Rick Norlock

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very eloquent speech with regard to climate change, but I believe there is a moral obligation in this country and that moral obligation is to do what we say we will do. Quite frankly, people can tout until the sun goes down today and rises tomorrow how beneficial their plan might be, but actions speak louder than words.

There has been a 35% to 36% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the former government announced its grandiose plans. Feigned indignation and false accusations do not win the day. They do not make the air for our children cleaner to breathe and they do not make the climate change. What makes things happen is a plan that works.

We have tabled a bit of our plan and over the next short while much will be. However, I would like to ask the hon. member if it is fair to allow a new government at least five or six years to prove its record. If so, would he not want to work with that government in order for it to be able to show Canadians and the world that it will live up to its commitments?

[Justice, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government promised Canadians we would get tough on crime. While the Liberals took a soft approach to justice, we will do all we can to ensure safety and security in our communities.

The DNA data bank is an essential investigative tool for law enforcement agencies. Could the justice minister tell us what he has done to ensure the DNA data bank remains a vital resource?

[Criminal Code, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement concerning the fact that many people who possess firearms possess them, not only to make a living, but to hunt as a peaceful endeavour.

I also want to advise the member that according to the Criminal Code, if someone breaks into a place for the purposes of staying alive, in other words the person's motorized snow vehicle freezes up on a lake and the person is about to die because of the cold, and the person breaks into a cottage in order to get warm or to eat, that is not a crime. The same defence would be there for someone who needed a firearm in order to stay alive and had to commit that offence.

This bill would not change that defence at all. However it does say that if a firearm is used in the commission of an offence, a person is in possession of a firearm in order to commit on offence or a person steals a firearm to commit an offence we have upped the ante because we have found that having a firearm for a negative purpose has very serious repercussions in society.

I would just ask the member to comment on that end of the defence with regard to subsistence and know that the bill would not interfere with that.

[Criminal Code, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member says that it is this side of the House that is making politics out of the issue. Quite frankly, it is the other way around.

I have some knowledge and history of law enforcement, about 30 years of it. By suggesting that a mandatory minimum sentence somehow encourages a judge to give someone a lesser sentence than having no sentence guidelines seems quite incredible and does not make a lot of sense to me.

My riding is mainly rural which is an hour and a half down the road from Toronto. The people do not view these things as something foreign to them. They view it as their neighbours, friends and relatives who are in a city that has experienced, in the past few years, a marked increase in violence and particularly gun violence. It is not violence with long guns. It is violence with handguns.

The whole intent of this legislation is to dissuade people from anti-social behaviour by increasing the penalty and therefore keeping them ever mindful that if they commit a serious crime with a handgun they are going to go to jail for a long time.

I ask the hon. member, who is living in the greater Toronto area, how can she say that she best represents her constituency by saying that a minimum mandatory sentence is not what the average person in her riding would feel is appropriate?

[Northumberland—Quinte West, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as summer vacation nears, I would like to invite all of Canada to visit our great tourist destinations in Northumberland—Quinte West. We are the gateway to eastern Ontario. Steeped in history, shopping for all, the arts, entertainment and golf, yes, we have it all.

In Trenton, visit the Royal Canadian Air Force Museum or fish in the Bay of Quinte. A quick boat ride up the Trent River will bring people to a myriad of locks on the historic river system.

Stop in Frankford or Campbellford for a visit to the chocolate factory, Empire Cheese or enjoy a Northumberland ale, a nice lunch in Hastings or a round of golf in Warkworth.

In Brighton, take in the historic Proctor House or a play at the Brighton Barn Theatre.

Visit the Big Apple in Colborne. Enjoy the vistas of Lake Ontario from Cobourg's Victoria Park. Shop the historic Main Street of Port Hope or take in a play at the Capitol Theatre. Visit our farming families during the rural ramble.

Yes, Northumberland—Quinte West truly is the jewel in the crown of eastern Ontario.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest while the member spoke at length on the CBC and its value to Canada. As with the other hon. member from this side of the House, I was in agreement somewhat with most of his statement, until he began his paranoid view of all the efforts this government has made for the country.

