Blaine Calkins

[The Environment, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on February 14 and 15, I was pleased to attend the G8+5 Legislators Forum in Washington, D.C., where parliamentarians and industry officials representing over 70% of the world's GDP and over 70% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions met.

Unlike previous Liberal governments, Canada's new government has announced its commitment to participate fully in this forum. This government believes in taking global action on climate change and we believe we need to work together with our partners around the world to make this happen.

We think it is important to be part of a global approach on climate change because we need to include all countries in the dialogue, especially major emitters like the United States, China and India. That is why Canada's membership in this organization is so important.

This government recognizes the opportunity before us and is taking real action to bring achievable solutions to climate change. I look forward to working with my colleagues from around the world on this issue that is so important to Canadians.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a very good question. I do apologize. As a matter of fact, the Senate report has been released. I apologize if my speech did not get that completely accurate.

Regardless of the chronology of what report was released when and what the subcommittee did or did not do, the reality is that even if I have 95% of it right, which I think the hon. member would agree, the recommendations have been that we extend the sunset clauses for up to five years.

The government's position is that we would like to extend them for three years. We believe that would give enough time for the committees to finish their work appropriately and to report back to the House. This is very important work. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of more important work before the House than the legislation that looks after the safety and security of our citizens here in Canada.

I thank my colleague for pointing out a small error in my speech. I hope I have satisfied him with my answer. I appreciate the member's pointing that out to make sure that the record is correct. I certainly am looking forward to seeing how the hon. member votes on this motion.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing some good questions and some good debate, but the reality is when the rubber hits the road, there is one party in the House that actually means what it says and does what it says it is going to do with respect to providing security to the citizens of this country. Some pretty hefty words have been bandied about here today, and I do not want to drag the conversation down in any way.

When it comes to arming our border guards, the reality is that there is one party in the House that actually thinks our border officers have the capability to defend our borders. We are providing them with the capability to do their jobs even better.

To answer his question indirectly, I would put it back to the member. With respect to a holistic approach, or an approach that encompasses not just the clauses in the Anti-terrorism Act that are about to expire, but all other aspects of government responsibility for providing security, whether it is through airport security, whether it is gathering intelligence by CSIS, or whatever the case might be, the important thing is that we have mechanisms in place to prevent terrorist acts. For example, law enforcement officers should have the ability to intervene through a court order in the presence of a judge and stop or prevent a terrorist act from occurring. Is that not really important? That is what is at stake.

We are no safer today than we were five years ago when the bill was originally drafted and presented to the House. It was a Liberal government then and it is a Conservative government now. Members from all parties recognized the serious threat of terrorism and its impact on society. It happened in the United States, but we have had acts of terrorism in the past. There is the Air-India inquiry. The allegation is that failing to let these clauses continue will actually jeopardize this inquiry and jeopardize finding out who was accountable and what problems occurred in protecting the security of our citizens. We can only learn information from that inquiry.

The hon. member, if I remember correctly, is trained in the field of law. He knows this legislation has held up. These clauses that are about to sunset have held up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would ask the hon. member to support the extension of the Anti-terrorism Act clauses and do the right thing for all Canadians when the opportunity presents itself.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when this issue was last debated, a number of negative comments were made with regard to the fact that the motion did not address the House of Commons subcommittee's recommendations contained in its October 2006 report. I will take this opportunity to explain, particularly for the benefit of the members of that subcommittee who have worked so hard on this issue, the government's intentions when tabling the motion.

First, it is important to mention that the government fully endorses and has supported at every opportunity the reviews being undertaken by the House and the Senate committees. The subcommittee's report of last October on the sunset provisions, which was adopted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, was an important first step in the review process. However, allow me to clarify exactly what the majority recommended in that report.

The majority made six technical recommendations regarding the drafting of the legislation, but there were three key recommendations: first, that the sunset provisions be extended to December 31, 2011; second, that there be further parliamentary review before any additional extensions beyond the first extension; and third, that the investigative hearing provision be amended to make it available only when a peace officer has reason to believe there is imminent peril that a terrorist offence will be committed.

What must be understood is that given the time constraints established by the Anti-terrorism Act, it has become necessary to proceed with the debate on the joint resolution on the sunset provisions before the parliamentary committees have concluded their reviews of the Anti-terrorism Act. To be sure, it is not the ideal situation, but the government has had to introduce the resolution without having received and without being able to respond to the final reports of the parliamentary committees currently reviewing the act.

Not to advance the motion would allow the provisions to expire by default. This is why we are proposing a three year extension as opposed to the five years as recommended by the House of Commons committee. There is a compromise here. Three years is enough. It will give the government the necessary time to receive and review the final reports of both committees and to design an appropriate response.

