Leon Benoit

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the labour minister took a trip, the ethics counsellor said it was wrong, and she has apologized for that.

The industry minister took a trip, it was wrong, and it was far more expensive than the other trip.

Will the minister do the right thing and resign?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has said the labour minister's trip was wrong and she has apologized for that.

The industry minister's trip was wrong and it was far more expensive than the labour minister's trip. Will he do the right thing now and resign?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

She has apologized.

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has said that the labour minister's trip was wrong and she has resigned. The industry minister's trip--

[Canada Labour Code, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, which is a bill to ban the use of replacement workers. I will not support the bill because it deals with only one very small problem area to do with the much broader workplace disruption problem. We have to look at the whole issue. I will do that in my presentation.

I heard the passionate speech from the Bloc MP. The use of replacement workers is a very emotional issue. I can understand why that kind of emotion is there. However, we should look at and deal with the broader problem.

The member of the Liberal government who just spoke talked about the balanced approach. The balanced approach that he talked about has not solved any problems. In fact that so-called balanced approach is only tinkering with a system that simply does not work.

I would like the House to take a look at the whole system of strikes and lockouts. That system itself is flawed. The system of work stoppages quite frankly causes too much pain and human suffering. That pain and human suffering was talked about by the Bloc member who spoke about the use of replacement workers, so-called scab workers, and what it can do to a community. That is very real. That is why the system has to be replaced with something that does work much better and which leads to much less pain and human suffering.

A strike, a lockout or a labour disruption of any kind is extremely hard on workers. I have been very fortunate in my life in that I have never been out of work for a very long time at all. I have known people who have been and I know how difficult it is to live through a time of unemployment. It is extremely difficult. The families of the workers suffer immeasurably in some cases, particularly if it is a strike of the length mentioned by the Bloc member of Parliament, three years. I have seen strikes go on for that long as well. It can lead to deep divisions and untold suffering within a family.

I have also seen strikes that have led to the destruction of whole communities. In some cases they have actually led to whole communities being closed down. They never are revived. It is the end of those communities. That has happened on many occasions across the country when it is a one industry small community. It is extremely unfortunate.

There are also the unintended consequences of strikes and lockouts. I come from a grain farm background. When I grew up on the farm we had cattle and various other types of livestock as well. After university I bought a grain farm. I still have the grain farm but someone else is farming it obviously. It is done on a crop share basis, so I still pay very close attention to the industry.

Coming from that background I saw time after time where farmers paid a dear price as a result of a strike or a lockout involving 20 to 30 workers. Most often those 20 to 30 workers were at the terminal where the ships were loaded. Time after time farmers had no say at the bargaining table. They were completely left out. They were truly captive shippers. They suffered. Many of them lost their farms as a result of a strike or a lockout of those 20 to 30 people. A system like that quite frankly is not working.

There is a better system. Over the years the Canadian Alliance has proposed a system of final offer selection arbitration. Under that system there would never be a work stoppage. The collective bargaining process would truly be allowed to go on to a successful conclusion in every case without having a strike or a lockout. Labour certainly would not lose any power under that system. The companies would not lose any power under that system. Everybody would win under the system. I will try to explain the system in the couple of minutes I have.

When it is approaching a year or six months before the end of a contract, labour and management each present their offers. Negotiation goes on in these offers. The negotiations may have been taking place all along, since the time of the last agreement. When it comes down to the crunch time, the last year to six months before the deadline when the agreement will no longer be in place, the arbiter would become involved.

The arbiter would ask for a final best offer from each group. Labour would put forth its final offer and management, the company, would put forth its final offer. The job of the arbiter is not to mix and match. It has caused a lot of problems when an arbiter or a mediator gets involved and tries to mix and match. Often no one ends up with a very acceptable solution.

When a final offer is given by each group, they know that the whole thing will either be accepted or rejected. Labour on the one hand and management on the other hand know that their offers will be either completely accepted or rejected. Offers usually will be very close together. The arbiter's job is to choose all of one or all of the other.

