Jean Dorion

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government has said that members of the Ben Ali family are not welcome here, yet it has not frozen their assets in Canada.

Is the government aware that by not taking immediate action, the assets of Ben Ali's brother-in-law, for example, could fly off to tax havens and it would then be too late to recover them?

[International Trade, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, on its website, Export Development Canada invited businesses here to invest in Tunisia, stating that Tunisia's political and economic environment was stable.

Is the minister not worried by the fact that his analysts came to that conclusion not long before the revolution in Tunisia?

[Rights & Democracy, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is stubbornly refusing to commit to officially releasing the report on Rights & Democracy. That is probably why the Conservative chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development unilaterally cancelled the committee meeting scheduled for this afternoon, without giving any reason for his decision. The committee had decided to meet even though the House was to adjourn.

What is the government trying to hide?

[Rights & Democracy, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been hiding the Deloitte and Touche report for months. This report has finally been turned over to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The Bloc Québécois demands that it be officially made public to shed light on the Conservatives' ideological hijacking of Rights & Democracy.

If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, will he demand that his members allow the Deloitte and Touche report on Rights & Democracy to be released?

[Public Safety, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism, boosting trade and integrating immigration policies are matters that are too important to Quebec to give the Conservatives carte blanche. Parliamentarians must be consulted before commitments are made on behalf of the people.

Will the government promise to have a debate and a vote on this matter before making a formal commitment to the Americans?

[Public Safety, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is negotiating a “security perimeter” behind closed doors, and an agreement with the U.S. government seems imminent. And yet, the people's representatives in the House of Commons are being kept in the dark.

Since security perimeter negotiations are comparable in scope to treaty negotiations, will the Prime Minister promise to hold a debate and a vote on this matter before signing anything?

[Privilege, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood regarding certain comments made recently by the Minister of International Cooperation and her parliamentary secretary, comments that misled the House. I have no intention of repeating the demonstration given by my hon. Liberal colleague yesterday on the sequence of statements. I fully agree with what he said.

I will simply summarize the facts. For eight months, the Minister of International Cooperation and her parliamentary secretary led the House to believe that KAIROS did not receive funding because it did not meet the criteria, and they attributed this decision to government officials, including those from the Canadian International Development Agency or CIDA.

However, when the president of CIDA appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development last week, in response to a question I asked, she clearly indicated that CIDA had recommended that the minister grant KAIROS the funding.

As my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood pointed out yesterday, from the statements made in committee and the documentation tabled there, it is clear that CIDA had, on the contrary, recommended that the minister grant the funding to KAIROS, quite the opposite of what the minister and her parliamentary secretary had said.

The minister must have been aware that the denial resulted from a political decision, contrary to what she said in the House. I, too, believe that this is a case of contempt for Parliament. Contempt is not clearly defined. O'Brien-Bosc, on page 82, says this:

There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties....

Deliberately misleading the House is a case of contempt for Parliament. In fact, on page 132 of Erskine May, 23rd edition, it says:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling from February 1, 2002, on a question of privilege in which it was alleged that the Minister of National Defence misled the House, you said the following:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

In its report concerning this question of privilege, which was presented to the House on March 22, 2002, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs made the following statement:

Incorrect statements in the House of Commons cannot be condoned. It is essential that Members have accurate and timely information, and that the integrity of the information provided by the Government to the House is ensured.

In light of these facts, which clearly establish that the minister deliberately misled the House, and given the precedents that I just cited, I believe that the question of privilege submitted by my colleague is a prima facie case. Consequently, he should be allowed to move his motion.

[Rights & Democracy, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have taken over Rights & Democracy claiming that the agency was poorly managed. A number of documents on how the previous administration managed it still have not been made public. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been sitting on an accounting report for months.

How does the government explain that after stacking Rights & Democracy with Conservative cronies, it is unable to get its new administration to produce the documents required by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development?

[International Co-operation, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, KAIROS has been working with the federal government since 1976. The report prepared by government officials was very positive and recommended that the organization continue to be funded.

Will the minister admit that her decision to cut funding to KAIROS was based solely on political and ideological factors that have nothing to do with the quality of service provided by that organization? Will the minister restore funding to KAIROS?

[International Co-operation, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of International Cooperation was asked about the cancellation of funding for the NGO KAIROS, the minister suggested that she had nothing to do with the decision and that CIDA officials were responsible. Yesterday in committee, the minister finally acknowledged that she was the one who made the decision against CIDA's recommendation.

Why did the minister deliberately mislead the House? Why is she trying to blame public servants for her own ideological decisions?