Debates of Oct. 21st, 2005

Marijuana

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the justice minister recently decided to shelve the government bill to decriminalize marijuana. This is good news for those of us who have been fighting against it.

However, the last impression among our young people, according to drug treatment experts, is that the debate about decriminalizing marijuana has directly contributed to the increasing number of teenagers getting into trouble while under the influence.

According to Mike Beauchesne, clinical program director at Ottawa's Dave Smith Youth Treatment Centre, “The increase in drug and alcohol abuse could be traced to public policy debates about drugs that have resulted in a more benign view of drug use. Many people have concluded from the decriminalized debate that marijuana will soon be entirely legal and is completely harmless”.

What the Liberals do not realize is that they have done a lot of damage by putting this ridiculous idea out there. How do they plan to reverse this damage and educate our youth that marijuana use is still addictive, still dangerous and still illegal?

François Lanoue

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 23, the Joliette art museum will open an exhibition on the life and times of François Lanoue.

François Lanoue was one of a dying breed of well-educated clergy who devoted their life to defending their culture, language and roots. Born in Saint-Jacques-de-Montcalm, where the Acadian spirit is still very present, he was ordained in 1943. After a brilliant career at the Joliette seminary, Mr. Lanoue took on various pastoral responsibilities in the parishes of this diocese.

The exhibition offers a profile of this man through works of art and photographs that evoke his remarkable intellectual journey.

Former premier Bernard Landry and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who were both taught by Father François Lanoue, have agreed to be the honourary hosts of this exceptional event.

I invite you all to attend this exhibition and become better acquainted with the great man who was Father Lanoue.

Law Enforcement

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my riding of Durham I attended a Conservative Party crime and safety task force session chaired by Jim Flaherty, one of the national chairs of this task force.

It was attended by our new chief of police, the fire chief of Whitby, representatives of law enforcement and organizations who work in our community to keep our streets safe.

The input by the victims of crime had the most impact for me. As one young woman stated, she is a survivor of crime and a survivor she is.

This meeting was held on the 11th anniversary of a devastating crime in Port Perry that changed that community forever. We heard demands for stronger tools for our front line workers, more resources for alternative justice measures, the need to make the justice system more efficient, and the weaknesses of Correctional Service Canada and the parole system. Infringements of parole violations in fact are not criminal offences.

I want to thank the task force for its work and those who took part in the session. They all deserve our support because each day they are working to make Durham a safer community.

Qikiqtani Inuit Association

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, Qikiqtani Inuit Association is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.

QIA represents the interests of the Inuit of the Baffin region, the High Arctic and Sanikiluaq. Its mission is to protect and promote Inuit rights and values. It is one of the regional organizations under our Nunavut land claim.

Starting out as Baffin Regional Inuit Association in 1975, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association grew from being a non-profit land claim and community organization to an umbrella organization with strong economic development arms, Kakirak Association and Qikiqtaaluk Corporation.

I want to recognize the dedicated people from many communities who have sacrificed many things, especially family time, to work with this organization over the 30 years, whether as board members or staff.

Congratulations to the Qikiqtani Inuit who have been well served by their association over the years.

Pay Equity

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its decision and upheld the Public Service Alliance of Canada's 22 year old pay equity complaint against Canada Post.

The decision states that Canada Post has violated the law and must pay compensation. Within minutes of the decision being reviewed, Canada Post filed for judicial review. The length of time it will take to resolve this complaint could easily pass the quarter century mark. This is a disgrace.

It is a disgrace that women workers in the federal sector have had to fight for over 20 years for money that they are entitled to by law and it is a disgrace that there is no federal pay equity legislation.

The NDP is calling on the Liberal government to stop forcing women to fight for decades for economic equality and introduce proactive pay equity legislation immediately.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has asked for the legislation. The government's own task force on pay equity has asked for the legislation. Where is the legislation?

Marichel Teaching Farm

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Marichel teaching farm in Sainte-Agathe-de-Lotbinière is celebrating its 10th anniversary. This farm is not only introducing children to the benefits of agriculture, it is teaching them the importance of preserving our environment to ensure the survival of our planet.

In celebration, the 2005 student interns wrote a song to raise public awareness about the effects of climate change.

I had the pleasure of hearing this song on September 16, between the two hurricanes that devastated the southern United States. Everyone agrees that these two tragedies were caused by climate change in that region over the last 25 years.

These young people have summed it up as follows:

Such great ideas sung with forceThey do affect my mood, of courseNow tell me what we need to doTo save the earth for me and you

Bravo and long live the Marichel teaching farm.

David Dingwall

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the Prime Minister himself is directly responsible for the decision to pay David Dingwall severance for quitting his expense abusing, high paying job at the Mint. The Liberal culture of corruption has now progressed to the Liberal culture of entitlement.

The Minister of National Revenue told us yesterday that Privy Council lawyers are operating under the instructions of the Prime Minister to pay the legal minimum. Labour lawyers such as Howard Levitt and those in his own caucus have already said there is no legal requirement to pay severance to an employee if he quits.

Why exactly is the Prime Minister directing his officials to pay anything to David Dingwall?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been exceptionally clear on this point. It is going to be very interesting when we compare the hyperbole of the opposition with the reality of the audit that is coming out soon.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

There is a buffet of baloney, Mr. Speaker.

