Bob Dechert

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code contained in the private member's bill before us today.

Let me begin by stating that the amendments contained in Bill C-587, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act introduced by the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Shuswap, are based upon the same fundamental idea that underlies many recent legislative initiatives passed by Parliament: the interests of victims of crime and of their families and loved ones.

That fundamental proposition is a straightforward one. It is that the families and loved ones of murder victims should not become the secondary victims of a convicted murderer by being forced to relive the details of their terrible loss every time the killer applies for parole.

As hon. members may recall from past debates, both first and second degree murder are punishable by life imprisonment, subject to a period set out in section 745 of the Criminal Code during which the murderer may not apply parole.

While all murders are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murders are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with first degree murder that justifies the longer mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years, and while the mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility for second degree murder is 10 years, it may be increased in two situations.

First, if a second degree murderer has been convicted either of a prior murder or of an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the parole ineligibility period will automatically be the same as for first degree murders, that being 25 years. In such cases, the fact that the murderer has killed before is considered to increase his or her moral blameworthiness up to the level of first degree murder.

Second, if the second degree murderer has not killed before, a judge has the discretion under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code to impose a period of parole ineligibility of up to 25 years based upon the murderer's character, the nature and circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in that regard.

In short, the higher the degree of moral blameworthiness associated with a second degree murder, the longer the parole ineligibility period that may be imposed to reflect it.

It is important to keep the concept of moral blameworthiness in mind when considering the proposals put forward in Bill C-587. These proposals are directed at the most morally blameworthy of murders: those in which the murder victim has also been subjected to both an abduction and a sexual assault by the murderer. It is hard to imagine a more heinous series of acts committed against the same victim.

The issue before us today is that with the exception of the case of multiple murderers, the maximum parole ineligibility period for murder permitted under the Criminal Code is 25 years. This is true no matter how terrible the circumstances in which the murder may have been committed.

As for multiple murderers, I am aware that in 2011 the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers Act came into force. These Criminal Code amendments permit a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period on a multiple murderer for the first murder in accordance with the provisions that I have already described.

The judge would also be authorized to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods of 25 years, one for each victim after the first, to ensure that the lives of each and every victim would be reflected in the sentence ultimately imposed upon the murderer. In short, this important legislation would help to ensure that no victim's life would be discounted at the time of sentencing.

However, the result of the seemingly arbitrary limit on parole ineligibility of 25 years upon those who kill once in the circumstances reflected in Bill C-587 is a symbolic devaluation of the suffering of the murder victim as well as an apparent disregard of the extreme level of moral blameworthiness exhibited by the murderer.

One has only to recall the murder of Tori Stafford by Michael Rafferty to realize the truth of this statement.

When I read the facts of that case, I felt sick for days. I felt grief, and I was not related to this little girl, Tori Stafford. I can hardly imagine the hurt that her family would have to go through each and every time her murderer came up for parole and a parole hearing was held.

Allow me to be more specific about what Bill C-587 would do.

First, it would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to require mandatory parole ineligibility period of 25 years for anyone convicted of murder who has also been convicted of committing one of the listed kidnapping and abduction offences as well as one of the listed sexual offences against the murder victim. In short, the 25-year period would only apply if the murderer had been convicted of three offences against the same victim. This would ensure that this measure is applied only against those whose crimes justify this level of sanction.

Second, the bill would authorize a sentencing judge to replace the 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years, based on the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offences and any jury recommendation in this regard.

As I described them in the context of second degree murder, these are well-established Criminal Code criteria that permit the judge and jury who have heard the evidence at trial to make this important sentencing decision.

Under the existing law, murderers who kidnap and sexually assault their victims already receive long sentences. This would continue to be true under Bill C-587. However, the bill would also protect the families and loved ones of murder victims from the trauma of repeated parole application by the murderer.

As the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap himself said when he introduced the legislation:

Sadistic criminals convicted of such crimes are never granted parole, so the hearings are unnecessary and extremely painful for the families to endure.

