Stephen Woodworth

[Telecommunications Industry, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in 1999, RIM revolutionized wireless technology with the introduction of the BlackBerry. Yesterday, BlackBerry again proved that it is a global leader in the industry with the release of the brand new BlackBerry 10.

BlackBerry's managing director, Andrew MacLeod, recently briefed me about the great features of this new product. It has a new software platform, a greater selection of downloads, faster web browsing and many more features. The BlackBerry 10 has already received positive industry feedback. I am confident users will be pleased with the redesigned, re-engineered and reinvented BlackBerry experience.

As a global leader in wireless technology and an important employer of a skilled and inclusive workforce, BlackBerry's success is important to Canada and my riding of Kitchener Centre. Congratulations to BlackBerry on the successful launch of the BlackBerry 10.

[PETITIONS, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, with a total of about 300 signatures from across Canada, half of which are from women, is regarding human rights in Canada. The petitioners are asking the House to amend the 400-year-old definition of human being to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

[PETITIONS, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

In the first petition, the petitioners point out that Canada used to promote the right to equal protection and equal benefit of law. Therefore, they are calling on the House of Commons to condemn discrimination against girls through sex selection pregnancy termination.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks and support of this great bill, with its long overdue reforms. I can see that my colleague agrees with her colleague who spoke earlier that it is difficult to oppose virtue. I can only hope that this catches on all across the opposition.

I want to mention one thing relating specifically to another Liberal colleague who spoke before her. He did not ever actually deny my assertion that our bill does not require anyone to go to jail because the person cannot afford to pay a fine. He failed to mention the specific section of the Criminal Code. It is section 734.7, which states that a “court shall not issue a warrant of committal in default of payment of a fine...unless the court is satisfied...that the offender has, without reasonable excuse, refused to pay...”. Therefore, if there is a reasonable excuse, no one watching today needs to worry that anyone will ever go to jail if he or she has a reasonable excuse for not paying a fine.

Regarding the comments of the member who just spoke, I would also mention that if she were to visit the website of the Minister of Public Safety and corrections, she would find that the government has just recently sponsored a symposium on restorative justice and is sponsoring many programs across the country on restorative justice. That is just part of our balanced approach.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He is very articulate and, for the most part, very knowledgeable.

I wonder about one thing. He made a very impassioned argument on the fact that there are three jurisdictions in Canada that do not have a fine option program and he said if there are even only three jurisdictions in Canada where someone might go to jail for being unable to pay a fine, then there is a flaw in this legislation. The member is a former justice minister, a lawyer, and he is well experienced. I want to know if he is going to stand in the House and deny that there is provision in our law that absolutely prevents individuals from going to jail if there is a reason they cannot pay a fine. My understanding is that our law would absolutely not put individuals in jail for non-payment of a fine if in fact they have good reason for not being able to pay it.

I would like to hear the member deny that, if he can.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague for what I know are extraordinarily generous comments from her about a government bill and for her support of the bill. I also want to commend her and her mother for coming up with the principle that it is difficult to oppose virtue. The first thing I thought of when I heard my colleague say so was to invite her to cross the floor, to come over to this side and put an end to all of her difficulties. She would no longer have to oppose virtue, if she did that. Failing that, if she feels she cannot cross the floor, I hope she will spread that philosophy to her colleagues on the opposition side.

I want to take a moment to brag about my home town of Kitchener, where Judge Kirkpatrick was the first judge to invent the community service order through what he called the rehabilitative remand. It has now spread across Canada. Mark Yantzi of Kitchener was the first person to invent the victim offender reconciliation program, which has now spread across Canada. I am very proud to represent my community and a party that has the right balance of prevention, rehabilitation and judicial deterrence where necessary.

I would like to ask my colleague what she found to be the most appealing provision in this excellent bill.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the time that I have been in this place I have witnessed some amazing things. I have seen the opposition members oppose job creation measures. I have seen them object to low taxes. I have seen them oppose union transparency, reforms to reduce immigration wait times and responsible resource development regulation.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary think that the opposition may also oppose these very long overdue reforms, oppose, for example, allowing people who cannot afford to pay victim surcharges to instead do community service? Does he expect that?

[Petitions, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition from residents of the riding of Haldimand—Norfolk.

The petitioners point out that Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being says that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to 21st century medical evidence. They mention that Parliament has a solemn duty to reject any law that says some human beings are not human.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of the Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence. About half of those 25 signatures are women.

I have a second petition to the same effect from the Oxford area with 75 signatures, 35 of them women.

I have a third petition from the same area, from Toronto, Mississauga and Burlington with 304 signatures, of which 154 are women.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my friend accuses me of rewriting history, but I happened to be around in the 1988 to 1992 election period when, in fact, the Liberal Party expressed its strong opposition to the GST. Talk about rewriting history. As soon as Mr. Chrétien was elected, he immediately reneged on that promise and the Liberal Party was gung-ho for the GST. It took a Conservative government to at least reduce the rate from 7% to 6% to 5%.

My colleague's comments make it clear that he did not get the point of my 10 minutes of talking about the fact that this budget implementation bill is necessary to stimulate jobs and growth. We need to be able to turn; we need to pivot on a dime, because of the economic crisis all around us. That means we have to have responsible resource development, we have to have investments in the knowledge economy and we have to have exactly what this budget implementation bill provides.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member raises a good question, and it really does highlight the difference between this side and the other side.

We are not interested here in delay for the sake of delay. We are interested here in trying to improve environmental outcomes. For example, the government recently demonstrated its commitment to strengthening environmental protection by refusing consent to the Cenovus Energy project at Canadian Forces Base Suffield National Wildlife area in Alberta simply because it was not justified in the circumstances. There is no automatic green light when there are environmental issues.

On the other hand, we have the case of an aerial cable that was built by the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission, and it required approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act because it crossed over the Bonnechere River. It met all the standards for transmission lines over navigable waters, but it still took six months to approve that project with no measurable environmental outcome whatsoever.