Maurice Vellacott

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. I have not been around as long as the member who has asked the question, having been here for only seven years. From the day I arrived on the scene here, it certainly baffled me and puzzled me as to why we did not have minimum sentences for a lot of things across the justice piece. I still do not know why. The Liberal mindset on this whole thing seems to be only maximums and no minimum. What happens then, of course, is that it is left up to the discretion of judges. For the most part, these individuals seems to have a kind of a liberal mindset as well; it is that very light slap on the wrist and they are out.

I do not disagree that case by case there sometimes should be a little range in some extenuating circumstances, but that can be done with minimum sentences. A minimum is put in. Between that minimum and the maximum the judge can come down in view of the circumstances and in view of the detail at hand. That is what we need to be doing, but the Liberal mindset is to do no minimums at all, just a maximum. Then there are judges that are soft at heart in court and on the benches day by day.

I will say this tongue in cheek. It is possible that the Liberals do not want minimum sentences, because we have government members over there who squander billions of tax dollars. As the member before me reminded us, close to $2 billion in the gun registry was squandered in a criminal waste of dollars there. We had it in HRDC when I was the critic there. It was unbelievable. There were no paper trails and no documentation; it was money out the door just like that, with phone calls only. Now we have it with the Quebec ad scam all over again. With that ad scam going on, maybe they do not want minimum sentences because people would be in the clink. They would be in jail. This is looking at another side of it, but unfortunately all through the justice system we do not have minimum sentences. I think that is a problem.

The member for Provencher was attorney general of Manitoba and he can give us a lot more detail on the disastrous kind of scenario that is set up when there are no minimums. We need to put in minimums so judges do not have that loosey-goosey latitude such that we do not get justice. There is no justice for victims when this kind of thing occurs.

We have seen it time and again. Someone has been a victim in a theft situation or in a murder situation. The family members receive no justice. They see a judge go in on a particular day and give the lightest sentence possible. That is plain wrong. That is not justice.

We need a change of government. We need a Conservative government that would have this approach and would provide the kinds of minimum sentences in respect of this kind of law and other laws throughout the Criminal Code in our country.

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

It is coming up to $2 billion, and it is going to get there.

We need to close the money tap and shut the flow down. The Liberals are throwing out these little teasers before the election, such as decriminalization and fines. We still have this mammoth bureaucracy in place with all the dollars being expended as ever before. Besides that, they are still making law-abiding gun owners, duck hunters and others pay these fines. That is not a good thing.

We believe there needs to a whole lot more care and attention when we draft bills so we have something with common sense in place and we can then enforce the bill. What is the point of a bill if there is no appetite for it publicly, if there is disdain for it by the public and if we bring law enforcement in disrepute in the country? That is always the folly of going down the road of putting something in place where there is no appetite for it, no public support, as would be the case here, and no particular regime, no tools, no resources for the police to carry out their jobs.

It is very demoralizing. I have spoken to policemen and done ride alongs in my city of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. They say it is very demoralizing for them when we heap these new things on, these twisted and quirky kinds legislation, and then have nothing in place for them to carry it out their jobs.

By effectively decriminalizing possession of 30 grams of marijuana, the government has made it a lot easier for traffickers to operate. As was said, approximately 60 joints of marijuana can be made out of 30 grams, and that is clearly enough for an individual to traffic at the high school, down at the street corner, at the corner store and elsewhere in the country. We think that is a problem. The use and the possession of marijuana must remain illegal and possession of marijuana greater than five grams must be considered a criminal offence.

We have also made the point already that fines for possession of marijuana should increase significantly. When there are subsequent offences then the hand of the law needs to come down a little heavier at that point. We need to have appropriate roadside assessment penalties developed for detecting drug driving offences.

That takes us back to the beginning of my speech. My heart will be greatly burdened if this brings down upon us, as we suspect it will and as Police Chief Fantino says it will, carnage on the highways. There will be lives lost, with the incalculable cost of individual lives lost, those of fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, and the tremendous grief and heartache this causes for families throughout their entire lives. Lives are never the same after the disruption of a drunk driving or drugged driving loss of a loved one.

We need to have those things in place so as to detect the drugged driving offences. The police need to be given the kinds of resources to combat what will probably be a greater thrust or a greater push by organized crime for control of those marijuana grow operations. It will be a major, multi-million dollar business for organized crime.

These are the kinds of things that we think need to be changed. The bill sends a wrong message to Canadians, to young people in particular, and it makes it more difficult for families to deal with drug use.