He brought up Kyoto as one of the elements, that in some way this independent and proud sovereign nation of Canada is kowtowing to an influence south of the border. I bring to the hon. member's attention an article from the National Post of May 30, 2006, as reported by John Ivison, which states:

Ottawa won the unanimous support of developed countries at the conference in Bonn, Germany, for its reluctance to set new targets for the post-2012 period. It also received backing from several countries in arguing there should be no new commitments for countries like Canada until major polluters such as China and India sign up for their own targets.

I would like to ask the hon. member how that reflects on Canada kowtowing to the United States. Why the constant pandering for obvious political reasons, where it wins one favour with the voters in one's riding or area if one is anti-United States? I would say we should be pro-Canada. I wonder how the CBC and Kyoto seem to be associated in the member's view.

I have a supplementary question. We have other very capable Canadian networks in Canada, such as the Canadian Television Network, the CanWest Global network and several independents, such as the CHUM news agency. I worked in northern Ontario and in northern Canada there are satellite dishes from one end to the other. They produce good Canadian content. I wonder why the member wants to drag the United States into what obviously is just a Canadian discussion.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised some very good points, especially with regard to statistics. He also mentioned that he is a longstanding member of this august place.

I worked in the legal system as a law enforcement officer from 1970 to 2000. I can tell the member that the average man or woman in 1970, as compared to the average man or woman in our society in 1999, felt a heck of a lot safer in their communities. They were not afraid to walk the streets at night. I am not referring to the streets of Toronto or Scarborough. I am talking about the streets in the small towns and villages in Ontario, the villages where I policed.

I just wonder if the hon. member happens to have any statistics with regard to how people feel about their communities and why elderly people feel ill at ease walking their dogs in the evening now, whereas they did not feel that way just five or six years ago. Maybe the hon. member can tell me and this House how those statistics relate to the actual feeling of those citizens in my community.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the opposition on the Kyoto protocol is appalling. This plan of the previous government would have cost billions of dollars and would have accomplished nothing.

The truth is that the Liberals' $12 billion plan to implement Kyoto over seven years would have been largely ineffective, states an unpublished report by the C.D. Howe Institute. The report reads:

This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost.

Even the Liberals' own member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore is quoted as saying:

We think Kyoto has been an asset for us. It's actually been a huge political liability.

I think our party has got into a mess on the environment. As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what (Kyoto) is or what it commits us to.

The Liberal plan for Kyoto is actually no plan at all.

Today I challenge the opposition to work closely with the government and the Minister of the Environment to do what is right and best for Canada.

[Afghanistan, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the opposition during last Wednesday night's vote on our mission in Afghanistan is shocking. Opposition members are on record as supporting our troops and yet they played politics and voted against the government instead of voting for our troops.

The member for Vancouver South said:

We support the mission, absolutely, and in unqualified fashion...If you had a vote in Parliament, I have no doubt in my mind that there would be absolutely overwhelming support.

Yet he voted against our troops.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca said:

The courageous Canadians who are in this dangerous theatre must have our unequivocal and steely support....We cannot afford to give them anything less.

Yet he voted against our troops.

The member for Markham--Unionville said:

...it is right that Canada step up to the plate and do its part. Canada is committed to Afghanistan.

This is not an easy mission and these are not easy decisions. I applaud those opposition members who were steadfast in their support, put politics aside and did the right thing, voting for our mission and for our troops.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the hon. member when he was discussing in particular the use of alternates to pesticides. I wondered where he was going with some of the other comments near the end of his speech, in particular his conversion from conservatism to so-called liberalism and then his conversion from Kyoto being on the back of a napkin to how wonderful and beautiful and everything around it is now.

Speaking of conversions, I listened intently to some of his statements with regard to alternatives to pesticides. Having used parasitic nematodes in my garden and having looked at alternate plant species, I wonder if he knows from his riding or from his personal experience how effective or sometimes ineffective some of these alternatives are.