Rick Norlock

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, we intend to get out of it by doing our best not to plunge Canada into an unneeded, unnecessary election. He wants to fight a recovery. We want to fight a recession.

Let me talk a bit more about how the Liberals claimed they got out of the last recession. What did they do? They took billions of dollars that were placed in the employment insurance plan and placed it against the deficit. Then they went to people who were sick, people on social assistance and the provinces and removed $25 billion from that plan. If we accounted for inflation, think what those dollars would amount to today.

We will not do that. We will not reduce transfer payments to the provinces. We will not raise taxes, as the Liberal leader has said he would do.

During my report to Parliament on the economic recovery act, I mentioned a great deal of things that we would do. These will generate the kinds of incomes and jobs that will help the Government of Canada pay off any deficits that we have.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of the economic recovery bill at second reading. This act will implement not only key measures in Canada's economic plan, but other related vital economic proposals to further secure a strong recovery and protect Canadian jobs.

I am disappointed that the Liberal members have already decided to vote against this important legislation, even before reading it, to support their obsession with forcing an unnecessary election, and that they have again decided to place partisan self-interests ahead of what is best for the Canadian economy.

I remind the Liberal members that we are in the midst of a global economic crisis, unprecedented in recent history, one that only a month ago it was feared could potentially match the Great Depression in both scale and scope. While Canada entered the global recession in among the strongest positions in the world, we are not immune, and Canadians have felt the pain of these challenging economic times. However, they can be optimistic moving forward because our collective strengths make a robust recovery more likely.

As RBC economist Patricia Croft noted earlier this year:

This is not a made-in-Canada recession...but because we are a small open economy we've been caught up... But I do think there are reasons to be hopeful...there is a great story to tell about Canada in that we may come out of this recession much stronger than our global counterparts.

It was against this backdrop that our government tabled the earliest budget in Canadian history, Canada's economic action plan. In tandem with our global partners, we took unprecedented action and made a deliberate decision to run short-term deficits and take actions through timely, targeted and temporary spending to protect and stimulate Canada's economy.

As a result of coordinated and unprecedented global cooperation, the potential global great depression was averted. As TD economist Don Drummond noted:

...we're just past the one-year mark of (the collapse of) Lehman Brothers, and remember all the talk that was being thrown around at that time of the Great Depression? ...yet here we are one year later and we've got evidence that virtually every country in the world is going to have reasonable growth in the third quarter, and some of the emerging economies are quite strong.

Or as the G20 leaders' statement at the recent Pittsburgh summit proclaimed:

...we confronted the greatest challenge to the world economy in our generation. Global output was contracting at a pace not seen since the 1930s. Trade was plummeting. Jobs were disappearing rapidly. Our people worried that the world was on the edge of depression.

At that time, our countries agreed to do everything necessary to ensure recovery, to repair our financial systems and to maintain the global flow of capital.

It worked.

Our forceful response helped to stop the dangerous sharp decline in global activity and stabilize financial markets. Industrial output is now rising in nearly all of our economies. International trade is starting to recover. Our financial institutions are raising needed capital, financial markets are showing a willingness to invest and lend and confidence has improved.

While the G20 leaders' statement noted the early signs of a global recovery, it cautioned that victory is not yet assured:

A sense of normalcy should not lead to complacency. The process of recovery and repair remains incomplete...The conditions for a recovery of private demand are not yet fully in place. We cannot rest until the global economy is restored to full health...

That is why our Conservative government remains committed to implementing Canada's economic action plan, focusing on the economy as our number one priority. Canada's economic action plan is getting results. It is stimulating the economy and protecting and creating jobs, but while we have made great progress, there is still much more to do. We must stay on course on the economy, staying on course in implementing the economic action plan. Doing anything else would be reckless and irresponsible.

Not everyone agrees. Take, for example, the Liberal Party headquarters. The Liberal leader is trying to force an unnecessary and opportunistic election. The Liberals want an election that is not in the country's best interests, an election that would jeopardize Canada's economic recovery, an action that would meet the very definition of reckless and irresponsible.

Since we introduced Canada's economic action plan, our Conservative government has been tirelessly working on getting money out the door. By June, 80% of the measures from the plan were being implemented and by September, fully 90% of the 2009-10 stimulus funding was complete.

