Randy Hoback

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, what I have often wondered about this is why now. With all the things that are going on in Canada, why bring this legislation forward now?

I look at things, and I go back to Saskatchewan, and what is important to us is jobs, of course, and the economy. I look across eastern Canada and at the manufacturing sector and how there is a lack of performance in jobs and exports in that sector, and how it is not competitive here in Ontario because of provincial rules.

Can the member explain to me why the Liberal Party felt it was necessary, to take as its first action here in the House of Commons, in its first 100 days, to repeal this legislation? Can he give us some insight on what he thinks is the reason behind that?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the comments from my colleague from Brandon—Souris, and I acknowledge the great work he is doing on this file.

I was in my riding this weekend and I was talking to my neighbour. He was talking about what the union did to intimidate him during one of the provincial elections in Saskatchewan. The union bosses came in and intimidated him. They said basically he needed to vote for a certain party and that his obligation as a union member was to vote for that party.

We look at the intimidation that was going on in a provincial election; now let us put it into ballot vote. Let us put it into the situation where they are going to certify or decertify a union. Can members imagine the intimidation that would be in that room in an open ballot? Can members imagine the intimidation that they would put on their members if the election were an open ballot?

I ask this of my colleague. In the scenario of a closed or secret ballot, what is the issue? That is how most democracies operate today. Why can the unions not operate in that same fashion?

[Prince Albert, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get up and thank the constituents of the riding of Prince Albert for re-electing me for a third time. It is a great honour to serve the people of Prince Albert. After all, it is the riding of the great John Diefenbaker, who served from 1953 to 1979. His are big shoes to fill.

I would like to thank the people of my entire campaign team for their commitment to my re-election. I could not have done it without their support and advice. I would also like to thank my many friends and family who stood by me and gave it that extra mile to push across the finish line.

Prince Albert is a beautiful riding. It has abundance in agriculture, forestry, lakes and rivers. It truly is God's country. I am blessed to represent the people there.

[Foreign Affairs, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Canada and Russia had common interests.

Our government was concerned with the freedom and territorial sovereignty of the Ukrainian people. The Liberals are interested in supporting a regime that is currently illegally occupying our Ukrainian ally.

Will the Liberal minister continue to enforce and explore additional sanctions on those responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbass.

[National Defence, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government was a world leader in providing economic, diplomatic, and military support to our Ukrainian allies. Ukraine's new ambassador to Canada has requested further defensive military equipment to assist in the conflict with Russian forces. President Putin illegally annexed Crimea and continues to place troops in eastern Ukraine.

Will the Minister of National Defence support our allies and provide the Ukrainians with additional military equipment?

[Veterans Affairs, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday marked the 71st anniversary of D-Day. It was on that day 71 years ago that Canada and allied forces stormed the beaches under the code names Omaha, Utah, Sword, Gold, and Juno to begin their successful campaign to liberate Europe from tyranny and oppression.

It is our duty to remember those who fought and sacrificed their lives in the name of freedom, peace, and democracy. Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update this House on what Canada is doing for our veterans?

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I did talk to different organizations like MADD. They would have liked to have seen it go even further. They would like to see a mandatory minimum sentencing of a greater degree. They would like to see even more punishment for those people who drink and drive.

As legislators, we have to balance the will of different parties in order to get legislation through the House. We had co-operation in committee, and we have ended up with legislation which is better than what we had but maybe does not quite meet what they expected or would like to see.

The reality is that if we can do anything to take these people off the road, anything to save the life of a youth or someone else hit by a drunk driver, if this bill saves one life, which is what it will do, we have done a better job and have put forward a good piece of legislation.

Should we stop here? No. Like the member from the Liberal Party said, there are other things we need to start looking at, such as prescription drugs, marijuana, and cocaine. Things like that need to be addressed. We need to find tools to address people who take those types of substances and drive.

The reality is that if people are intoxicated by any means, they should not be behind the wheel. In the next sessions, we, as parliamentarians, are going to have to find a way to deal with these other types of prohibited drugs.

As far as the people in my riding, just as the member has said, there are so many people who have had personal experiences when it comes to drinking and driving, whether it was losing loved ones or neighbours or friends, or are in the situation like Ben's Auto Glass. Not only did Ben's family lose a father, he was a business owner and his employees lost their boss. There was turmoil around that whole scenario. It was heart wrenching, and for what? It was so sad.