Some of the things we have suggested would help. It would be the common sense kind of approach that would resolve this in a fair-minded way: fines would specify an amount and increase significantly for subsequent offences and payment would be vigorously enforced. This is not just something that people would be lightly let off for. We need people in place to enforce if we are going to make sure the fines are paid. We need those roadside assessment practices developed for detecting drugged driving offences.

Most important, we also need improved and stronger prosecution sentencing practices, agreed upon between the federal government and the provinces. There needs to be agreement. Until there is, we have a kind of Mexican standoff. The provinces are not going to be able to enforce something that the federal government dreams up but which is flawed. Then the provinces would be the ones caught in the middle, trying to enforce these strange laws put in place by the federal Liberals.

Several provinces, the Canadian Police Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and many Liberal backbenchers have expressed concern over this legislation, so the Conservative Party continues to point out its flaws. We will stand against it. We will oppose it with the hope that either it will collapse at election or there is some way we can stall this off to get it right, because it is the crucial kind of bill that will have an effect or an impact on so many people.

We do not want that carnage on the highways, the violence, the gang warfare and the impact on our borders in terms of the business and the international trade back and forth, all things that harm not just the user but those individuals around them, those across our country. We as a party will continue to oppose this until those very common sense changes are made.

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I know we have had reference thus far in the House today by individuals who have spoken of the tremendous impact it will have on lives and the harm that will be created. Others have brushed it off, saying that it is mostly a personal choice which affects maybe only the individuals themselves but has no affect on other people.

As we debate Bill C-10, which is legislation to amend the Contraventions Act to allow for certain offences to be prosecuted by means of a summons or a ticket and in short to decriminalize marijuana possession under 30 grams, I want to begin by making the point about the carnage created and the in the lives of other people in a couple of pretty significant ways. I will sketch them out off the top here.

In questions and comments in the House I have questioned the justice minister's concern about the carnage caused on Canadian roadways by impaired driving. I have drawn to the attention of the minister one of the many concerns raised by police chiefs, in particular by Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino when he spoke about the government's agenda to soften Canada's marijuana laws.

I asked a question of the minister some time ago. Julian Fantino, chief of police for Toronto, stated in a letter to me his many concerns about the government choosing to decriminalize marijuana. In that letter he referred to research indicating that if this bill were to come into place in the draft form as it was at that time, the number of drivers under 25 years of age under the influence of marijuana might increase by as much as 400%. That is the number of drivers under 25 years of age under the influence of marijuana or, in other words, driving while drunk.

Police Chief Fantino spoke of the added hazard this would then create on our roadways and highways. He spoke of the kind of unbelievable carnage and the grief and heartache families would experience when they lost a child, or a spouse, or a father or a mother because of somebody driving under the influence of marijuana. He spoke of the awful scene of a tragic accident where lives were lost.

I ask the question again today. Does the minister and the government not understand the tremendous carnage that could be caused on a yearly basis by such impaired driving? This is not only about oneself and a personal lifestyle habit. It is also very much about the very tragic impact it could have on others around us, as we are out on the highways and the byways.

Widely reported in the media over the last number of months has been the bad news about marijuana use and the violence and gang warfare, which is far too prevalent. The government's soft on drugs legislation before us today was referred to a special committee. We really had hoped the committee would show a lot more respect for the views of Canada's frontline police officers and emergency workers than the Liberal government has thus far.

Back on October 28, the Globe and Mail reported on a gang-style double murder in Toronto, with police officers directly tying that incident to a growing problem of marijuana and gang warfare in the city. I had an exchange with the member for Crowfoot earlier today about a poll that came out the very next day, on October 29 of last year. The media reported widely on a new poll which showed that marijuana use was higher than tobacco use among Canadian teens. That is significant and it is something we should all sit up, take note of and pay attention to, as I mentioned in my question to him.

We have the Liberal government promoting an aggressive campaign, with lots of dollars being put into it. Across the country we have posters, seminars, lessons and all kinds of messaging to dissuade youth from tobacco use. However, the proposed changes to marijuana legislation send the very opposite message.

Canada's frontline police officers remain distressed over the Liberal's soft on pot law. I have talked with them in my home riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin. The Canadian Professional Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have again written to the Prime Minister. They have asked for stronger legislation against the most serious drug related offences. Very bluntly, Canada's police officers are dismayed at the government's attempt to fast track this premature and seriously flawed bill.

The Conservative Party opposes Bill C-10, but it takes the position that if the Liberals are going to force it through, it must first set up a national drug strategy. Other members, at least from the Conservative Party, have referred to that today.

