Rick Norlock

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, I, too, am a former police officer and I, too, have a son who is currently a police officer.

If I thought for one minute that this registry, the long gun registry, the type of guns that families like mine for generations have enjoyed while they exercised, as far as I am concerned, their right in this country and their privilege to hunt and fish, would save a life, then I would be 110% for it.

My colleagues with whom I worked with previous to my retirement were police officers. I can say that they would have much preferred that $1 billion went toward better equipment and more officers than a registry that ran amok. Quite frankly, as I said, I would be 110% for this if I thought a long gun registry would save a life. It will not.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member first started out with: Is it not a good idea that police officers know if there are firearms at a residence and if a person has a licence to possess a firearm? It is yes to both those questions.

However, the important issue here is how the police officer is trained. A police officer is trained to approach every residence, when he or she receives a call, as if there were a firearm on the premise. It would be foolhardy, quite frankly, for the police officer to make any assumption otherwise.

I think it is very important that individuals be licensed to make sure that they know how to handle firearms and that they are the right kind of person; in other words, there is no criminality or mental condition that might preclude them from owning a firearm.

If the police officer approaching the residence has the name of a person and runs it, as I mentioned, in the CPIC system and it comes back that the individual is licensed to possess a firearm, it is reasonable to assume that there are firearms on the premises. Whether there is one or fifty is—

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to show my support for Bill C-21 concerning the repeal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms. The Government of Canada strongly believes that it is vital to protect the safety and security of Canadians. In fact, it is our top priority.

I am often saddened and even shocked by what is happening in some of our communities. Blatant acts of violence committed by gun-toting criminals all too often make the headlines. There are too many perpetrators and there are too many victims. We hear of gang members gunning down their rivals on sidewalks or in parking lots, or even in local parks where children play. We see the reports of them waving handguns openly in neighbourhoods, frightening residents into complete silence about what is going on in their area.

These acts are committed by criminals, people who show no regard for our laws. Therefore, the government believes it is time to put in place effective gun control measures that work, while streamlining requirements for law abiding citizens. This will help to ensure the focus stays where it belongs, on those who would harm our families and our communities.

The government introduced Bill C-21 to eliminate the requirement to register non-restricted firearms, generally ordinary rifles and shotguns, by legitimate firearm owners, while maintaining important safeguards to help protect Canadians. It is important to focus on measures that keep guns out of the wrong hands and that the public safety is protected.

Let me first clarify an important issue, the difference between licensing and registration. Licensing focuses on the individual. It is a way of identifying who can own a firearm. Individuals who want licences must meet various criteria that help to ensure they do not pose a risk to public safety.

However, registration focuses on the firearm. It involves providing a complete description of a firearm to firearms program employees, who then add the information to a database. Authorities can then know which licenced owner owns the firearm.

If passed, Bill C-21 would repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms, that is to say, ordinary rifles and shotguns such as those used for hunting. There are two reasons behind this decision.

The first is, as I have previously mentioned, to ease some requirements for law abiding owners of non-restricted firearms who have been demanding that this requirement be eliminated for many years.

The second reason is of even greater importance. The government believes that registration does not prevent gun crime. We believe that we must invest resources where they can be most effective. Under the current firearms program, an individual must hold a licence to possess or obtain a firearm, or to obtain ammunition. This will continue.

Bill C-21 requires that everyone who purchases a non-restricted firearm will have to have his or her licence verified. This can be done through a simple phone call to the firearms centre.

The government is committed to strong, reinforced licensing. Budget 2007 invested $14.2 million over two years to enhance the screening of 20,000 new applicants for restricted licences every year. This is a real investment in public safety and it was an area totally neglected by the previous government which did not provide resources to fulfill this important task effectively.

As it now stands, to obtain a new licence for any class of firearm, including a non-restricted firearm, a person must pass the required Canadian firearms safety course exams. The course was developed in partnership with the provinces and territories, national organizations with an ongoing interest in firearms safety, and many firearm and hunter education course instructors from across Canada.

I have heard completely inaccurate comments from the Liberal benches that we are doing away with gun control. This is completely false and ridiculous. What we are determined to do is to make gun control focused and more effective. Indeed, firearms safety training is something that firearm owners and users support, and this government believes in.

We recognize that firearms safety starts with well trained, law abiding firearms owners. That is why we are maintaining the requirement for safety training as part of the firearms program. In this way we will help protect Canadians from possible tragic accidents. Teaching firearms owners how to store their firearms safely and securely helps prevent children from accessing those firearms and can reduce the chance that firearms could be stolen.

During the election campaign we made a commitment to keep Canadians safe. When it comes to firearms safety, an ounce of prevention is certainly worth a pound of cure.

