House of Commons Hansard #136 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-65.

Topics

Justice
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Northumberland—Quinte West
Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, there is no question when it comes to the protection of children that the opposition has anything on us.

We believe the priority of children is important. We have taken Bill C-2, our first bill in this session of Parliament, and brought it forward for the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

We believe in the protection of children. We believe that Bill C-2, when it comes into force, will meet that challenge.

Justice
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not see to it because they will not change the law.

Over the weekend the same predator with 42 prior convictions and a high risk to reoffend turned himself in to the local RCMP detachment saying that he was bringing a risk to the community. That mirrors recent comments by the serial rapist Larry Fisher, who said that he himself was surprised that he got out of jail so quickly after so many rapes. While he was out on parole he raped and murdered.

When are the laws going to change? The Prime Minister refuses to listen to citizens who want the laws changed. Will the Prime Minister start listening to the criminals themselves who are saying that these Liberal laws are dangerous?

Justice
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Edmonton Centre
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, obviously the first and paramount purpose of a corrections and parole system is the protection and safety of the public. That is why I have asked the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to look at our parole system.

In fact, I am open to the fact and I have said that we may need to rebalance that system. That is why I am seeking the advice of all parties in the form of a reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I would just ask that the members get to work.

Canadian Heritage
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, two investigation reports prepared in 2004 show that the Department of Canadian Heritage blindly paid millions of dollars to Liberal cronies at the Canadian Unity Council. These damaging reports have forced the department to conduct a more in-depth audit, which may possibly lead to the recovery of the overpayments. Canadian Heritage is refusing to release the results of a third investigation conducted last year.

Why is the minister refusing to release this report? What does she have to hide?

Canadian Heritage
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park
Ontario

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, I am quite bemused with the question. My hon. colleague across the floor has given examples and claims that there is money owing, but there are no particulars. If the hon. member could provide me with some of the particulars, I would be happy to address the issue.

Canadian Heritage
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, since she is the parliamentary secretary to the minister, perhaps she could read the two internal audit reports that have been at her disposal for the past year.

At the Gomery inquiry, a former director of the Liberal party, Benoît Corbeil, revealed the existence of a Liberal network that included the Canadian Unity Council.

Does the minister not realize that by refusing to table immediately the most recent investigation report on the funding of the Canadian Unity Council's activities, she is raising suspicions that she too is trying to protect the Liberal cronies involved in this council?

Canadian Heritage
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park
Ontario

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we understand what audit we are talking about. It is the Canadian Unity Council audit. In fact, that audit revealed 10 recommendations and the department has acted on those recommendations.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Carleton—Lanark, ON

Mr. Speaker, until recently the government was considering sole sourcing aircraft projects worth billions of dollars with no competition and no checks or balances. Now it is indicating that the projects are going to competition, but this is just smoke and mirrors. The government is setting requirements that are so restrictive and specific that its preferred choices will win. Other competitors will not have a fair chance.

Why is this government so determined to abandon fair competition? Who will benefit from this?

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, members of the House will recall that it was the hon. member who suggested in the House that we were going to sole sourcing, not I.

I said at that time to please give me a chance to sin before I get punished for my sins. Now the hon. member is saying that we have changed in the direction he wanted us to take and he still wishes to punish people before we have announced what we are going to do.

Once again, would hon. members in the House allow us to come forward with a plan? Then maybe they can criticize the plan.

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Carleton—Lanark, ON

Mr. Speaker, the minister has sinned. The fix is in.

The government has also abandoned open competition. It is declaring the aircraft projects matters of national security. They will not be subject to scrutiny by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, leaving those unfairly treated with a long court process well after the winner has been chosen.

There is no justification for the national security designation. It is simply a way to bypass scrutiny and open competition. Why is the government so resistant to open competition when billions in taxpayers' money are involved?

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I return to what I said earlier. I wish hon. members would allow us to come forward with a plan. They can criticize it or not criticize it based on what it provides.

I do not know where the hon. member is getting his questions from. I can only speculate that he is being provided misinformation by people within the department or some other place. If he wants to speculate on what we are going to do, he would be happy to speculate, but there is no point in us speculating on the floor of the House. The government will come forward with a procurement plan which is in the best interests of our forces and of our country.

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Michael John Savage Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, recently a Conservative member of the House made a ridiculous allegation when she suggested that the DART is a waste of time and money. Could the minister remind the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey and other members opposite about how the DART is an important and valued component of our relief efforts?

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from the region. I have to tell members that it was with great pride we saw the members of our DART going off to a dangerous region, 10,000 feet up in the mountains, to provide medical aid and to provide much needed water and engineering capacity.

In their medical capacity, they are going to have some 34 members, of which 15 will be women, women who will be able to provide young girls and women in that area with the essential aid they require.

Before the armchair quarterbacks at home take cheap potshots at our men and women when they go abroad, they should give them a chance to do their work. Let us listen to what the Sri Lankans said—

National Defence
Oral Questions

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. The time for oral questions has expired. There have been discussions among representatives of all parties in the House and I understand that a representative of each party will make a short statement with respect to the death of Major-General Maurice Gaston Cloutier, Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons and Canadian Secretary to the Queen.

The right hon. Prime Minister.

Major-General Maurice Gaston Cloutier
Oral Questions

October 18th, 2005 / 3 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, Major-General Maurice Gaston Cloutier was our longest serving Sergeant-at-Arms. Indeed, he spent the best years of his life in the service of Canada. He was a man of tradition and a man of our time, and he is dearly missed.

Gus Cloutier was the keeper of the rules and customs of this House. He recognized their importance to democratic life in our country, despite the fact that they sometimes seem strange.

Gus Cloutier was able to see beyond the history and ceremony of the House to recognize its humanity. He knew well the duties of his office, and he knew us well too.

He looked after all of us. When we first arrived here, he might raise his eyebrows at the new crop of MPs. He had a sense of humour about us, but he knew what we were here to do. He recognized that he could help us and make us feel at home here. He also recognized all the little ways in which he could assist the members in their duties and which would make a big difference in their lives here.

We appreciated him for that, right from the very first days and weeks we spent here and the many years after, during which we had the privilege of serving under his watch.

It would seem unfair to remember Gus without a story, because he was of course both the source and the subject of some great ones. At one time he was aide-de-camp to the then Minister of National Defence. His rank was Lieutenant-Colonel.

Gus was no doubt the most dashing and the most competent and intelligent aide-de-camp that the minister had ever been blessed with. One evening, as I understand it, they were having a drink, perhaps more than one, and the minister, to his credit, observed how Gus would make a fine general.

Naturally Gus had to agree. In fact, he asked the minister if he would not mind repeating himself on the phone if he could get the Department of National Defence on the line. Sure enough, Gus did, and that was that: Major-General Gus Cloutier came into being.

Needless to say, when the right thing needed to be done, our Sergeant-at-Arms could find a way. He merited his elevation to the post of Major-General. He had a distinguished career, one that all could be proud of, and he had a distinguished career that he left when he came here, one that any man or woman could be proud of.

We could say many things about Major-General Cloutier, but the fact remains that he was quite simply a true gentleman and a friend to us all, a Canadian who served his country in both war and peace.

This House was never better served. He will be forever missed.