We need a national drug strategy that works at the street level in all our cities and all our communities across this great country. It must establish a progressive fine schedule with fines and penalties, increasing with the number of convictions, and significant consequences for non-payment of fines. That is not in the bill.

Minimum sentences are required to reinforce the seriousness of the crime of marijuana grow operations. Drug driving laws and roadside assessment must also be in place. We need to have a handle on that. We need to have that set up and ready to go before the legislation is passed. The police need legislation to enhance their enforcement powers in situations where drug impairment is suspected.

The very fact remains that the lower the penalties for drug use and drug running, the more lucrative this illegal activity will be. The more lucrative drug running is, the easier it will be for drug dealers to attract young people into this very dangerous and criminal activity.

The member from Calgary in his speech made clear, and I could not agree more, that the older ones will simply use the younger ones who will be more lightly prosecuted. They are the ones who will get off with a lighter sentence. They will be use them to be the stooges, the runners and those who take the hit. It will be simply an invitation to drug dealers to invite and lure younger people into this very dangerous and criminal activity. Those who already use marijuana will be more easily lured into trafficking.

New data indicating a rise in the number of teens using pot should be of grave concern. It is a serious issue, especially in view of the fact that recent polling indicates we have some real problems with greater use of marijuana than tobacco by teens in Canada. There has been reference to this by a number of people through the course of the day so far. Some of the questions and interventions have also revolved around this.

Putting aside the harm it does on the road, the carnage on the highways, the violence, the drug trafficking, the gang warfare, et cetera that will be created by the very soft on pot legislation, we also know it will harm all Canadians. It is not just a personal thing where people can say that it is their business and that it does not affect anyone else. As has been drawn out a couple times already, it very significantly will affect businesses. The member for Provencher talked about this. When big companies want to get deliveries in pretty quickly, but are held up at the border, it costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars in the course of the day. It does not just affect the individual. When regimes are put in place with more serious surveillances, it affects good people all across the country, including business people. It will probably result in tighter border restrictions between our two countries.

I really do not know what constituency the Liberal government is trying to attract with this new approach to drug legislation. It certainly is not the law-abiding citizens back in my constituency who love their children, love their youth and who want to live in safe communities.

Bill C-10 has a detrimental effect, not only on the person who uses it. We know there are harmful ill effects from that, medically. There have been studies that have proved that. However, it also affects carnage on the highways with drugged driving. We do not have the regimes in place to prevent or to detect that. It also affects the violence and the gangs in terms of the increased criminal activity related to this. It is also a gateway to harder drugs. As well, it affects the business community. It affects anybody exchanging goods between Canada and the United States. Therefore, there are some pretty serious consequences.

I find most appalling that they are setting up this discrepancy or difference between adults and youth, and fining youth at a much lower rate. What kind of a message does that send to say that it is okay for young people do it, but if adults do it that is a more serious thing? I find it most disturbing when we have lighter fines for young adults. On one hand the Liberals are saying that they are trying to prevent youth from using drugs. On the other hand, they are effectively eliminating any real penalty for them if they do so.

When we look at any kind of legislation, we want to have something in place so the effective and proper enforcement can take place. In this case we do not have the resources in place for the police to crack down on organized crime that is profiting from lack of enforcement and will all the more as the bill is put into effect.

The legislation might in fact increase demand for marijuana and, therefore, make the illegal production and distribution of marijuana even more lucrative for organized crime, using our vulnerable youth in a greater way as their runners, stoolpigeons and so on. That is very troubling.

The fines set out in the bill are much too low. They are a light slap on the wrist. It is the cost of doing business, and no more. There is nothing that would deter somebody from becoming involved and moving clients on to harder drugs where there is an even more serious effect.

Also, a tremendous drawback with the bill, a flaw, a negative, is there is no increase for subsequent offences. As the member from Calgary said if somebody has done it once, that is one thing. However, if it is done again and again that obviously should be taken into account. For repeat offences, there should be more serious and tougher consequences along the way.

One might say that the Liberals have really liberalized Canada's drug laws without providing the proper kind of enforcement. That is always troubling. When we get into the billion dollar boondoggle, the gun registry, having not thought this through in advance--

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was very well done. I learned some things and some other things were reinforced for me.

It is a very important and crucial matter because we do so much trade with the Americans just over the 49th parallel. The Americans have made it very clear that new soft on pot legislation will probably result in tighter border restrictions between our two countries.