The justice committee heard from a number of families of victims that had gone through just these sorts of hurtful parole hearings. Sharon Rosenfeldt, who was referred to earlier in the debate, is just one of those parents of a victim of Clifford Olsen. She had to go back every two years and hear the offences that were committed against her son over and over again. This bill is aimed to prevent that kind of thing.

In short, the bill is not just about creating stiffer penalties for sadistic murderers by allowing a judge to impose up to 40 years of parole ineligibility on the depraved murderers targeted by these measures. The bill is about saving the families and loved ones of victims from having to go through the agony of unnecessary and often traumatic parole hearings. This is the fundamental proposition at the heart of the important measures proposed in the bill.

It is far too often the case that families and loved ones of victims experience a greater degree of pain and experience a greater sense of loss because the justice system has failed to protect them from being re-victimized every two years when the murderer applies in vain for parole.

Moreover Bill C-587 is entirely consistent with past legislation passed by the House, such as the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which ensures that a life sentence of imprisonment for murder means just that, life in prison.

Bill C-587 is also entirely consistent with the Victims Bill of Rights Act, which was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received royal assent earlier this year. The Victims Bill of Rights Act will put victims at the heart of the justice system in order to rebalance the scales of justice away from the criminals and toward those who have suffered at their hands.

Bill C-587 is yet another example in this long overdue rebalancing, and I urge all hon. members to examine it from this point of view.

I thank all members for their attention and urge them to come together in the interests of the families and loved ones of the victims of the truly horrific crimes targeted by Bill C-587. I strongly urge all members therefore to give their full support to the bill to ensure swift passage. It is what we need to do for the families of victims like Tori Stafford.

[Nepal, May 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with all those affected by the earthquake in Nepal.

I am proud of Canada's strong and quick response. Our government immediately responded to the emergency with a $5-million contribution to provide lifesaving assistance. Foreign affairs officials worked tirelessly in order to ensure that any Canadians affected by the earthquake were safe and accounted for. Many Canadians have been evacuated from the region by the Canadian Forces.

This past weekend, we announced that a full DAR team would be deployed to the region.

As requested by the Canadian Nepali community, our government has created the Nepal earthquake relief fund, a matching fund, where the Government of Canada will match individual donations.

As the president of the Non-Resident Nepalis-National Coordination Council, and resident of my riding, Anil Thapa said, “This is a time for all of us to support the distressed people in Nepal, their families in Canada and all over the world”.

I encourage all Canadians to give generously to earthquake relief in Nepal.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think most of that question had to do with tax-free savings accounts. I would like to talk about that for a moment.

If it is a good idea at $5,000—and this is what the Liberals are saying, that it is a great way to incentivize people to save and that is what we want people to do, save for their retirement, save for their families, save for their children's education, and save for that rainy day—why would it be a bad idea to give them a little more encouragement?

I have known lots of high-income people in my life. What I will say is that some of the lower-income people are the better savers. They know how important saving is to their way of life. They cannot look forward to that big paycheque coming in next week or at the end of the month, so they save. They put their pennies aside.

This would give them a great incentive to earn a little extra tax-free money on the capital gains on those savings. That will give them a secure retirement. Seniors are some of the biggest beneficiaries of this. Seniors with an income of $60,000 or less put the maximum amount in these tax-free savings accounts.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in his last comment, the member illustrated the difference between our government's thinking and the thinking of the opposition. He said it was using government money, public money. This is not government money. This is the money of taxpayers themselves.

The opposition likes to bemoan the fact that Canadians have a fairly low savings rate and high personal debt. Here is a program that actually incentivizes people to save money.

Just last weekend, the Liberal member for Markham—Unionville, who is one of the Liberal finance critics, stated that they agree with the tax-free savings account. They think it is actually a good vehicle for incentivizing people to save money. They just do not think it should be increased over the current status quo.

There seems to be some confusion on the opposition benches as to whether or not they think this is a good idea. However, 11 million people are taking advantage of this, and that is new money that is accumulating capital growth, tax free. It is a pool of capital that is available to Canadian businesses for investment in job creation going forward. It is a great thing for Canadians, and 11 million people would not be doing it if it was not a good idea.