David Dingwall clearly said at committee that he was entitled to his entitlements. That includes severance on top of everything else. There are two solitudes in Canada: hardworking, tax paying Canadians and Liberals with entitlements.

The government can produce no law that requires this severance payment, no written legal opinions, and no common law precedents, yet the Prime Minister is directing the Privy Council Office to negotiate David Dingwall's entitlements.

Why is the Prime Minister encouraging this Liberal culture of entitlement with this negotiation with David Dingwall?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, as I responded to the previous question, the minister has been very clear on this particular point and the member has repeated some of his statements. I also think that for a person who has an understanding of the law, to lack such respect for its application is rather a surprise to all of us.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the facts.

On the Prime Minister's instructions, David Dingwall's lawyers are negotiating with the Privy Council Office to secure his entitlements. That would include severance pay. Now he wants the possibility of his cost of living factor on top of his salary to be considered as well. The government has yet to produce all of David Dingwall's expenses. That might include other expenses that will rub Canadians the wrong way.

We know that Canadians who quit their job do not get severance. Why is the Prime Minister taking such a hands-on approach in negotiating a severance package with David Dingwall?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would simply point out that given the kind and quality of information that has come across the floor from that side of the House, it is really difficult to give credibility to any of the questions.

An audit will be out next week. Opposition members will be able to judge the circumstances that they are interested in and we will see how that matches up with the statements they have made to date.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how little expenses are handled tells us a lot about how a person will handle big expenses.

David Dingwall handed in receipts in April of last year for two candies for $1.43, a Globe and Mail for 93¢, a chocolate bar, a bag of chips, and a Winnipeg Sun . On December 16 of last year he handed in a receipt for a massage in Bangkok. This Liberal culture of entitlement has gone far too far.

Perhaps the government could tell us if David Dingwall is entitled to a massage at the expense of Canadian taxpayers?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what the member's concern is about the Winnipeg Sun . A number of people in Canada buy and read that paper.

He has made a number of statements about the activities of Mr. Dingwall. Mr. Dingwall was before the committee answering that. An audit is coming out. I have been reviewing some of the statements that the member has been making and I think the Winnipeg Sun will have an interesting time comparing reality with what has come out of the mouth of that member.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the rules at the Royal Canadian Mint were written by David Dingwall under this government's watch. The rules provide exceptions for David Dingwall. He can except himself on travel. He can except himself on hospitality. There are no fences on David Dingwall's pasture. He can graze at the expense of Canadian taxpayers to his heart's content.

The culture of entitlement that has permeated this government was most evident when David Dingwall testified the other day. Will the government continue and persist to pay David Dingwall severance?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the depth of the unknowing on that side of the House is such that they did not even realize the Auditor General of Canada is the auditor for the Mint, that the policy is set by the board of the Mint, that it is being audited still further against those policies set by the Mint and audited by the Auditor General of Canada.

To suggest that we not respect that I think is a bit much.

Intergovernmental Affairs

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first it was Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs and now it is the Quebec premier who is speaking out in defence of Quebec's jurisdiction. He has said that “If we must work with the federal government, our jurisdiction must be respected. Otherwise, no agreement is possible.”

Is this not proof that things are not going all that well, when a federalist Liberal government in Quebec feels obliged to publicly defend its areas of jurisdiction, in response to repeated threats of federal government interference?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada himself has said that he would respect provincial jurisdictions in whatever he did. We wholly approve of the statements made by federalist premier Charest.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, she ought to have a word with the Minister of Transport so that he will be on the same page.

Jean Charest also criticized the concept of national interest, that new federal invention used to justify its interference. He said “the national interest is not a concept that governs the division of powers”.

Does the government not realize that the introduction of this new concept will turn the concept of areas of jurisdiction into nothing more than meaningless words?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there the Bloc Québécois goes again with its exaggerations. It is fascinating how they take bits and pieces of quotes from the federalist government in Quebec and forget the rest.

It is odd that they are not quoting today from the words of Carole Théberge or Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, who say they are continuing to work in a positive manner with the Government of Canada. That is exactly what our two governments are doing.

Employment Insurance

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources suggested that the federal government had not only the right but also the responsibility to evolve EI programs as society evolves.

What are we to make of the minister's remarks? Are we to understand that she is announcing further encroachments on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal]

Mr. Speaker, let me say I am very pleased at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that recognizes and upholds the federal jurisdiction as it relates to EI benefits and maternity benefits. I am also proud to say that there will be no interruption in any of the benefits that Canadians receive. In fact, the judgment does say that we do have the responsibility to evolve EI programs as society evolves, as it relates to the workplace.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in reality, this new invention of national interest is a tool to justify encroaching on the jurisdictions of others.

Instead of using the national interest as an excuse to encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, should the minister not start by looking after her own responsibilities, by improving the employment insurance program and establishing an income support program for older workers, for instance?

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that I did call Minister Courchesne yesterday and expressed to her that we are going forward with the agreement that we have with Quebec so that Quebec can have its maternity and benefits program in place by January 1, 2006. We are working collaboratively and very well with Minister Courchesne and the Quebec government to achieve this.

National Security

[Ed Broadbent, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

As justice minister the minister brought in draconian security law that violated civil liberties. As security minister she blocked information from being made public in the Arar inquiry. As part of a government that looks like it has been involved in the sending of Canadians to countries that use torture, I want to ask her, when it comes to the proposed new wiretap legislation, why should we believe that Canadian civil liberties are going to be protected?