I would like the hon. member to respond to that in terms of its effect and impact. We already have problems at the border and if we make this kind of a change, how much more significantly will it hurt trade and the flow of goods back and forth between our two counties?

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question with regard to the issue of youth, which he spoke about to a great extent today.

It is kind of ironic, when some of the polls report that marijuana use among Canadian teens is higher than tobacco use, that the Liberal government promotes an aggressive campaign to dissuade youth from tobacco but its proposed changes to the marijuana legislation actually sends the very opposite message.

I wonder what remarks the member would have in respect to that hypocrisy of the Liberal government.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions calling on Parliament to recognize in federal law the definition of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The petitioners are from Ontario and there is a total of 783 signatures.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, obviously Mr. Layton first needs to have a seat in the House and that has some question and doubt. There is no guarantee of that. He can make all the pronouncements he wants, but very clearly he is on the record as wanting to register long guns and the whole thing.

We stand very clearly in terms of scrapping the long gun registry, to be done with it. That is where the waste has been. There have been various other pistols and so on for the longest time, and there has been legislation with respect to them, but we would scrap the registry. There is no question about it.

There is a bit of a contradiction within the NDP because the leader is saying one thing and there are individuals out in my province who say another. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, if you will. It is really hard to know where they stand when in fact their leader, who is the one who kind of runs the show, or at least one would think that would be the case, is saying one thing in terms of support for registering all law-abiding duck hunters and so on across the country. He comes from downtown Toronto, an urban centre, and does not understand. Therefore he has a bit of a problem with his rural members who realize that their electoral chances are not real bright if in fact they do not indicate that they are opposed to the long gun registry.

The Conservative Party would scrap the long gun registry, no question.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, indeed my constituents are outraged and it is palpable. We hear it in conversations with people in terms of the dollars that we will probably never get back. The money has gone down a dark, black hole, down a drain where we probably will never be able to get it back. At least those with a more pessimistic side would say that.

Certainly we should pursue everything with full force and to the full extent of the law because there are people who are culpable. Maybe small amounts can be brought back. Certainly we want to send a strong signal in the days ahead that nobody in a public office should be using and abusing the public trust in that manner.

Our farmers are going under and there are people on the take, if you will, who are squandering hard-earned tax dollars made by the sweat of the brows of farmers and other hardworking people who pay taxes. They are using it for these kinds of things. People want to be done with the gun registry and the mounting costs in respect to that. They want to be sure that there are no more scams like that in Quebec or anywhere in the country for that matter. They want to be sure that HRDC scandals do not ever occur again.

We need to have things in place. We want to have those dollars retrieved but I have to confess I am not very optimistic about it because with some of the individuals the paper trail is not there. It was all verbal, there was not even a handshake. I do not express a lot of optimism, but certainly we should learn the lessons for the future as this should never, ever happen again.

It has put other programs in jeopardy, such as health, education, and certainly as we are speaking of today, agriculture. For beef producers in my friend's province of Alberta, it is the most distressing time of their lives.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative Party member, one certainly needs to respond to some of those spurious allegations across the way from the former agriculture minister. Maybe that is why he is no longer in that role. He needs to get his facts straight on a few things because we do have some very concrete proposals and policies.

We are in support of supply management. We think we can actually strengthen the Wheat Board, or at least make the provision for it to be strengthened by way of our approach on this whole matter.

We do need income support programs for farmers. Our party does support the use of safety net programs to assist producers struggling with conditions outside their control. For things they do not have any control over at all, we certainly want to stand by them in those times of need.

We would have those measures in place to assist people across our country, whatever agriculture production capacity they are in, but in a way that it would not distort trade. It would need to be consistent with Canada's international trading obligations. We have something very specific. The members across the way should be here to take careful notes so they do not make those false allegations in the future.

In respect of the Canadian Wheat Board, we have said that we are on the side of farmers. We want to support farmers. We want to have a strong Wheat Board but our priority obviously in all of this is for the good of farmers.

A Conservative government would give farmers the freedom of choice to make their own marketing and transportation decisions and also to direct, to structure and to voluntarily involve themselves in those producer organizations. That is for the good of farmers and it can be for the good of the Canadian Wheat Board as well, as they adjust, as they flex, as they are in sync with the various things in our international markets.

In respect to supply management, we have said, going back to our former Canadian Alliance days, those of us from that particular side, but confirm these days as the new Conservative Party, that we believe it is in the very best interests of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government would support the goal of supply management to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producers.

