House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nations.

Topics

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, the government could end questions about the foreign affairs minister's situation simply by assuring Canadians that proper steps were taken to ensure his involvement with his ex-partner did not pose a security risk.

Instead, the government responds with belligerence, ignoring legitimate security concerns.

Is the government certain that the relationship the foreign affairs minister had did not pose a security risk? Would he please answer the question?

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, we have made it quite clear that this government would not put our national security at risk. However, it also should not provide an excuse for the kind of prurient, silly questions we have been hearing from the opposition.

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a security expert who worked with the RCMP and CSIS, warns that an infiltration of government by organized crime is a real concern. He and many others say that if we want to be on the safe side there should be an examination of this matter.

Since the government cannot or will not assure Canadians there was no security breach, will it simply agree now to give this matter appropriate scrutiny?

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, it was not long ago that the leader of the Liberal Party said that he wanted to raise the level of discourse in the House of Commons. I thought that meant respecting people's private lives.

I expect that later this week we will be able to see the Liberal leader on eTalk daily with Ben Mulroney discussing the latest developments with Tom and Katie or with Brad and Angelina.

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, if all of the necessary checks were done in terms of the Minister of Foreign Affairs' situation, the government could simply reassure this House and all Canadians by explaining the nature of these checks. If the government truly was diligent, it has no reason to avoid the questions.

Did the government conclude that national security has never been compromised?

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I recall that tone from the leader of the Liberal Party, which seems to have been lost by all his members who seem to want to continue to persist in these day after day personal questions.

On April 5, 2007, he said, “I would be very pleased to see less personal attacks, less low politics”. Apparently he is not the leader of that party.

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons should speak with his own colleague, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Michael Fortier himself admits that if he were part of the opposition, he would ask question about this matter. Consequently, I give the minister another chance to reassure Canadians, this House and his own colleague.

Were checks made, and was national security compromised? A simple answer could put this debate to rest.

National Security
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, overwhelmingly, believe that people's private lives should be their private lives. There was a time when there were people in the Liberal Party who thought that. There was a time when people in the Liberal Party thought they would appeal to higher sentiment.

For example, their current leader said that he would not be playing this smear game. In a quote from March 5, 2007, he said, “I will be playing the high road”. Apparently, there is nobody else in the party who is willing to follow him on that high road.

400th Anniversary of Quebec City
Oral Questions

May 12th, 2008 / 2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity) sent all members and senators two documents worthy of the good old days of propaganda from Sheila Copps and Jean Chrétien. One of them, entitled “The Canadian Crown”, indicates that Canada was ruled by two kings at once, one French and one English, and that they fought around the world for Canadian unity. Imagine that.

Can the minister explain this surreal rewriting of history, all in the name of Canadian unity?

400th Anniversary of Quebec City
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I do not understand the question. Obviously, it the federal government's duty to promote Canadian history, an understanding of our federal institutions, our constitutional institutions and our bilingual system, that is, the two official languages we hold dear.

400th Anniversary of Quebec City
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, that does not mean rewriting history. That is not what happened.

In a letter addressed to the people elected to this House and those appointed to the other house, the minister wrote “... it is difficult to maintain a strong, homogeneous national identity”, which is why it is important to promote so-called national symbols, such as the Crown of Canada. Yet this comes from a government that supposedly recognizes the Quebec nation.

Does the minister realize that by promoting homogeneous national unity, he is denying the very existence of the Quebec nation?

400th Anniversary of Quebec City
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Calgary Southeast
Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is a little confused. As we all know, last week, they tried to create a scandal out of the Governor General's visit, a visit that made all Canadians proud of her and her responsibility. Her visit to France respected the dignity of all Canadians and she recognized the founding of Quebec as a key point in Canadian history.

Official Languages and the Supreme Court
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, like the Commissioner of Official Languages, columnist Yves Boisvert has said that Supreme Court justices should be bilingual. According to Mr. Boisvert, it would be appropriate for them to understand both official languages and to have direct access to the language of one of Canada's two legal cultures.

Will the Prime Minister exercise judgment and add the knowledge of both official languages to the necessary criteria in the list of basic competencies of Supreme Court justices?

Official Languages and the Supreme Court
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Niagara Falls
Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of a Supreme Court justice is the responsibility of the government. We will act in a timely manner. There will be extensive consultations. We will act in an open and transparent manner.

We will appoint an outstanding individual of whom all Canadians can be proud. Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada deserve no less.

Airbus
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, six months after promising to hold a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, the Prime Minister has not yet appointed a chair or established the official mandate of the inquiry. The hearings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics ended more than two months ago, the report was tabled over one month ago and the promise to appoint a commissioner has still not been kept.

Why is the Prime Minister waiting to appoint a commissioner if not to delay this inquiry and avoid the fallout from another scandal before the next election?