Stephen Harper

[David Dingwall, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should join with Premier Charest in condemning the comments by the Minister of Transport.

Yesterday David Dingwall said he was told to go to the Privy Council Office to seek any severance he believes he is entitled to. The Privy Council Office is under the Prime Minister's direct authority. The Prime Minister has maintained that Mr. Dingwall quit voluntarily. In fact, he says his government urged him to stay.

Why does the Prime Minister not just say no to David Dingwall's demand for more money?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, every day, this government launches a new attack against the Government of Quebec. Yesterday it was the Minister of Transport, the co-founder of the Bloc Québécois, who insulted a minister, Benoît Pelletier.

Will the Prime Minister remind the Minister of Transport that he is no longer in the Bloc Québécois and that it is no longer his role to attack the federalist government in Quebec?

[Child Care, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister himself who said that the child care program in Quebec was a success story. Now, it is time the federal government respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Corruption in this federal government has already sullied the reputation of federalism in Quebec. Still, this government is seeking confrontation with the Government of Quebec in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Does the Prime Minister realize that this bad habit is a threat to national unity?

[Child Care, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to take that seriously.

On a different topic, it is clear that the federal government intends to impose its conditions on Quebec with respect to the child care program.

Yesterday, Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that “The use of the federal spending power is a threat. The fiscal imbalance is a threat. And now, there is a third threat: the concept of national interest”.

In support of the true national interest, will the Prime Minister respect Quebec's jurisdiction over child care, no strings attached?

[Justice, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, talk about a bunch of people who just do not get it. Yesterday the Vancouver Board of Trade said that crime is so bad in Vancouver it is doing damage to the economy of the city. Vancouver Police Chief Graham says federal laws allow thieves to reoffend and they get bail again and again and again.

When is the government, after 12 years—

[Justice, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister started both these answers with this cute little smirk. When I take my family to Wonderland and other families, there is nothing funny about it.

The Vancouver Board of Trade has said that crime is so bad in Vancouver that it is doing damage—

[Justice, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's job is to know that this happens and to ensure that it never happens in the first place.

The president of the Ontario police chiefs said, “Conditional and intermittent sentences, house arrest, 2 for 1 and 3 for 1 earned sentence protocols, mandatory parole and weekend passes to local theme parks do little to dissuade murderers, marijuana grow operators, ecstasy manufacturers, carjackers, child molesters and others from committing these horrific crimes”.

Everyone else in the country knows being soft of crime does not work. When is the minister and the government going to get it?

[Justice, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about convicted criminals getting passes to children's theme parks. She told the House she did not know whether this was happening. Yet a Correctional Service Canada official says it happens all the time. In fact, the York region police chief says that hard core criminals on no less than nine occasions got travel permits to Wonderland this summer.

How can the minister not have a clue that this sort of thing is going on in her own department?

[Major-General Maurice Gaston Cloutier, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if Parliament Hill had to elect a mayor, Major-General Cloutier would have served more than one term in office.

Over the past 27 years, he was a loyal friend and devoted associate to several generations of MPs.

Gus was blessed with a charming sense of humour. The Prime Minister said that he perhaps sometimes had his eyebrows raised at a crop of new MPs. My experience with Gus is that sometimes I think those eyebrows stayed raised for an awfully long time.

In any case, everybody came to know our Sergeant-at-Arms. He lent dignity to official functions and helped many of us understand the historic role of our parliamentary institutions.

Whether in discharging his duties as secretary to Her Majesty, officiating at the opening of Parliament or finding a parking spot, Gus brought the same graceful efficiency to all his many responsibilities. He was many things to many people, but above all, he was a friend to so many who knew him.

Before entering this place, Major-General Cloutier also had a distinguished career in the public service and in the armed forces, where he occupied many important posts.

History remembers the contributions of many MPs, ministers, prime ministers and sometimes even leaders of the opposition who have sat in this chamber. However, sometimes we forget the irreplaceable work of the officers of the House. I am convinced that the contributions of Major-General Cloutier will long live in the annals of Canadian parliamentarism.

On behalf of my party, I extend to the family and numerous friends of Major-General Cloutier our sympathy and heartfelt condolences.

[David Dingwall, October 18th, 2005]

What we know, Mr. Speaker, is that David Dingwall is not entitled to another dime of taxpayer money.

I want to ask the Prime Minister again because this was his idea. This is the man he called the Saint David of public service here on the House of Commons floor. Once again, will he assure us that he will not pay David Dingwall a cent when he already owes $350,000 back to the government?