Robert Thibault

[Airbus, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister can delegate authority, Canadians will recognize that he retains the responsibility and cannot hide behind Professor Johnston.

Today, Mr. Schreiber testified under oath that he had received $4 million because the Government of Canada signed a memorandum of understanding on the Bear Head project. Mr. Schreiber confirmed that money ultimately went into the bank account that financed Brian Mulroney's $300,000 cash windfall.

Will the public inquiry examine all aspects of the Bear Head project and who profited from it?

[Airbus, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we presume the public inquiry will be looking into the financial dealings between Karlheinz Schreiber and Brian Mulroney.

However, after today's shocking testimony, will the Prime Minister assure us that the inquiry will also examine the financial dealings between Mr. Mulroney, Frank Moores, Gary Ouellet and Fred Doucet and where the money from those dealings came from?

[Lobbyists, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Minister of National Defence diverted attention away from the submarines in Victoria by stating that Fred Doucet was no longer a lobbyist on this file. Two weeks ago, Mr. Doucet was very active. He was lobbying Foreign Affairs when Halifax Shipbuilding sued the government.

The minister stated that he has not spoken with Mr. Doucet since taking up his new position. Can he say the same for the period when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs?

[Lobbyists, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, both Fred Doucet and Paul Terrien enabled cash transactions and/or meetings between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. Both men still have ties to the government. Fred Doucet is a close adviser to the defence minister and Paul Terrien is the transport minister's chief of staff.

One week before new allegations concerning this affair came to light, the government backpedalled on a $45 million project in Cape Breton. Is the government's new embarrassment with Fred Doucet the reason for killing this project?

[Airbus, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Schreiber knew that Mr. Mulroney would meet the current Prime Minister at Harrington Lake in 2006, from the website I am sure. Mr. Mulroney was to ask for help on Mr. Schreiber's extradition.

After the meeting, Mulroney assured Schreiber that the Conservative government would do the right thing to help him.

Who is not telling the truth, the current Prime Minister or his valued adviser, the former Conservative prime minister?

[Airbus, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, now that Mr. Schreiber has stated under oath that he retained Mr. Mulroney's services for $500,000 while he was still prime minister and now that he has also stated that the pasta business had nothing to do with the cash transaction of $300,000, will the Prime Minister absolutely guarantee that Mr. Schreiber will remain in this country until both the ethics committee and the public inquiry can get the full truth and finish their work?

[Airbus, November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us now consider subsection 40(3) of the Extradition Act that gives the minister the complete authority to make the extradition subject to “any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate”.

Why does the minister not consider it appropriate to make the surrender of Karlheinz Schreiber specifically conditional upon his remaining physically present in Canada for as long as it takes to testify under oath at a public inquiry and parliamentary committee? Or will it be necessary for Parliament to again trump the minister to keep Schreiber from being silenced by that Mulroney infested government?

[Airbus, November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, section 42 of the Extradition Act is very clear. It says, “The Minister may amend a surrender order at any time before its execution”. As the legal counsel to Parliament said yesterday, it is not a long sentence, it is not a complicated sentence. Section 42 of the act is crystal clear and gives the minister all the authority he needs. The minister's denials are patently false.

Why will he not ensure Schreiber stays for the public inquiry? Why is he so determined to shut him up and ship him out?

[Airbus, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already acted in conflict. Surely he should have known that stepping aside from this file upon entering cabinet was the prudent and wise thing to do.

Yes or no, will the minister do everything in his power to ensure that Mr. Schreiber is present before the ethics committee on Thursday and the public inquiry to follow, or will the minister's loyalty to Mr. Mulroney cause him to be in contempt of Parliament?

[Airbus, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Karlheinz Schreiber is in a provincial institution under federal custody at the request of the minister. Section 42 of the Extradition Act states, “The Minister may amend a surrender order at any time before its execution”.

Why will the government not guarantee that Mr. Schreiber's extradition will be delayed long enough for him to appear and tell the truth at the House committee and at the public inquiry? What are the Conservatives trying to hide?