This is an extraordinary achievement and the results are being felt in our economy. Canadians are paying lower taxes. Every time Canadians buy something or look at their pay stubs, they are seeing reduced taxes. Unlike the opposition, we do not believe that Canadians should pay more taxes. Unlike the Liberal leader, we do not believe that we will have to raise taxes. This is what the Liberal leader said to a stunned Chamber of Commerce audience this past spring. He said that, during the recession, “Federal taxes must go up... We will have to raise taxes”.

Our Conservative government's record is clear. There has been nearly $220 billion in overall tax relief since the Conservatives took office in 2006. An average Canadian family is seeing over $3,000 in tax savings. Businesses are keeping more of their money to reinvest in their workers and their growth and not in bloated bureaucracies in Ottawa. Taxes are at their lowest level in 50 years and, under our Conservative government, they will stay that way.

We are seeing what a low-tax environment has done to position Canada's economy to compete in the future. We are seeing it in the return of businesses that fled higher taxes under the former Liberal government, businesses like one of Canada's most iconic, Tim Hortons. The CFO of Tim Hortons said:

[Moving to Canada] will help Tim Hortons...take advantage of lower Canadian tax rates... [L]ower tax rates help [Tim Hortons] and companies like [them] keep more capital at work and achieve [their] priority in reinvesting in the businesses for further growth.

That is good news for Canada and Canadian businesses. Even a few prominent Liberals have reluctantly admitted that. The president of the New Brunswick Liberal Association, Britt Dysart, said:

[L]ower taxes do matter when it comes to economic development, jobs, population growth, and other good things. In tough economic times, lower taxes matter more than ever as well-established companies such as Tim Hortons decide what locations are best-suited for them and their employees... Like the businesses they work for, skilled workers gravitate to where taxes are lower. Lower taxes work.

The good news does not stop there. Over 4,000 infrastructure and housing projects have already begun. Whether it is funding for wind energy in Prince Edward Island, a nursing residence in remote communities in northern Alberta, much needed social housing in Whitehorse or a new ring road for Edmonton, shovels are in the ground and Canadians are hard at work, building and renewing this country.

Workers are receiving much-needed retraining. At least 44,000 Canadians are receiving training through funds flowing to the provinces and territories. In addition, more than 4,300 young Canadians are obtaining valuable skilled trades training with the help of the $2,000 apprenticeship completion grant. Colleges and universities are being renewed with $2 billion through the knowledge infrastructure program.

Projects are already under way, such as the University of Windsor's centre for engineering innovation. These investments are providing much-needed stimulus today while building Canada's knowledge advantage in the future. Access to financing has improved sharply. Over $131 billion in financing support has helped Canadian businesses and consumers get loans that they need.

Our quick actions in providing financing during the last federal election helped Canada through the worst economic recession. By borrowing at commercial rates, we have protected taxpayers and expect a small rate of return from our investments.

These are all encouraging signs. Our plan is helping Canada recover from its global recession. Indeed, we now expect that the economic action plan will create or maintain 220,000 jobs by the end of 2010. However, this is not all. On top of the 220,000 jobs forecast to be created or maintained, an additional 160,000 plus Canadians are benefiting from work-sharing agreements. This is a forecast largely supported by the independent and impartial OECD, which recently declared:

Canada's fiscal stimulus package should have a relatively large effect in stemming job losses.

While these encouraging signs are welcome, we again must temper our remarks by noting the underlying reality that the recovery is fragile. More work is needed to ensure we do not fall back into economic turmoil. Again, now is not the time to stop providing stimulus to the economy. Now is not the time to jeopardize our recovery with an unnecessary opportunistic election.

I trust it is becoming clear to the members of the House that the economic recovery act is an important extension of Canada's economic action plan, which will implement key measures to help secure a strong recovery and continue to protect Canadian jobs. I have followed closely the comments of my learned colleagues who have spoken to this act already, but I want to highlight a number of the measures of importance to Canadians and to the people I represent in my riding.

