Debates of April 16th, 2010
House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was products.
Topics
- Question Period
- Jobs and Economic Growth Act
- Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act
- Wine Industry
- Annie Pope
- Tourism Awards
- National Housing Strategy
- Moose Jaw Central Collegiate
- Quebec Entrepreneurship Competition
- Citizenship Ceremonies
- The Aeneid in Africa
- Sealing Industry
- Holocaust Remembrance Day
- Small Business
- Poverty
- Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
- Federal Spending Power
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
- Ethics
- Afghanistan
- Rights & Democracy
- Afghanistan
- Credit and Debit Card Industry
- Afghanistan
- Environment
- Public Safety
- Vale Inco
- Fairness at the Pumps Act
- Fishing Industry
- Justice
- The Environment
- Human Resources
- Vale Inco
- Canada Post
- Chile
- Presence in Gallery
- Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic
- Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of South Africa
- Government Response to Petitions
- Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act
- Committees of the House
- Petitions
- Questions on the Order paper
- Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
- Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
- Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act
- AGRICULTURE
Ethics
Oral Questions
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, accountability is the Prime Minister's job. The Prime Minister claims he learned of serious allegations involving his troubled former status of women minister only recently, but much was obvious months, even years ago: Mr. Jaffer's inappropriate use of government resources going back to 2008, his use of the Conservative logo featured in a Macleans magazine article last October. And his company improperly lobbied the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities last summer.
Why did the Prime Minister take so long to act and be accountable?
Ethics
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario
Conservative
John Baird Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite really does stretch it.
When serious allegations were brought forward, the Prime Minister acted expeditiously. He acted ethically and he referred the matter to the relevant authorities. If the member opposite has any evidence or any concern going back to 2008, I do not know why she did not take any action back in 2008.
Ethics
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister acted expeditiously to hide the truth.
The Prime Minister clearly ignored warnings that his minister's husband was involved with unsavoury characters when police found cocaine in a vehicle that she owned. Drug crimes are a serious criminal offence, punishable by years in prison and are linked to murky organized crime operations.
When it became apparent seven months ago that one of his ministers could be compromised by organized crime, did he or did he not order an enhanced security investigation?
Ethics
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario
Conservative
John Baird Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dignify some of the outrageous comments made by the member for Don Valley East.
Here are the facts. Serious allegations were brought to the Prime Minister's attention. Within a matter of hours, he referred the matter to the relevant authorities, so that they could make a determination. He acted ethically. He acted expeditiously. The Prime Minister did the right thing.
Ethics
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, Richard Colvin is a diplomat with 20 years of distinguished service to Canada. He remains a high level employee of the government in perhaps our most important foreign mission, the embassy in Washington.
When Mr. Colvin and others raised serious allegations, the government said he was not credible. However, when the Prime Minister got second-hand information from Mr. Gillani, known as Big Daddy G, the government fired the status of women minister, booted her from caucus and, called in the police.
Why the hypocritical double standard?
Ethics
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario
Conservative
John Baird Minister of Transport
Big Daddy G, Mr. Speaker? This coming from Big Daddy E? That is quite outrageous.
I suspect like most members of this place and the member for Malpeque, I had never heard of this individual until last week. Serious allegations were brought to the Prime Minister's attention and what did he do? He immediately referred the matter to the competent authorities. That demonstrates a high ethical standard. That is the right thing to do. The Prime Minister did the right thing.
Afghanistan
Oral Questions
April 16th, 2010 / 11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE
Let us look at this double standard a little further.
On the one hand, credible, distinguished public servants, of stellar service to Canada, who bring forward serious allegations against the government are dismissed as not credible. Yet, when evidence comes forward from anonymous sources, possibly connected to the underworld, the Prime Minister accepts their word as gospel and calls in the police.
Why does the government choose to believe Big Daddy G but calls Richard Colvin a liar? Why?
Afghanistan
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Edmonton Centre
Alberta
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we all enjoy the member's rhetoric on a Friday morning in Ottawa, but the simple fact is when allegations are brought forward under any file, whether it is national defence or other files, when allegations are brought forward, they are investigated thoroughly, and they are forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Appropriate action is taken.
That is what a government that is grounded in ethics, is grounded in what is right for Canada, is grounded in what is right for Canadian soldiers, is grounded in what is right for Canadian citizen, does and that is why we are the Government of Canada.
Afghanistan
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Jean Dorion Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to testimony at the Military Police Complaints Commission, the main concern of Canadian troops was avoiding another incident like the one in Somalia, where detainees had been mistreated by Canadian soldiers. That explains why the government was so quick to hand over the Afghan detainees.
Is that not the government's strategy, namely to hand over detainees as quickly as possible regardless of whether or not they will be tortured?
Afghanistan
Oral Questions
11:30 a.m.
Edmonton Centre
Alberta
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the government and certainly the Canadian Forces take their international obligations under the law and the Geneva conventions extremely seriously. Whenever credible allegations have come forward, they have been investigated. They are currently being investigated by the Military Police Complaints Commission. Justice Iacobucci is looking at documentation. They have been reviewed by several levels of court. They have been reviewed by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. They have been reviewed by the RCMP. They have been reviewed by Canadian Forces boards of inquiry.
Let us give credit for work previously done and let us let new work to be completed.
Afghanistan
Oral Questions
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Jean Dorion Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canadian troops have used the Afghan security services to get admissions from detainees. Canada does not practice torture; it contracts it out. That was confirmed by a military report from October 2007.
In this context, will the government acknowledge that Canadian troops are acting as the judge in their own case and that only a public, independent inquiry will help shed light on this affair?
Afghanistan
Oral Questions
11:35 a.m.
Edmonton Centre
Alberta
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, no such confirmation was ever made. The member opposite is making that up.
The Canadian soldiers, the Canadian military, the diplomats, and everybody involved with the mission in Afghanistan take their obligations under international law and the Geneva conventions extremely seriously.
We have put a lot of trust and a lot of faith in people like the Chief of the Defence Staff. We have put a lot of faith in every member of the Canadian Forces on down, unlike some of the members opposite who tend to agree and want to agree with people who bring forth outrageous allegations against those members, from private to four-star general.
We find that a little outrageous and we are going to stand behind our troops all the way.
Rights & Democracy
Oral Questions
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, the new president of Rights & Democracy confirmed that since the arrival of Jacques Gauthier, the government's henchman supposedly appointed to clean house, outside contracts rose to $400,000 and were not tendered.
How can the government tolerate public money being used to fund attacks intended to discredit the previous administration and justify the Conservative government taking control of Rights & Democracy?
Rights & Democracy
Oral Questions
11:35 a.m.
Pontiac
Québec
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that Rights & Democracy is an independent organization. The government has never been and is not involved in its day-to-day activities. The man responsible for its operations, Mr. Latulippe, appeared before the parliamentary committee yesterday. All questions that members wanted to ask or could have asked were put to him and he answered them. That is his job and part of his duties.
Rights & Democracy
Oral Questions
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, reiterating the Minister of Foreign Affairs's statement, the new president of Rights & Democracy, Gérard Latulippe, claims that the organization is independent. However, at the same time, he confirmed that Rights & Democracy must align itself with the Conservative government's foreign policy.
How can they say, on the one hand, that it is an independent organization and, on the other hand, that the organization's mandate is subordinate to the pro-Israel policies of the Conservative government?