Under that system there is never a strike or a lockout. There is never the pain that goes along with a work stoppage, with a three year strike. There would never be the destruction of a community coming from a work stoppage which allows that kind of devastation and really forces a company to close down or forces labour to give up and go somewhere else.

This system truly respects the concept and the process of collective bargaining. At the same time issues, like the use of scab workers, are no longer issues. The kind of pain that has been talked about tonight by the Bloc member and before by other members resulting from the use of scab workers is eliminated. It simply is not an issue. That is a much better and much more sensible way of dealing with the problem.

I encourage the member who produced the bill to present another bill to the House of Commons proposing the use of final offer selection arbitration. I know that bill would be supported by this party because we proposed it in the past. It is something that many people in the unions, and even union leaders who hesitate, say that in reality it would make good sense. Many even in the labour union leadership say that it is a much more practical way of dealing with these very difficult situations.

I will not be supporting the bill, but if the member is serious about wanting to end the serious and unacceptable situations that arise from work stoppages, I encourage the member to bring forth a bill outlining a proposal for final offer selection arbitration. I along with many in my caucus certainly would be willing to work with the member if there are modifications needed. We could come up with a solution that would put to bed forever the kind of ugly strikes and lockouts that have occurred so often across the country.

[Government Contracts, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is all fine, but Canada already had four perfectly good Canadian-built Challenger jets and we did not need any more.

This whole deal stinks. A $100 million deal is untendered and cleaning out the bank account at the end of the fiscal year.

Why did the former finance minister, the new Liberal leader, approve this deal?

[Government Contracts, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this whole Bombardier Challenger jet deal has blown up. Everyone over there is running for cover. Even the new Liberal leader is trying to avoid responsibility.

When he was finance minister, did the new Liberal leader sign the cheque for the Challenger jets?

[Ethics, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot hide behind the ethics counsellor.

Here are the facts: ACOA, which was responsible to the industry minister, paid $55 million to Irving Shipbuilding. The Irvings gave the minister a trip worth well over the $200 limit. In the eyes of the public, the gift bought the Irvings $55 million in taxpayers' money.

This is clearly a serious situation and what the minister did was wrong. Will he do the right thing and resign?

[Ethics, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister broke the law by accepting from Irving Shipbuilding a gift which was well over the $200 limit. The minister then pressured the cabinet to give that same company millions of dollars in taxpayers' money.

When the current House leader got caught doing the same thing, he lost his job. Will the current minister, now that he has been caught, hold himself to that same standard and resign?

[Contraventions Act, October 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill which deals with the issue of decriminalizing marijuana.

I want to make it very clear that I absolutely cannot and will not support the bill. It is certainly not supported by most of my constituents.

I have examined and will continue to examine the issue of decriminalization under certain circumstances but under the terms laid out in the legislation, it is completely unacceptable, and I will explain in a little bit why.

However I first want to deal with the contradiction that the legislation, as it is presented here, provides for Canadians when we have heard so much talk about the importance of dealing with the seriousness of drunk driving.

Every day in Canada five people are killed and more than 200 people are injured due to drunk driving. There has been a great public effort to try to cut down and eliminate drunk driving, period.

After all the work on drunk driving, the government is proposing to decriminalize the use of marijuana in large amounts, up to 30 grams, and, at the same time, doing it before we have any kind of roadside test or reliable roadside assessment to deal with someone driving while under the influence of marijuana. It just seems absurd that any government would propose such a thing. All we are doing is expanding on the serious problem of drunk driving to include another very serious problem of driving while under the influence of drugs. To me it seems totally irresponsible that the government would propose that.

So much effort on the one hand to cut down on drunk driving; so lightly the government would put in place legislation that would make it so easy and, in effect, encourage driving while under the influence of marijuana. I believe that issue has to be dealt with before anyone will seriously consider supporting this legislation, and that certainly should be the case.

Certain requirements would have to be put in place before I could ever seriously consider any legislation to decriminalize marijuana and, as I said, they certainly are not in place in this legislation as it has been presented to the House. The legislation does not reflect the proposals put in place by the committee which spent months studying it.