Do not get me wrong. I do not fault the House or the Senate committee for the delays that have been encountered with respect to the review of the Anti-terrorism Act. The legislation provides that the review was to begin within three years after the act received royal assent. As royal assent came in December 2001, the review started in December 2004. That was in the 38th Parliament whereby both committees undertook extensive and thorough studies of the act and its operations together with reviewing other related issues.

The Senate special committee held almost 50 meetings over the 2005 spring and fall sessions and heard from a variety of witnesses, including not only a number of ministers and government officials, but also from a wide variety of academics, non-governmental organizations, including many from different ethnocultural groups and civil liberties groups.

For its part, the House committee held almost 30 meetings over generally the same period of time and, as was the case with the Senate committee, heard from a variety of witnesses. The last witnesses heard were the former minister of justice and the former minister of public safety and emergency preparedness. At that point, in November 2005, both committees had retired to write their reports. Then the reviews were interrupted by the fall of the government in November 2005. Dissolution of Parliament meant the halt of the Anti-terrorism Act reviews.

Following the election of January 2006 and the installation of the new government, the reviews were recommenced. However, a lot of time was lost. The Senate committee was not re-established until May 2006 and the House of Commons subcommittee did not get going again until June. As a result of the summer break, the committee's work was almost immediately put on hold again, this time until late September 2006. At that time, the reports of both committees were anticipated to be tabled by December 2006. Both committees, however, recognized the difficulty with this. The House of Commons subcommittee has now moved its final deadline to the end of this month. The Senate committee has pushed its deadline to March 31.

The Anti-terrorism Act envisaged a certain timeline. The legislation would receive royal assent. Three years later, parliamentary reviews would be undertaken. The review in committees would report within a year and the government would then have a full year to respond to the committees before facing the sunsetting of the powers we are discussing today. For reasons beyond the control of the committees, this timeline has been abandoned.

As mentioned, the government is now in the position where it has no input from the Senate committee and only the recent recommendations from the House of Commons subcommittee pertaining to this issue.

I appreciate the fact that the House of Commons subcommittee tabled an interim report in October 2006, understanding full well how tight the timeline was and I appreciate their diligence and hard work. However, the government continues to await the final reports of both committees.

Because of delays in the parliamentary review of the Anti-terrorism Act, the committee had asked their respective Houses for more time to report. The government also needs more time.

In asking members of the House to support the extension of these provisions, the government is simply saying that it does not want these powers to expire while it is considering the House of Commons subcommittee's recommendations and awaiting its final report, hopefully soon, and the Senate's suggestions and final report.

Voting to extend the provisions is not a vote for the status quo. It is a temporary extension that will allow for the proper governmental analysis and the preparation of an appropriate government response and subsequent parliamentary debate. I want to make it abundantly clear that this motion is worded so as to comply with the statutory provision for renewing these provisions found in the legislation.

Some in the chamber have been asking why the motion simply extends the current powers. Why does it not take into account recommendations that have already been made? The answer lies in the wording of section 83.32 of the Criminal Code. That statutory provision only allows for a resolution to extend the application of the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions clauses. It does not allow for a resolution to be passed that changes these provisions in any way.

The only flexibility allowed by section 83.32 of the Criminal Code is that the period of extension may not exceed five years. Thus the resolution may provide for a period of extension which is less than five years. This is the case today, for the period of extension that the government seeks is for three years only, not for the full five year maximum.

Those who argue that the government is somehow disrespecting the subcommittee's intentions by proposing a three year extension must realize our limited options at this late stage. They should also consider that the effect of voting against the extension is to strike down and completely countermand what the committee recommended. The subcommittee recommended that the provisions continue in their effect, but with alterations. Voting against the motion means that the powers will disappear completely.

Some have suggested that these powers were meant to expire all along. This is simply false. There is no best before date on this legislation. If that were true, then there would have been no procedure built into the act that would provide for the possible renewal of these provisions. We all know that the act did provide such a procedure.

It is likely that one would have expected, as indicated earlier, that the act contemplated that the parliamentary review would have been completed, and that the parliamentary debate surrounding a motion to extend the sunsetted provisions would have been fully informed by the parliamentary recommendations and the government's response to them. We have seen that things have not quite turned out as planned.

While the House of Commons subcommittee has issued an interim report, we have not heard from the Senate yet nor had the final report from the House committee, and the government has not had the opportunity to provide its response to a completed parliamentary review of the act. To approve the motion to extend these provisions another three years would allow the original intent of Parliament to be realized. To defeat this motion, however, would be to defeat Parliament's original intent.

What we do know is that these powers have not been abused and that Canadians would be able to benefit from having these provisions in place by having these provisions renewed for another three years. I cannot, however, say that allowing them to sunset will not have serious consequences.