Among such measures, the home renovation tax credit, or HRTC. The HRTC provides up to $1,350 in tax relief to encourage Canadians to invest in their most precious asset, their home. This measure has been a resounding success right across the country. Do not take my word for it, listen to the words of a recent Ottawa Citizen editorial that highlights how effective the HRTC has been. It states the HRTC:

—has turned out be effective and smart....Even the quietest streets roar with hammers and saws....This is keeping construction workers employed who, in turn, spend money that keeps others employed. Home centres and hardware stores are humming....helping the construction industry was exactly the right thing to do. Credit where credit is due, when it comes to the reno credit.

The economic recovery act also implements the first time home buyers' tax credit. That will provide tax relief of up to $750 on the purchase of a new home, helping to stimulate the housing sector by making it easier for young Canadians to buy their first home. This $750 saved will go back into the pockets of ordinary Canadians who can then use it to fund their priorities.

The economic recovery act would also enhance benefits under the working income tax benefit, which will effectively double the total tax relief provided by this measure. These enhanced benefits will provide additional income to support low income working Canadians and help ensure that more Canadians are financially better off by getting a job.

Many have praised this important tax incentive for assisting low income Canadians get over the welfare wall. In the words of the OECD, “Recent moves to increase the generosity of Canada's working income tax benefit are welcome, particularly given that the benefit is strongly targeted to the lowest income households”.

These are but a few of the measures protected through the economic recovery act. Along with others, I have not mentioned further measures, including the Liberals' plan on voting against all of this. They vote against enhancing tax benefits for farmers who are facing tough times due to droughts and floods. They vote against amendments to the Canada pension plan, which were unanimously agreed to by all provinces during the triennial review. They vote against provisions to give low income countries a bigger voice in the IMF and strengthen our commitment to global tax relief, and much more. All these measures are necessary measures to help Canada combat this economic recession.

We are achieving results. Canada is on track to lead the world's leading economies out of the recession. The IMF says our economic expansion in 2010 will be stronger than all others in the G7, stronger than the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France and Italy. As the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said recently, “I think we can be inspired by the Canadian situation. There were some people who said “I want to be Canadian”.

While Canada is doing better than our international peers, we must not be complacent. Our economy remains fragile. Instead of thinking about what is best for the economy, unfortunately the Liberal Party of Canada is trying to force an opportunistic election by voting against the economic recovery act, voting against first time home buyers tax credit to help young families, voting against the working income tax benefit to help low income Canadians and, shamefully, voting against the home renovation tax credit and much more.

It is shameful and it is disappointing to Canadians following at home and disheartening to my colleagues on this side of the aisle. While our Conservative government's policies have helped our economy and put Canadians back to work, the Liberal Party is trying to force an election that will jeopardize our economic recovery. We must stay the course.

I urge Parliament to support the economic recovery act and Canada's economic recovery.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Markham—Unionville as he spoke at length and often used the word “dishonest”. I do not like to make statements using strong words like that. I am loathe to do that even though they are quite often used.

He went on to say that Canada's system and government are second class and Mr. Obama's is first class. I do not think it is second class when our government puts on websites the exact number of projects that are going ahead and the ones actually in the ground.

He talks about taxes. What is dishonest is when a person tries to portray this government's record as something else when the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and our own world-class financial institutions say that we have done many of the right things, that we are on the road to recovery, that our taxes will soon be the lowest in the G8 with the reduction of the GST, pension splitting for seniors and the guaranteed income supplement not being affected. When we took office, the GIS was $500 and it has gone to $3,500.

Was Mayor Frank Scarpitti wrong when he said, “I want to applaud this government for making budget 2009 so comprehensive when it comes to job creation” and “I think it's great news for Markham. The federal government has come forward with an ambitious stimulus package”. That was in the Georgina Advocate on January 31 of this year.

Again, the same mayor said, “Congratulations to you and your government for budget 2009. Your government stimulus funding comes at an opportune time for us”. He said that in a letter to the finance minister.

When his own mayor is saying those good things about us, how can he contradict him?

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary and I have listened to some of the questions posed by the opposition. They all want to find little cracks here and there.

We look at world bodies that have passed judgment on this government's ability to navigate through the troubled waters we find ourselves in and are worldwide in scope. As mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank make projections and tell us and the rest of the world that we are on the right track. We have been positioned well for the economic recovery.

