White Collar Crime

October 23, 2009

Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): 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 sadly I was mistaken.

The member talked about Mr. Lacroix who received a 13-year sentence to which the member said that was appropriate. He then went on to say he would only serve one-sixth of his sentence and he will be out in two years and two months and that is not appropriate.

I need to impress on the member from the Bloc 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 they are going to serve that time and it would be appropriate for the crime that they committed. It is going to do away with the escape clause where they would only serve one-sixth of their sentence in the example that the member just made. The Bloc member seems to be confused about what this is all about. We want to get these criminals to do their time.


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 this from 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 put mandatory sentences on crimes such as these, yet they stand today and unanimously appear to support mandatory sentences for white collar crimes.
   
While we thank them for their support in this bill, there is a strange contrast between why they would support mandatory sentences for white collar crimes but resist and oppose so strongly mandatory sentences for people in our society who molest children, who commit sexual assaults against women, who murder people, who rape people, who injure people severely by 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. They have opposed it at every single turn.