There is another requirement individuals must meet before they can be issued a firearms licence. They must pass a background check. Background checks are performed by chief firearms officers or their representatives who employ law enforcement systems and resources to ensure the individual in question has not committed a serious criminal offence in the recent past, is not under a court sanctioned prohibition order for firearms, and does not pose a threat to public safety.

As I mentioned earlier, in budget 2007 we committed $14.2 million over two years to enhance the screening of new firearms licence applicants. For the first time, this investment means that each year 20,000 new restricted licence applicants and their two references will be interviewed by a firearms officer before determining whether that applicant should be issued his or her first restricted firearms licence.

These resources were not provided by the previous government. Instead, it funded a long gun registry that we know does not work, but our government is determined to invest in what really benefits public safety.

While a background check is run before every applicant is issued a licence, another type of verification is also carried out by authorities. The Canadian Firearms Information System, which houses all information on firearms licence holders and registered firearms, is connected to the Canadian Police Information Centre known as CPIC.

This means that every time information on a person of interest is uploaded in CPIC, for example, information on someone who has threatened to harm his or her neighbours or colleagues, the Canadian Firearms Information System runs an automatic check to see if that person is a licence holder.

If the person is a licence holder, the chief firearms officer of the province is warned and action can be taken to follow up on the case. If an investigation shows that the person is a threat to public safety and should not be allowed to own firearms, the individual's licence can be revoked. The police are then made aware of the situation and can take the appropriate action.

This process is called the continuous eligibility check. It is done automatically and allows for the proper identification of licence holders who should no longer be in possession of firearms.

Background checks and continuous eligibility checks are critical in helping to ensure that firearms are only held by responsible law abiding citizens. However, ordinary citizens also have a responsibility to the firearms program when it comes to protecting public safety.

The firearms program has a 1-800 public safety line that individuals can call if they believe someone could pose a threat or should not be allowed to have firearms. That number is indicated on the form the applicant must fill out for a licence and that the applicant's spouse signs. This means that the spouse as well as the references have access to this number, so they can call and inform the chief firearms officer of their concerns, even if they feel pressured to sign the form.

Through the steps that come before the licence is issued and the ongoing checks while a person holds a licence, authorities know who is entitled to own a firearm. This is the type of tool the Government of Canada believes is effective in protecting the public.

It is clearly evident that licensing is the most important dimension of a firearms control system. This is because licensing screens the individuals themselves regardless of the types of firearms they intend to acquire.

That said, as I mentioned before, we are maintaining the registration of restricted and prohibited firearms. These firearms include handguns, some semi-automatic long guns used for target shooting, and gun collecting and other automatic weapons.

Individuals can only possess restricted firearms and prohibited handguns for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or collecting. Target shooting has a long history in Canada and covers all types of firearms disciplines right up to competition at the Olympic level.

As hon. members can see, our work on gun control is part of a larger effort to strengthen the overall safety of Canadians. We believe in focusing our efforts on those who would harm our families and our communities, not on law abiding—

[Warkworth Community Service Club, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to the Warkworth Community Service Club, which was founded in 1947 by several businessmen in the village of Warkworth.

As a member and former president of the club, I am proud to recognize in this place the 60th anniversary of this great organization which has contributed so much to the life of the greater Warkworth community.

With well over 100 members, the Warkworth Community Service Club has helped build an arena, built and runs a medical centre and a modern pavilion. It has also helped build the Millennium park and trail. It contributes to the sustainability of the local Scouts and Guides, youth sports associations, as well as the beautification of the Warkworth village. These are but a few of its many accomplishments.

I say hats off to all service clubs, especially the Warkworth Community Service Club, that make Canada the best place in which to live and raise a family. I wish the Warkworth Community Service Club a happy 60th.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Actually there is absolutely no change to the accord or the equalization program. What has changed is that the provinces mentioned now have a choice. They can take a balance of the two, provided they do not exceed. It is interesting that the member should talk about promises. I will not get into the negativity. I want to get into the positive messages to Nova Scotia in this budget.

Under the payments for Nova Scotia in millions of dollars, if we left it at the status quo it would mean a difference of about $95 million in this current budget and in 2008-09, an additional $59 million. Under budget 2007, under the O'Brien plan, equalization goes from $1.344 billion in 2005-06 to $1.465 billion in 2007-08. The total increase right across the board is millions and millions of dollars extra for both of those provinces. There are millions and millions of dollars more for Saskatchewan.