During question period, we then listen to questions about the lumber industry and building supplies. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us more about how Canada's economic action plan, and in particular the home renovation tax credit, is helping the people in our lumber industry and home supplies and what Canadians are saying about the type of economic stimulus that is actually happening because of this part of our economic action plan?

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, again, I go back to the statement of the former member who admitted that police officers make mistakes. I believe everyone in this world, other than one man, makes mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. I think the successes in this country with regard to criminal investigation, criminal prosecutions, far outstrip any mistakes.

Again I say, if the fear of something going wrong prevents us from doing the right thing, then why are we even here? Terrorism is a new threat. This country has not had to deal with the kind of terrorism that we see around the world today. We have not had to deal with that in our past.

We have to bring in the tools necessary to fight that threat. In committee we are passing some new laws and enhancing things like the DNA data bank because there are new tools that allow us to do our job. This part of our anti-terrorism legislation will do just that. It will give us the tools to allow us to do the job and that is to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I, since my tenure here, have sat on the public safety committee, and now I am on the justice committee. We share a responsibility that I know we both take very seriously.

With regard to innocent people, any innocent people, when they are arrested by the police on reasonable probable grounds that they have committed an offence, all of that is done in good faith. There is, of course, some stigma attached to a person who is eventually found innocent of a crime. That is very traumatic to the person involved, and traumatic to any decent, caring person.

The saving grace in our criminal justice system is that as long as all parties participating in that, the police, the prosecution, the defence and the individual who is charged, are all acting in good faith, the Criminal Code basically says that the right thing is done.

The bottom line here is if a fear that we might do something wrong, or that someone might be ill done by, prevents us from doing what the international community under the United Nations obligations, that we are a party to, expects us to do, we have to do something. We need to work toward this new threat of terrorism, and give the tools that are necessary to the police and the Crown to get that job done.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I come here today to discuss Bill C-19, the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions that the bill seeks to re-enact, which expired in March 2007.

The investigative hearing provisions permitted a judge to question persons having information about a past or future terrorism offence. The recognizance with conditions provision permitted imposing conditions on a person, where necessary, to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity. These provisions were not, and certainly would not be, unique to Canada. Other democratic countries have similar tools, or ones that tend to go much further than those proposed in this bill.

I believe that by comparing these proposals with foreign counterparts, it will become clear that the proposed investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions that are found in the bill would be seen to be reasonable measures and not at all excessive.

Let me first address the issue of investigative hearing. In 2001 the United Kingdom created a specific crime of withholding information relating to a terrorist act. A person who could have assisted police in preventing an act of terrorism, or in arresting, apprehending or prosecuting someone involved with terrorist activities but failed to do so, could be imprisoned for up to five years.

Also, the U.K. terrorism act of 2006 enables an investigative authority, such as the director of public prosecutions, to issue a disclosure notice requiring a person to provide information or documents relevant to the investigation of a terrorism offence.

Under the United States longstanding grand jury procedure, a federal grand jury can subpoena any person to testify under oath, subject to claims of privilege. Anyone who obstructs a grand jury risks being held in contempt.

Australia and South Africa have specific procedures similar to the proposed Canadian investigative hearing.

The Canadian approach certainly does not go further than other democratic nations in creating an investigative hearing procedure. Other countries have done as much, or even more, in ensuring that they have the tools to investigate terrorism offences.

The Australian counterpart of the recognizance with conditions is a system of control orders and preventive detention of terrorist suspects. The Australian federal police may apply to a judge for an order allowing up to 48 hours of preventive detention of a terrorist suspect where there has been a terrorist act or where a terrorist act is imminent.

Australian states and territories, under their legislation, allow for preventive detention for up to 14 days. Disclosing during the detention period that a person is detained is punishable by a maximum five years in jail. The Australian federal police annual report of 2006 to June 30, 2007 shows that one interim control order was made but that there were no preventive detention orders. One interim control order expired in December of last year.

Similarly, the United Kingdom has much broader powers for the detention of suspected terrorists, compared to Canada's recognizance with conditions power. In the United Kingdom, under the amended terrorism act 2000, a person can be arrested without warrant and held in detention without charge for up to 28 days if the police reasonably suspect the person of being a terrorist.

