House of Commons Hansard #57 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was inquiry.

Topics

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not ask himself whether it was moral, ethical or even legal to offer a $1 million insurance policy to a dying man in exchange for his vote in the House. The Prime Minister did not ask himself if it was his duty to try to prevent his closest confidants from taking such action. The Prime Minister did not ask himself if he should report this to the police.

Why is it that the Prime Minister's only question was whether this was going to be published?

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, there is a simple fact to this case, and that is my hon. colleague was not at the meeting, and none of the Liberal members were at the meeting. They had their own meetings with Chuck Cadman when they were trying to persuade him to cross the floor to the Liberal Party and to vote their way on the budget.

There were three people at the meeting about which we are talking. All three of them said that no offer was made. That is the simple fact. I am sorry if it does not jive with the Liberal political tactic here, but it is the truth. The truth in this case is unassailable. No offer was made.

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with respect to the Cadman affair, the Prime Minister claimed that all Mr. Cadman was offered in exchange for his vote on May 19, 2005, was the nomination. That is what he said in this House. But that version of events has been contradicted by Chuck Cadman's wife and his daughter, both of whom claim that two Conservative Party representatives offered him a $1 million insurance policy.

Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that these allegations of corruption reveal his government's true colours, and that they are no better than those of the Liberals who preceded them?

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should not attack Mr. Cadman's integrity, because Mr. Cadman himself said that no offer was made here. Three people were at that meeting, and all three say that nothing was offered. Those are the facts.

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, Chuck Cadman's wife and daughter are not the only ones contradicting the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister contradicted himself in a recording that we all heard in the media this morning, in which he confirmed that he knew about financial considerations offered to Mr. Cadman by legitimate representatives of the Conservative Party.

How could the Prime Minister knowingly allow his party's representatives to attempt to buy Mr. Cadman's vote, which is formally prohibited in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Criminal Code?

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, there were three people at that meeting, and my Bloc Québécois colleague was not among them. All three people who were there said that no offer was made. So quite simply, that is what Mr. Cadman said, and those are the facts of the matter.

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that Mr. Cadman had been guaranteed a Conservative nomination in the next election. Yet, in 2005, the Prime Minister revealed that Mr. Cadman had been offered financial compensation for losses related to the calling of an election. The Prime Minister has given us two versions of the same story.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, no matter the offer made to Mr. Cadman, if there was an offer, it was attempted bribery?

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc are trying to blur two very different things. There was in fact a conversation about Chuck Cadman rejoining the Conservative Party.

Chuck was a long time friend of mine. He was a member of Parliament, first elected in 1997 from a neighbouring riding. We wanted him to be a member of the Conservative caucus. The Prime Minister made a recommendation to him that he rejoin the Conservative Party, as he was previously a member, so he could be a candidate for us in the coming campaign.

What she is talking about, in terms of impropriety, is in fact not true. She was not at that meeting. There was no offer that was tabled. Chuck Cadman himself said so. She ought to accept the word of Chuck Cadman.

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, just because the financial offer made to Mr. Cadman—and confirmed by the Prime Minister—did not yield the desired results does not mean that there was no bribery.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the offer made by official representatives of the Conservative Party to an MP in an attempt to buy his vote is illegal?

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the questions is that there was no offer. Mr. Cadman said so himself. He said it on two occasions on national television. He said so himself: there was no offer.

Arts and Culture
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are deeply concerned by reports that the Conservatives are planning to censor film and video production in Canada to suit their friends from the religious right.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages confirm that her office is working on “updated eligibility requirements” and the “standardized and updated list of illegal and other ineligible content”?

Could the minister assure the House and Canada's cultural community that her department will not place any new barriers to accessing film tax credits in Canada? Will she give that assurance today?

Arts and Culture
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Kootenay—Columbia
B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, filmmakers are free to make movies as they see fit as long as they are within the law. However, the Canadian taxpayer should not be forced to pay for material that is gratuitously violent or denigrating to identifiable groups.

The government simply reintroduced the same tax measure in an omnibus bill. By the way, that party, along with all parties, voted in favour of the law.

Arts and Culture
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows full well that the bill in question does not reveal the Conservatives' plan to censor Canadian films. Rather it is the guidelines that the department is drafting that would create a Canadian film censorship board, a board that would decide what film and video content would be worthy and what would not.

Therefore, does the minister agree that there can be no role for government censorship in the Canadian film industry? Will she assure Canadians that any plans to curtail artistic freedom will be stopped immediately? No censorship.

Arts and Culture
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Kootenay—Columbia
B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the NDP member is trying to make something out of nothing. The fact is the tax measure is nothing new. The fact is that party, along with every party in the House, passed the bill. She should have known what was in the bill in the first place.

I should note that it originally came to the House in 2003, under the Liberals at that point. There is nothing new. What is the story here? I do not understand.

Ethics
Oral Questions

February 29th, 2008 / 11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and members of his government deliberately tried to confuse Canadians.

According to the book, the distasteful offer to bribe Mr. Cadman was made with the Prime Minister's approval on May 17. There was another meeting on May 19, but the bribe was offered on May 17.

Who represented the Prime Minister at the May 17 meeting and what was offered to Mr. Cadman?