send it to committee for study. 
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague in terms of the economic tsunami that we all saw and what appeared to be the deplorable behaviour by industry leaders. There seemed to be a failure on the part of the board of directors in terms of the oversight mechanism they must engage in, which is their responsibility with respect to their companies.
Does the government have any plans to provide guidelines or mechanisms in terms of trying to ensure that boards of directors are accountable and responsible for executing the duties they failed to execute in many cases during the tsunami?
[Interjection]
Daniel Petit: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I will answer my hon. colleague's question. 
Let me start by saying that I find this to be a very good question. Both abroad and within our borders, individuals having authority over the money of others have indeed been seen to engage in embezzlement.
I would point out that we are living in a country governed by law, however, and that in many provinces, including mine, numerous companies fall under provincial jurisdiction, while others fall under federal jurisdiction.
Currently, in each province, there is a slew of securities commissions, and this forces us to seek a balance and to closely consider how the system will work and how these white-collar criminals will be caught. While this is the general term used, we cannot paint everyone with the same brush. 
Bill C-52 will at least open a door for dealing with such individuals. Regarding Vincent Lacroix, for instance, it was pointed out that he had a government licence and an established office, which meant that he met the requirements for getting into that line of business. But the fact remains that this man defrauded 9,200 people. He has fleeced 9,200 people. He is currently being prosecuted and was, in fact, sentenced to 13 years of imprisonment. That is a stiff sentence, in my opinion, considering that the next stiffest sentence is life imprisonment.
I therefore think that Bill C-52 will provide greater control over these types of situations.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member referred to Vincent Lacroix, who allegedly swindled 9,200 people in fraud estimated to amount to $140 million. He reports, and seems pleased at it, that the offender has been sentenced to 13 years and some months in prison. However, what he neglected to say is that 13 years, with parole after serving one sixth of the sentence, amounts to two years and a few months. 
 We now have a bill that indicates that the sentence for fraud in the amount of $1 million or more is a minimum of two years. As the hon. member intimated that he knows his bill inside and out and was aware of all the repercussions, I would like him to tell us what Vincent Lacroix, under his bill, would have had as a mandatory minimum sentence. 
[Interjection]
Daniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, through you, we will answer our Bloc colleague. 
 He says that Vincent Lacroix could be released early. Indeed, the old system allows for that. At the one sixth point of the sentence, it is accelerated parole, at the one third point, it is parole and at the two thirds point, it is statutory release.
It is important that this bill and what is called reform of the Criminal Code be taken as a whole. That is why, today, we announced — and we have known it for at least a day,— that pre-trial custody will now count as a year for a year. The matter of parole after one sixth of a sentence has been served cannot be resolved if the problem at the beginning of the sentencing process is not resolved. So, first things first. Previously, if an individual was sentenced or awaiting trial for six months, he got a two for one credit for time served. If the individual was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, which seemed enormous at the time, he served a year and was released. This is called revolving doors. This is what we wanted to correct. So the problems at the beginning of the process must be settled, then we will deal with the middle and the end of the sentencing process. 
 Our Minister of Public Safety has announced that he will table a bill in this regard, which would resolve the problem of the one sixth of sentences that my Bloc colleague is talking about. 
The Speaker:  The member will have four and a half minutes remaining for questions and comments following Routine Proceedings, when the bill returns before the House. 

Statements by Members
Teaching ExcellenceMrs. Alice Wong (Richmond, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence were announced and one award went to my constituent, Rainer Mehl.
Mr. Mehl is a teacher of animation, photography and graphic arts at Kitsilano Secondary School. His passion for photography began early. He built his first darkroom at the age of 11 and operated his own photography business in high school and university.
His passion for photography builds on his experience to bring practical and experience-based teaching to his classroom.
One example of his outstanding achievements is that Mr. Mehl guided students to revamp a black and white yearbook that was losing money and turn it into a professional quality production that earns enough profit to buy new technology for the school's photography classes.
I would like to congratulate Mr. Mehl on obtaining this award for teaching excellence. Richmond is proud of him.
Citizenship WeekMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a rich mosaic of cultures from around the globe, and there is no better time to celebrate this diversity than this week, Citizenship Week.
Citizenship Week gives all Canadians occasion to reflect on the value of Canadian citizenship, what it means to be Canadian and the rights, privileges and responsibilities that go along with that.
There is a reason that approximately 85% of newcomers to Canada become Canadian citizens. They recognize what an honour it is to take the oath of allegiance to officially become a citizen of one of the greatest countries on earth, a country that is just, compassionate, tolerant and prosperous.
I encourage all Canadians, whether born here, whether new citizens or whether soon to be citizens, to seek out Citizenship Week activities in their communities that will allow them to reflect on what it means to be Canadian and to express their gratitude for the freedoms and rights that come with citizenship.
City of JolietteMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently released its annual ranking of the top entrepreneurial cities. This year, Joliette ranked third among a hundred or so cities in Canada and first in Quebec.
The index developed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is based on a dozen indicators that measure data such as the number of business start-ups, self-employment intensity, future full-time hiring expectations, local government sensitivity to local business, and future business performance.
The results of this study show that businesses in Joliette are optimistic about the future and expect their business to perform even better over the next 12 months. It is comforting to see the optimism of Joliette's businesses considering the gloomy economic climate prevailing elsewhere.
I want to commend the numerous local players who, through their energy and determination, contribute to making Joliette a place where the entrepreneurial spirit can flourish.
Global Week of ActionMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, citizens concerned about destructive salmon farming practices have declared November 9 to 14 as a Global Week of Action.
Where salmon are farmed in open pens alongside wild salmon and sea trout, wild fish suffer. Globally, wild salmon and trout populations have been reduced by 50% where open net salmon farms exist.
In 2007, juvenile Fraser River sockeye were infested with high levels of sea lice as they passed by the open net salmon farms in the northern Georgia Strait.
In 2009, most of that same generation of salmon failed to return to the Fraser River, closing aboriginal, recreational and commercial fisheries, and putting the future sustainability of that salmon run in jeopardy.
Citizens are demanding answers from the government. How will it protect wild salmon, the very lifeblood of our Pacific ecosystem, from the adverse effects of open net pen salmon farms?
St. John AmbulanceMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be joining volunteers and friends of St. John Ambulance York Region at the black and white gala ball in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora.
This occasion highlights an extraordinary achievement of 125 years of providing voluntary services to our community.
St. John Ambulance York Region volunteers donate a remarkable 45,000 hours each year through programs such as life saving, first aid training, car seat safety clinics, therapy dog programs and youth leadership sessions.
This evening also pays tribute to hundreds of selfless volunteers, including Adam Purvis, Jamie Boyle, Sergeant David Russell, Constable Michael Kurek and Constable James Ward of the York Regional Police, and Sergeant David Woodford and Constable Kevin Yeoman of the Ontario Provincial Police commended in 2009 for saving a life.
I ask all members to join me in saluting the outstanding volunteers and heroes of St. John Ambulance York Region.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the 76 Tamil people who landed in British Columbia are claiming refugee status. The Tamil people seek refuge due to the injustices they experience each and every day from their government merely because they are Tamils. 
Even as we speak, over 250,000 people are languishing in displacement camps exposed to the elements and in unsanitary conditions. 
In that context, these Sri Lankans seek refuge and justice in Canada. Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.
I would urge the government not to get distracted by immediate irrelevancies but to apply the law swiftly and fairly. Each individual on Canadian soil is guaranteed the security of his or her person and cannot be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Each of these 76 cases will be unique and the law must be applied fairly to each according to its merits.
People fleeing Sri Lankan injustice and seeking Canadian justice have a right to expect the expeditious application of our laws.
Princess Elizabeth Public SchoolMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to honour the 100th anniversary of Princess Elizabeth Public School in Ingersoll, Ontario.
Princess Elizabeth Public School first opened its doors on September 1, 1909. In 1938, royal assent was given to officially change the name of the school from Ward School to its current name. The official letter of permission from Her Majesty still proudly hangs on the school's wall today.
 I would like to invite all members of the community to join me in attending the school's 100th birthday open house on Saturday, October 24. The excitement will begin at 10:30 a.m. and will continue throughout the day until 3 p.m. Guests can look forward to enjoying tours, special displays, music, dances, and the unveiling of the 100th anniversary signature quilt.
I congratulate Princess Elizabeth Public School on its 100th birthday.
Paul Gérin-LajoieSerge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, on September 24, as part of its 40th anniversary festivities, the Université du Québec à Montréal honoured Paul Gérin-Lajoie by naming its education science building for him.
With this tribute, UQAM acknowledged the important contribution to education made by Mr. Gérin-Lajoie, who was the first head of the education department in Quebec, which was created in 1964 in the wake of the Parent Commission, which he had set up.
A lawyer whose commitment was recognized by UNESCO in 2004, Mr. Gérin-Lajoie has dedicated his life to making education a universal right, because, as he himself says, “education is the fundamental right on which all other human rights are based and what makes it possible to exercise all other rights”. Moreover, helping provide basic education for children is the main mission of the foundation that bears his name.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues join me in paying tribute to Mr. Gérin-Lajoie for his outstanding contribution to the education system and for fighting to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.
Small Business WeekMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we reach the end of Small Business Week I would like to acknowledge Canada's entrepreneurs and the resilience they have shown throughout this economic downturn.
Our government is standing firmly behind small businesses by increasing access to financing, by lowering their taxes and by cutting red tape.
A recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business rated my home province of Saskatchewan as having the highest number of business friendly cities in the entire country.
The World Bank “Doing Business 2010” report ranks Canada as the second easiest country in the world to start a business.
Our economic action plan is working and small businesses are poised to lead the recovery.
We salute the entrepreneurs across the country.
The EnvironmentKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Climate Action Day, a stark reminder of the Conservative government's anemic and irresponsible approach to global warming which is: no plan, strive for lower emission targets, obstruct international efforts in striking a deal, or simply to wait and see what others do. This is a pathetic abdication of leadership, despite the outstanding climate scientists we have and that we are on the cusp of the Copenhagen talks.
Even security depends on environmental security. Biodiversity losses due to habitat loss threaten human health.
 To tackle these problems, Parliament's all-party international conservation caucus now in its second year, connects top environmental scientists with legislators, NGOs, bureaucrats and the media. Only by doing this using science to forge an effective plan and having the courage to lead will we be able to tackle global warming, the single greatest threat to the survival of our planet and ourselves.
Truth in SentencingMr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have told us loud and clear they would like to see more truth in sentencing. Canadians believe criminals must serve a sentence that reflects the severity of their crimes.
I am proud to stand in the House today and recognize this government's achievement in having our truth in sentencing bill receive royal assent.
This legislation is an important achievement in implementing our government's tackling crime agenda. It ensures that the courts will no longer be able to grant a two to one ratio for pre-sentencing custody.
Unfortunately, some 30 Liberal senators still voted against the bill. These unelected Liberal senators defied their leader and the will of the House of Commons. Thankfully, we were still able to get the bill passed unamended and it is now the law of this country.
Canadians can count on this government and the Prime Minister to stand up for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians.
Peter KennedyMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today Peter Kennedy's family, friends and colleagues bid him farewell for the last time.
Peter, a 50-year-old worker at the Cliff Street heating and cooling plant, passed away on Tuesday from injuries suffered in a boiler explosion at the plant. Two other workers were injured in the same incident.
On behalf of this House and all other workers in downtown Ottawa who have benefited from the hard work of Peter and his co-workers at the Cliff Street plant, I wish to recognize Peter's service to our community. Those workers are responsible for our health and comfort in our workplace.
I also extend our deepest sympathies to Peter's wife, Terry, his family, friends and colleagues.
This tragic incident reminds us about the importance of workplace safety. As members know, accidents are preventable. In Peter's memory, we must affirm our commitment to ensuring safety in the workplace.
Once again, let us take a moment today to think about Peter and honour his memory.
JusticeMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are aware of the role that drugs play in organized crime and gang violence in this country. Canadians have supported our legislation ensuring mandatory jail time for serious drug offences involving organized crime, violence and those who prey upon youth.
Members will recall that despite support from members in this House, the Liberal leader and his senators dragged their feet and delayed such legislation. Unelected senators should not be allowed to delay the will of this House of Commons on such legislation. This is a poor reflection of a Liberal leader who cannot show leadership and get his Liberal colleagues in the Senate to pass our legislation. 
Canadians deserve better. That is why they choose this government and the Prime Minister who continue to stand up for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians.
Supreme Court of CanadaMr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court handed down yesterday declared that Quebec's Bill 104 is unconstitutional. This bill closed a loophole in the application of Bill 101, which ensures the protection and primacy of the French language in Quebec. The Supreme Court has made it possible for individuals to avoid obeying Bill 101 and to pay their children's way into the English public school system by first sending them to an unsubsidized English school for a while. 
The Supreme Court is just like the Tower of Pisa; it keeps leaning in the same direction, in favour of the Canadian nation. It is disappointing to see that this decision invalidates the work that the Quebec nation has done to affirm and maintain the primacy of the French language.
It is unacceptable that a court from another nation would chew up and spit out a bill that was unanimously adopted by Quebeckers to protect their language. This is why the only way for French to survive is for Quebec to become a sovereign nation.
United Nations DayMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 64 years ago tomorrow, the UN Charter came into effect. The United Nations was created on October 24, 1945. Since 1948, we have been celebrating United Nations Day to mark the event.
The purpose of this day is to raise awareness around the world of the United Nations' goals and achievements and to build support for the UN's work. There were only 50 member states when the UN was created, and now there are 192. I think we can say that the goal has been achieved.
Since 1945, this international entity has helped facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights.
I would therefore like to mark the day with a message. The United Nations has been doing extraordinary work for over 60 years, and I hope that it will be around for us all for a long time to come.