There are interpretations, but we are maintaining our commitment. We are maintaining the very commitment that the Prime Minister made. We are actually adding to it because of Canada's great economy at this time under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

We need to concentrate on the great successes of this country. Canadians go to work every day and pay their taxes. We are reducing the debt burden on those Canadians. We are reducing their mortgage. The one reduction of $13 billion recently paid toward the debt will mean 600 and some millions of dollars that we will be able to return directly to Canadians in tax reductions through our tax back guarantee.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today to this motion and, subsequently, to an issue that has been much misunderstood and often misrepresented.

Canada's government was the first government to recognize the existence of a fiscal imbalance with the provinces. We committed to respecting provincial jurisdiction and to clarifying roles and responsibilities. We also recognized the need for a comprehensive package of measures to restore the fiscal balance.

In budget 2006, and in other key pieces of legislation passed over the last year, we began to take concrete action. Finally, in budget 2007 we restored fiscal balance while living up to our commitments with respect to the equalization program and the Atlantic accord.

I will first speak about a better Canada. The first step to making Canada even better tomorrow is to restore fiscal balance in this country today. It is not in defending turf, not in engaging in parochial politics and not in confronting for the sake of confrontation, but acting in the best interests of Canadians in all parts of this country.

In the last few years there has been a lot of talk about fiscal balance but what is it really about? It is about better roads and renewed public transit, better health care, better equipped universities, cleaner oceans, rivers, lakes and air, and training to help Canadians get the skills they need. It is all about building a better future for our country. That means ensuring predictable long term funding to provincial and territorial governments.

Through budget 2007, we are delivering a historic plan worth over $39 billion in additional funding to restore fiscal balance in Canada. Restoring fiscal balance brings federal support for provinces and territories to an unprecedented level.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which did not and still does not recognize the very existence of the fiscal imbalance, our plan is based on a clear set of principles: accountability through clarity of roles and responsibilities; fiscal responsibility and budgetary transparency; predictable long term fiscal arrangements; a competitive and efficient economic union; and effective collaborative management of the federation. Reflecting these principles, we have kept our commitments on equalization and on the Atlantic accord.

In coming to office, Canada's new government promised to protect the Atlantic accord. Budget 2007 does just that. It provides 100% protection for the Atlantic accord signed in 2005. In fact, we are returning to a principled, formula-based equalization program. As we promised, every province will be better off under the new system.

In moving to the new system, the budget took every action to fully protect the benefits of the Atlantic accord, consistent with our commitments and as requested by the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to be clear that both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can continue to operate under the existing equalization system for the life of the Atlantic accord, exactly the same system today and in the future as before the 2007 budget.

As long as these provinces continue to operate under the existing equalization program, there is absolutely no change to either the accord or the equalization calculation on which it is based. What is more, both provinces have been given the right to opt permanently into a new improved Canada-wide equalization system.

In particular, while the new equalization system automatically applies to the other eight provinces, both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have a choice. They can keep their existing arrangements or opt permanently into the new principled and formula-based equalization system when and if it becomes more advantageous for them over the remaining life of their Atlantic accords.

Canada's new government went even further to facilitate that choice. The budget legislation also offers increased flexibility in making the transition to a new equalization system by giving both provinces a full year before deciding whether to opt permanently into the new system.

Simply put, we said that we would respect the Atlantic accord and we have taken every step to keep our word to the people of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, there is much more to restoring fiscal balance than just equalization. The actions taken in budget 2007 will restore fiscal balance, putting all major transfers back on a long term, fair and predictable basis. We are fulfilling our commitment to restoring equal per capita cash allocations in other major transfers to the provinces.

Starting in 2007-08, we will put the Canada social transfer payments on an equal per capita cash basis to ensure equal federal support to Canadians in all parts of the country for post-secondary education, social assistance and social services.

We are also committing to move the Canada health transfer to an equal per capita cash basis when the current arrangement expires in 2014.

We are keeping our commitment to building Canada's future by improving our infrastructure. In fact, the government's investment in infrastructure is by far the largest component of the fiscal balance package. We are making an unprecedented investment in Canada's infrastructure of $16.3 billion in new funding, for a total of $37 billion over the next seven years.

These investments will be of particular importance to the future economic vitality of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Indeed, restoring fiscal balance brings federal support for Newfoundland and Labrador to more than $1.5 billion in 2007-08 and for Nova Scotia this totals more than $2.4 billion in those same years.

This includes equalization payments amounting to $477 million for Newfoundland and Labrador and over $1.3 billion for Nova Scotia, assuming these provinces choose to retain the previous equalization program on which their Atlantic accords are based.

Canada's new government is committed to abide by the principles it has set out and, in doing so, to demonstrate to Canadians and to their provincial and territorial governments that fiscal balance has not only been restored but that it will be maintained going forward.

