Bob Dechert

[The Budget, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members, let me applaud the Minister of Finance for tabling his fifth consecutive budget in a minority Parliament.

One of the engines of Canada's economy, especially in my riding, is manufacturing. From automotive to aerospace, millions of Canadians' jobs depend directly and indirectly on it. Our Conservative government has taken key steps to help manufacturers grow and stay competitive. In budget 2010 we build on that track record by making Canada a tariff free zone for manufacturing inputs.

Could the Minister of Finance please inform the House how job creating businesses in my riding of Mississauga—Erindale and, indeed, throughout Canada will benefit from this great announcement?

[Foreign Credentials, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is recognized as one of the best countries in the world in which to live. That is why it is the country of choice for people from all over the world. Internationally trained workers are an integral part of our country and our economy, but for years they have not been able to work in their fields of expertise because they have had trouble having their foreign credentials recognized.

Can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism please inform this House what our Conservative government is doing to rectify the problem?

[India, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, before the Liberal leader decided to return to Canada to be crowned, the Liberal government pursued an ideological policy of isolation toward India, slapping it with sanctions and marginalizing Canada's influence with India well into this decade.

Our government has been working to repair this long-term damage to our relationship. That is why the Prime Minister is in India this week, rebuilding relationships and deepening our economic ties with an emerging economic power.

I am happy to point out that under our government, Canada-India relations are at an all-time high. Canada's exports to India have more than doubled since our government was elected, and exports are still on the rise. We recently expanded our trade network in India to eight offices, making it one of Canada's largest networks worldwide.

When it comes to free and open trade with important allies like India, it is this government that is getting the job done.

[Infrastructure, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report on the unprecedented amount of infrastructure funding that has been delivered to the city of Mississauga.

Mississauga and the region of Peel have received federal, provincial and municipal funding for 158 infrastructure projects under our infrastructure stimulus fund. Under the recreation infrastructure program, the city will upgrade six local swimming pools located throughout Mississauga.

Through the knowledge infrastructure program, the University of Toronto Mississauga campus received $70 million in joint funding for its new instructional centre which is well under construction. Soon, Sheridan College will break ground on its new Mississauga campus with over $31 million in funding.

Recently, city councillor and former Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish said:

The recent infusion of infrastructure stimulus dollars from several different programs is the largest pot of money ever bestowed on the City of Mississauga and the Region of Peel by our two senior levels of government.

I am pleased to see all levels of government working together to provide important job creating stimulus to the city of Mississauga.

[Infrastructure, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since this parliamentary session began, the Liberal leader has been trying to force an unnecessary and opportunistic election at every turn. He and his party throw mud, make baseless accusations and present false information in their attempt to force an unwanted election.

They even voted against important recession fighting measures, such as the home renovation tax credit.

We are working hard with governments across Canada to make valuable infrastructure investments that are helping communities and creating and maintaining jobs during this global recession.

Last week, the deputy premier of Ontario, George Smitherman, confirmed that the infrastructure spending was fair. This week former Liberal MP, Carolyn Parrish, said:

...the recent infusion of infrastructure stimulus dollars...is the largest pot of money ever to be bestowed on the City of Mississauga....

We are getting the job done. The Liberal leader should listen to Canadians, support these important projects and stop making baseless accusations.

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

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,

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

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.

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

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.

[Truth in Sentencing, October 23rd, 2009]

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.

[Motion in Amendment, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to review the Bloc Québécois' proposed amendment to Bill C-268 put forth by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin yesterday which would delete clause 2 of the bill.

I welcome this opportunity to share my views with hon. members and trust that they will all see as clearly as I do why we must vote against this proposed amendment.

I am both distressed and puzzled by this proposal. I believe that anyone who reads the bill would readily agree that clause 2 is the heart of Bill C-268. It is the very clause that achieves this laudable objective. Without clause 2, there would be no stricter penalties for those who would target children to subject them to some of the worse forms of exploitation.

In short, if we were to support this proposed amendment there would be no mandatory minimum penalties for the offence of trafficking in children, which is the express purpose of the bill.

We have heard about this terrible crime and its effect on victims, how victims who are forced to provide labour or services out of fear for their own safety or the safety of someone known to them. We have heard that trafficking in persons disproportionately affects children. We know that UNICEF's estimates indicate that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year.

In the face of these horrible facts, why would we not want to strengthen our criminal laws to ensure that those who would abuse children in this way are brought to justice?