Maher ArarMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during a recent interview with the British Observer, the Liberal leader accused Canada of sending Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured. This is not true. As anyone who has lived in Canada in recent years would know, Maher Arar was sent to Syria by the United States. This was an overt attempt by the leader to mislead Canadians.
What is more, the Liberal leader conveniently ignored that Maher Arar's ordeal happened under the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, and that it was our Conservative government that apologized to Mr. Arar. 
When asked to clarify his smearing of Canada to his British friends, the Liberal leader's office refused. For once, will the Liberal leader admit he has made a mistake? Will the Liberal leader correct his comments, or will he brush them aside and pretend he never made them?
While the damage to his party is the Liberals' problem, rest assured his mountain of misinformation will not cross to this side of the floor.

Oral Questions
Government SpendingMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not fooled. They can see that the Conservatives are much more interested in large-scale political propaganda than economic recovery. The Prime Minister has launched a campaign to polish his own image. The bill taxpayers are footing for that is now upwards of $60 million, and still climbing. What hurts the most is that he is paying for these extravagances with borrowed money.
Why is the Prime Minister mortgaging our children's future with his politicking?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is important to consider comments from others besides the Liberal critic, for instance. It was the International Monetary Fund that said that Canada was the best positioned to weather the global crisis. Canada is the leader among industrialized countries, and we will continue to lead.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative vanity advertising campaign has cost at least 60 million borrowed dollars and it is well on its way to over $100 million. 
Let me put this in context for Canadians. Sixty million dollars could fund any one of the following: 30 MRI machines; 1,000 registered nurses' salaries for one year; 20,000 hip, knee and cataract surgeries; or 8,500 insulin pumps for our kids coping with type 1 diabetes.
What does the government have to say to Canadians suffering on waiting lists while it wastes their money?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, there are two things we need to consider. First is the past historic record of the Liberal government. The only time it had the opportunity to do something related to health care in the 1990s, it slashed it by over a third without even consulting the provinces.
When it comes to advertising, which is the other point the member is raising, we think Canadians want to know about things such as how to access the H1N1 vaccine. We think they want to know about the Canadian military and recruitment programs. We think Canadians want to know about the home renovation tax credit. We think they want to know how to access these programs, and we are going to tell them.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the largest propaganda campaign in Canadian history keeps rolling on down the tracks. Now it is a $46,000 Conservative gravy train. But let us continue. Sixty million dollars buys 600 affordable housing units, or it buys two million bus passes for seniors on pensions, or it pays the tuition fees for 10,000 students. 
In the face of so many needs, why does the Prime Minister insist on his obsession for self-promotion? Why does he continue to put greed before need and cheap politics before people?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what well spent, well directed investment can buy. On our economic action plan, some 7,500 projects are under way across this country, providing employment, providing everything from water treatment plants, to improved highway systems, to increased infrastructure improvements at our post-secondary institutions right across the country. 
That is what good money buys, and the good money comes from the hard work of taxpayers. That is why our tax system continues to be the lowest among the G8 countries.
InfrastructureHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every day there is more evidence of the Conservative government's abuse of power. 
Two-thirds of recreational infrastructure went to Conservative ridings, the use of taxpayers' dollars for political gain. On the cheques for those announcements is the government party's logo. That is use of public funds for party advertising. Now Western Economic Diversification uses political branding in its funding announcements, breaching rules of bureaucratic neutrality.
Does the minister not know it is an abuse of power to make the department do political advertising?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to go stat for stat and quote for quote, we should consider, first of all, what the deputy premier of the province of Ontario has said, what the head of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said, what the mayor of Toronto has said. They all said that they are very pleased with the fair disbursal of these funds.
Just as one example alone, under the RInC program, 136 applications were received from the city of Toronto and 86% of those were fulfilled.
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, that government came into power promising transparency, accountability and impeccable ethical standards and yet--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.
[Interjection]
Hedy Fry: --they break the rules, use their power to bully bureaucrats, spend public funds for Conservative Party advertising and then refuse to answer to this House for that breach of public trust.
Will the Prime Minister now turn over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer all government files on every type of government advertising since the budget last January?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should be worried when my colleagues cheer louder for the critic than for me.
 She quite rightly articulated the fact that it was this government that brought to a new level of transparency the rules and regulations that govern spending in this place. We had to do that because the former Liberal regime had absolutely devastated public confidence in public spending. We have restored that and we feel good about it.
The EnvironmentPierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' bad faith when it comes to global warming is no secret, but the Minister of the Environment's statements are out of line. Requiring Canada to have less stringent reduction targets than Europe and Japan under the pretext of its energy-consuming and polluting industrial structure is not only ridiculous, but it illustrates to what extent this government does not want an agreement at the Copenhagen conference.
Do the minister's statements not prove that Canada will do anything to sabotage the negotiations at the Copenhagen conference and prevent a new environmental pact?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we are very clear. We are concerned about our climate and the environment. That is why it was Canada that set levels and implemented a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. That is our goal and we will reach it.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, not only has Canada not respected its signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol, but it has not stopped sabotaging negotiations ever since, so much so that during the preparatory meeting for the Copenhagen conference in mid-October, almost 75 countries left the room in protest during Canada's presentation.
Will the minister admit that Canada has lost all credibility when it comes to climate change, both domestically and abroad?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. A number of countries were sorry about the situation at the conference that he is referring to.
He said something else that bothers me. It was the Liberals that signed the Kyoto protocol and did nothing about it. We have done many things. We have set levels and introduced emission reduction programs.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment cites Canada's diversity, area, various economic characteristics and industrial structure to justify the establishment of lower greenhouse gas reduction targets for the oil companies. In short, there is a strong whiff of lame excuses emanating from his recent statements. 
 Are the minister's remarks not evidence that he wants to establish two types of reduction target—less demanding intensity targets for the oil companies and absolute targets for the others? 
Mr. John Duncan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is working continentally to achieve the North American target of 20% by 2020.
 Our plan will include hard caps for all major emitters and our policies will ensure harmonization with the U.S. The government will continue to move forward, working toward a balance between environmental protection and economic prosperity.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the minister's credibility as defender of the environment is close to absolute zero. What he is defending are first and foremost the oil companies. The proof of this is in the fact that the CEO of the Canadian Oil Sand Trust calls for privileges and favours for his industry in the papers on a Saturday and the following week the minister delivers what the oil companies want. 
 Does this not amount to being in the pay and at the service of the oil companies? 
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we are making progress on tailpipe emission standards, aviation standards, carbon capture and storage, and a North American integrated approach to cap and trade. By contrast, the Bloc would have us move away from the North American target, isolate Canada continentally, ruin our economic recovery and do nothing for the environment.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the only time we ever hear the government talk about climate change is when it is announcing that there is no hope. We are hearing again today that the environment minister is predicting the world community will fail in Copenhagen. This is no surprise. His government failed to meet Canada's Kyoto commitment and thinks that the oil sands should be the model for our national emissions standards.
On the issue of climate change, Canada should be a world leader. Why is the government so happy to drag along behind?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we have taken the lead in so many different areas related to the environment. 
The NDP members continue to fall into the trap of their previous coalition partners by repeating this absolute falsehood that we had something to do with the Kyoto agreement. It was the Liberals who signed the agreement and then did nothing in 13 years. As a matter of fact, emissions continued to go up and we are the government that has put in place, at a minimum, a 20% reduction by the year 2020. 
The minister is also reflecting on the fact that a number of countries, before going to Copenhagen, have already said that they will not accept guidelines. We want to see guidelines in place.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve more than rhetoric and weak excuses. Our children and grandchildren deserve better. 
According to John Stone, Nobel Prize winner and former working group chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Canada has the opportunity to help immeasurably in the international process in Copenhagen. 
The Conservatives have convinced the Liberals to shelve the climate change accountability act and now they are hoping to trash Copenhagen too.
 Why is the government refusing to work with the world community to clean up our environment?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we continue to be a leader in environmental areas but we will point out the fact that there will be difficulties. If we have large countries, especially those with developing economies, that are taking a stand not to do anything in terms of emission reductions, that is a challenge, but it is a challenge that we are willing to take on. It is also a challenge that the Minister of the Environment is taking on and he is demonstrating that things can be put in place. 
This may be difficult for industry, and some of it will be difficult for industry, but we are insisting that guidelines be made and we will work with other countries to show how they can implement them.
Tax HarmonizationJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the people in British Columbia are opposed to the government's HST. I know the Prime Minister understands the tax hike for what it is because in 1996 he said: 
 This harmonization of the GST, this tax collusion between provincial and federal Liberal governments, is not the way to reverse the economic decline of this country. 
Why, after years of criticizing the Liberals for inventing and expanding the HST, is the government now hoisting this tax scheme onto the backs of families in British Columbia and Ontario?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we are very clear on this. When a province makes a decision to move to a harmonized sales tax, the federal government will respect that. There is a process, which has been in place for years, a process, as a matter of fact, that was put in place by the previous government, that will assist the provinces in doing that.
What the NDP failed to point out is that the GST, the federal portion of that HST, we have made a commitment to reduce that. The Liberals said that they would reduce it but they never did. We have reduced it from 7% to 5%. We are taking taxes down. The NDP only wants to see them go up.
InfrastructureMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, listening to the Conservatives, we tell ourselves the world is really small and full of coincidences. Leo Housakos, for example, worked for BPR and was then appointed senator. Through all that, he organized little fundraisers. Then, one evening, at one of his little cocktail parties, who should be there? Why, his colleagues from BPR and the directors of the Federal Bridge Corporation. Strangely enough, shortly thereafter, who gets the bridge corporation contract? Why, BPR. 
 Does the minister agree that this is quite a coincidence? 
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated federal agency is an independent crown corporation. Therefore, the minister's office can in no way meddle with the administration of the contracts of the crown corporation, which has autonomous status as set out in the Financial Administration Act. 
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised a public appointments commission but it is not happening. They said that they would at least follow existing rules and guidelines but that is not happening either.
Because they are in such trouble and because I am a nice guy, I will give them a chance today to answer this very simple question truthfully. Why were board members of the bridge corporation invited to Senator Housakos' fundraiser? Why would they be there?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada expects crown corporations to act with integrity and diligence in awarding contracts. If my colleague has statements to make to the contrary or other, he should make them outside this House. 
Natural ResourcesMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's own ethical guidelines for ministers states:
 In no circumstance should any political activities be performed at a government place of work; nor should any government equipment or material be used for such purposes. 
The admitted promotion of the September 24 political fundraiser for the Minister of Natural Resources is a clear violation. 
Why is the Prime Minister waiting for the ethics commissioner to report when the president and CEO of the Toronto Port Authority has already confirmed this blatant misuse of their place of work?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that our government takes matters of accountability very seriously. The minister in question is committed to working with the ethics commissioner on this matter and will be cooperating fully with the commissioner as we move forward.
However, because the matter is before the ethics commissioner, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is responsible for the federal Toronto Port Authority and has admitted that the use of its facilities to promote a political fundraiser for the Minister of Natural Resources was totally wrong and totally unacceptable.
Coincidentally, the Port Authority also provided goods and services to the minister during the last election, contrary to federal laws. 
Since the Minister of Transport appointed many of the members of the board of directors, has he asked them to report on these blatant misuses of the Port Authority's offices and, if not, why not?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the ethics commissioner and, as a result, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this at this time.
However, I will say that this government introduced the Federal Accountability Act, the most sweeping piece of legislation to uphold the principles of integrity and transparency in the entire history of Canada.
The reason the Canadian people re-elected us is that they believe we are an accountable government and they support the good work we are doing on that.
InfrastructureMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the president of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités called on the federal government to stop interfering between the Government of Quebec and municipalities, declaring, “We deal with the Government of Quebec. The federal government should sign its agreements with the Government of Quebec as soon as possible so that we can deal with one party and get to work on our projects.”
When will this government stop using the economic crisis to push its partisan agenda?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. 
Our government has implemented a bold economic action plan. We are working with the Government of Quebec and municipalities to put this very bold plan in place. The Government of Quebec is the one that assigns priorities to all of the projects implemented.
Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités summed up the feelings of municipalities in Quebec when he said, “give us back what is ours.” Municipalities in Quebec want the infrastructure money to be transferred directly to Quebec, which would ease the administrative burden, and would make it possible to develop criteria that are more adapted to the realities of Quebec municipalities.
Does the minister realize that he is preventing infrastructure work from getting started?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, not at all. Our government respects Quebec's jurisdictions, which is the opposite of what my colleague just said. Quebec prioritizes all the infrastructure projects in our economic action plan, and we are happy to work with the Government of Quebec.
Forestry IndustryMrs. Josée Beaudin (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the AbitibiBowater plant in Beaupré shut down indefinitely yesterday. Nearly 360 workers lost their jobs. Bill C-50on employment insurance is designed to help Ontario's auto workers. It does nothing to meet the needs of Quebec's forestry workers. A complete overhaul of the EI system is needed to enhance accessibility and improve benefits.
What is the minister waiting for to help forestry workers?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have done a great deal to help workers in the forestry sector and, in fact, in all sectors. A bill is currently being studied in the Senate and here in the House of Commons. This bill aims to help workers by providing them with an additional 5 to 20 weeks of employment insurance benefits.
The member should have supported that bill.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition to not helping workers in the forestry sector, the Conservative government is offering nothing to help private woodlot owners, who, in some cases, have seen their revenues drop by 75%. The Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec applauded the Bloc Québécois this week for proposing targeted measures for this sector, which has been hit hard by the crisis. 
Will the government respect the will of the majority of parliamentarians who this week called for tax measures that are better suited to the needs of private woodlot owners?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, our government is taking the necessary steps to ensure a viable industry, in the best interest of the workers and communities of Quebec. In the past three years, Canada Economic Development alone has supported 192 projects directly linked to the forestry sector. These contributions of over $160 million have generated investments totalling $525 million, and helped create and maintain 14,000 jobs.
AfghanistanHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Afghanistan.
Today in Le Devoir, there was an interview with General Hillier. When discussing the 2006 torture issue, he said, quite clearly, that “Everyone knew about it”. Then, in reference to the Minister of National Defence at the time, he said, “We talked about it often, during every briefing”. That contradicts what the ministers said yesterday.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat fascinating that a member with the number of years of experience would take, at face value, a quote from a newspaper over the quotes of General Hillier himself. 
General Hillier himself said he never did inform or report about this report to not just the Minister of National Defence but to any minister.
I would suggest that the member show respect for General Hillier and go with what he said, not with what some newspaper said.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would love to give General Hillier and other witnesses an opportunity to tell their story and to deal with what are clear contradictions in the evidence that has been given by ministers and the statements that have been made by General Hillier. The answers, by the way, I quoted directly from what General Hillier said yesterday. It would be wonderful to have an opportunity.
The Conservatives shut down the inquiries. They have refused to allow these witnesses to be called. They have taken them off the witness list.
If the minister wants to get at the truth, why is the government preventing us from having an inquiry into this issue? Why does he--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. the Minister of International Trade.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should reflect on the fact that it was a judicial ruling that narrowed a particular inquiry. We have said we will still follow whatever needs to be followed.
I will repeat again. The member opposite said there was a contradiction between what ministers are saying and what General Hillier is saying. General Hillier has said he did not inform any minister, let alone the Minister of National Defence, related to this particular report. The ministers themselves, including myself, have said that we have never received information on that report.
The EnvironmentMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, instead of being at the table and showing leadership at the United Nations, the Prime Minister decided it was time to take a doughnut break. 
Negotiators from developing countries walked out in anger in Bangkok because the Conservatives were undermining the process of devising a new international agreement on greenhouse gas reduction.
To top it all off, the minister predicted, ahead of the Copenhagen conference, that there will be no agreement in Copenhagen. Is that not exactly what the Conservatives want?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated international leadership and committed to working with the international community to deal with the challenge of climate change.
Copenhagen is a very significant factor in how matters will be approached, continentally and domestically. We continue working to help achieve an international agreement in advance of this meeting.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a high turnover with this Conservative government's environment ministers. The same can be said of their multiple greenhouse gas reduction plans. 
Unfortunately, the parade of ministers and all of the plans now gathering dust on the shelves have not amounted to much. Do they plan to do the same thing in Copenhagen as they did in Bali? Sabotage?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the government is working to achieve the North American target of 20% by 2020 and our plan will include hard caps for all major emitters. Our policies will ensure harmonization with the U.S., and we are working, unlike the Liberals, toward a balance between environmental protection and economic prosperity.
The EconomyMrs. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has boasted that he likes to tax and spend. He has said he will have to raise taxes on hard-working Canadian families. 
With the release of the pink book, the Liberal leader has made dozens of huge, uncosted and irresponsible spending proposals that will hurt the pocketbooks of Canadians and harm our economic recovery.
Could the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development tell the House what the impact of the Liberal leader's wild spending will be on Canadian families?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader's new platform is full of huge spending promises that Canadians simply cannot afford, including a 45 day work year and a mega-billion dollar day care system that would take away choice from parents. Just these two schemes together would cost Canadians $10 billion a year. 
The Liberal leader wants deeper deficits and higher taxes on Canadians. Our Conservative government will not allow that to happen.
HealthMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, currently across Canada there are 42 for profit MRI and CT clinics, 72 for profit surgical clinics, and 16 boutique physician clinics. 
In the groundbreaking study, “Eroding Public Medicare”, evidence was found to suspect 89 possible violations of the Canada Health Act in five provinces, including selling two-tier health care and billing patients extra for medically necessary services.
The number of private clinics has been growing steadily since the big cuts to health care in the 1990s. Will the government act on its promise to fix health care and enforce the Canada Health Act?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for correctly pointing out the massive health care cuts that occurred under the Liberal government in the 1990s. This was a very dark period for health care in Canada.
Luckily, we now have a Conservative government that is investing more in health care. Not only are we increasing overall health transfers to the provinces, we have resolved the fiscal imbalance that was established under the Liberals, so that the provinces have more resources than ever to ensure that Canadians get the best quality of health care possible.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how we tell the difference between Conservatives and Liberals on this critical issue. 
This year actually marks the 25th anniversary of the Canada Health Act, but it is in danger due to years of government neglect and lack of funding.
The report, “Eroding Public Medicare”, also found evidence that wait times are highest in areas with the most privatized clinics. Canada's health care system is regarded as an example of public focused patient-oriented care.
Why is the Conservative government following the Liberals' lead in continuing the erosion of medicare?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, that member has gone too far.
She has accused this Conservative government of resembling the previous Liberal government. That is beyond the pale. The previous Liberal government cut health care in this country, increased wait times, and put our health care system in crisis.
This government, however, is fixing the problem. We have resolved the fiscal imbalance, increased funds to the provinces, and respected the Canada Health Act. We are getting the job down.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism claims not to have known that Phares Pierre was an influential member of the Aristide government before he appointed him to the immigration board. No one believes the minister, seeing as this compromising piece of information was struck out of the initial draft of the press release announcing the appointment.
Assuming the minister did not know, now that he does know, will he act and remove Phares Pierre?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, it was this government that actually brought a merit-based appointment system to the IRB. Candidates for appointments are now screened by the IRB before they are recommended to the minister. The Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, recognized these changes when she said in the spring that there were changes to the system and the process would appear to be fairly rigorous.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see any merit in being a part of the Aristide government.
This file is riddled with improprieties. An unsavoury character was appointed. Attempts were made to hide part of his past. Then, once it was revealed, the minister refused to revoke this shameful appointment.
When will the minister assume his responsibilities and remove this Conservative militant from the immigration board? 
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has previously brought this to the attention of the minister. He has received his response to the question. He may not like the response to the question, but he received it.
I would ask the member and his party, instead of working against the changes we are trying to make to our refugee system, the changes that will make it better, the changes that need to be made because of the condition it was left in by the previous government, to work with us on those changes to make sure that we have a system that continues to be one that is the best in the world.
HealthMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week I visited Grassy Narrows to attend the Grand Council Treaty No. 3 annual general assembly. Those present expressed grave concerns regarding the lack of preparedness for H1N1. I have heard similar fears from aboriginal communities across Canada.
The minister asserts that 90% of aboriginal communities have pandemic plans in place. The people on the ground say otherwise. Starting with the truth, what assurances could the minister provide today that the most vulnerable will be protected and that unnecessary deaths will be avoided?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the first thing the member needs to know is that the health and safety of all Canadians is the first priority of this Conservative government. We have invested over $1 billion for our preparedness and response to public health threats, such as the flu pandemic situation. This includes planning in first nations communities.
The minister has spoken to Chief Atleo regarding the issue, as well as with several other chiefs affected in communities, particularly in Saskatchewan, B.C. and Manitoba.
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are spending over $100 million promoting themselves in their partisan ad campaign and just $6 million promoting and protecting Canadians against H1N1.
Communications has been a fiasco, from body bags to confusing messages, so that now only one-third of Canadians say they will get the vaccine.
The H1N1 pandemic is here. If the government finally has a communications plan for aboriginal Canadians and 90% of those communications plans have been in place for aboriginal communities, will the minister table those plans in the House today?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for addressing the important question of communicating with Canadians about this crisis. That is exactly what our government has done.
This government has been acting on the H1N1 situation since day one. We have launched ad campaigns for television, radio and print. We have provided weekly updates to the health committee. We announced the flu preparedness kit last week. Since then we have received 60 million hits on the information website—
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Sixty thousand.
Pierre Poilievre:  It is 60,000. I thank the member for his correction.
This booklet will also be sent out across the country to ensure that people have the information.
Public SafetyMr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Mohammad Mahjoub is still being detained without charge, trial or conviction on a security certificate. It has been nine years. He is still the only prisoner at the double maximum Kingston Immigration Holding Centre and he is still on his hunger strike, now at 144 days, over the lack of an independent complaints process.
His hunger strike is extremely serious. Permanent serious health consequences or death could happen at any moment.
What has the Minister of Public Safety done to resolve this situation? Is he pursuing mediation and will he allow the correctional investigator jurisdiction?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the safety and security of Canadians is of utmost concern to this government. These matters have been dealt with a number of times in the House. 
This matter is one that we are aware of and the matter is being looked into with the individual involved.
AfghanistanPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and PMO officials have stated that Canada will continue training the army and the police forces in Afghanistan post-2011 but end combat operations.
Now, General Hillier tells us:
 If you stay in the south and try to do something like training, you will still be in combat. I don't care what...staffers say in the media about how they can find a way to do it. You simply will not. You will be in combat. 
The question, obviously, is: Who do we believe? Do we believe the government and its spin doctors or do we believe the general?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should believe is the truth. The government has been clear, the Prime Minister has been clear and the minister has been clear: the military mission comes to an end in 2011.
We will maintain an ongoing presence in our governance and development work. In the meantime, we will be continuing the training and mentoring of the Afghan national security forces to protect the local population.
A well-led, well-trained, well-equipped Afghan force will enable the government of Afghanistan to assume increasing responsibility for its own security.
The EconomyMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his endless pursuit of trying to force an unnecessary election, the Liberal leader has attacked and attempted to discredit not only the hard work of this government, but also all levels of government across Canada that are making these valuable infrastructure investments which are helping communities and creating and maintaining jobs during the global recession.
While the Liberal leader might not support building our communities and, in fact, stimulating our economy, thankfully, his views are not shared by the majority.
Could the Minister of State for Transport please tell us what some others are saying about the important infrastructure investments?
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, yes, it would be a privilege for me to do that.
We are focused, as a government, on the economy, stimulating the economy and creating jobs right across the country from coast to coast to coast, and we are doing that with our municipal and provincial partners.
The Liberal deputy premier from Ontario agrees with this. This is what he had to say:
 think overall when we see how all the infrastructure dollars that are stimulus related have been allocated, I am pretty confident that there is going to be a very, very equitable regional distribution. 
We could not agree with him more.
HealthMrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pregnant women need clear, concise and accurate information pertaining to the H1N1 vaccine.
Will the adjuvant substance harm them? Will it harm their babies? They need to know. 
The H1N1 information campaign is non-existent but the advertising money is being spent to wrap trains in Conservative propaganda banners.
Surely H1N1 is more important. The confusion must end. When can pregnant women and all Canadians get clear, concise and accurate answers?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Public Health Officer has been quoted as saying, “Both vaccines are safe for pregnant women”. We take his advice very seriously. If there is a serious outbreak and the unadjuvanted form is unavailable, the adjuvanted vaccine is safe and should be taken by all in Canada.
InfrastructureMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec lieutenant of the Conservative Party claimed early this week that the contracting process used by Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated was open and transparent, even though two corporation officials attended a cocktail fundraiser for the Conservative Party organized by Senator Housakos, thereby violating the corporation's code of conduct.
Will the Minister of Public Works, who was himself at the cocktail party if media reports are to be believed, stop having elastic ethics and admit that he is imposing a culture of impunity, a culture of “no problem”?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to repeat the answer.
Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated is an independent crown corporation. The minister's office therefore cannot interfere in the management of contracts awarded by the crown corporation, which is autonomous because of its status.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in beautiful Nova Scotia, the Colchester civic centre is ready to go. The municipal county and provincial dollars are all in place. The only player missing is the federal government, which tends to make me believe that Nova Scotia is being punished because Bill Casey once stood up for it.
 When will the people of Truro and Colchester county get the money from the federal government so they can proceed with that wonderful centre?
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, the opposition member has been around here long enough to know that it would be inappropriate during a byelection to interfere with any kind of announcement, so that will not happen. We are not interested in that.
However, I want to take the opportunity to explain what we are doing for the Maritimes and some of the good folks out there. Just last week, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of National Defence were in Halifax announcing $18.3 million for the Halifax Central Library. This is just one of the projects that we are working on coast to coast. 
We are getting the job done. We are creating jobs and creating good infrastructure for Canadians all across this country.
Truth in Sentencing ActMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that Bill C-25, our Conservative government's truth in sentencing legislation, was finally passed unamended by the Senate and has received royal assent.
Could the Minister of International Trade please tell the House what this will mean for Canadians?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Wild Rose for his question and for his work in this particular area.
For many years, police groups, victims associations and others have asked for truth in sentencing. This bill accomplishes that. There is no more discount for serious criminals of two to one time or three to one time because of pre-sentence custody. We have been waiting for this a long time. 
Despite the fact the Liberals tried to stop and delay this, despite the fact they tried to hold it up in the Senate and despite the fact that 30 Liberal senators voted against it, we got it through. Truth in sentencing is a reality.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
PetitionsMaurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the petition I have in hand here reminds us all that since 2003, over 400,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in the horrific conflict taking place in Sudan.
This petition also stresses Canada's responsibility, as a prosperous, internationally engaged country, to play a leading role to save the people of Darfur from ongoing death and displacement.
The appeal of these petitioners to the Government of Canada then is to engage with the international community in whatever way is necessary to end these ongoing atrocities.
Bill Siksay: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by approximately 150 Canadians who are calling upon the Government of Canada to use every means at its disposal to advocate for the unconditional release of Ethiopian opposition leader, Birtukan Mideksa, and for her return to full political participation in Ethiopia.
Ms. Mideksa is the leader of the Unity for Justice and Democracy Party of Ethiopia and she has been detained without charge since December 2008. She has been denied full access to a lawyer and due process, contact with her family and access to international human rights organizations.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the clerk of petitions, I am pleased to present this petition regarding the protection of human life.
These petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South want to draw to the attention of the House that Canada is a country which respects human rights, and includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom that says that everyone has the right to life. They also point out that it has been 40 years, since May 14, 1969 when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion, and since January 28, 1988, Canada has had no law to protect the lives of unborn children.
These petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Laurie Hawn: Madam Speaker, I have a similar petition that I have been asked by my constituents to pass on, and that is to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death. 
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception, fertilization, until natural death.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition regarding Canada's access to medicines regime.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to support my private member's bill, Bill C-393, that proposes changes to this regime to make it possible for generic drugs to flow more effectively, efficiently and quickly to countries in need, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
They want this to happen because 14,000 people die every day from diseases, such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, diseases that are preventable if these countries were to have access to medicines that we take for granted in this country.
Blake Richards: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present petitions from all across western Canada, with hundreds of signatures from citizens calling for greater freedom of use for natural health products.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, my petitioners call for the release of Ms. Birtukan Mideksa from arbitrary imprisonment. Ms. Mideksa is the president for the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party of Ethiopia. She has been held in prison by the Government of Ethiopia since December 2008, without charge, on a politically motivated life sentence.
She is a confirmed prisoner of conscience according to international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International. She was pardoned of all charges against her before being rearrested for apparently no reason. In contravention of Ethiopian law, Ms. Mideksa was imprisoned without any formal hearings and was not given full access to her lawyer.
 International human rights monitoring organizations have been denied access to Ms. Mideksa as well. Serious allegations of human rights abuses have been made, indicating that Ms. Mideksa has been held in solitary confinement in life-threatening conditions and has been prohibited from reading books and visiting her family.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass private member's Motion No. 334, which requests that the government make use of every means at its disposal, in addition to working with its allies in the international community and the United Nations, to exert maximum pressure on the Government of Ethiopia to immediately and unconditionally release Ms. Mideksa and allow her to participate fully in her position as leader of a political party.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I would like to remind members that they should not be reading the petition verbatim but summarizing it.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 413 and 415.
Mr. Claude Gravelle:  Regarding the Knowledge Infrastructure Program announced in January 2009: (a) how many proposals were received from Aboriginal educational institutions; (b) how many of those proposals were accepted; (c) how many were refused and why; and (d) of those accepted, how much funding was allocated?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the knowledge infrastructure program, KIP, is a federal initiative created to renew Canada’s college and university infrastructure. By making large-scale investments in infrastructure, the Government of Canada is providing significant short-term economic stimulus in local communities across the country. 
The program design of the KIP targets all Canadian post-secondary educational institutions that grant degrees and post-secondary credentials. Just as there were no predetermined provincial allocations, there was no allocation specifically set aside for funding of aboriginal-controlled institutions.
The KIP received 912 proposals in total. Of these, 25 proposals were received from 21 aboriginal educational institutions across Canada.
In response to (b), as of June 18, 2009, two projects have been awarded funding through KIP: Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in Merritt, British Columbia and Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, SIIT, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 
In response to (c), additional funding announcements continue to be made. All proposals received to date, including those received from aboriginal institutions, are being considered for the remaining funding. 
In response to (d), to date, two proposals from aboriginal educational institutions have been awarded funding: Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in British Columbia, $739,000 from KIP, with matching funding from the Province of B.C. and the institute itself; and Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, SIIT, in Saskatchewan, $1,072,000 from KIP, with matching funding from the Province of Saskatchewan. 
Peter Stoffer:  With respect to the privatization of the military supply chain process for the Canadian Forces, since 2006: (a) what is the government’s position on such privatization; (b) what is the business case for such privatization; (c) what products or services are anticipated to be supplied through a privatized supply chain; (d) what discussions have occurred with private consultants or contractors; and (e) have any contracts been signed and, if so, (i) with whom, (ii) on what date, (iii) in what amount, (iv) who approved the contracts on behalf of the government, (v) which contracts were not subject to a competitive bid process?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, military supply chains are among the most complex in the world. In order to adapt to an environment of constant change, continuous improvement is an integral part of military supply chain management. Discussions are held between stakeholders on an ongoing basis to review the performance of the supply chain and its ability to respond to change in a timely manner. At this point in time, however, there is no consideration being given to privatizing the operation of the supply chain. 
The department has established various levels of contracted support for specific equipment, including such functions as the provision of spare parts, and will continue to do so on a case by case basis where it is judged appropriate. The department may also from time to time use contractors to augment its capacity to meet specific supply chain requirements, for example its support operations in Afghanistan. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, if Question Nos. 400 and 408 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Ms. Chris Charlton:  With regard to the renting of venues or properties for executive retreats or meetings outside of a government department, agency or a Crown Corporation’s own offices (i.e. where an expense for rental of rooms is made to an outside party) in the fiscal years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, for all government departments, agencies and Crown corporations: (a) what was the total cost of the rental of these venues; (b) how many times were venues or properties contracted for or rented; and (c) in each case, (i) what was the name and location of the venue or property, (ii) what was the reason or purpose of the venue or property rental, (iii) how many people attended the retreat or meeting, (iv) what was the overall cost of the rental of the venue?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Russ Hiebert:  With regards to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal: (a) as an employee of either institutions, how much money did Mr. Warman receive in total; (b) how much money, in total, did Richard Warman receive from appearances as a witness before the Commision or Tribunal; and (c) how much money, in total, did M. Warman receive as awards or damages from complaints before the Commission or Tribunal?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): There are four minutes left for questions and comments on the speech by the parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Sherbrooke. 
Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
He said earlier that we had to start somewhere. So we are starting with a two-year sentence for a $1 million fraud. However, the Conservatives do not want to commit immediately either to abolishing the right to parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served or to eliminating tax havens. But the member mentioned on several occasions the two-year mandatory sentence for a $1 million fraud. 
I would like the member to clarify one thing for me. The government is talking about a two-year mandatory sentence, but it is not abolishing the right to be released after one-sixth of the sentence has been served. Can he tell me where exactly in this bill it states clearly that anyone receiving this two-year mandatory sentence—and the word “mandatory” should also be defined in the legislation—will not be released after serving one-sixth of the sentence? Basically, a 24-month sentence for a $2 million fraud would be reduced to 4 months.
I would like the member to tell me where exactly I should look in the bill to be certain that this two-year mandatory minimum sentence will not shrink to a mere four months.
Daniel Petit: Through you, Madam Speaker, I will answer my hon. colleague's question, which was a fair and appropriate one.
Here is how things work in the parliamentary system. First, the minister of Justice introduces legislation. That is how Bill C-52 was introduced. Then, another minister, namely the minister of Public Safety, has authority with respect to what is called detention. When a judge hands down a sentence, the minister of Public Safety is the one who steps in and has jurisdiction, at the parliamentary level, to introduce this kind of legislation. 
The member raised the issue of parole after one sixth of the sentence. I will suggest to him that, for one thing, what the Bloc Québécois introduced was a really incomplete bill that cannot be implemented or would be difficult to implement. So, we have to take a more serious approach and introduce legislation that will deal with parole after one sixth of the sentence and, after both bills have received royal assent, will actually apply to the various individuals wo will be convicted. Then, after parole after one sixth of the sentence is repealed, they will serve a two-year sentence. This is a baseline, however, which means that the judge may go higher and sentence them to more than two years, for as long as four, five, six or seven years.
[Interjection]
Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, basically, if I interpret the Conservative member's remarks correctly, he is telling us that the bill is flawed and that the person receiving a two-year sentence may serve only four months.
Why not start at the beginning and abolish immediately the right to release after one-sixth of the sentence has been served? This could cover all crimes and all sentences handed down by judges. 
Such a flawed bill needs to be withdrawn. 
[Interjection]
Daniel Petit: Madam Speaker, through you, I will simply answer that the Criminal Code has to be taken as a whole. First we had to deal with the remand issue, otherwise abolishing the right to release after one-sixth of the sentence would be useless. 
I thank my colleague for his interest in justice and for helping the federal government improve the Criminal Code through his comments. That is very commendable.
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-52 introduced by the government.
I want to begin my speech by making a comment. When this bill was announced, we were surprised, or maybe not that much, since other ministers have behaved this way, to learn through various press conferences held across Canada, in Ottawa, Montreal and Edmonton, that the substance of this bill was being released before we as parliamentarians and legislators knew about it and had a chance to look at the bill and what it entails. This government once again is using a very important matter, that of economic crimes, to do some marketing.
This is not the first time I have seen this. I just want to give the government a friendly warning. They did the same thing during the last budget. Before the budget was tabled, a number of ministers made targeted announcements. Take for example the agriculture portfolio, for which I am the Bloc Québécois critic. The Minister of Agriculture made an announcement on measures that he wanted to implement before the budget was even tabled. When the budget was tabled, it was not at all what the farmers expected and it did not address their concerns. The government leaked information for the sake of publicity but we could not react because we did not have the exact wording of the budget in front of us.
That is how the story of this bill began.
Nevertheless, in order to be consistent with all the interventions it has made in the House, the Bloc Québécois is prepared to go over this bill in committee. It will need some minor and some major changes. Over the next few minutes I will explain what could be done to make this bill acceptable and effective.
The government's Bill C-52 is just not good enough. We will send it to committee, we will study it thoroughly, and we will recommend some much-needed changes.
The first problem is that this bill proposes minimum sentences.That is the Conservative government's pet project. It wants to put minimum sentences all over the place. We have to make sure that imposing minimum sentences for economic crimes will really make a difference. These offences are known as white-collar crimes, or maybe lace-collar crimes if the offender is a woman. Regardless, we are talking about people like Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones, who are fraudsters. We are seeing more and more cases like this. It could be because people are speaking up about it more than they used to. Or maybe it really is happening more often than before. I do not know, but we have to get tougher and tougher on these people.
The first point I want to make is that minimum sentences are not a deterrent. During question periods and press conferences, the minister has been unable to think of one single major fraud case in which the sentence has been less than the two years proposed in Bill C-52. Under this bill, there will be a minimum two-year sentence for fraud cases over $1 million.
We asked the Conservatives to find one single ruling, one precedent, one case in which the judge sentenced someone convicted of fraud in excess of $1 million to less than two years, two years less a day, one year or six months in prison. The minister himself has been unable to provide a single example.
After researching the issue, we learned that typical prison sentences in fraud in excess of $1 million cases have been around six or seven years. The most recent example that comes to mind is Vincent Lacroix, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison but will be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of that time, so will probably not serve all 13 years in jail. That is the problem. The problem is not what is in the bill, but what is not in it.
The bill talks about aggravating factors, among other things. The courts already take the aggravating factors into account. Most, if not all, of the aggravating factors in the current bill were addressed in the Vincent Lacroix ruling. This means that the judge who presided over this case had full flexibility to add aggravating factors. One need only read the ruling to see that the new Bill C-52 would not have changed much in Vincent Lacroix's case.
This is already the case with restitution orders, which are broader in scope in the bill, but experts have raised concerns about the feasibility of these measures in practice. That remains to be seen. I think it would be good for the committee to hear from these experts and from the government to see how we could make these restitution orders effective.
Orders that limit the activities of offenders are a little better and more useful. But this, as well, is at best an extension of a practice that already exists in the Criminal Code. That is one thing that could be acceptable in this bill. But we believe—and I am not the first Bloc Québécois member who has spoken in this House—that it is missing the obvious.
We believe that the problem with parole is not when they are going in, but when they are coming out. What happens is that criminals—and this is what people object to—receive prison sentences that are standard, appropriate, and accepted by the public, but they are released before their sentence is up. 
A guy like Vincent Lacroix gets 13 years in prison for what he did. People in my riding are telling me that a 13-year sentence for what he did makes sense. What does not make sense is that he could be released sooner, thanks to the parole system and the one-sixth of a sentence option that this government refuses to eliminate. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for it to be eliminated.
As soon as the House resumed, we introduced a bill. The parliamentary secretary said it is really complicated. Yet the bill is very simple; it eliminates the one-sixth practice. With this measure, Vincent Lacroix could therefore not get out after two years and two months, which is what one-sixth of a 13-year sentence would work out to. People are upset. They are not happy, and with good reason.
The same thing goes for Earl Jones. Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones could therefore benefit from this practice of parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. I would remind the House that Lacroix's crimes affected 9,200 victims. He stole over $130 million from people and not one cent of it was recovered. They will never see that money again. A sentence of 13 years is acceptable, but if he is granted parole after serving one-sixth of it, he will get out in two years and two months.
The figures I just gave regarding the victims are an indication of what a problem this is. In addition, we are not doing anything about tax havens. We think this presents a good opportunity, at committee, to try to add measures to this bill to eliminate tax havens, since we know that is where crooks stash their spoils.
What good will it do to order restitution of hidden money? Unfortunately, fraud artists are generally smart people who plan ahead. They defraud their victims over a number of months and years, and the smarter they are, the better their scheme will be. Unfortunately, they will manage to hide the money they steal from people. They will even tell themselves that, if worst comes to worst, they will spend some time in prison, but that when they are eventually released, they will be able to recover the stolen money from the tax havens where they hid it.
This is where we can take action to ensure that these people cannot hide the money they have stolen and that the victims can get their money back.
Amending the Income Tax Act to prohibit the use of tax havens would obviously be a big improvement. As we know, tax havens allow individuals and companies to hide money and avoid paying tax.
I will conclude on the issue of tax havens. I would like to make three points before I finish. We want to repeal the provisions that allow companies to use a strategy known as double deduction. The Bloc Québécois proposes to amend a section of the Income Tax Regulations that allows Canadian companies to set up what are known as international business corporations in Barbados. We also plan to oppose the ratification of any free trade agreement with countries that are on the OECD banking transparency greylist or blacklist.
In conclusion, I believe it would be a good idea to send this bill to committee and make the necessary changes to it, especially as regards parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served and tax havens.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Before beginning questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that there are five minutes for questions and ten minutes for debate.