[Fisheries Act, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed to hear that opposition parties are threatening to play political games to undermine the new fisheries bill, even though they have agreed that we need to modernize this 139 year old act or risk jeopardizing 21st century fisheries.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure the House that he remains committed to accountability, transparency and protecting Canadian fisheries and fish habitats?

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at who would be covered by this motion, we are talking about people who would be making a $10 an hour minimum wage and who fall under the auspices of the Canada Labour Code. If we take a look at the facts, that is only about 700,000 people across Canada, of which about 50% are actually covered by collective bargaining agreements. I do not know of anybody in those collective bargaining agreements who are paid less than $10 an hour.

In other industry sectors, such as interprovincial companies, rail companies, transportation and telecommunications, I do not know of anybody in those industries who is making less than $10 an hour. Maybe the member could enlighten me on that.

From the banking perspective, the banking industry would also be covered under the Canada Labour Code and I do not know of anybody in the banking industry who is making less than $10 an hour.

It seems to me that the only people who would really be affected by this are people on first nations reserves or people in the territories. We have economic development going on in a lot of first nations reserves, where these small companies are starting up and they are trying to pay employees. If we are going to suddenly raise the minimum wage limit far beyond what is currently accepted in a lot of provinces, does the member not think that would shut down a lot of these businesses and actually exacerbate the problem of poverty?

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak today to Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The bill proposes to create a criminal offence for having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 50 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood or being over 50 as it is commonly called.

I would like to take this moment to congratulate the hon. member and my colleague here from Kelowna—Lake Country for bringing this legislation forward. I know he has worked closely with Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada on the drafting of this bill.

Combating impaired driving is a non-partisan issue. Repeatedly, all parties in the House have cooperated to amend the Criminal Code to make its provisions more effective in detecting and convicting those who drink and drive.

Indeed, the House currently has before it Bill C-32 in which the government has proposed major amendments that respond to concerns that have been expressed by law enforcement and prosecutors for many years.

I note that the justice critic of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, supported Bill C-32. I expect that other parties will also Bill C-32.

I expect that all parties will consider carefully the presentations that will be made in committee by witnesses and we will work together to craft amendments if it becomes apparent that Bill C-32 could be improved.

If it should be the will of the House that Bill C-376 receive second reading and be referred to committee, I trust that the committee will have the same attitude toward this private member's bill.

If it is clear that this bill or this bill with amendments will be an effective tool in the fight against drinking drivers, then I am sure it will be supported. However, there are many issues that will have to be considered before a decision can be made.

It is important that we make the best use of our limited police, prosecution and court resources in this field of policing and criminal justice as we do in all other areas. We need to determine whether a Criminal Code offence for being over .05, combined with provincial administrative measures, is the best way to deal with low blood alcohol content drivers.

When Bill C-376 was tabled, Mothers Against Drunk Driving issued a press release supporting it and explained its benefits. The bill does not simply amend the code to substitute the over .08 with the over .05. Instead, it introduces new elements.

First, the new offence would be enforceable by a ticket.

Second, the penalties for the .05 offence would be less onerous than those for the .08 offence. A first conviction would be punishable by a $300 fine and a 45 day federal driving prohibition. Subsequent offences would be subject to a $600 fine and a 90 day federal driving prohibition.

Third, offenders who did not have a subsequent impaired driving conviction within two years would be deemed not to have a criminal record for the .05 offence.

As Mothers Against Drunk Driving stated in its release:

In summary, the proposed .05 BAC offence is designed to deter impaired driving without being unduly punitive or creating unacceptable burdens on the police and the courts. Moreover, the option of pleading guilty without having to go to court may discourage accused persons from needlessly challenging the charges.

Those are worthy goals, but I would ask members to also consider certain issues with respect to the proposed offence and the way it would be enforced to determine whether the goals would be achieved.

I believe that having less punitive measures for over .05 than for over .08 is appropriate. In the paper “BAC to the Future,” also on MADD's website, there is a table showing that a male who is 35 years of age is at three times the risk of a fatal crash at blood alcohol contents of .02 to .049, six times at blood alcohol contents of .05 to .079, and 11 times from .08 to .099. The risk rises exponentially with every drink thereafter. A 35-year-old male driver in the .10 to .149 blood alcohol content range is 29 times as likely to be in a fatal accident.

Proponents of criminal sanctions beginning at .05 suggest that the greatest safety gains might come not from deterring the social drinker but by convincing those drivers who have been driving at high blood alcohol contents to take one or two fewer drinks. They are still a danger to themselves and others but, if we follow the curve, they are less of a danger.

Obviously there will always be a degree of arbitrariness in setting a criminal level for blood alcohol concentration. The person who has a blood alcohol concentration of .079 is essentially at the same level of risk as the person who has a blood alcohol content of .081. However, the first has not committed a criminal offence and the second has, although the police would probably not lay a charge where the person is that marginally over.