Reading that particular statement, without question, we have no problems with support of supply. In fact it is very crucial. These are the only farmers, in my neck of the woods, in my constituency, who do not have some of the other pressing issues that agricultural producers have had in the last number of years. However they are in hard times now because of the BSE crisis.

I want to interject, Mr. Speaker, to say that I want to split my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

The Minister of Agriculture mentioned that we have to go beyond the motion today. We agree with that and are quite prepared to do that as the new Conservative Party with some very specific and concrete proposals. They are very explicit, not like some of the nebulous stuff that there is which is not helpful in the long term to farmers, at least not when they have to hire accountants and lawyers to figure out how to fill out the forms for the various programs that are dreamed up by the government.

Without question we must go beyond this. This is the starting point but we certainly need a government in place that would reallocate the resources and get away from the wasteful and unnecessary programs, and all the spending. We need to get away from the scams that we have had in Quebec, the sponsorship scandals, the billion dollar HRDC boondoggle, the almost $2 billion and mounting gun registry, and so on. We need to get away from that waste so that we can address the agricultural crisis at the farm gate with specific and concrete proposals and specific dollar amounts. I want to spend my remaining time by addressing them very specifically.

It has been unveiled and is on the public record, our commitment, our word, upon forming a government in 2004. The Conservative Party of Canada has very specific and concrete good news for farmers. It would be an improvement of things for them, if we were given the mandate to implement the Conservative Party plan of action for agriculture.

In the short term at least $900 million would need to come in by way of topping up the 2002 Canadian farm income program from the current 60% right up to payouts to the full 100% coverage. It would take approximately $75 million, I understand from the calculations, for that to occur.

There is the matter of increasing the processing capacity for mature cattle as well as all other livestock sectors. There is about another $75 million calculated for that. There is also the mature livestock rationalization program estimated to be about $400 million. These are the specific figures as asked for by the members across the way. We are quite prepared to put them on the record today.

Then there is the Canadian agriculture income support program or CAIS as it is becoming known in common jargon. I talked to an accountant last week and he has concerns with many of these programs, and with this one to a certain degree as well.

A number of good heads have to get together, accountants and all the farm players have to get together to figure these programs out. Accountants get involved. They are very complicated programs.

There would need to be the top up of the CAIS program for BSE affected farm operations. That would take about $300 million. That is no insignificant sum of dollars that would need to be put into that. It is a very difficult time for those affected by a somewhat inadequate handling of this crisis by the present government through not looking down the road such that we could head off this thing by international protocols that were followed in our country.

We need to provide interest free cash advances of approximately $25 million. An advance on calf value aimed at cow-calf operators would be helpful to beef operators back in the Saskatoon—Wanuskewin constituency and all across the country.

We need to provide confidence to the lending institutions so that when farmers walk in and have particular needs they can know that they are backstopped by the Government of Canada, a Conservative government, that is supporting producers in respect to cashflow. We need to provide interest free loan guarantees for backgrounders and feedlot operators of some $25 million.

There will be more in future days, but these are specific concrete proposals that we are not shy to put on the record, in contrast to the rather nebulous plans of the government on the opposite side.

I think the minister is quite right. The beginning point is to stop the waste, stop the scandalous squander of dollars that has been occurring on the gun registry, the sponsorship scam, HRDC, and on and on it goes. There are probably more things that will turn up in the days ahead. We need to stop that and begin to redirect and get the priorities right, and focus in the particular way that we have talked about here. It is on the record. Members of the government can analyze it and do the calculations.

My question for the minister and those opposite today would be, are they prepared to live up to that? Can they deliver that kind of a program with specific concrete proposals? We would urge them to make that kind of commitment to farm families across the country.

That is our plan of action as a new Conservative government in 2004. That is what we would do for agriculture producers. It is how we would stand with them in the days ahead.

[Immigration, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government says it does not have the money for migration security officers for the Saskatoon and Regina airports to continue the practice of meeting new arrivals when their flights land from other countries.

Are new arrivals from other countries going to be asked to report voluntarily to a downtown immigration office, unattended and on their own initiative? After business hours, are all new arrivals going to be detained at the airport until the next day? If they are, it will cost more money for security than it would cost to have the migration security officer come to the airport. What about new arrivals who may have a criminal record? Will they report voluntarily?

Why do the Liberals always have enough money for their Liberal buddies, but not enough for the things that Canadians care about, such as immigration services, health care and agriculture? Why do Liberals give themselves first class treatment while the needs of the country are at the bottom of the priority list?