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member from the Bloc, and I thought for a moment I was seeing the Bloc recognize that we do have crime in this country and that we have to bring in changes in legislation to address that. However, at the end of his presentation, I found that I was sadly mistaken.
The member talked about Mr. Lacroix who received a 13-year sentence, which the member of the Bloc said was appropriate. He then went on to say he would only serve one-sixth of his sentence and he would be out in two years and two months, and that is not appropriate.
I need to impress on the Bloc member that this is the very reason we are trying to bring in mandatory sentences, so that people who are convicted of white-collar crimes get a sentence that is a set sentence and so that they are going to serve that time, and it will be appropriate for the crime they have committed. It is going to do away with the escape clause that allows them to serve only one-sixth of their sentence, as was the case in the example that the member just gave. The Bloc member seems to be confused about what this is all about. We want to get these criminals to do their time.
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, I think the member is himself confused, because I really was very clear, even if in ten minutes, it is not possible to discuss all the ins and outs of a bill. One thing is sure, he has just shown how confused he is. He says that there is a problem with my remarks when I say we have to be critical of the fact that Vincent Lacroix will be able to get out after two years and two months. Why can he get out then? Because the law as it stands allows him to. Parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served is a fact. So, after serving one-sixth of his sentence of 13 years, as set by the judge, who, in my opinion did a good job, he will get out. 
 What we in the Bloc are saying is that parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served must be eliminated. I do not know if the member was present when Parliament resumed on September 14. Right off, on arrival, we introduced a bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence. Let us take the example of someone like Vincent Lacroix. That is his name. I do not know whether the hon. member has been following the news in Quebec recently with regard to economic crimes, but the man defrauded 9,200 people of $130 million. His name is Vincent Lacroix. If parole after serving one-sixth of a sentence were abolished, he would be in prison for 13 years, not just two years and two months. 
 That is what we are criticizing, and I do not see how minimum sentences would change anything. Bill C-52 would have told the judge who considered the case of Vincent Lacroix that he had to be given a minimum of two years for his fraud. A fat lot of good that does us. He gave him 13 years. He certainly would not give anyone like Vincent Lacroix two years, or he would have his head taken off in Quebec. This is why I would say the hon. member is confused and not me. 
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the member is correct. The tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Panama and so on are really the important part that the government is forgetting about. It talks about restitution but there will be no restitution because fraudsters are going to get their money to the tax havens.
In addition to that, I would like to ask the member what he thinks about the idea of toughening up the banking rules to require the banks to be more vigilant about the activities of people like this. For example, currently the bank has to report anyone who comes in with a cash deposit of over $10,000. Why can the government not come up with some more stringent rules for the banks?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Unfortunately, the hon. member only has 40 seconds to answer the question. 
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and, had a little over 10 minutes been allotted to me for my speech, I happen to have here notes regarding the banks' requirement to report improper activities. The Bloc Québécois is proposing that banks be required to report suspicious transactions, including discrepancies in trust accounts, to the financial markets authority and to the professional corporation the person involved belongs to. This approach would allow regulatory bodies to quickly identify fraudulent transactions and act before people's entire savings have been misappropriated. I therefore totally agree with my colleague from the NDP.
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my strong support to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud). This bill is a message to fraudsters in the headlines and a response to the victims who have suffered due to the greed and deceit of these fraudsters. The message is that our law will not tolerate this conduct and that serious sentences will result.
As this government has said time and again, it is time to put the concerns of victims at the forefront. While Bill C-52 may not restore their life savings and may not deter all future fraud, it does demonstrate that we mean business when we say that those guilty of fraud will be held accountable.
The troubling aspect of fraud is that any one of us could be a victim. Even though we may be careful in all our personal financial matters, today's white-collar criminals are clever and smooth, and even the most cautious investor could be caught in a fraudulent scheme. It is a shame that these fraudsters could not put their cleverness to good use to the benefit of society in such tough economic times.
Other speakers have highlighted the nature and scope of fraud today, and I am sure we can all think of other examples. We know that such schemes are not limited to organized crime.
We have heard a lot about Ponzi schemes recently, but we have also heard about the impact on victims of a wider range of other types of fraud. The impact on the victim of a $500 fraud may be just as devastating as the impact of a $1 million fraud if the victim has limited means. These reforms address the offence of fraud regardless of value, although there are mandatory minimum sentences applicable for fraud of over $1 million.
Fraud, regardless of the value, is a real and serious crime with real and serious consequences, and it is time that everyone in the criminal justice system took fraud seriously. Bill C-52 is an important step in the right direction. It will improve the Criminal Code sentencing provisions for fraud to ensure that sentences imposed on offenders adequately reflect the harm they cause.
For fraud that has a value of $1 million or more, that in the “large scale” category, a minimum sentence of two years will be imposed. I should make it clear, though, that this is only a minimum and where the fraud is larger than that, as it is so often, or if there are other aggravating factors, the sentence should be well above two years and can go as high as 14 years.
The bill is not just about the ultimate sentence for the offender. It is also about the victim's role in the sentencing process. The Criminal Code has evolved over the years to improve the experience of victims in the justice system and to provide a role, albeit limited, for victims of crime. These provisions include victim impact statements and the opportunity to present such a statement along with consideration of restitution at sentencing, testimonial aids and publication bans on the victim's identity, where needed.
Bill C-52 will further address the need to consider victims of crime when sentencing the offender for fraud. For example, the reforms will make clear that if the fraud had a particularly significant impact on the victim because of his or her financial situation, health or any other relevant factor, that should aggravate the sentence. In other words, those factors, as well as others, should move the sentence up toward the maximum. I would note that this is another aspect that will be welcomed by victims, because all victims agree that no one else should suffer as they have and that such fraud must be prevented from happening in the future.
A new prohibition order can be part of an offender's sentence. When so ordered by a judge, the offender can be prohibited from having authority over another person's money, real property or valuable securities in any employment or volunteer capacity in the future. If the offender does not respect this prohibition, he or she can be charged with a separate offence.
As mentioned, the Criminal Code already permits victim impact statements and provides for restitution to be part of the sentence in appropriate circumstances. Bill C-52 highlights the importance of both measures when it comes to fraud.
The Criminal Code currently provides that judges may consider a statement made by a victim of crime, known as a victim impact statement. Its purpose is to provide the sentencing judge with additional information, in the victim's own words, on the harm or loss suffered by the victim as a result of the offence. The statement is shared with the offender in advance, and victims may be cross-examined on the statement. Although this cross-examination rarely happens, it does ensure that the statement stays focused on the harm caused and not on recommendations about the sentence.
The statement provides judges with information on the impact or effect of the offence. For victims of fraud, the impact will be significant and can extend not only to their financial loss but to their sense of trust and overall well-being.
The bill also acknowledges that it is not just the actual victim of fraud who will suffer a loss or an impact. If the victim has been stripped of his or her savings, then they will not be buying goods and services, participating in leisure and charitable activities, pursuing their hobbies and interests or enjoying life in their communities.
The provisions in Bill C-52 recognize this and go a step further than the victim impact statements by enacting a community impact statement provision for fraud. Community impact statements are not unheard of, quite the contrary, but the code does not specifically provide that the court should consider such statements. The existing victim impact statement provisions in the code include that the court may also consider any other evidence concerning the victim for the purpose of determining the sentence. 
This authority has led some courts to broadly interpret the term victim so that others impacted by the crime, including communities, have submitted statements at the time of sentence. There have been several examples in the case law of the courts' acceptance that crimes have an impact on the community as a whole.
Bill C-52 would make that recognition clearer with respect to fraud. When an offender is sentenced for fraud, the court may consider a statement made by a representative of the community describing the loss or harm to the community. The statement must be in writing, identify the community, clarify that the person can speak on behalf of the community, and be shared with the crown and the defence. So, for example, as I mentioned, where the victim cannot participate in the activities and the economy of his or her community, that community may suffer and that community may seek to submit a community impact statement.
As other speakers have noted, community impact statements are quite consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing that are laid out in the Criminal Code, in particular, to provide reparations for the harm done to the victims or the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to their community.
I would also like to note the reforms regarding restitution.
Many speakers have noted the need for victims to actually receive restitution. No one disagrees that this should occur, but the reality is that if there is no money or not enough money to address the victim's losses, this cannot happen.
Restitution, to have any real meaning for the offender, must be paid by the offender to the victim. Where offenders can do so, they often do, so they can get a lesser sentence, but if they cannot make restitution, it is likely pointless to suggest that they do only to dash the hopes of the victims later.
We also need to keep in mind that we are reforming the criminal law and the sentences for fraud. The sentence must take into account a range of factors and restitution can be a part of that sentence, but if the restitution is not paid, the offender is still serving the other parts of his sentence and that restitution debt will remain to be paid. I should also note that the ability of an offender to pay restitution must also be considered before this is included as part of his or her criminal sentence.
As noted, restitution is the payment by the offender to the victim of a specific amount that reflects the financial losses of the victim. An order for restitution may be made as part of the overall sentence imposed on the offender as a stand-alone measure or as part of a probation order or a conditional sentence.
Of course, a conditional sentence should not be an option for fraud and it will not be an option for fraud once Bill C-42, the conditional sentence bill, is passed, because it carries a 14-year maximum penalty.
Bill C-52 would make a real difference in addressing fraud. No one disagrees that other initiatives are also needed: prevention, regulation, enforcement and prosecution. 
In summary, the bill would help to improve the responsiveness of the criminal process for victims of fraud. It would require the sentencing court to consider if restitution should be ordered and it would permit the court to receive a community impact statement in cases where a community, in addition to individuals, have suffered from fraud.
I would encourage all hon. members of the House to support this bill and ensure that it becomes law as soon as possible.
Gérard Asselin: Madam Speaker, first of all, I listened carefully to the member's speech, and I am left with a number of questions. I am sure that the voters who listened to his speech also have many questions.
We know that the Conservative Party hoped this bill would solve the problem with white collar criminals. Members will remember Vincent Lacroix. Earl Jones is another such case. I would like to ask the member why they settled on the figure of $1 million. Is there small fraud and large fraud? Someone who cheated others out of $900,000 would not be covered by this bill, while someone who committed fraud of over $1 million would.
Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones stole public money. They jeopardized the financial security of our seniors, of those who invested and who trusted them. Why did the Conservatives not include a provision to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served? That would have ensured that Vincent Lacroix would serve his 14 years in prison, instead of two years. But the Conservatives did not include such a provision. They say that they want to, but they are not doing it. 
The other thing is that they allowed Vincent Lacroix, and other fraudsters, to hide their money in foreign countries, with the problem of—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer the question.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, as the member would have heard in my speech, Bill C-42 addresses the issue of conditional sentencing, which is something that we support strongly. The government does not believe that conditional sentences should be an option for fraud.
I am not familiar with the details of the amount stolen by Mr. Lacroix, but if there were 9,000 victims, one would expect that the value of that crime probably did reach $1 million or more.
I am pleased to see that members of the Bloc are concerned about white collar crime. However, if they were really concerned about white collar crime in this country they would have supported the national securities regulator, which would strengthen the ability of securities regulators across Canada to enforce the securities laws of Canada and really get at the root cause of securities fraud. 
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I want to point out that Harry Markopolos discovered the whole Ponzi scheme that was perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, and he did so 10 years before the scheme was uncovered.
He went to the SEC, which is why I want to deal with the comments the government member just made regarding the National Securities Commission. He went to the SEC but the SEC is an old boys' club composed of industry insiders. In fact, I believe Bernie Madoff's son-in-law is one of the investigators.
My point is that it does not matter what sort of organization is set up, it is the people who are running the organization who need to be arm's length people, they need to be armed with police type powers and they need to have forensic accounting facilities included with them.
Just having a national securities regulator, if a bunch of industry insiders are appointed to run it, it will not get us any further down the road.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, what I am simply suggesting is that our law enforcement officers need to be given an arsenal of weapons in order to go after white collar criminals who deprive people of their life savings or their retirement savings. One significant aspect of that is to have a national securities regulator who will have strong enforcement of our securities laws across the country. This has been pointed out by many experts in the field of securities law as one of the essential elements of going after these white collar criminals.
However, that is not enough, which is why this government has taken the effort to put forward Bill C-52 to significantly strengthen the penalties for white collar crime. We are sending the message that white collar crime is not acceptable in our society and people will pay a heavy price if they continue to do these things to vulnerable seniors, retirees, savers and law-abiding citizens of this country,
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate and indicate, as others have, our support for Bill C-52. We acknowledge that it is a step in the right direction by the fact that it sets a mandatory minimum sentence of two years for people convicted under section 380 and it takes measures to deal with widespread and rampant white collar crime in our society today.
However, like others have said in the debate, where is the rest of the strategy? Where is the meat that will really crack down on corporate and white collar crime? Why has the government been so slow to take this step? Why is it limiting its other actions on the question of a national securities regulator when what this country needs is a complete strategy dealing with white collar crime, and a corporate Canada accountability act. 
That is my suggestion to the House today and it is something New Democrats have proposed in the past. I would urge the government to consider going beyond this tiny move in the right direction and consider comprehensive measures that Canadians are so desperate for.
The debate makes us all ask whether we are talking about good cops, bad cops or just no cops, which is the problem with respect to white collar crime. We know the situation is very serious. It has been estimated that Canadians lose billions of dollars annually to white collar crime. Canadians have said, time and time again to the current government and the previous government, that they want action in this regard. They have actually said, through significant polling, that white collar crime is at the top of their minds when it comes to crime in this country today. Recent polling has suggested that Canadians rank economic crime at the top of the list of other crimes. In fact, 67% of Canadians said that economic crime was their number one issue when it came to crime. That ranks just ahead of gang violence at 66%, gun crime at 54%, organized crime at 54% and terrorism at 14%. We can see very clearly that this is an issue that Canadians want government to do something about as quickly as possible.