One benefit of a new .05 offence is that these drivers would face something more serious than a brief suspension imposed at the roadside. Members would need to decide whether making over .05 a criminal offence is appropriate given that they are a greater danger than the sober driver but not as dangerous as the driver who is over .08.

If it is considered appropriate to make over .05 a criminal offence, members will need to consider the merits in the creation of a ticketing regime under the Criminal Code as is proposed in Bill C-376. The idea is innovative and the drafters have developed a detailed proposal. I suspect that when most of us hear about a ticket we think about a speeding ticket filled out at the side of the road. The police officer gives the ticket to the driver and they both go on their way. One is happy and one is not so happy. The police submit the ticket and the driver can either mail in the stipulated fine or contest the ticket. If the driver does nothing, he or she will be found guilty and the province will take measures to collect the fine.

This proposed ticket in Bill C-376 is very different. Criminal Code convictions are based on an approved instrument reading at the police station, not on the reading of a screening device used at the roadside. Failing, the screener gives the officer reasonable grounds to demand that the driver come to the station to be tested on the approved instrument.

To prove the new over .05 offence, the police would need to take the driver to the station. They also would need to fingerprint the driver so that the police information system can keep track of the convictions. Moreover, the driver would not be able to simply mail the fine in. The driver would need to attend at a court within 21 days to pay the fine and have imposed a prohibition from driving.

In these circumstances, I question whether this ticketing scheme will be used very much by the police. When they stop the driver who blows under .08 but over .05 at the roadside, will they take the driver back to the station and wait around while he consults counsel? I suspect the officer will be more likely to impose the short provincial roadside suspension in order to leave him or herself free to deal with much more dangerous drivers with high blood alcohol contents.

In summary, Bill C-376 addresses a serious concern and it should be given due consideration by this House. However, we must hear from the police, prosecutors, provincial licensing officials and all stakeholders. We must ensure that any change we make will work on the ground.

[Hobbema Community Cadet Corps, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the first anniversary of the Hobbema Community Cadet Corps program in the constituency of Wetaskiwin.

A year ago, when gangs and violence were causing havoc in this first nations community, RCMP constable Richard Huculiak started a community cadet program that has attracted over 800 young people from the Samson, Louis Bull, Erminskin and Montana bands. The program is closely associated with schools and supported by community leaders.

The activities are specifically tailored to the needs and concerns of native reserve youth. There is a strong emphasis on native culture, sports and a healthy lifestyle.

This incentive based program has proven to be an effective crime prevention initiative that draws from the same age group targeted by the gangs. Today, school attendance is up and there are fewer bullying issues, fights or other complaints.

The phenomenal growth and success of the Hobbema cadet program is attributable to the commitment of the organizers and the participants. It is an important step in engaging young people in a positive, life-enhancing experience that will help them make the right choices for their future.

I want to congratulate the cadets and thank the elders, chiefs, volunteers, RCMP and everyone else who supports this dynamic program.

[Veterans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa this week are 18 students and their chaperones from my hometown of Lacombe, Alberta. They are here to watch democracy in action.

What better time to visit Parliament Hill than Veterans' Week? As they walk through these historic halls, tour this grand chamber and pause to reflect in the Memorial Chamber, I hope they recognize that none of this would be possible without the sacrifices of Canada's veterans.

Growing up in a peaceful, prosperous Canada, it is easy to forget that freedom is not free. The freedoms that we take for granted were won with courage, determination and valour. They were won by young Canadians, many not much older than the students here today, who gave their lives so that we could enjoy a quality of life that is envied throughout the world.

This week we celebrate the accomplishments of our veterans, praise their courage and honour their lives. As the torch of remembrance is passed on to the youth of today, I want to encourage these leaders of tomorrow to learn from the lessons of the past and preserve the legacy of peace and freedom. Canada's future depends on it.

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest. There are payday lenders In several communities in my constituency. They provide a greater access when banking hours are sometimes restrictive and when people can not otherwise get their cheques cashed. I can just imagine the horror of having a paycheque in one's hand, having a young family to feed, but not having access to the bank to deposit the cheque or not having a debit card.

However, I am also concerned. When people are in a vulnerable situation like that, they can be taken advantage of, and that is an unfortunate thing. I really appreciate hearing the hon. member say that she and her party fully intend to support these changes. I am glad for that.

Could she elaborate on some of the clauses in Bill C-25, which I just spoke to a few minutes earlier? One area that is of particular concern to me is the ability of payday lenders to rollover, which means that if there is a loan that is not paid back in time, the payday lending organization, because it is unregulated, may charge a second set of fees over and above the additional interest rate. We know the interest rate charged on these is fairly minimal. It is the fees and everything that gets added onto these payday loans that make them quite expensive.

Would she support legislation that would take care of this rollover problem in her province?