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

It is an honour today to rise to speak to economic action plan 2015, a balanced budget and low-tax plan for jobs, growth and security. Our budget builds upon the government's strong record of job creation while keeping taxes low for all Canadians. This is a record that I am proud of and it is a record that all Canadians should be proud of. This is also a record of promises made and promises kept.

Since coming into office, our Conservative government's top priority has been to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This is a priority shared by the citizens of my riding in Mississauga as well as by all Canadians. All the jobs lost during the recession have been recovered, and in addition, more than 1.2 million net new jobs have been created since the depths of the downturn, but we need to do even more to create jobs in a tough global economy. In economic action plan 2015, we are doing exactly that.

The Province of Ontario will receive a record high transfer payment to support health care, education and social programs. Ontario will receive $20.4 billion in federal transfers this year. That is an increase of $9.6 billion from under the old Liberal government. This is an increase of 88% since the last Liberal government, prior to 2006. Ontario's share of all federal transfers to other governments is now at 35%. That is up from 30% 10 years ago.

Canadians want to be reassured that their government is spending their money wisely and responsibly. In other words, Canadians have an expectation that we will live within our means. What better way to demonstrate this principle than by balancing the budget. Families in Mississauga have to balance their budgets and they expect governments to do likewise. Furthermore, beyond illustrating fiscal prudence, balancing the budget results in a number of other positive fiscal outcomes. A balanced budget means that our government can keep taxes low and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to support the programs that Canadians depend on, rather than paying interest costs.

Canada's federal debt to GDP ratio is expected to fall to 27.9% in 2017-18, below its pre-recession low. A balanced budget means that Canada's total government net debt burden is the lowest of any G7 country and among the lowest of the advanced G20 countries. This contrasts with the comparatively poor fiscal performance of the Liberal Government of Ontario. While the federal debt to GDP ratio is at a pre-recession low and going lower, the Ontario debt to GDP ratio is at a record level of 40% and is forecast to increase even further.

I would now like to discuss some of the specific measures in this budget that would directly assist the people living in my riding.

Economic action plan 2015 delivers on our 2011 election platform promises with a low-tax plan to help families make ends meet. The family tax cut or income splitting for families plan provides a tax credit of up to $2,000 for couples with children under the age of 18. This is effective for the 2014 taxation year, and Canadians have just a few more days to take advantage of this. This will be very helpful to the many hard-working young families who are struggling with expensive mortgages and the high cost of raising and educating children in the GTA. I am so pleased that our government is able to deliver on this promise.

In addition, the current universal child care benefit, which has been so helpful to families with young children, will be increased to $160 per month per child for children under the age of six, and a new benefit of $60 per child per month for children age six through seventeen will be added, again effective January 1, 2015. This government is putting taxpayers' money back in their pockets so they can spend it on the priorities of their families.

In addition, the budget includes a $1,000 increase in each of the maximum dollar amounts that can be claimed under the child care expense deduction. We are also following through on our promise to double to $10,000 the maximum annual amount that Canadians can contribute to their tax-free savings accounts. These are so popular that 11 million Canadians, or almost one-third of the population, have opened tax-free savings accounts.

We have also doubled the maximum amount of expenses that may be claimed on the child fitness tax credit to $1,000 as of 2014. We have made that credit refundable for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years.

As we are all aware, small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. They represent 90% of all businesses in the country and employ half of Canada's working men and women in the private sector. That is why I was pleased to see that economic action plan 2015 proposes to cut the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. Our government previously reduced this rate to 11% in 2008. Now, we would go even further. Once the budget is fully implemented, our government would have cut small business taxes by almost 50%. That is 50% more of their earnings that small businesses could use to invest in their companies and create jobs.

