House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was policy.
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is no. I have said that a number of times in the House of Commons. I have said it in a number of interviews outside of the House of Commons. I have said it consistently. The answer is clear. We have been consistent. The Liberals can keep changing their story, but we will stick to the facts.
Michael Ignatieff Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, that answer is a bit troubling because yesterday, outside the House, the parliamentary secretary refused to say whether or not the Conservatives had made an offer to Chuck Cadman.
If we ask the question again, inside the house, will the parliamentary secretary answer in the same way? Will he say the same thing outside the House that he is saying here, inside the House?
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I have already done so a number of times in the past week and a half or two weeks.
However, I did want to say that we have been consistent on this issue. I am not asking the opposition to take my word for it, but I did want to cite for the Liberals the story that just came out today:
One of Chuck Cadman's closest political advisors said the Independent MP clearly told him Conservative Party officials offered no inducements to change his vote on the 2005 confidence motion....[Chuck Cadman] said, 'They offered me the same support they offered me before', [the advisor recalled]. “But, no, he said, 'They didn't offer me anything specific and I didn't ask for anything'.”
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, when asked about the offer made to Chuck Cadman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works replied, and I quote, “—the Prime Minister, like everyone in our caucus, knew that Chuck Cadman had received an offer to rejoin our caucus—”
If the Prime Minister knew about the offer, as the parliamentary secretary said, why did he not mention it during the interview he gave to Chuck Cadman's biographer in September 2005?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I said that there were discussions between party representatives and Mr. Cadman about the possibility of him rejoining the Conservative caucus, receiving the Conservative nomination, and running as a Conservative candidate. That is clear.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what we heard on the tape. I think we are getting the fictional version today. He is making up a story now, in 2008, to try to make us forget what he said in 2005. He never said that. He talked about financial considerations and details. Back then, he did not remember that Mr. Cadman had been invited to rejoin the caucus. That is a bunch of baloney.
What did he mean by “financial considerations”? That was the only thing he talked about.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is the one changing the story. The Bloc changed the date from May 17 to May 19. The Bloc decided that Chuck Cadman did not want to run again. Now the Bloc has to admit it got things wrong.
While I am up, I should mention that the Federal Court has ruled on the subject of the Taliban detainees.
If I could for a minute mention that the Federal Court has just issued an important ruling on Taliban prisoners. We understand that it has accepted the government's arguments on these matters. We are looking at—
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, after trying for more than a year to investigate Afghan detainee transfers, the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission has decided to hold a public hearing on allegations of torture of transferred detainees. The main reason for this decision is the government's refusal to give the commission full access to Foreign Affairs and Correctional Service Canada documents.
Given this new blatant example of lack of transparency, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs transfer all—
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, as usual, on this issue the member is not correct.
In fact, I would suggest that the Government of Canada has met a very high standard when it comes to disclosure and transparency on this issue. We have given the Military Police Complaints Commission as much, if not more, information than would have been provided had a public hearing, with subpoena powers, already began.
We will continue to cooperate with it. We have responded to it formally in a letter. Again, that information is public.
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government's pattern of concealing information and not being transparent will prolong the investigation by several months and cost taxpayers an additional $2 million.
Will the minister finally make public the information the commission needs to determine whether detainees transferred to the Afghan authorities were tortured?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that what the member said is incorrect.
We have made those disclosures. The Department of National Defence always takes these complaints and issues very seriously. We are in complete compliance. We have made those disclosures, and we are always prepared to work with this commission.
As the Prime Minister has noted, the Federal Court has now given a ruling with respect to the application of the charter when it comes to Taliban prisoners, and the charter does not apply. However, we will continue to work with all bodies and live up to our statutory obligations.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the minister may say that the government has been cooperating with the Military Police Complaints Commission, but here is what the commission chair says, “we have been left with no other choice than to call a full and open inquiry” because of “the government's refusal to provide the commission with full access to relevant documents and information”.
The Prime Minister's government stands accused of withholding key information, witnesses and the kinds of documents essential to get to the bottom of the alleged prisoner abuse in Afghanistan.
Why the refusal to cooperate?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there is no refusal to cooperate. In fact, the Department of Justice has made very clear that it will provide all information it is able to provide under the law. There are some statutory obligations with regard to what can be released and what cannot be released, and those rules will be followed.
Once again, I want to mention that the Federal Court has just rendered a decision on the Taliban prisoner case. It has accepted the government's arguments. We are obviously very pleased by that, and we are looking at the decision more carefully.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission has all sorts of powers. This is very important. What we are looking for and what we want from the government is a clear decision, a clear direction.
Will the Prime Minister ask his ministers to cooperate instead of concealing information, as they have done for the past year, during which time the government has not provided the documents the commission requested, yes or no?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, our instructions are always clear. By law, departments must cooperate, and that is always the policy of this government.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has produced a dirty tricks manual for its committee chairs. The media claims that it tells Conservative chairs to “if necessary, storm out of meetings to grind parliamentary business to a halt”.
The Prime Minister is so determined to duck any questions about what financial inducements the Conservatives offered Chuck Cadman, his flunkies even forced the respected chair of the justice committee to abandon the chair yesterday.
What are the Conservatives so afraid of? Why are they afraid of having the justice committee look at whether the law to prevent bribery is an effective deterrent?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, the only thing people have to be afraid of is the declining reputation of a Parliament wherein Liberals are intent on hijacking every parliamentary committee, not to do the serious work of Parliament, not to process legislation in front of them, but rather to turn those committees into kangaroo courts.
I would note that in the particular case in question, it was the Liberal chair of the ethics committee who already ruled the exact same motion out of order in three different cases. For that reason I have every reason to believe the decision of the committee chair in this case was the correct one.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cut and run every time there is an investigation of their questionable behaviour.
It is time for some real answers in this House about what actually happened. But the parliamentary secretary would not dare repeat these answers outside the House, because even he does not believe what they are forcing him to say.
When will the Prime Minister stop hiding? When will he tell Canadians what he meant by the “financial considerations” Chuck Cadman would have received if there had been an election?
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, and as I have already said here, in this House, the only offer made to Chuck Cadman was to return to our caucus, to run as a Conservative Party candidate and to get elected as a Conservative. I said the same thing here, in the House, as outside it.
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, to a question about a life insurance policy, the Prime Minister's own words were, “I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions”.
So he knew of the life insurance policy and of discussions about it involving Mr. Cadman and legitimate representatives of the Conservative Party and he did not stop those discussions, even though, if the Cadman family is telling the truth, what was being offered was unethical, illegal, criminal, was about buying a vote to bring down a government.
The Prime Minister has a lot of explaining to do and he knows that we know he has no answers. His own words—
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, very simply, we have said this a number of times. The accusation by the Liberals that there was a million dollar life insurance policy offered Chuck Cadman is false. Chuck Cadman himself said so.
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is a great irony here. Why is the Prime Minister, so famous for silencing rights groups under the court challenges program, for silencing advocacy groups by cutting off their funding, for trying to silence political rivals with lawsuits, for silencing his caucus, for silencing his cabinet, for trying to silence any and all voices different from his own so that only his voice matters, why, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister silencing himself?