As many know, the U.K. government wanted to extend this period even further in its proposed counterterrorism bill to a maximum of 42 days. However, this initiative proved to be very controversial and was defeated by the House of Lords in October 2008. As a result, the U.K. government allowed the bill to continue its journey through the British Parliament without the 42-day measure, but it also published a bill containing the power to detain for 42 days, which will be held in reserve and which will be introduced in the British Parliament if and when the need arises.

The U.K. also has a system of control orders which has been in place since the passage of the prevention of terrorism act 2005. This generally allows for the home secretary to apply to a court to impose obligations on an individual, where there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity, and it is considered necessary in order to protect the public from terrorism to impose obligations on the individual.

Control orders can be imposed on citizens or non-citizens alike. There are two kinds of control orders: derogating and non-derogating control orders.

The derogating control order is one that derogates from the European Convention on Human Rights. This type of order could potentially apply in the case of house arrests. A non-derogating control order is one that does not derogate from the convention. Some cases involving non-derogating control orders have now been decided by the House of Lords. It ruled, for example, that a condition requiring a person to stay confined at home for 18 hours each day contravened the right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights, but that a 12 hour and possibly a 16 hour curfew was acceptable.

Non-derogating control orders are enforced for 12 months, but they can be renewed. The quarterly statement on the use of control orders covering the period September 11, 2008 to December 10, 2008 said that in total 15 control orders are currently in force, four of which are in respect to British citizens.

Additionally, U.K. police officers have other powers given to them by the terrorism act 2000 that do not exist in Canada. For example, police can designate a certain area, or order anyone to leave it, or not to enter it at the risk of committing an offence. A senior police officer may also authorize a uniformed constable to search a vehicle or a person in a designated area when to do so would be expedient for the prevention of a terrorist act. As we can see, the U.K. powers by far outstrip in scope what Canada provides for its law enforcement purposes.

Finally, I would add that the need to fulfill our international obligations should also prompt a re-enactment of the powers. The United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, to which Canada is a party, obliges the party states to “Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts--”. The provisions proposed in this bill are intended to do just that.

I have talked at length about the measures that are present in other democratic countries facing terrorism threats and whose legal systems are similar to ours. As I have endeavoured to make clear, the tools we are now seeking to re-enact do not constitute an assault on human rights. On the contrary, they are minimally intrusive and are more restrained than our foreign counterparts. They do not present a threat to Canadian values but actually protect them. Accordingly, I would ask that all hon. members support this bill.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's. She was talking about policing and the hiring of police officers. It could have been her who mentioned that we did not live up to our commitments. We did live up to our commitments. The provinces received money to hire extra police officers and one would have expected them to have done so.

With respect to the RCMP, we did not hire a thousand officers. I believe more like 1,500 officers were hired. We increased the size of depot to accommodate the training of extra officers.

However, when it comes to support for police, I recall the day when I was working in the province of Ontario under an NDP government, which reduced our wages. If the hon. member were to let folks know what actually occurred, there has been a 1.5% increase in compensation for the RCMP.

Under the current deputy leader of the Liberal Party, when he was the NDP premier of Ontario, he cut back on the paycheques of police officers. I am very aware of what an NDP government does for police officers.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend intently, and there was some suggestion that the government has not put into play rehabilitation services or drug prevention programs.

For the member's edification, I can tell him that just the other day I was pleased to work with the local health unit, which has targeted $184,000 specifically to youth in high school.

I want to say “children”, because in the bill, some of the mandatory minimums deal specifically with people who want to sell drugs to our children at school. The member for Mississauga South knows that is one of the most precious places we send our children and they need to be protected when they go there.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: I would have a hard time going to my constituents and telling them that we do not want increased penalties, a two-year mandatory prison sentence for people dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines to youth or for dealing those drugs near a school or a place normally frequented by youth.

I do not know how I could go to the constituents in Northumberland—Quinte West and tell them that it is not a good idea. It is beyond the pale.

That is just one. I could go through the others, but since Speaker has asked for a short question, that is what it is.