Dave MacKenzie

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Oxford. I have a great deal of difficulty in ultimately supporting Bill C-66. Once again, too many Canadians have been left behind by the Liberal government.

I would like to tell the House a little bit about my riding of Oxford. It is riding that is somewhat rural and somewhat urban. It has some industrial components and certainly agriculture. Agriculture represents about 30% of the income in my riding.

The bill does not take into account the costs to farmers of tilling their lands and getting their product to market, and all of the things associated with farming in which petroleum products are involved. It does not help the small business people who are currently facing 35% and 40% surcharges on their delivery, people who have to get their products from somewhere to complete it, to finish it, and to send it on somewhere else.

It does not take into account the cost of driving to work in those industries. It does not take into consideration the cost to many people in their homes. Many people are left out in this particular bill. It does cover up to three million people or a few more, but that means that about 90% of Canadians are left in the cold, so to speak, with the bill.

We have been led to believe by our colleagues opposite that it is out of their good graces that this money is to be handed to Canadians. It is like money that fell from heaven. This money belongs to Canadians. It is money that came from taxes.

An interesting sidelight to this whole thing is that when the war broke out in Iraq, there were people who talked about how some Americans would make a fortune from the oil industry because the prices would go up. This particular government made a fortune, not by invading another country but by a natural disaster.

Every time the price of petroleum products goes up a cent at the retail level, it generates upward of $32 million a year for the government. To hand some of this money back is not good graces, it is simply extra money that was taken and needs to be handed back.

There are three parts to the bill. Part of it is in the form of rebates to some Canadians. Some of it is for energy retrofit and some is for public transit.

My riding has three large urban centres, only one of which has public transit. The Minister of the Environment suggested that Canadians needed to change their ways. He was talking about bicycling and public transit. If we live in one of those communities that does not have public transit, this will not help. It is also pretty hard for those people in small industries to deliver their products on bicycles or for farmers to plow fields with a bicycle.

The bill does help some people in the urban areas that have public transit, but by and large, that represents one-third of my riding. Two-thirds of my riding gets absolutely nothing from the increase in public transit.

I am concerned about those people who are missed in the rebate. People who receive old age supplements will receive the money only if they have applied for them. There are literally thousands of Canadians out there who would be entitled to the GIS and who, for whatever reason, have not applied for it. Either they do not know it exists or they are not able to fill out the forms. Whatever the reason may be, they will not receive anything from this.

There are childless couples who may very well be working poor. They will not receive anything. They get up every day and go to work. They may ride their bicycles, but more than likely in my riding, they have to drive because it is a fair distance from where they live to where they work. Those people will not be entitled to it.

We talked about the people who are entitled to it. If we are looking at a rebate, my friends have talked in the past about how those who were not entitled to a GST rebate, got the money. Some were in jail, some were dead and some were out of the country. Certainly, I know of a number of students who were living out of the country who received a rebate. They thanked Canadians very much for sending the rebate, but they did live out of the country. Most Canadians would not have thought they were entitled to it, but they did get it.

We have the same scenario here, with all due respect. There are people who live in accommodation where their rent includes their heat, so they have not noticed any change in the energy costs unless they drive vehicles, and a lot of them do not. However, they will be entitled to it, where childless couples who are perhaps working poor get absolutely nothing. Somehow that does not seem right. I do not think that seems right to the average Canadian. It certainly does not seem right to the people on this side.

As we approach an election, we have come to the conclusion that this has more to do with postering for an election than it does to helping the average Canadian. Certainly the average Canadian in my riding will see little or no benefit from this bill. It will help 10% of the people in the country, there is no question about that. However, the average Canadian, whoever that average Canadian is, will see little or no advantage from this particular bill.

I think it was a valid question from my friend from Yorkton--Melville about the cost of administering it. The other side said there will be no cost. It will be done on income tax assessments when income tax returns are filed. There is always a cost associated with those issues. Absolutely, there is a cost.

The other point is that we need something more current to help those people who are in hardship situations. People will not be filing their income tax returns until well after the heating season. If this is an event that is supposed to be beneficial to people with the high cost of energy, the money will be gone. They have to wait to get their money back.