For many Canadians, the bill today, no matter how significant a step, is really too little too late. I do not need to tell the House how many Canadians have been victims of white collar crime. We have been calling for action on this for a long time and so little has been done. 
Twelve years ago, Canadians were shocked to learn the sordid details of a too good to be true deal gone bad. Hon. members will remember the Bre-X scandal. It rang the alarm bells. Thousands of investors saw millions of dollars lost overnight as a corporate hoax was revealed. Did we learn from that? No. What followed was Magnex, Livent, Corel, CINAR, Cartaway, Golden Rule, Castor Holdings, Norbourg, Portus, Nortel, Conrad Black, Bernie Madoff, and the list goes on and on.
Investigations are launched, but very seldom are people put behind bars and criminal charges upheld. This is not right, obviously, for these are not victimless crimes. It is truly an urgent issue for Canadians and it is time for the government to come forward with a complete set of strategies and policies to protect investors and employees.
Back in 2004, the Governor of the Bank of Canada used the term “wild west” to describe Canadian financial regulations. I think that was an appropriate description of what was happening all around us. He, along with many others, called for government to do something about the wild west and to put in place measures that would bring some order to the wild west and, in fact, to hire a sheriff to get the job done.
Every other country in the G8 has done something to deal with corporate crime and introduce sweeping accountability rules, every one except Canada. It is time to do something about this issue and bring in rules for investors. It is time to protect employees who blow the whistle on corporate fraud. It is time, after years of Liberal neglect and Conservative indifference, to bring in rules that will reduce corporate crime and white collar crime in Canada. 
I have a few suggestions to make, and this is consistent with our previous announcement for having a corporate Canada accountability act. 
The first point I want to make has to do with the regulatory field. As the member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned in his question, I do not think it is good enough to simply call for a national securities regulator without the rest of the pieces of the puzzle in place. It ignores the fact that many provinces, in the absence of any kind of federal leadership, filled that vacuum with their own initiatives. The passport system actually took off and is now active across this country.
We do not need a national securities regulator in this country. We need a Canadian body that coordinates provincial securities regulators and brings a unified response to this whole area. A pan-Canadian approach is needed. Forget the challenges to the Supreme Court. Forget the bullying in this House. Let us start to do something about the whole package that is required and not one single issue, either in terms of a national securities regulator or, in the case of this bill, one particular move with respect to the Criminal Code.
Second, we need new accounting oversight committees and independent auditors. They should be legislated, similar to what happened in the United States and Australia as a result of the Enron scandal. Canadian executives should face new provisions for disclosure to shareholders and changes in law to ensure that independent board members are truly independent.
We also need to fight for Canadian workers and businesses. We recommend that the government bring in much more stringent whistleblower protection and apply the regulations that we now have and enhance them so that there are new rules for corporate perks.
Yesterday in the United States, we saw President Obama stand up to the automobile executives who are ripping off consumers and turning to the government for a handout, all the while flying in their private jets and flitting off to exotic summer retreats. Finally, someone in this world has stood up to that kind of ripoff and corporate crime and has said that enough is enough. That is what we need to do in this country.
Finally, as part of this overall plan, we need to ensure that Canada is no longer known as a place where people can squirm away from corporate fraud. We need to put in place the right provisions to police the financial wild west. That means an increased and independent mandate for the RCMP integrated market enforcement team, bringing in international standards in Canadian corporate accounting and law, and an examination of new laws to prevent non-compete payments.
We have been through Bre-X. We have been through Nortel. Just yesterday, people gathered on the steps of the Parliament buildings to express their deepest concerns and cries for help because their life savings have been lost as a part of the Nortel sale. That company had previously squandered public moneys and had been ordered to pay $2.7 billion back in 2006 to shareholders as a result of a lawsuit under U.S. securities law.
In the United States, there is the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which actually has the teeth to crack down on white collar crime. We in this country need something similar that approaches this issue from a comprehensive point of view. We need corporate accountability. For too long, Canadian investors and companies playing by the rules have shouldered the burden of fraud. Ordinary Canadians lose big because of corporate fraud and cooked books, and the prosperity gap only widens.
Let us begin today with a campaign for fairness in the markets and for a corporate Canada accountability act to ensure that the government and the ministers responsible admit the problems and help Parliament fix it. We cannot do nothing at this point. The government knows that it can take this kind of commitment from us to the bank.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the member summed up the problem and the solution to the problem extremely well in her presentation. 
One of the areas we have to look at, particularly in this bill, is the requirement for restitution. We already know that the possibilities of restitution are rather minimal. At the time that these fraudsters are found out, it is usually after a period of time when the market drops. They are unable to pay their bills anymore and they cannot keep the scheme going. In the meantime, they have had ample opportunity to spirit the money away, particularly to tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Panama and other places like that.
I would ask the member whether she would agree that we should be making an effort in this country to do something about these tax havens so that we can stop the fraudsters from hiding the money.
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, in his call for efforts to crack down on fraudsters who bilk Canadians of their hard-earned dollars and who make personal gain by the extensive use of tax havens.
My point throughout this whole debate has been that the government needs to do much more than this little effort under Bill C-52, however significant it is. Many of the experts in the country today wonder whether the new legislation would be more effective than the current regime. 
Eric Gottardi, a Vancouver criminal lawyer who is part of the Canadian Bar Association's criminal justice section, said:
 I don't think it's going to have a significant impact. It's really a codification of existing principles. The reality is, it actually doesn't change much in how the law operates right now. 
The experts say that a fraud of more than $1 million already earns a criminal a two year sentence in almost every case, and the newly announced list of factors that judges need to take into account when sentencing fraudsters is already part of the process. The list includes paying attention to the financial and psychological impact of the fraud, whether the offender broke licensing rules and standards, and the complexity of the scheme involved.
Others have said that the government misses the point. "It's pathetic," said Toronto-based forensic accountant Al Rosen. "The main issue is, no one is out there to chase those people in the first place".
That is really why I say the government has to go much beyond this. It must bring in a corporate Canada accountability bill. It must move on white collar crime in all of its aspects. It must ensure that we actually stand up for Canadians who have lost so much in the past and could be victims again unless we bring a comprehensive approach to the table.
Gérard Asselin: Madam Speaker, I think the Conservative Party has really missed the mark. If they really wanted to solve the problem with this bill, tax havens and the one-sixth practice also needed to be eliminated. Sentences handed down to these crooks would be served. For instance, Vincent Lacroix would serve 14 years. It would also prevent these crooks from stashing their spoils in tax havens, particularly in Barbados. 
When Vincent Lacroix gets out of prison in two years, he will be able to retrieve his spoils, his jackpot. He will be able to live off the money he hid in tax havens.
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Bloc member for his question. I completely agree.
I will do this in English because it is so complex. The Norbourg scandal that resulted in Quebec's top financial regulator laying 51 security charges against Vincent Lacroix, founder of the investment fund company that bilked over 9,000 people, is a good example of why we need so much more to be done in this field.
The people who were defrauded by Norbourg were luckier than most Canadians. At least they saw some charges laid, but the role of the regulator in this scandal is also being examined. The role of l'Autorité des marchés financiers is part of an ongoing class action suit. Investors are claiming the regulator failed to stop the fraud. 
What we are saying today is that it is time for a federal government that takes seriously these issues, that works with the provinces and not against the provinces, and tries to put in place a system with teeth, with legal and judicial changes that are absolutely necessary to effect the kind of change that my colleague is asking for.
Rick Dykstra: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-52. It is a very important piece of legislation for my constituents as well as for all members' constituents across our country. Due to modern technology, a farmer in rural Saskatchewan is just as susceptible to fraud as a stock analyst is in Toronto. It is important that we realize this when discussing the bill.
I want to make some technical points about the bill. It contains six measures, all of which are designed in some way to enhance the sentencing process for offenders convicted of fraud. 
The first element is a mandatory minimum penalty. Canadians are most concerned about large-scale frauds that wipe out people's life savings and demonstrate extreme greed and indifference to others. To address this concern, the bill includes a mandatory penalty of a minimum of two years in prison for any fraud or combined fraud with a value of over $1 million. The mandatory minimum penalty would act as a floor. A variety of aggravating factors would also be applied to raise the actual sentence well above the two-year range in many cases.
There are currently four statutory aggravating factors for fraud in section 380.1 of the Criminal Code. The bill would add new aggravating factors to that list to set out additional characteristics of fraud which are troubling. The new factors would focus on: first, the impact of the fraud on its victims; second, the complexity and magnitude of the fraud; third, the failure of the offender to comply with applicable rules and regulations; and fourth, any attempt by the offender to conceal records relevant to the fraud.
Another measure will require the sentencing court to state on the record which aggravating and mitigating factors it is applying. This is to ensure transparency in sentencing and to ensure that the statutory rules in section 380.1 which set out aggravating factors and factors that are prohibited from having a mitigating factor are effectively applied.
The bill would also give the courts a new sentencing tool for fraud offenders aimed at preventing the commission of further fraud and victimization. The court would be able to order as part of a sentence that the offender would be prohibited from having work for remuneration or in a volunteer capacity that involves having authority over another person's money, valuable securities, or real property. The order would be discretionary and available for any period up to life.
The two final measures are aimed at improving the responsiveness of the justice system and the sentencing process to the needs of the victims. Data from 2006-07 show that approximately 20% of fraud convictions resulted in a restitution order. In order to encourage a greater use of these orders, sentencing courts would be required to ask the Crown whether reasonable efforts were made to give victims a chance to indicate whether they want restitution. The courts would also be required to consider restitution in all fraud cases and to provide reasons if restitution is not ordered. 
Three points of caution are needed. It is important to note that no criminal law reform can change the bottom line, namely that if an offender does not have any adequate assets, restitution itself may be a hollow remedy. It should also be kept in mind that the Crown is responsible for making the sentencing submissions. Victims will not have standing to advance their restitution requests. Finally, we cannot establish a collection mechanism for restitution ordered as a part of the sentence as this would require extensive provincial cooperation and tracking and the cost would be prohibitive.
The last measure in the bill would specifically acknowledge that the courts may consider a statement prepared by a representative of a community or definable group for consideration at sentencing for fraud cases. The courts are already somewhat receptive to considering community impact statements describing the impact of a crime on a community as a whole or in some specific cases. In fraud cases, for example, a large-scale fraud which has many identifiable victims in a small town could have an economic impact on that entire community.
I am confident that the measures in the bill will help send a strong message to the fraudsters out there that their time is finally up. I am also pleased that the bill can act as a springboard for discussion and awareness particularly toward fraud in general.
I hope that all hon. members will support the bill and help to ensure it is passed very quickly into law.
Bonnie Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am very fortunate and blessed to come from Mississauga, the safest city in Canada, because of the capable leadership of our mayor, Hazel McCallion, and our police chief.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, why is he and his party delaying the expedition of the bill? He knows that all the opposition parties support both Bill C-52 and Bill C-42. So why not send it directly to committee? Why do we continue to debate it for two days when we are all in agreement?
Will the parliamentary secretary agree to send it directly to committee?
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's rush to get this to committee. In fact, she may have noticed that I actually did not use my full allocation of time to deliver this speech.
The reason I did that is because I want the bill to get to committee as quickly as possible. Even if the member does not need to ask any questions, it actually saves minutes off the clock, gives us the opportunity to get this to the floor for a vote, and get it to committee.
The member is absolutely right.
Gérard Asselin: Madam Speaker, the question I wish to ask will also be very brief, because the member who just spoke is on the government side.
Why has no one questioned the minister, or at least tried to convince him, about the fact that if they really wanted to solve the problem of these crooks who steal from honest people, this bill should have included the elimination of the one-sixth practice, and prohibited the transfer of any fraudulent earnings to tax havens?
Why does this bill set the amount at $1 million? When someone steals $900,000, are they not still a crook? Is that not fraud? Is it only considered fraud if the amount is at least $1 million? There are certain things we do not understand and we would like the member from the government side to explain them to us.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Madam Speaker, yes, I would like the opportunity to do that. I will be very quick actually and very brief.
The bill is very specific. The bill is very focused. The bill has a specific purpose. The reason to do that is so that we can, on a very regular basis, ensure that it will actually move through the House much quicker if we are specific about what we are trying to accomplish.
The member brings up the issue of the elimination of the one-sixth sentence. If that is something he would like to bring forward or that it is something he believes this government should work on, should include and should move forward, we are very open to listening to that.
However, let us get this bill through the House and then let us talk about his issue.
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, I know the member for St. John's East raised this issue when he spoke in the House. He talked about Conrad Black. We know that Conrad Black is actually serving time in the United States, whereas many of the crimes were actually committed in Canada.
I would ask the member, are there any plans to put additional resources into the investigation of white collar crime? We know that many of these crimes simply do not get the attention that they need in terms of the investigation resources and the prosecution resources as well.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Madam Speaker, my colleague makes a good point. 
When we are trying to fight crime in this country and when we are trying to move legislation in this country to make our justice system that much stronger, the organizations, whether it be the RCMP or whether it be investigative units within our regional police establishments, certainly need the personnel power and the finances to very specifically do what they are required to do and what they are asked to do in terms of their investigations. 
However, let us be focused here. We have a bill in front of us, a very good bill, a very specific bill, a bill that makes sense, a bill that should have support from all parties in the House. Let us get that through. 
I certainly applaud the member's efforts and her comments with respect to investigations and look forward to seeing her support the funding and the legislation that we have moved in previous budgets, which did not have the member's support or her party's support, that specifically allocated money to do some of the things she is talking about.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): 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.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary, was asked by a member of the Bloc to explain why this bill specifies $1 million.
Given that a fraud is a fraud is a fraud, whether it is $100,000 or half a million dollars or $1 million, why would the government arbitrarily pick $1 million? The parliamentary secretary did not even make an attempt to answer the question.
