Stephen Harper

[Income Trusts, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while the government negotiates severance with David Dingwall, it is undermining the retirement plans of ordinary Canadians.

Mary Louise in Ontario says, “This whole thing would be a joke... but none of us are laughing as our RRSP accounts evaporate due to thoughtless, ill-informed remarks and threats to destroy income trusts”.

When will the Prime Minister admit that he simply blundered, back down and assure Canadians that income trusts are here to stay?

[David Dingwall, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, David Dingwall is accused of a wide range of misspending. There are suspicions about what exactly happened with moneys at Technology Partnerships Canada.

If the minister wants, he can negotiate with him some kind of golden parachute. The Treasury Board president can continue to urge him to stay and the Prime Minister can proclaim him to be the St. David of public service. If they are so certain, why do they not call in the Auditor General to investigate what actually happened?

[David Dingwall, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to keep on top of the situation. We will, of course, aid it in anything we can do.

Yesterday while David Dingwall was resigning for his scandalous spending, the Prime Minister was defending him in the House. What a change for the man who said that he would clean it all up.

Will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and ask the Auditor General to do a thorough investigation of Mr. Dingwall's spending and contracting practices at the Canadian Mint and at Technology Partnerships Canada?

[Newfoundland and Labrador, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday an all party event on the front lawn of Parliament was raising money to support the flood victims of New Orleans. Yet it seems no one is paying attention to what is happening here at home.

Stephenville, Newfoundland is under two feet of water due to heavy rains and flooding. A state of emergency has been declared and 181 people have been evacuated.

Given that Newfoundland and Labrador has no cabinet representation, what is the government doing to help the evacuees and to aid the situation?

[Justice, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that mandatory minimum sentences do not work. I can give a reason why we need mandatory minimum sentences.

Paul Coffin, one of the Liberals involved in the sponsorship scandal, was in Montreal yesterday to give a lecture on ethics.

That is his sentence for defrauding the taxpayers of $1.5 million.

Does the Prime Minister find that acceptable?

[Justice, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on another matter, I was glad to hear that the Prime Minister did call the representatives of the families of the murdered RCMP officers yesterday to apologize.

I do want to return though to the substance of the question. The police families generally have been demanding mandatory minimum prison sentences. The Minister of Justice said after the tragedy in Mayerthorpe, “We have said before and I will repeat again that...mandatory minimums serve neither as a deterrent nor an effect.”

Will the Prime Minister take some action and impose mandatory prison sentences for serious, violent and repeat crimes?

[David Dingwall, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that David Dingwall, another Liberal appointee and head of the Mint, resigned today over the misuse of taxpayer dollars. However, this action takes place only after evidence of this waste and abuse was exposed by the opposition through access to information and reported by the media.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why this Liberal culture of waste and scandal is only stopped once it is actually exposed publicly?

[Justice, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the families have told us they want us to raise this in the House today and I am proud to do it on their behalf.

I am told also that the Prime Minister was asked to meet with the families yesterday and chose not to do that, but I will at least ask the Prime Minister this question. Is he at least prepared to listen to the families and make the changes to the law they want to have made by this government?

[Justice, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a brief condolence at a reception does not constitute a long and serious discussion. I can tell the Prime Minister that the families certainly do not consider that they have had any such kind of meeting or discussion with the Prime Minister.

Regardless of how we choose to phrase it, I can assure the Prime Minister that these families are deeply upset and feel deeply misled. Will he apologize to them?

[Justice, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the Prime Minister that the families of the four slain RCMP officers were in Ottawa to make a passionate plea for criminal justice reform. The Prime Minister told the House in response that he had “met the families and had long discussions”.

The families told us afterwards that no such discussions took place; they were in the gallery. I am wondering why the Prime Minister would mislead the families and mislead the House in this fashion.