Rick Dykstra

[Points of Order, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear in the Standing Orders that members in the House cannot call out or yell out and accuse each other of lying or being a liar. During the responses to the questions from his party by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the leader of the Bloc called out to the minister and accused him of being a liar on at least four occasions and more like six. I would ask him to respectfully withdraw the remarks that he made here in the House of Commons.

[Global Centre for Pluralism, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, also on behalf of the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Global Centre for Pluralism's 2007-08 annual report, the Global Centre for Pluralism's 2008-09 annual report and the summary of the Global Centre for Pluralism's corporate plan for 2009.

[Immigration, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 94(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2009 annual report on immigration, and I do so on behalf of the minister.

[St. Catharines Community, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the people of St. Catharines demonstrated the true meaning of the word “community”.

A fundraiser was organized to aid Susan Follick, whose son, Bill Howard, was tragically killed on May 13. Bill's death occurred in British Columbia and Susan simply did not have the means to bring her son's body home or to give him a dignified burial.

The community came together with donations of items, time and effort to allow Susan the opportunity to cover all of her expenses. In one evening, her $12,000 debt was wiped out.

This event exemplified the generous spirit of St. Catharines and demonstrated the success a community can have in working together. The event allowed Susan and her family to grieve without financial burden.

This is a testament to the generosity of people in communities all across our country. It is because compassion, hard work and community spirit are the norm in St. Catharines and never the exception that I am so proud to work for the people of St. Catharines here in Ottawa.

[Business of Supply, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on what I think was a well-intentioned and well-placed speech for the motion that is before us today.

I know, from a personal perspective, that the minister has spent a lot of time over the past summer and spring travelling the country talking about the importance of citizenship. He mentioned in his speech the important weight that language plays within this country in terms of French and English.

I wonder if he could briefly expand upon the comments that he made in the thoughtful and provoking way that he actually drew to our attention that we need to pay more attention to both of our languages when we are becoming citizens of this country.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 23rd, 2009]

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.