Yesterday this question was brought up a couple of times with no satisfactory answers from the government. In fact one of the questioners yesterday was one of the government backbenchers. One of the government backbenchers asked the government speaker to explain the $1 million provision in the bill, and he could not do it.
Perhaps we are going to have to wait until the bill gets to committee to get these answers. I think that is a valid question. It has been asked many times and there has been no answer. I am sure there are people in the back rooms listening to what we are saying here. One would think they would be able to get some answers down to some of their speakers on this particular question.
[Interjection]
Roger Pomerleau: 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.
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, I know the member talked about prevention in his speech.
 There was a report from 2007-08 by the Correctional Investigator. He cited the fact that 45% of the women who are in maximum security federal penitentiaries are aboriginal.
I wonder if the member could talk about what he would like to see, not only on white-collar crime but more broadly in terms of tackling crime, and in terms of more preventive measures?
[Interjection]
Roger Pomerleau: 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.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 In accordance with Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 26, at the time of adjournment.
[Interjection]
Jeff Watson: Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will get unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We always operate under collegiality and a presumption of honesty, but I thought the government said it wanted to advance this bill quickly, and I want to know why it has decided to delay the vote on this bill rather than passing it right now. The government member should explain.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): This is not a point of order.
[Interjection]
Rob Merrifield: Madam Speaker, I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): There is no unanimous consent.
Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this bill to amend the Criminal Code. 
We have been dealing with a number of bills, but coincidentally I have seen all the bills before. About 120 days ago I saw them. In the last Parliament I saw them. Now we see that the government, which had the support of three opposition parties to pass the last bill and get it moving, has voted against its own bill so that it can force a vote, at which the government will be voting for it. This is yet another example of trying to drag out legislation on criminal justice issues that the House is prepared to deal with. 
If you look at the record, Madam Speaker, you will see that the government has blamed everybody else for delaying this legislation. That is the problem. It is extremely important to understand where the backlog is.
Last night, as a matter of fact, in the debate on the private member's bill to put suicide bombings in the definition of terrorist attacks, the government did not allow the mover of the bill to collapse the debate and pass it yesterday for Senator Jerry Grafstein. It is not—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I regret to interrupt the hon. member on his highly relevant speech, but he will be able to continue his comments the next time this bill is before the House.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business according to the order indicated in today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Income Tax Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income) be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Before resuming debate on this bill, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June 18, 2009 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), standing in the name of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. 
I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, as well as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his contribution to the questions.
Members will recall that Bill C-290 was among those bills identified as causing some concern for the chair, as stated on June 2 at Debates, page 4074. In his remarks, the parliamentary secretary clearly identified Bill C-290 as proposing to reintroduce a refundable tax credit. He further commented that refundable credits are direct benefits paid to individuals regardless of whether the tax is owed or not, and are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He went on to point out, citing a Speaker's ruling made on June 4, 2007, and a ruling made by the Speaker of the other place on May 11, 2006, that refundable tax credits have been ruled to require a royal recommendation.
In his comments on this issue, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, while acknowledging that the bill seeks to create a refundable tax credit, drew the attention of the House to an earlier Speaker’s ruling of October 16, 1995 in support of his contention that measures to alleviate taxation do not require a royal recommendation.
The chair notes that a question similar to that at issue here was raised with respect to Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), in the second session of the 39th Parliament. 
That bill, which appears to be very similar to Bill C-290, was also introduced by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, and was determined to require a royal recommendation in a ruling given on May 2, 2008.
The chair has reviewed carefully Bill C-290, particularly with respect to the manner in which it compares to the earlier Bill C-445, and as was noted in the May 2, 2008 ruling on Bill C-445,
 Whether or not the tax credit is refundable or non-refundable is the key issue in determining the need for a royal recommendation. 
 Non refundable credits are deducted from a person’s tax payable rather than being calculated separately: they simply reduce the amount of tax payable by an individual. 
Refundable credits, on the other hand, are not limited simply to the reduction of tax payable. They provide an entitlement to funds which is independent of the tax otherwise due. They are calculated separately and, where no further reduction of tax payable is possible, they give rise to a disbursement from the consolidated revenue fund. Any such disbursement, no matter how it may be characterized in the legislation which proposes it, represents spending for a new and distinct purpose and must therefore be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
In this regard, there does not appear to be any substantive difference between Bill C-290 and its predecessor, Bill C-445. Both involve refundable tax credits.
Accordingly, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-290 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.
The debate, however, is on the motion for second reading, and this motion will be put to a vote at the conclusion of the second reading debate.
John McKay: Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity and your ruling. That was in fact one of the points that I was going to raise in debate. This bill did appear to require a royal recommendation and I think that you have clarified that point. In some respects, it makes the debate a bit moot because it is very doubtful that the government will give a royal recommendation to this particular bill.
This debate takes place in the context that Canadians are exceedingly worried about their pensions. We saw a demonstration this week by Nortel employees in front of Parliament Hill. It was a very moving and powerful demonstration of people who have worked for a very long time with a particular company that has gone bankrupt.
They experience a double whammy. First, their pensions have literally gone south with the bankruptcy because the assets of Nortel have in some measure gone to the United States to be distributed according to the laws in the United States, which leaves Canadian pensioners out in the cold.
Here, the pensioners rank behind certain categories of creditors. It is a double hit as far as they are concerned. They rank below secured creditors here and those assets that are attributable to the American operation take priority and go south, so those assets cannot be realized either.
The Nortel folks are in real difficulty. There was a particular scene on television two nights ago where a woman was asking where her prime minister was? Her pension and retirement are devastated. Where is the government? The truth of the matter is that the government is missing in action on this file. It has proposed no legislation whatsoever with respect to pension protection.
While the hon. member has proposed Bill C-290, which may be in and of itself be a flawed bill, it is probably a greater response than we have received from the government in the four years in which it has been the government. 
I do commend the hon. parliamentary secretary for his work in this area. I know that he has engaged others in this conversation, but having engaged others in this conversation is too little, too late. The pensions of Canadians melted down last year and a lot of them have not come back. It is very sad and difficult.
While Rome literally burns, the government fiddles. We have no comprehensive response to either the Nortel people or others. When questions are raised on this side of the House, the Minister of Industry says that it is a provincial problem. As a consequence, the government says that it is washing its hands of it and that it is just too bad for the folks who do not have pensions.
People put in 30 to 35 years of work at a particular company and they are set to enjoy their retirement, but they are out of luck. That is the sad state of affairs in our country and it is a sad state of affairs with respect to the government's response to the pension crisis that is happening in this country.
The bill itself raises a number of interesting difficulties. I suppose that our party is in the position of saying that it is probably worth going to committee, even though we know full well that it will require a royal recommendation and that this bill will never receive royal assent. Nevertheless, it does raise some interesting questions.
The first question has to do with the government funding shortfalls of pensions. The concept of the bill is that if an employer does not contribute the proportion that he, she or it is supposed to contribute to the pension plan that year, the taxpaying employee will receive, in this case, a refundable tax credit, which is the operative difficulty. Effectively, that means that the employee of company A, which does not contribute, will get a tax credit. However, the employee of company B, which does contribute, will not receive a tax credit.
This brings us into a kind of moral hazard, slippery slope argument. The problem is that the government, or the taxpayer in this case, is effectively bailing out companies that do not contribute to pension plans for whatever reason. That in and of itself is a difficulty because we should not encourage competition among companies in the same industry to not contribute. 
For example, let me use companies A, B and C. Companies B and C contribute to pension plans and are therefore draining their own capital. Company A does not contribute. Companies B and C are actually at a competitive disadvantage with company A, all at the cost of the taxpayer of Canada. That is a fairly significant flaw. I commend the hon. member for bringing this legislation forward, but that is a difficulty that is problematic for those of us on the committee that would look at this legislation. I do not know whether the member anticipated this difficulty.
The second difficulty I see with the bill is that it would only deal with people who have pensions. I am given to understand that something in the order of 70% of Canadians do not have pensions. Therefore, taxpayers are contributing to a pension plan out of taxpayer-funded dollars where 70% of those same taxpayers have no plan at all. The no plan taxpayer is contributing to the plan taxpayer. While we would like to redress all of the inequities in this world, this does not seem to me to be quite fair to those who fund their retirement through RRSPs or investments of some kind or another.
It is a bit difficult to rationalize to constituents of mine who have lived in their houses for 35 years, have worked, have no pension, and have lived frugally, to contribute to this pension through their tax dollars. That is a difficulty in itself.
Those are two of the difficulties that I would raise with the bill independent of the requirement for a royal recommendation.
 Just for the purposes of those who may or may not understand what a royal recommendation is, a private member's bill cannot cause the Government of Canada to spend money. Any private member's bill has to be shaped and framed so that it does not cause an expenditure out of the treasury. 
Having made your ruling, Madam Speaker, and having given us fair warning that this legislation would require a royal recommendation, means that when a vote takes place and if the vote is positive and the bill ends up in committee, there is a very slim likelihood that it will emerge from committee.
On the face of it, I again commend the hon. member for his diligence in putting the bill forward, but in addition to the royal recommendation problem it does seem to have some flaws which would make it difficult. Nonetheless, the bill is an attempt on the part of a private member to address issues relating to pensions. I am rather saddened that we are not looking at comprehensive legislation from the government to deal with what is really a pension crisis in this country.
Bill Siksay: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income) that has been put forward by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. I know the member has tried on a number of occasions to move the bill through the House. In the last Parliament he succeeded in getting it a considerable way through the process, but the early election call short-circuited that effort and unfortunately we have had to start all over again in consideration of this piece of legislation.
I know too that the legislation came out of the member's discussions with workers and retirees in his riding and other ridings in the province of Quebec who faced a loss of income in their retirement pensions. This was one of the solutions that came about as a result of those discussions, those conversations. I commend him for that process and for putting this idea before the House of Commons. 
New Democrats believe this is an important idea and that it merits support. New Democrats are supporting the idea although we recognize that it is only a small piece of what needs to be done in terms of ensuring pension security, retirement income security for Canadians. I am sure the member also recognizes that this is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.
What does the bill do? It would grant a refundable tax credit equal to 22% of the reduction in pension benefits experienced by beneficiaries of registered pension plans other than trusts who suffer a loss of pension benefits normally when their pension plans are wound up in whole or in part. It would apply to both defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans.
What exactly does that mean? That is the official description or account of what the bill does. One of the examples of what the bill would actually mean is that if the income of a retiree's pension drops from say $30,000 to $22,000, he or she would receive 22% of the $8,000 loss which would mean a non-taxable amount of $1,760. So it does not go the whole way to recovering the loss someone might experience in their registered pension plan, but it would be of some assistance to the folks who do find themselves in that difficult position. This is a contribution to dealing with the situation of loss in pension income and income security for retirees in Canada. 
My colleague, the NDP critic for seniors and pensions, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, has been working diligently on this issue holding consultations and conversations with retirees and seniors across Canada to find out exactly what would be helpful to them much in the same way that the member for Richmond—Arthabaska has done in coming up with this legislation.
The NDP's pensions critic has come up with a very detailed and broad-based plan to assist Canadians with the security of their retirement income. We know that is very important these days. It was important when the bill was originally introduced, but the change in the economic situation, the recession, has made it even more necessary because more and more people are feeling that pinch and have seen a reduction in their retirement income.
We know there are two facets to retirement income in Canada. There is the private system of workplace pensions, of RRSPs, of private savings. We know those private elements of our retirement income system have taken the biggest hit in this recession with the collapse of financial markets.
The parts of the system that have maintained themselves, that have been rock solid in many people's opinion, are the public elements: the old age security program, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada and Quebec pension plans. It is very important for us to realize that in planning a public retirement income system we have designed a system that can weather this kind of economic storm where the private system has taken significant hits and retirees who have had significant investment in the private elements of the system have taken a significant hit.
The public system has been there to support people through this kind of crisis. I hope we hold that experience close at hand when we are considering how we might approach security and retirement income in the coming months and years. People put a lot into saving for their retirement and they need to depend on that when they are no longer able to work or choose not to work any longer.
The NDP has put forward a very detailed plan. Part of that plan was passed unanimously in the House back in the spring. Hon. members will remember when all parties in the House agreed that significant action was needed on pension reform and to ensure income security in our retirement. That was good news, although the government has yet to act on that unanimous sentiment of the House and has yet to act in any way to shore up, to expand or to make better our pension system in Canada. We are hoping we will see that kind of movement from the government in the not too distant future.
New Democrats continue to put forward other ideas and expand on those we have already made. One of those ideas is to expand the CPP-QPP for the 93% of Canadians who already are members of that plan and who benefit from it. The NDP is proposing that there be a phased-in doubling of benefits in the CPP-QPP from the current maximum of $908.75 a month to $1,817.50 a month. It would take the pressure off both people's savings and private workplace plans and create a more stable savings environment for people on pensions.
We know there is a cost associated with this. It is estimated that this plan to double CPP-QPP benefits would need to see an additional payroll deduction of about 2.5%. That is often less than the annual administration fees of many RRSPs. Therefore, in that sense, it is a very good bargain for people who are trying to find a stable and reliable source of retirement income.
Our proposal goes on to mention that there could be a tax credit to soften the burden of that increased payroll deduction for low income people. This would go a long way to ensuring stable and reasonable retirement income for Canadians. It would also go some way to increasing the benefit of able people. In fact, this plan would see up to 63% replacement of pre-retirement income for Canadians, as opposed to the current 38% under the existing terms of the CPP-QPP.
It is a great idea and it is one that we could accomplish. It is one that we collectively contribute to and that we could actually make happen if we decided to move in that way. I hope the government will consider this very serious idea.
Another great idea would be to increase the old age security. This is the basic bottom line plan that should ensure that no Canadian senior lives in poverty. The NDP is saying that an investment of $700 million in the OAS program would accomplish lifting all Canadian seniors out of poverty. I know that is a significant amount of money but it is not a significant amount of money when we consider some of the other places in which the current government is spending money, including the $60 billion in tax cuts it is giving to large corporations in Canada. That is $60 billion for the large corporations when $700 million would ensure that no Canadian senior would live below the poverty line.