Many new Canadians in Mississauga and across Canada create and operate small businesses, and this tax rate reduction would be welcome news for them. For many citizens in Mississauga, removing barriers to foreign credential recognition is important in order to get highly skilled workers back into the workforce. That is why our Conservative budget proposes to reallocate up to $35 million over five years to make the foreign credential recognition loans pilot project permanent, to support internationally trained workers in their pursuit of foreign credential recognition. Under the first two years of the pilot project, nearly 1,500 loans totalling $9 million were dispersed, with average loan amounts of approximately $6,000 nationwide. I know that many residents in Mississauga have taken advantage of this loan program, and many more will be happy to see that this program would be extended over the next five years.

With economic action plan 2015, our government continues to demonstrate its support for the manufacturing sector. To support the continued investment in machinery and equipment, and to help bolster productivity, economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide manufacturers with an accelerated capital cost allowance at a rate of 50% on a declining balance basis for eligible assets acquired after 2015 and before 2026. Providing this new incentive for this extended period of time would help to provide businesses with planning certainty for larger projects where the investments may not be completed until several years after the original investment decision is made, and for longer term investments with multiple phases.

Mississauga is a fast-paced, vibrant, and growing city, and I was happy to see that this budget would provide additional funding that would allow our city to maintain and update its current infrastructure. I was especially pleased to see the commitment of an additional $750 million over two years and $1 billion per year ongoing thereafter for a new and innovative public transit fund. To clarify, this is new, additional money that could be added to existing funds for transit infrastructure projects under the robust $5.35 billion per year new building Canada plan. This is the largest and longest infrastructure investment plan in Canadian history.

In the time available, I have only been able to highlight a small percentage of the benefits that would be derived by the hard-working people of Mississauga from economic action plan 2015. However, what is abundantly clear is that, while we are focused on creating jobs and keeping taxes low, the Liberals would adopt their same old high-tax, high-debt agenda that would threaten jobs and set working families back.

People do not have to take my word for it. There were two budgets introduced in Canada last week, the federal budget of Canada and the budget of the Liberal Government of Ontario. They can compare and contrast those two budgets. They will see a balanced budget at the federal level and a budget at the provincial level that is seriously in deficit, mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Only our Conservative government can be trusted to manage Canada's economy and keep taxes low for the people of Mississauga and all Canadians across the country. I strongly encourage all hon. members to support budget 2015.

[Business of the House, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, any Member rising to speak during debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another Member.

[Justice, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that while the government at any given moment is involved in some 50,000 litigation files, about 85% of them are not initiated by the government. I would also note for the hon. member that in the majority of these cases the government has been successful.

We remain committed to defending the rights of Canadians and to ensuring their hard-earned tax dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.

[Taxation, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Finance tabled a great budget for middle-class Canadians. It is a balanced budget, just as we promised, and it is cutting taxes for Canadians.

For example, the new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will benefit 100% of families with kids, the vast majority of benefits going to low and middle-income families.

The Liberals and the NDP would take this away. They want high taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class businesses, high taxes on middle-class seniors, and high taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan for the middle class. Our government's plan is reducing taxes on the middle class.

[Taxation, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, people from my city of Mississauga are happy with our government's low-tax plan for Canadians and their families. We cut the GST, introduced pension income splitting, created the tax-free savings account, and implemented the family tax cut, which will provide 100% of families with children with more money to spend on their priorities.

Meanwhile, the Liberal leader would reverse our tax cuts and implement a job-killing carbon tax. This is what Liberals consistently do. They raise taxes and take money out of the pockets of Canadian families.

We reject the high-tax, high-debt Liberal plan. Only one thing is absolutely certain, which is that our Conservative government is the only one that stands for and with hard-working Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He quite rightly said that this issue of physician-assisted dying is something in which 100% of Canadians are interested.

He and his colleagues have outlined today the proposed special committee that would meet periodically between now and the end of July. I wonder if he could tell us how many witnesses the special committee would be able to hear in its deliberations. Could he give us a sense of who they would be and how they would be chosen, and if he thinks that all of the views that need to be heard could be accommodated?

I wonder if he could also clarify something that his colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor said about having legislation developed by this committee proposed and passed by the end of June. I think that the motion itself calls for the committee to sit until the end of July.