The minimum requirements for change that would have to be made to this legislation before I could consider seriously supporting it are the following. First , when it comes to summary conviction fines, they would apply to five grams or less, not to the 30 grams, which is a very large amount of marijuana and is an amount more commonly connected with someone trafficking, as some of my colleagues have mentioned.

Second, we would need a clear understanding with the provincial governments, and in fact with the legal industry which would have to exist to consistently deal with criminal offences under the decriminalization amounts. In other words, someone caught with 35, 40 or 50 grams would face criminal convictions in the courts of all provinces. We would have to be comfortable with the set limit.

The government is proposing a limit of 30 grams. I can imagine what would happen in court if someone were charged with the possession of 32 grams. The judge would probably say that under the Criminal Code it is unfair to charge someone who has 32 grams even though the law put the limit at 30. The amounts would certainly come into play. It is critical that does not happen and therefore the provincial governments would have to agree to the level that is set, which certainly should not be, in my opinion, more than five grams, and not the thirty grams proposed in the legislation.

Another requirement would be for a progressive fine schedule to be put in place. Fines and penalties would increase based on the number of convictions and not just the same fine again and again.

The proposal in the legislation that young people receive a lower fine for possession of amounts under 30 grams than older people is absurd. What kind of message does that send to our young people? It sends a message to them that smoking marijuana cannot possibly be harmful, and I absolutely disagree. Marijuana is a very dangerous drug and our young people should be discouraged from using it. However, this legislation would, in effect, encourage young people to use marijuana because it sends the message that it is not harmful. That is wrong and I think that has to be changed before the legislation can be supported.

A national drug strategy would have to be in place. One would think that with all the good work the committee did and all the minds that have been working on this in the justice department, they would have focused on putting in place a national drug strategy, some kind of an overall, overarching strategy to deal with the very serious problem of drug use in this country.

So far what has been the government's response to this serious drug problem? It has opened up a shoot-up site in Vancouver so people can legally break the law right on the streets of Vancouver. I do not think that is appropriate. There are some very serious problems with that and we have seen them in other countries.

That is not a drug strategy. That is admitting failure. That is government saying that it cannot deal with this serious problem and it simply cannot win, so it will not even try. That is absolutely unacceptable and it is shameful that a government would say that about a problem as serious as drug use. We know all of the social hardships that are a result of drug use and yet the government's response is to open up shoot-up sites with no national drug strategy. I think that is absurd.

To focus on the problem of marijuana use first without focusing on other serious drugs, in some cases more harmful drugs, is another case of the government setting the wrong priorities. We cannot try to deal with a problem like this bit by bit, piece by piece, in a completely unorganized fashion. That is not something that will work. Canadians know that. I am surprised the government does not know that.

Another issue which I think will be even more difficult to deal with if this legislation actually passes is the issue of drug trafficking and grow ops. We know these problems have damaged and caused great hardship in many communities across the country. Certain areas of our towns and cities have been harmed quite dramatically by having grow ops and trafficking in the area.

The law of the country has to be clear and workable to where grow ops and trafficking are considered to be and are serious criminal offences. When one is talking about decriminalizing the possession of amounts up to 30 grams, the line will be blurred between those who have marijuana for their own use and those who have marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. That is just making the problem more difficult to deal with. It is not really helping to fix the problem.

For those reasons and others I will not be supporting the legislation. We will continue to encourage the government to make amendments to fix these things and deal with the problem of trade with the United States. The Americans have made it clear that if we decriminalize, as is proposed in this legislation, we will have more trade problems, problems in moving goods across the border. We already have trade problems that are devastating the agriculture industry and the softwood lumber industry. We do not need that to be broadened out to other industries. Yet the Americans have said that this will do that.

Let us deal with these problems. If the government were to deal with all of these issues I mentioned, then I would consider the legislation. I still think that decriminalizing marijuana sends a message to our young people and Canadians that it is not as harmful as in fact I believe it is.