It seems to me that would be an excellent investment, especially during a recession when we know that anybody who is collecting OAS is spending that money in their community. If we can lift all Canadian seniors out of poverty with that kind of investment, we should go about it and do it right away.
The final piece of the NDP plan is to ensure that there is a pension insurance scheme, like the deposit insurance scheme that we have on our bank and credit union deposits. This scheme would be self-funded. It would go some way to ensuring that if there were a problem with the pension, there would be an insurance program that guaranteed some continuation of that pension. We also think there should be some kind of federal government mechanism to ensure that when a pension plan is falling apart, the government has a mechanism for intervening and ensuring that some continuation of that pension is possible.
We have some specific examples on the table for discussion, which we hope the government will look at carefully. We have costed them out and we think they are cost effective. We think they will help Canadians. Like the suggestion in Bill C-290, we think they are all necessary to move forward in ensuring retirement income security for Canadians, something that is particularly important today during the economic crisis that we are experiencing. 
Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, who worked on human resources issues with other colleagues, including the members for Chambly—Borduas and Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. They worked especially hard on two files: Atlas Steels in Sorel-Tracy and the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos. They took an interest in these cases involving retirees who were deprived of so much of their pension income that it caught our attention and got us thinking of ways to alleviate their losses.
Like all Bloc members, and I say this often and without partisan bias, my three colleagues consult their fellow citizens and listen to their needs and expectations more than anyone else. They are also very aware of the responsibilities of different levels of government. In this case, the federal government has a clear responsibility.
For example, I would like to describe some of the meetings that took place at the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, because I want to focus on this case. The mine is just a few minutes' drive from my riding and I visit the area often. We know that the municipality has taken some serious hits economically because of the mines located there.
Naturally, retirees have a lot riding on Bill C-290. It was previously introduced by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska during the last Parliament. However, the Conservative government was so determined to have an election that it stopped the work in its tracks.
In the case of the Jeffrey Mine, over 1,200 retired workers saw most of their retirement funds cut off. This had a major impact on their living standard and quality of life. So, after speaking with those affected, this refundable tax credit—which this clearly is—was developed and proposed. We also know that, unfortunately, the Conservative government often creates non-refundable tax credits, which means that people in the lowest income brackets can never benefit from these tax credits. In fact, they cannot benefit from them, because they do not pay taxes. In cases where retirement pensions are largely cut off, and if those people's incomes are low, they can still benefit from this refundable tax credit. As my colleague said earlier, this tax credit is not equivalent to the losses these retired workers can face. It is a tax credit of 22% on what they lose. Therefore, it is not a huge bailout. Another important point is that it is not taxable.
So what this does is soften the blow and ensure that retired people can benefit from this money.
I would like to quickly explain what is happening with pension funds, especially in this economic environment. As we all know, there are two kinds of pension plans. There are defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. Specifically in order to avoid creating differences and disparities between the two systems, the bill tries to respond to both systems, since it calculates the gap between the pension that should have been received and the pension that is actually received. The 22% refundable tax credit is calculated based on that difference.
With a defined benefit plan, it is possible to calculate in advance the pension a person will receive, for example, 2% per year of service, based on the individual's best five years on average. The benefit is determined and the employee's and employer's contributions are adjusted using actuarial analyses and calculations.
Sometimes there are surpluses during periods when rates of return are high. There are also sometimes deficits, as we have seen recently. However, the employer is normally responsible for making up any deficits so that the predetermined benefit does not change and is always equal to 2% of the best five years for the number of years for which contributions were made.
There is also the money purchase plan. The name says it all: people agree on pension contributions and actuarial studies determine what the benefits will be. The employer and the employee both contribute to the plan. All sorts of things can happen. Additional contributions may be needed to maintain a pension at a level similar to what was anticipated. As I said, this is not a defined benefit plan. Benefits can therefore vary, but one thing is certain: if the pension plan is underfunded, it is still possible to calculate the difference between the pension that would have been received if all the contributions had been made and the pension actually received. Here again, there is a difference between the two. Whether the plan is a defined benefit plan or a money purchase plan, a refundable tax credit will be determined by multiplying 22% by the difference. 
What is the government's responsibility in all this? I believe the federal government has a responsibility. Take the defined benefit plan. There are periods when the interest rate and performance are fantastic and everyone wants to invest. We know how that works. As a result, there are surpluses. When there is a surplus in the fund, the employees no longer need to contribute. When there are surpluses the employer can keep contributing or this can be negotiated. The Conservatives will surely ask us why there is no contingency fund for the lean years when there might be a deficit and no plan to keep the surplus high enough to avoid actuarial deficits. 
The Conservatives might blame management, but it is not necessarily management's fault. It is the federal income tax act that does not allow surpluses to exceed 10%. Accordingly, the federal government bears a significant share of the responsibility because it does not allow surpluses to exceed 10%. If that had been allowed, I am sure that people would have acted responsibly and would have built up this surplus in order to help cope with the difficult years. We have to hold the government accountable for not allowing pension fund managers to have the necessary tools.
I am calling on all hon. members in this House to vote in favour of this bill so that it can be referred to committee. We can then discuss it and make the government aware of its share of the responsibility. We have to pass this wonderful bill introduced by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon: Madam Speaker, today I will address the many deficiencies in the Bloc proposal being debated, and also highlight the important work our Conservative government has done to address concerns surrounding pensions and pension security. Before outlining the numerous flaws in this costly Bloc proposal, we should look at the broader context of Canada's pension system and the actions taken by our Conservative government to ensure it remains sound. 
Clearly, all parliamentarians recognize that pension security is a matter of the utmost importance to all workers and a key element in ensuring the effectiveness of Canada's retirement income system. 
Canada has a diversified retirement income system based on a mix of public and private pensions. The two public pension pillars, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement programs, along with the Canada and Quebec pension plans ensure a basic level of income in retirement for Canadians. 
The third pillar, tax deferred private retirement savings, includes registered pension plans and RRSPs. These plans provide Canadians with incentives to save for retirement and to help bridge the gap between public pension benefits and their retirement income goals.
Employer-sponsored pension plans are a key component of the third pillar of the retirement income system. The best way of ensuring that pension benefits are secure is to have healthy supervision. Pension benefit standards are a responsibility of both the federal government and the provincial governments.
I note here that only about 10% of all pension plan members participate in federally regulated plans. At the federal level, pension plans are regulated under the Pension Benefits Standards Act and are supervised by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
This retirement income system has been relatively successful when compared to other jurisdictions internationally in ensuring Canadians achieve acceptable levels of income in retirement in order to maintain their living standards. 
As was reported in the Toronto Star earlier this week, Canada actually has one of the best retirement systems in the world. This country is essentially tied with the Netherlands, Australia and Sweden for pensioner protection, as measured by adequacy of funding, long-term sustainability of payouts and integrity in management. The survey of 11 industrial nations was conducted by Mercer LLC, one of the leading world corporate benefit consultants, and the Melbourne Centre for Financial Studies.
Nevertheless, all parliamentarians would concede that while our retirement income system is effective and sound, that does not mean we should not be working to improve it further. That is exactly what our Conservative government has been doing.
Since the beginning of the year, we have been looking at ways to ensure that the retirement income system is responsive to the needs of workers, pensioners and seniors, consistent with sound and sustainable policy principles. In January, we released a major research paper on federally regulated pension plans for comment, after which we conducted a cross-country and online public consultation open to all. 
Indeed as part of the consultation process, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Macleod, engaged with Canadians through public meetings across Canada, including stops in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Whitehorse and Vancouver. Based on the feedback we received from Canadians, comprehensive regulatory changes to improve the federal pension framework are being drafted and will be released shortly.
Also, we have long recognized the need to work with our provincial partners to examine the larger pension concerns facing Canadians. That is why we raised the issue at the annual meeting of finance ministers in late 2008, and earlier this year set up a joint federal-provincial research working group with respected academic Jack Mintz as director of research to conduct an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy.
The Minister of Finance has already convened a national summit of his provincial and territorial counterparts for this coming December to discuss the findings of this important group. 
Without a doubt, our Conservative government has taken the pension issue seriously and is treating the issues surrounding it in a comprehensive manner.
On the other hand, Bill C-290 falls short in this respect.—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but I would ask the group of members of Parliament to take their debate into the lobby. It is very disturbing for the member who is trying to make her interventions.
[Interjection]
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon: Madam Speaker, Bill C-290 proposes a costly refundable tax credit related to shortfalls in pension plans with a potential estimated cost of about $10 billion per year. This Bloc proposal would not be good pension or economic policy. It would not be fair to the taxpayers of the country.
This Bloc proposal essentially suggests that corporations and big businesses be let off the hook from the important responsibility to properly manage their pension plans and to control risks. This is because in a situation like Bill C-290 plan sponsors may exercise less due diligence knowing that benefits are backstopped by the government through a refundable tax credit.
The fact that these corporations and big businesses would not be required to contribute anything whatsoever to cover the cost of the refundable credit would worsen that potential. The Bloc proposal not only would be costly for taxpayers, it also would raise fairness issues, given that the costs would be borne by all taxpayers and it would only benefit a minority of those participating in the pension plan.
What is worse, the Bloc proposal would place on the federal government's shoulders the responsibility for providing compensation for all pension plans that were unable to meet pension obligations, even though only about 10% of all pension plan members participate in federally regulated plans. Since the provinces are responsible for the protection of pension benefits for plans sponsored by provincially regulated employers, this makes little to no sense.
This Bloc proposal is undoubtedly not the best way to promote the security of pension benefits. It would undermine sound pension policy objectives and be unfair to taxpayers. It would reduce incentives for employers to properly fund and manage their pension plans. And it would place the responsibility on the federal government for providing compensation for provincially regulated plans.
This Bloc proposal also ignores our government's comprehensive agenda to improve the retirement savings system and provide tax relief to pensioners and seniors since 2006. For example, as part of Canada's economic action plan, we increased the age credit amount by $1,000. This is on top of the $1,000 increase in the age credit amount.
That is why, to improve incentives for Canadians to save, our government has established the landmark tax-free savings account, the TFSA, what BMO Financial Group called “the single most important savings vehicle since the introduction of the RRSP in the 1950s”. The TFSA will assist Canadians in meeting their retirement savings goals by allowing investments to grow tax free. In this respect—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order. The member's time is up. Resuming debate. I recognize the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska to close the debate.
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised, but at the same time, I am flabbergasted. What I just said may be contradictory, but I cannot get over hearing yet another Conservative member talk about the supposed cost of the measure in Bill C-290. The Conservatives have been coming up with figures like $10 billion a year since we introduced what was then called Bill C-445. But they have never proven that this measure could actually cost that much.
One thing is certain, though: by shaving two points off the GST, this government is willing to sacrifice $12 billion to $13 billion a year, yet it is not willing to shell out any money to help retirees who have been cheated.
That is why I ask that this bill be sent to committee. I want the Conservatives to come with their figures and prove that this measure would cost that much. I did my homework. According to the economists we consulted, it would not cost anywhere near the ridiculous figure of $10 billion a year.
I want to see the Conservative Party prove its claims, prove how much it will cost, and show up in committee to discuss this file and this bill. If amendments need to be made or if any measures need to be added in order to correct anything that does not make sense in terms of sound management, we are prepared to look at it all together. I have always said that I am very open in that regard, but at the end of the day, we must do something to help those retired workers who have been cheated.
Nevertheless, I must thank the members who have spoken in favour of Bill C-290, which would provide a refundable tax credit to taxpayers whose employer has failed to contribute to their pension plan. My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, spoke earlier about the Jeffrey Mine in my riding in Asbestos, and about Atlas Steel and the people of Sorel-Tracy. I prepared this bill with their help, along with that of my colleagues from Chambly—Borduas and Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour.
I think it is important to point out that there are new facts in this matter. More and more people are becoming aware of this problem of workers losing their pension plans. On Wednesday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, a number of colleagues from my party and the two other opposition party leaders—the Liberal leader and the NDP leader were there as well—took part in a demonstration by thousands of retired employees of Nortel and other companies, who came here to call for change in the pension plan system, which is not protecting them properly. Unfortunately, I did not see any representatives of the Conservative Party there, and, as we heard again today, they are claiming that Bill C-290 would cost far too much. As I was saying earlier, this same government, by cutting the GST by 2%, is depriving itself of $12 billion to $13 billion a year.
I am challenging the Conservatives to vote in favour of my bill to refer it to committee and to prove their claims about the cost of this measure, which they have not done to this day in any of the speeches made since I introduced this bill for the first time in May 2007, when it was Bill C-445.
Bill C-290 is one of many measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois in response to the needs expressed by demonstrators who were on the Hill on Wednesday.
There are other measures: the federal government could put pension funds in trust. The federal government could reverse its decision to gradually raise the threshold for automatic review of foreign acquisitions to $1 billion and reinstate the $300 million threshold. It could raise the contributions ceiling to 120%. It could also give disabled workers insured by a self-insurance plan preferred creditor status.
Citizens themselves have already suggested several measures like these. I remember how, when we started talking about this bill, we were looking for ideas. We were wondering what could be done. It was not clear that something like a refundable tax credit, as it was presented, could be a solution. There did not seem to be any good solutions, but the president of the Jeffrey Mine retirees' sub-committee came up with this idea. Since then, more and more people have become aware of the situation, especially because of the economic crisis we are going through now.
I am proud to have introduced this bill, which is gaining support. As I have said, a majority of members of the House of Commons, the thousands of demonstrators on Wednesday and the 2,000 people who signed a petition in my riding support this measure.
Once again, I urge members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of Bill C-290.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 26, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:23 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:23 p.m.)