It is important to be clear about what this means. It means a commitment by the Government of Canada to reducing the burden on taxpayers, not only in line with the tax back guarantee, but also if and when future government revenues again come to exceed its responsibility, and if future governments believe their responsibilities have come to exceed their revenues, it means they should be accountable to taxpayers for raising the additional revenues they may need to raise.

Maintaining fiscal balance over the long term also means maintaining the government's commitment to long term, predictable funding in all areas that continue to share priorities of governments in all parts of this country.

It also means upholding the equitable treatment of Canadians in all parts of the country by: maintaining a formula based equalization program that applies the same principle based approach in all parts of the country; ensuring equal access to funding support for shared priorities in areas where needs are Canada-wide in nature; and continuing to respond to the sometimes very different needs of Canadians in different parts of the country for programs in areas of clear federal responsibility, including infrastructure projects of national importance.

Having restored fiscal balance and put in place the principle based approach that will help maintain it, it is now time for Canadians in all parts of the country to do their part in moving the country forward by working together to secure and expand our advantages as set out by the Minister of Finance in the advantage Canada economic plan.

These advantages include a fiscal advantage grounded in the goal of eliminating Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation. It includes an infrastructure advantage based on modern, world-class infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services within Canada and through our gateways and border crossings to the world beyond.

It is an entrepreneurial advantage freed up by the elimination of unnecessary regulation and a reduction in the burden of tax compliance and more competitive business. It is a knowledge advantage and a tax advantage.

In conclusion, I know that we can count on the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially on the people of these great provinces to remain focused on building Canada's future prosperity and sustainable environment by expanding the many advantages we already possess as a nation.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will have some comments later, a lengthy comment, but my shorter comment to the member is this. I think it somewhat hypocritical for any member in any party in the House to criticize any party or individual for doing something. Parties and members do it because they have specific reasons. In this case there are reasons. There are reasons why members from the other side crossed the floor. To criticize one party or the other party seems to me somewhat hypocritical.

However, the member says there are some facts at issue. Some of the facts for Newfoundland are this. Does he not agree that restoring a fiscal balance to Newfoundland and Labrador, it will have approximately $1.5 billion more in 2007 and 2008 as a result of this budget? It will have $477 million in equalization, $494 million offshore accord offset, $347 million under the Canada Health transfer, $151 million for the Canada social transfer and $52 million for infrastructure.

How can this be a negative?

[Peacekeeping, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the brave men and women, military and civilian, who have served on behalf of Canada in peacekeeping missions around the world.

Today is International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers and Canadians have much to be proud of. Canada has always been strongly committed to international peace and security, and has a proud history in United Nations peacekeeping from Cyprus to Bosnia and to the Golan Heights.

Today is no different. We currently have 129 Canadians serving with 9 United Nations missions, including 66 personnel with the UN stabilization mission in Haiti and 33 personnel in the UN mission in the Sudan.

Canadians owe a great deal of debt to all Canadians who have so proudly represented our country around the world.

Finally, I call upon all members of this House to take a moment to remember Major Hess-von Kruedener who died on July 25, 2006, while serving at the United Nations observation post in Lebanon.

This government extends its thanks to all those who are currently serving and those who have served in the past.

[Goods and Services Tax, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, is openly musing about whether the Liberals are planning to raise the GST. He said it is an option and that all he could say was that it was consistent with their approach.

Consistent with their approach, Mr. Speaker? Does the member mean the same approach they used when they promised to scrap the GST, then did nothing? Or is like their approach to raising taxes?

The member for Kings—Hants is on the record approving an increase to the GST as what most economic advisers would suggest. More recently he was asked, should he become prime minister, if he would repeal the Conservative GST cut. The member said, absolutely.

The Liberal leader also suggested in June 2006 that he planned to raise the GST to pay for other measures consistent with the Liberal approach.

Canadians know all too well what is consistent with the Liberal approach. The question Canadians are now asking is, how high do the Liberals plan to raise the GST?

[Piotr Rytwinski, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we mourn the passing earlier this week of Piotr Rytwinski. Piotr was well known to Canadians of Polish heritage as a businessman, philanthropist and tireless advocate for the community. He was also well respected by many cultural communities in the Toronto area, especially those of eastern European origin, for his hard work to make their collective voices heard in Ottawa.

Piotr's commitment to Canada led him to volunteer in the 1988 federal election in his home riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Since then, Piotr was an untiring and capable political volunteer, always trying to help the ethnocultural communities develop a stronger relationship with the federal government.

Our government is proud of the strong relationship Piotr helped us develop with the Polish Canadian community, among many others.

I know the House will join me in a united parliamentary voice to express our condolences to Piotr's family, especially his new wife Izabela, as well as the Canadian Polish community. We all mourn and are affected by his loss.