Rick Norlock

[Committees of the House, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to the member from the NDP with regard to the tragedy we have in our country concerning the trafficking in human beings, one of the most depraved ways of earning a living on anyone's behalf.

I have spoken to members of the RCMP who deal directly with this issue. Recently in Toronto we have seen some great progress in that we are bringing to justice people who would dare to do these terrible things. Further, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has gone across this country advocating and doing the very thing that the member just referred to.

Last year I attended a conference in Belleville, Ontario, put on by two Roman Catholic sisters who invited everyone from the community, every group from the community, whether they be church groups, such as the Catholic Women's League, the United Church women, social workers and police agencies. The RCMP were there to let us know what they were doing. At that time we learned that there was a national coordinated effort, that they are making inroads, that they are talking to social workers who go into the communities and who are, as we speak, taking the fear out of people who are trafficked and making them realize they are in Canada, that they are able to seek out assistance and that they have nothing to fear from law enforcement agencies and everything to gain.

I am told that our immigration people are actually working with the RCMP to ensure that we let these people know that they will not be sent back into servitude, that Canada is a place they can come to and expect to be treated with dignity and have all their human rights respected.

Is the hon. member aware that these things are taking place, that many social agencies, whether they be church groups or social services, that people are working, going into the community and reassuring and getting the word out through the underground because these folks are being hidden? Is the member aware that there is a coordinated national effort by the RCMP as one of the lead agencies?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my good friend's comments on the bill. I heard him make some comments with regard to the public safety committee of which he and I are members. I would like to take this opportunity to commend him and members of his side for their tremendous cooperation. The committee functions well because of the kind of true parliamentary attitude that we have on the committee.

Getting back to some of his comments with regard to his party's time in office, 13 years, and the short time that the current government has been in office, I would like to ask him a couple of questions.

Would he as an accountant not agree that by reducing the national debt in just a few short years on every Canadian's head by almost $1,600 is a good financial thing to do?

Is it not a good financial move to have one's country have the lowest corporate taxes in the G-7 so that money can flow into this country's investment community to create the kind of industries that we know we need, and create the kind of knowledge based economy to which he has referred?

Would he not say that it is an excellent idea that we reduce personal income taxes to the lowest in about 50 years?

Would he not say that it is very good financial management that we have the highest employment in this country in 32 years?

Are those not some of the positives that we have seen both in this budget and the last budget that have put Canada in one of the best financial positions in which it has ever been? Is two years not a really short time in order to have achieved all that?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just a short period ago the member said that $10 billion could go a long way to helping people meet their family needs. That is precisely why the government reduced the GST and intends to reduce the GST further. It is because it is $10 billion that stays in the pockets of Canadians and specifically those Canadians who do not pay any taxes.

The member might be shocked to learn that I in my previous occupation happened to do the shopping for my family for about 30 years. Therefore, I am very much aware of what is taxed and what is not.

What is taxed are a lot of the necessities, like keeping our clothes clean, like keeping ourselves clean, and like those personal products that everyone buys. That is $10 billion that are in the pockets of Canadians and allows them to meet additional needs of their families. Perhaps the member needs to rethink that amount.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way discussing Bill C-28 and some other issues surrounding that and how it does not help some of the less privileged Canadians, I think were some of his words, or lower income people, especially those who may be single and raising a family.

I think the member forgot that Bill C-28 has the working income tax benefit. This is concrete action to help low income Canadians with various measures, not the least of which is WITB, as the finance minister calls it. I suppose we could say that it would be our spin that it is a good idea because it is a good idea and we are saying it is. However, there are other folks who are saying it is a good idea.

The United Way of greater Toronto has said that it is a positive change that will help improve the situation of low income families. The Rotman School of Management sings its praises. The Ontario Liberal finance minister said, “It's a positive move. I think it will help those at the lower end of the income ladder and I think the federal government has taken a good step”.

Indeed, the NDP member for Winnipeg North has said that WITB is an important program that goes in the right direction.

When the hon. member says that there is no help for lower income families, he is exaggerating profoundly the great benefits of Bill C-28. He says it is full of gimmicks. I see no gimmick when it does not take out of the pockets of the Canadian people some $190 billion over the next five years and brings taxes to their lowest levels in about 50 years. There is some great amount of exaggeration going on here.

If I could enlighten those folks who might be listening, the member said the GST reduction to a family of limited income does not do anything. When this family goes to the grocery store, or the young mother who has young children, they are buying products that have a tax on them. The young mother may not even be paying any income tax. People who do not pay any income tax at all are receiving a tax break through the GST rebate.

I ask the hon. member: Has he really read Bill C-28? Has he really thought through all the comments he has made?

[The Environment, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was recently in Uganda attending the Commonwealth heads of government meeting, where they were discussing the important issue of climate change. Canada's position on global action on climate change has been clear. Any agreement must include all major emitters like China and India.

Could the Minister of the Environment say how Canada is continuing to demonstrate its environmental leadership on the world stage?

[Infrastructure, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on October 26 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans visited the municipality of Port Hope and announced the divestiture of the Port Hope harbour and 75 hectares of surrounding land. Port Hope will now own the property surrounding its harbour and the citizens will be able to enjoy walks along the waterfront and a planned municipal park and marina.

Mayor Linda Thompson and her colleagues on Port Hope council, as well as municipal staff, are to be commended for their great partnership in this endeavour. This is not the only example of this government's positive influence in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West.

