Debates of April 8th, 2008

Afghanistan

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I do not know to whom the hon. government House leader was referring, but that is the second time we have heard this expression. I sense it was intended for some other hon. member. If so, I think it would be inappropriate to use that kind of language. I would urge him to stick with the usual reference of an hon. member.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it did take the Liberal leader some time to come to the position where he was prepared to support the extension of the mission in Afghanistan. We were pleased, after several months, that he did that and we were able to move forward in a spirit of cooperation between the parties.

It was only last week that we had the commitment of the other NATO allies to provide the reinforcements in Afghanistan, which we are obtaining. I would expect the members of the opposition would be celebrating the fact that we have succeeded in meeting those objectives, which they themselves wanted to see met.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been criticized throughout its mandate, most recently by the Manley panel, for failing to tell the truth about the Afghan mission. This pattern of evasion continues.

Parliament extended the mission on the explicit understanding that the mission would change and focus upon reconstruction and training.

I ask the government yet again, did the Prime Minister tell our NATO allies in Bucharest that the Canadian effort after 2009 would change and focus on reconstruction and training, or did he say, “Boys, it's business as usual”?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the deputy leader of the party opposite to reread the motion. It is certainly clear to everyone that—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Did you tell them?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The hon. member should calm herself, Mr. Speaker.

I would invite the hon. member to read the motion. It is clear to everyone who was there at the meeting in Bucharest that, yes, there is transformation taking place. There is greater emphasis on redevelopment and reconstruction and greater emphasis on the training that is being put forward to up the security of the Afghan national army and police. Yes, it is changing each and every day in Afghanistan.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is not clear. Transformation is one thing, change is another. The Manley report criticizes the government for its lack of leadership and clarity when it comes to Afghanistan. Once again, we are asking the government to give a clear answer.

Did the Prime Minister clearly tell his NATO allies that Canada's role will change after 2009, to focus on reconstruction and development?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there are changes. There is greater security on the ground in Afghanistan. It is clear that all our NATO allies are making an effort to increase security.

At the same time, we must also focus our efforts on reconstruction and development, in cooperation with the Afghan government. There are always changes taking place on the ground in Afghanistan and the situation is improving.

Airbus

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his report, Mr. Johnston recommends confidential interviews for the inquiry into the Schreiber-Mulroney affair. But it is because of the public nature of the testimony heard in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that we learned that significant amounts of cash had been paid to Brian Mulroney by Karlheinz Schreiber.

Will the Prime Minister admit that if he truly wants to shed light on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair he has to ensure that the inquiry is as broad as possible and entirely public?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Mr. Johnston's recommendations differ from what the Leader of the Bloc Québécois is saying. Mr. Johnston's report reads:

While I would not wish to tie the Commissioner’s hands, and I maintain the recommendation that the Commissioner be authorized to determine his or her own procedure, this further reflection reinforces my view that the Commissioner should explore opportunities to conduct portions of the investigation and inquiry in a more efficient manner than the court-like “traditional” Canadian public inquiry procedure—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good, but what is the government's position? If the revelations on the cash payments had not been public, we never would have known about them. It is because this was disclosed publicly that we know about it today. The public felt this was somewhat unusual and so did Mr. Johnston.

Does the Prime Minister believe that with a narrow inquiry that is partially confidential he will restore the public's confidence in democratic institutions? Will hiding or withholding things help restore this confidence?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The decision will ultimately be made by the inquiry commissioner. The purpose of Professor Johnston's suggestions is to make the inquiry or process more efficient.

The objective here is simply to ensure that there is a balance between the public interest in getting the facts dealt with and ensuring that the costs of the commission of inquiry do not run out of control.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when he was in opposition, the Prime Minister said that the government should respect the will of the House. Now, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is recommending that the commission of inquiry be given a broad mandate so that it can study all aspects of the financial arrangement between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney, including the Airbus affair.