One of the problems this particular bill does not address is the tax on tax on fuel. It is interesting that in the United States 27% of the price of fuel is tax. In Canada it is 42%. That is a huge sum of money.

When we talk about this money going back, there is no question the money is over tax. Canadians are going to get their money back, but it gets funnelled through the system and the money just does not get there. This money will not flow overnight. People will have to spend a great deal of money to have energy retrofits done to their homes. I heard the member opposite talk about how he had his home done this year and it will save him 30%. With all due respect, he has the resources to do that.

If we are talking about the people at the bottom end of the income scale, they do not have that money to put out. I know that people in my riding who would energy retrofit their homes do not have that money. This money should be available to them. We should have some sort of a program if we are going to start cutting the consumption of energy in our country.

To simply say that people should ride bicycles and take public transit is not really effective in a riding like mine. I am sure that is true of many members in the House who have similar ridings to mine, in that we just simply cannot cut down on our transportation needs and use public transit. It does not exist.

We see that outside influences change the cost of our petroleum products. I think all members are well aware of what happened when Katrina struck. I think Canadians also have every right to question how all of that happened so quickly, how we started to see that go through our system. As the storm went through, the price surge here was tremendously high.

Who benefited from it? The government did. As I said, every time the price of fuel goes up 1¢ a litre, the government takes in about $32 million a year. If we were to look back over the last few months, we would see that the price of fuel has gone up a great deal. That $32 million is probably multiplied 15, 20 or 25 times over. This little bit of money going back to Canadians is really just a down payment to Canadians on what they have overpaid in taxes.

I will at the end of the day begrudgingly support the bill because there is some value going back to low income Canadians and certainly they are entitled to it. However, we could have done a lot better with the bill than what we have here today.

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of the speakers today with respect to this bill. I have a little bit of background in law enforcement.

The issue is about the addition to what Mr. Cadman originally proposed. Has the member opposite given consideration as to whether this particular bill is not also useful in other criminal activity besides the theft of a motor vehicle?

I ask that question with the understanding that certain models of the same year of vehicle are worth considerably more money if they are purported to be a model different from a base model. We could be talking in terms of $50,000 to $100,000 for the vehicle.

By adding what we have here “to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”, is only applicable if one is trying to steal the vehicle and put it off as another vehicle of similar value. I am wondering if the hon. member would give me his opinion. What it does is it allows the individual to make that change. If we take it out, the individual has no lawful excuse to change the number other than to enhance the value.

That is not a victimless crime. Certainly there is organized crime and there is crime that is organized. There are people out there altering VINs for the purpose of enhancing the value of the vehicle.

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the Bloc and found his speech interesting. However, could he tell the House what his views are with respect to the impaired driving section of the Criminal Code, which imposes minimum sentences and increases the penalty in subsequent offences? Does he think that is not a deterrent? What we are looking at in the Criminal Code is a deterrent for serious offences. Why does he think there should be a difference in this, which is the most serious of the driving offences, aside from the impaired driving section?

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's comments. The member for Fundy Royal stated the issue very well.

I would appreciate hearing the member's comments on the Criminal Code section dealing with impaired driving, which does impose mandatory suspensions and, at certain points, mandatory prison terms or jail sentences.

I would also appreciate hearing his thoughts with respect to this bill in that in the impaired driving section there are increases in the sentences with subsequent offences. Obviously there is a sense of deterrence because of that. Then we have this bill, where, from the government's perspective, we do not wish to impose additional sentences.

Would the member give us his thoughts on the impaired driving section as opposed to this bill?

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65 is purported to be a legacy of Mr. Cadman's, a man whom I did not know, but obviously members on both sides of the House speak very well of him. My understanding is that his intent was to put some teeth into a serious matter, something of which I have some knowledge.

Most, if not all, provincial legislatures have street racing as a provincial offence. Street racing frequently would be looked at as a minor offence. In order to include an offence in the Criminal Code, it must be a very serious event. I can say that these events are serious when they reach this point. Police officers take no pleasure in notifying the family of a victim who may have been a participant in street racing, and even less so when notifying the families of innocent victims.

The real intent of the legislation should be as a deterrent. There are no particular deterrents in the bill, not what we should have and not what Mr. Cadman proposed. There is nothing in the bill that would strike fear in the hearts of those who would take part in the kinds of activities that endanger other people.

