House of Commons Hansard #107 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.

Topics

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail reports that court documents show that Julie Couillard was under police surveillance as early as 1998 as part of an RCMP drug investigation.

Given that she had been known to the RCMP at least since 1998, if not earlier, and that the RCMP is also the police force responsible for protecting cabinet ministers, there is no way the Prime Minister could not have been made aware of Ms. Couillard's past by the RCMP.

Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us when the Prime Minister was informed by the RCMP of Ms. Couillard's shady past?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

11:20 a.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 believe it is the leader of the Bloc Québécois who was mostly interested in any past history of Madam Couillard; something that he spent a lot of time discussing when he was getting his hair done, it appears. Our concerns have to do with public policy.

The Prime Minister, in this regard, became aware of a different matter, which was a security breach regarding classified documents, where cabinet rules were broken and when he became aware of that, the foreign minister at the time tendered his resignation, which was accepted.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is discrediting himself with false pretenses.

The fact is that Ms. Couillard was known to police at least as far back as 1998, and she still had ties to criminal bikers just a few months ago. We know that she had dinner with a shylock very close to Mom Boucher and very well known to police. There is just no way the RCMP did not inform the Prime Minister of Ms. Couillard's shady past.

When will the lies stop and the truth be told that Ms. Couillard's shady past was very well known when she was the spouse of the former foreign affairs minister?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

11:20 a.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 think what happened in this incident is quite clear to everybody. The former minister of foreign affairs, the member for Beauce, left a document in an unsecured location. That was contrary to the rules that applied to a foreign minister, that applied to a cabinet minister. As soon as the Prime Minister became aware of that, the foreign minister offered his resignation and that resignation was accepted.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, the accumulation of disturbing facts concerning Julie Couillard proves that there is no way that the RCMP and CSIS did not alert the Prime Minister to his former foreign affairs minister's relationships. Some of the testimonies heard by the Standing Committee on Public Safety might confirm this, thus showing his irresponsible attitude toward state security.

Is that not the real reason behind the Prime Minister's refusal to appear before the committee and all his efforts to sweep the Bernier-Couillard affair under the rug?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

11:20 a.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, the government takes security matters very seriously. In this regard, the Department of Foreign Affairs is conducting a review of the incident that took place to review whether processes that related to that are adequate. When that review is completed, if there are any items of importance we will take action on them, as we have in other similar situations where we have had good advice on how processes can be changed.

Ethics
Oral Questions

June 6th, 2008 / 11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, last November the Prime Minister committed to holding a public inquiry into the business dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber. Tuesday marked two months since the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics submitted its report, and still no one has been appointed to head this inquiry.

Is the Prime Minister dragging his feet on appointing a commissioner for the same reasons that he refuses to appear before the committee—in order to avoid an inquiry that would discredit him even more?

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:25 a.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 plan to start the public inquiry soon. We have asked professor David Johnston to examine and establish the terms for a public inquiry. This public inquiry will begin soon.

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are only four days left before the residential school apology happens in this House and survivors are still waiting for the details.

This is an official apology, but what plans have been made to receive its acceptance? Will we follow the lead of the labour government in Australia and make allowances for people outside the House of Commons lawn to watch, table the apology at least a day prior, include aboriginal representatives in preparing the House for the apology, and will survivors be provided with the resources needed to come to the ceremony?

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important and solemn occasion. The government will be undertaking a solemn and official apology in Parliament in the appropriate context where it should take place. There will be associated with this, of course, a number of residential school survivors coming to Ottawa as part of the program. As well, there will be some additional ceremonies to supplement the government's official apology.

We look forward to this very important day that has been far too long in coming because, of course, previous governments never took this action, and it is time that it happened.

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, we agree it is an important and solemn occasion and that this apology is for all Canadians to witness and honour. If survivors are allowed to address the House, their words will be broadcast to all Canadians, including the survivors who cannot attend in person and will be watching on television.

Will the minister agree today that the acceptance of the apology is equally important and the government should receive that acceptance right here in this House?

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Questions

11:25 a.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 believe very strongly that this is an important event and that the apology should have the full weight of being a solemn, official, parliamentary function. It is our intention to proceed in that fashion to ensure that it does have that.

I did want to thank the leader of the NDP who up to now has been quite constructive in assisting in the preparations and the encouragement for this day to happen which, as I have said, should have happened some time ago, but is now finally going to take place next Wednesday.

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, rarely does a government try to take the spotlight off of one of its scandals by highlighting another. That is exactly what it tried to do this week. It produced a sworn affidavit from Dona Cadman, the Conservative candidate in Surrey North who said, “on May 17, 2005 my husband told me that earlier that day two Conservative Party representatives had offered him a $1 million insurance policy”. This is a sworn affidavit just two weeks ago.

Is it the government's position that Mrs. Cadman has committed perjury?

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:25 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, it is the government's position that the Liberals, according to two forensic audio experts, have been using a tape that “has been edited and doctored” to misrepresent the event as it actually occurred. That is what we have said.

If the Liberals are short on memory, they should know the Liberals went to the RCMP and RCMP Chief Superintendent Serge Therriault came back and said, “The investigation disclosed no evidence to support a charge under the Criminal Code or under the Parliament of Canada Act”. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Prime Minister or the Conservative Party.

The Liberals should apologize.

Ethics
Oral Questions

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is a bad sign when they hold a news conference and all the media laugh at them.

Unlike the parliamentary secretary, Dona Cadman's story has been the same from day one. Her husband was offered a million dollar insurance policy. After fumbling for weeks, the parliamentary secretary finally settled on one story. There was one meeting with Chuck Cadman on May 19. Well, Dona Cadman's affidavit says, “the date that my husband told me that he had received the offer of a $1 million insurance policy was May 17, 2005 and not May 19, 2005”.

Which should we believe, the PMO puppet or the sworn testimony of Dona Cadman?