As the House knows, my riding in Mississauga in the region of Peel is very close to the Toronto airport. The Toronto airport, being located in the Peel region, experiences every year many children who arrive at the Toronto airport unescorted by adults. The Canadian Border Security Agency often intercepts these children and they are turned over to the Peel children's aid.

I have spoken to Peel children's aid officials and they tell me that many of the children who are sent into their custody may in fact be involved in trafficking. We must do something about this. This is happening on our doorstep, in my home region of Peel.

As we know, clause 2 of Bill C-268 seeks to add a new offence of trafficking in children which would mirror the main trafficking in persons offence in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code. This new offence would carry mandatory minimum penalties of six years for the aggravated offence where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and five years in all other cases where the maximum penalty is fourteen years imprisonment.

The justice committee has already amended clause 2 of the bill to include the six year mandatory minimum penalty for the aggravated offence. The justice committee amendment to clause 2 would ensure that Bill C-268 fulfills its objective of imposing mandatory minimum penalties on anyone who trafficks in children, whether they are convicted of the aggravated offence or the lesser offence. Therefore, to delete the bill completely defeats the objective of the bill.

The committee has considered the five convictions that have been secured under the main trafficking offence, section 279.01, since its enactment in November 2005. Some of these cases involve child victims but sentences range from a mere two to seven years. We need to ensure that traffickers who target children, society's most vulnerable, are held to account and that they pay for their unspeakable crimes. The current law does not adequately do so.

Clause 2 of Bill C-268 would ensure that these traffickers remain behind bars for a longer period of time. This matters. It matters to the victims. They would be assured that their traffickers would no longer be able to abuse them or other children. It matters to all Canadians. They would be assured that other children would not be targeted and that other traffickers would think twice about harming children in Canada.

It makes no sense to support the Bloc Québécois proposed amendment, and not just for the compelling reasons that I have just given, but also because deleting clause 2 would render the remaining clauses in the bill entirely meaningless and even incoherent.

Clauses 1 and 3 to 8 of Bill C-268 propose consequential amendments which refer to the new offence of child trafficking that would be created by clause 2 of the bill. They would ensure that along with the main trafficking in persons offence, section 279.01, the proposed new offence of child trafficking is referenced in the provisions that deal with the interception of communications, exclusion of the public from court, publication bans, DNA sex offender registry and dangerous offenders.

If we were to support this proposed amendment to delete clause 2, we would effectively be voting down the bill in its entirety. It defies all logic to support consequential amendments without supporting the main amendment itself.

The Criminal Code's provisions addressing interception of communications, exclusion of the public from court, publication bans, DNA evidence, sex offender registry and dangerous offenders cannot refer to an offence that does not exist. That would be the incoherent result of supporting the Bloc's proposed amendment. Effectively, what the Bloc is asking us to do is vote down the bill, despite the fact that the bill has already received overwhelming support in the House. We cannot allow this to happen.

As we have heard so many times before from parliamentarians, stakeholders and Canadians themselves, trafficking in persons is a serious issue. We must have a strong criminal justice response. I am very pleased that we do have comprehensive criminal laws attacking trafficking in persons. Three Criminal Code offences were enacted in 2005, as was previously mentioned. The main offence, section 279.01, criminalizes anyone who would traffic in persons and imposes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the aggravated offence where it involves kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death to the victim, and 14 years in all other cases.

Section 279.02 criminalizes anyone who would materially benefit from the trafficking of persons and imposes a maximum penalty of 10 years.

Section 279.03 criminalizes anyone who would destroy or withhold identity documents to facilitate the trafficking of persons and imposes a maximum penalty of five years.

In addition to those important offences, section 118 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act also criminalizes cases of trafficking in persons across Canada's borders, and many Criminal Code offences continue to apply to trafficking in persons cases, such as forcible confinement, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault and prostitution provisions.

It is, without a doubt, that law enforcement officers now have a wide variety of tools at their disposal that they can use to fight trafficking of persons in Canada. However, how do we ensure that traffickers get sentences that properly reflect the severity of their crime? I have already pointed to several cases involving convictions under the main trafficking in persons offence, section 279.01, that show that sentences imposed have not always reflected the serious nature of the crime committed.

To achieve this pressing objective, we must vote against the Bloc's proposed amendment to delete clause 2. We must support BillC-268 as amended by the justice committee. We must ensure that those who traffic children feel the full force of the law. We must ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are imposed on those who traffic in children.

For all those reasons, I ask all hon. members to join me in voting down the amendment put forth by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and, most important, I ask all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-268 as amended by the justice committee.