He had just bought a brand new boat. He was heading up to the lake to try it out for the first time. His family had gone up ahead of him to get a camping site. They never met again. It was a sad situation.

There are so many stories around Canada like that, and we need to do something to prevent this from happening again.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I thank the Liberals and the New Democrats for their co-operation in committee as we looked at improving and strengthening this bill.

I think every member in this House knows somebody who has been impacted, either through family members, through loved ones or through neighbours or friends, by drunk drivers. The reality is that we need to do what we can to educate our youth, when they are going through the system of learning how to drive, on the implications of drinking and driving. One of the things we would do here by having a tougher penalty is we would drive home to youth and to the people who are learning how to drive the importance of not drinking and driving, and that there are serious consequences if drivers should proceed to act that way.

The reality is, as I said, that 50% of motor vehicle fatalities are of people with over a blood alcohol content of 0.08%. If we look at the fact that there are drivers with blood alcohol content of 0.16%, these people are causing half the fatalities on the road. They need to be taken off the road.

There is no question whether they are drunk. When drivers are at blood alcohol content of 0.16% or higher, they are two sheets to the wind. They are not in a situation where they should be driving any vehicle, whether it is a car, a boat, a motorcycle or any type of vehicle that is operating. The reality is they should never be in that scenario. In this case, we would address those people and ensure that they are not going to get behind the wheel and hurt somebody else, because they tend to be repeat offenders.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2015]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for agreeing to trade his scheduled private members' business time with me, so that I could rise before my scheduled surgery next week. It is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for unanimously passing Bill C-590 at committee stage.

The committee amended Bill C-590 to address its concerns that the bill's very significant penalties, particularly for first offenders, could lead to many cases where the driver refuses to provide a breath sample because the penalty for refusal has only a mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000. The amendment passed by the committee classifies the offence of driving with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.16% as a hybrid offence. On indictment, the penalties would remain as proposed in the bill. On summary convictions, the mandatory minimum fine for the first offence would increase to $2,000, which is double the minimum fine for impaired driving. For a second and subsequent offence, the minimum penalty would be 30 days in prison.

The amendment would ensure in most cases where drivers have a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.16% but there is no injury or death that a $2,000 fine combined with a mandatory prohibition on driving for one year would be a sufficient deterrent. Further, very severe penalties on indictment would be reserved for the most serious cases where a motor vehicle operator's blood alcohol concentration is well above 0.16% or the driver caused significant property damage.

According to Stats Canada, almost half the fatally injured drivers in Canada had a blood alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit. This level of impairment has had a devastating impact on our youth as they make up 31% of the alcohol-related deaths.

A June 2009 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on alcohol use among fatally injured drivers also found that the bulk of the impaired driving problems lie with those drivers having a blood alcohol content over the current Criminal Code limit of 0.08%. Although the drivers with high blood alcohol content represent about 1% of the cars on the road at night and on weekends, they account for nearly 50% or half of all the drivers killed at those times.

My home community of Prince Albert, as most communities in our nation, has been scarred by the toll of this selfish but preventable crime.

In July 2013, Taylor Litwin and Brandi Lepine, who was pregnant at the time of the accident, were both killed when a 21-year-old drunk driver slammed into Taylor's vehicle. Brandi, who initially survived the crash, was able to give birth to her daughter Aurora before she succumbed to her injuries. The driver who took the life of these two ladies is to be sentenced this fall.

In May 2012, Prince Albert lost a strong community leader, Mr. Ben Darchuk. Ben was the owner of an auto glass business that is located next to my old constituency office location. The 22-year-old driver who pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing Ben's death received two years less a day at a provincial correctional centre for his sentence. He also received a three-year driving prohibition and was ordered to pay a $100 surcharge.

Bill C-590 would target these young drivers with high blood alcohol content by increasing specific penalties for their actions. The goal is to prevent these drivers from getting behind the wheel as they cause a greater number of fatalities and are more likely to be repeat offenders.

As time at the end of this Parliament session is quickly running out, I therefore ask that we pass Bill C-590 as quickly as we can to give the Senate enough time to deliberate and pass it before the fast-approaching summer is upon us.

[Pensions, May 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal leader announced a payroll tax hike on middle-class Canadians. Can the Minister of State for Finance tell the House the government's position on the mandatory expansion of the Canadian pension plan?