There is no question that Mr. Cadman's intent was to raise minimum mandatory prohibitions. Repeat offences would increase the minimum mandatory sentences.

We frequently hear from the other side that it has fixed the laws, that the government has increased maximum potential sentences. There is a total difference between being tough on crime and being tough on criminals. Increasing the maximums does very little if there is nothing at the minimum level.

The bill does not provide us with the kind of deterrence that is required in these circumstances. Deterrents are so important whether they be for street racing, for break and enters, or for drug offences. We do not need to put any water in our wine in these circumstances.

This offence puts innocent civilians at risk. It puts police officers at risk. We are talking of vehicles that are travelling at very high speeds and very likely out of control, although the driver may think he has control of the vehicle. There are no safety factors as there would be at a proper race course. There is no one around to render aid when things go wrong.

The bill adds nothing to Mr. Cadman's original intent. As a matter of fact, it detracts from the intent of his bill. It is a neutered version of what Mr. Cadman brought forward in 2002. Mr. Cadman's bill proposed:

(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life:

(c) for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years; and

(d) for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

Those are the kinds of things that deter that type of action. The judiciary will do its job. Police officers across the country are quite willing to do their job. They want to do their job. This would put the tools in the hands of the judiciary to provide some direction as to what society, through its elected representatives, really expects to occur for the most serious of offences.

We are not talking about the minor offences. As a police officer I know there are many cases of street racing that occur at traffic lights, where two people for whatever reason will race away from the light. We are talking about the serious offences. They are planned and premeditated. Frequently the vehicles are out of control. The cars and motorcycles reach excessively high speeds. One hundred kilometres an hour would be a very minimum speed. These are high speed events that have the potential for total disaster, which does occur and has occurred on our streets across the country.

This bill may be a good start, but we need to go back to what Mr. Cadman had originally intended. The bill needs to have some teeth and a strong deterrent effect. These events will occur if there are no deterrents.

In the last few months on one of the television channels there has been a show about racing called PINKS . People lose their ownerships to their cars if they lose the race. The race takes place in a controlled environment on a racetrack where safety officials are present.

We are talking here about street racing where there is no control, where vehicles are on roadways and pedestrians are present. There are any number of situations that lend themselves to total disaster.

As I have indicated, there are provincial laws with respect to racing. These are very serious situations. Why we would think it is necessary to water down what Mr. Cadman proposed defies logic. This bill needs to be passed with amendments that fit what Mr. Cadman had in mind. It certainly would be appropriate.

It is very difficult for me to understand why we would want to back down from what he initially had and why the House would not support what Mr. Cadman brought forward. If we are really going to honour Mr. Cadman and call this part of his legacy, then we need to put it in place just as he had brought it forward.

There are other related offences which by their nature tell us that this is serious. The other Criminal Code offences involved are criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. These are serious offences. There is no need for us to water it down.

If we do not truly honour what Mr. Cadman brought forward, we are not doing Canadians any service and we are certainly not honouring Mr. Cadman's memory.

[Petitions, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and is signed by people from all over Canada.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to refuse to sanction the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide.

[Petitions, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Oxford who recognize that Bill C-38 is passed, but they ask Parliament to enact legislation defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

[Petitions, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three petitions on behalf of members of my constituency from the county of Oxford. The first petition is from the proud and hard-working members of Canadian Auto Workers Local 88 in Ingersoll.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to reform employment insurance.

[Veterans Affairs, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the information we already have on agent orange, including the Department of National Defence's own documents, the government's response to the situation has been three fact-finding task forces with no deadline and now no coordinator.

People are sick. People are dying. They do not have time to wait. Will the Minister of National Defence tell this House who will replace Mr. Vaughn Blaney?

[National Defence, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the Liberals forced the army to retire its self-propelled armour-protected artillery guns. Now in 2005 the minister is trying to sole source similar but unarmoured guns for our troops in Afghanistan. This is just another example of poor planning. The Liberals failed to properly arm our troops prior to committing them to a combat mission.

Why is the government acquiring guns that have no armour protection? Why is it avoiding fair and open competition?