Should the government not respect the will of the House and hold a wide-ranging public inquiry in order to clarify the treatment of the retainers received by Mr. Mulroney, which Mr. Johnston himself described as unusual?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the government chose to ask an independent third party who was not affected by partisan interests to advise it on the best way to conduct a public inquiry that would be meaningful to Canadians.

Mr. Johnston recommended holding a public inquiry in the public interest. The government intends to implement the recommendations made by this independent adviser.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who criticized the Liberal government's culture of entitlement, is doing exactly the same thing. Like Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister prefers to sweep everything under the rug, for fear of being tainted by scandal.

Instead of hiding everything, will he hold a wide-ranging public inquiry in order to shed light on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the government indicated from the start that it would follow the recommendations made by Mr. Johnston as an independent third party, and that is what we intend to do.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can see what is happening here. The government is trying to carefully craft a balance between the public's access to the information about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair and the interest of the public to get at the truth, and the interest of the Conservative Party, which is going to deep-six it, drive it into private inquiries, and take it out of the public eye.

I remember the Prime Minister saying that this was a commitment to a public inquiry. I also remember him saying that he would have a moral obligation to follow the will of the House of Commons, which I remind him said that it should be fully public.

Will the government amend the terms of reference and make the inquiry public, the way it should be?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the inquiry will be public and it will have the ability to look into whatever matters the commissioner sees fit.

Seventeen questions have been identified by Professor Johnston for investigation that he sees as touching on the public interest and as being legitimate questions that have not yet been answered. Those questions will be explored fully.

All that Professor Johnston has suggested is that the commissioner explore options for doing so efficiently and on matters that are not terribly relevant, that may be peripheral, that he look at alternative procedures. He suggested several examples from other commissions of inquiry where it has worked very well.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We have that right here in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. That is what we saw right there. That is another example of why working families cannot trust the Conservative government, and the list goes on.

Let me give the House another example. It was five weeks ago that the Prime Minister finally succumbed to the pressure to have an investigation into the NAFTA-gate leak, which of course ended up right in the middle of the U.S. primaries.

My questions are very simple. Has the Clerk of the Privy Council finished the investigation? When are we going to get a full and public report tabled right here in the House, or are we going to see the same old whitewash, deep-sixing of that information just like we are seeing with Mulroney-Schreiber?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed to hear the comments of the leader of the NDP with regard to Professor Johnston, because it was not long ago that he actually said, “Everything I know about Mr. Johnston suggests that he's a good person to be involved here”.

That is why we agreed and that is why we indicated we would follow his recommendations. We are going to continue to follow his recommendations.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to falsely claim her government's proposed reforms will tackle the immigration backlog, but they explicitly do not apply to people in the queue before February 2008.

Picking and choosing future priority categories based on her personal preferences will do nothing to help those who have been waiting in line.

When will the minister admit that these reforms are not designed to tackle the backlog but to create an arbitrary selection process in Canada's immigration system?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that it was her government that received the mandamus decision from the court. It said that going forward all applications must be processed under the rules that were in place at the time they were received. The Liberals lost that one in the courts.

Going forward we will be able to set categories after consulting with the provinces and territories, after consulting with other departments, and after getting cabinet approval. We will be able to set these instructions to guide our immigration officials so they can help us get more immigrants here faster.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again the minister has failed to explain how these measures will eliminate the current backlog.

This is about a power grab by the minister and nothing else. She is taking existing measures that are transparent and accountable and putting them in her pocket without accountability and without transparency. These draconian measures will do nothing to fix the backlog.

Why will the minister not just admit that her government does not trust her own department to do its job and that accountability means nothing to her and her government?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let us see what Angelo Persichilli said about this in the Hill Times:

--what we don't need are lectures from the Liberals on this issue because, again, according to the numbers, not the demagoguery, they too badly mismanaged this issue for political reasons.

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that the former [the Conservatives] are handling immigration by trying to get results, the latter [the Liberals] to get votes.