Many millions of dollars will be spent at CFB Trenton to improve its aging infrastructure, and the economic spinoffs to local businesses will be tremendous.

As well, our government's announcement of a panel to review the Trent-Severn Waterway has been good news to the municipalities that border this wonderful year-round natural attraction.

In short, our government is getting things done for the people of Canada and Northumberland—Quinte West.

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, we know this issue has gone before committee and we know it unanimously passed the committee. We are trying to shore up a small hole.

What the other side is trying to do is make it into a wedge issue. It knows very well that this has nothing to do with discrimination. This has nothing to do with singling out a particular minority. This has only to do with the chief electoral officer's concern being addressed. The opposition is now trying to slow down this legislation. It is a ruse. It is a red herring. The opposition is trying to paint a particular political party, a group of people with a smear. It is sort of like a reverse smear.

Why does the opposition not just get on with it? Why does it not come right out and say it? No, it does not do that. It uses innuendo. Let us get on with this. The Canadian people expect us to.

[Criminal Code, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as a former breathalyzer technician and police officer, I am particularly interested in this most serious matter.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-376 which proposes to create a new Criminal Code offence of driving a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol content level in excess of 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

It does not propose simply to amend the Criminal Code to lower the blood alcohol content from the current 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, or .08 as it is commonly referred to.

The bill was debated for one hour in the first session of this Parliament. Every member who spoke to the bill and I am sure every member of the House agreed with the goal to reduce the death toll and injury on our highways caused by impaired drivers.

However, serious concerns regarding the mechanics of the bill, particularly its proposal to create a Criminal Code ticket and whether it would be used by police, were expressed by members.

For many years, law enforcement and prosecutors have complained about the complexities of the current impaired driving laws, the time needed to process the charge, the length of trials and the number of cases that are lost on technicalities. They have not asked for a lower blood alcohol content.

I am pleased that the government has responded to those concerns. Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, would simplify procedures and restrict defences to over .08 charges to those that have scientific validity. However, Bill C-2 is not a substitute for a complete review of the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code.

As members know, the Criminal Code has two separate and distinct drinking and driving criminal offences. Under section 253(a), it is a crime to drive while one's ability to drive is impaired by alcohol or a drug. Under section 253(b), it is an offence to drive while one's blood alcohol content exceeds .08. The over .08 offence was enacted in 1969, based on a seminal scientific study in Michigan showing that at that level the risk of collision increases exponentially for all drivers, regardless of age, driving experience and drinking experience. The Michigan study has been validated repeatedly.

Recent studies have concentrated on impairment at .05. I believe there is a scientific consensus that indicates a degradation in driving skills and increased risk of accident at that level.

One study concluded that compared with a driver at zero blood alcohol content, a driver at .05 had a 38% greater chance of being involved in a collision. A driver at .06 had a 63% higher risk and a driver at .07 had a 109% higher risk.

To date, Canada has chosen to address the problem of the driver who is over .05 but less than .08 through administrative measures imposed by provinces pursuant to their legislative authority to address licensing matters and matters of the Highway Traffic Act.

All provinces and territories except Quebec already have a roadside suspension for being over .05. I am pleased to say that Quebec has announced that it will soon be introducing a suspension at that level. These suspensions occur without any criminal charge being laid and, therefore, without a trial. They are an immediate and certain road safety measure.

The issue for the House, I submit, therefore, is whether to lower the permissible blood alcohol content to .05 or leave the low blood alcohol content driver to be dealt with by the province, at least until there has been a comprehensive review of impaired driving countermeasures.

The provinces work together through the Canadian Council of Motor Vehicle Transport Administrators or CCMTA, which has a subcommittee on impaired driving. The CCMTA reports to federal, provincial and territorial transport ministers. The CCMTA has endorsed a model of sanctions for driving while being over .05 that would include the recording of violations, longer roadside suspensions, a licence reinstatement fee of $150 to $300 and recording the violation for 10 years so that repeat violators can attract higher sanctions.

If the provinces enact increased sanctions at over .05 level for all drivers as recommended by the CCMTA, Criminal Code sanctions may not be needed. Certainly the provincial administrative sanctions will always be easier to process than a criminal charge. I seriously question whether a police officer faced with—

[Security Certificates, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Supreme Court confirmed the use of security certificates and recognized that one of the most fundamental responsibilities of a government is to ensure the security of its citizens.

The court did, however, ask the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen this important public safety tool. Can the Minister of Public Safety update the House on when the legislation will be introduced?

[Justice Legislation, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach summer and look at our accomplishments it is clear that this government is getting the job done on criminal justice.

We set out with an ambitious plan to clean up the disastrous Liberal soft on crime agenda that allowed violent criminals back into the community, handcuffed prosecutors, marginalized victims and allowed organized crime to prosper.

We are delivering on our commitment to make our streets safer by getting tough on violent, repeat offenders and cracking down on organized crime and gangs.

Over the past 18 months we introduced 13 bills and only have two yet to be passed by this House.

We have passed laws that deny house arrest to serious violent offenders, make street racing a crime and expanded the use of DNA evidence for tracking criminals.

We are waiting on the Senate to pass five important bills that include mandatory penalties and a reverse onus on bail for gun crimes and raising the age of protection to 16.

This government is getting the job done and, as the justice minister says, we are just getting started.