Debates of May 9th, 2008

Terrorism

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are detained abroad deserve to know their government will help them. Canadian citizenship should mean something. However, the Conservative government has developed a pattern of trying to be judge and jury, arbitrarily deciding whose rights it will respect.

When will the government bring Mr. Khadr and Mr. Abdelrazik to Canada so they can be dealt with here under Canadian justice and in compliance with due process?

These are important matters that Canadians believe in, our due process and the Canadian justice system and values.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed at the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. All those cases started at the time when the Liberals were in power but they did nothing and now they have all these questions.

I would remind the members that the government will act in the interests of Canada and we will continue to ensure that we will act in the interests of Canada.

Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has access to extremely sensitive information, so he should be subject to a more in-depth security screening. Given his ex-girlfriend's shady past and given that organized crime does not hesitate—and that is putting it mildly—to exercise undue pressure, he should have done the right thing and disclosed this situation.

My question is for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs have been so irresponsible as to hide his ex-girlfriend's shady past during his own security screening?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know members of the Bloc Québécois worked very hard to publicize this issue.

They themselves, however, confess, by their actions, that they do not think these questions are appropriate for the House of Commons, which is why they never asked any of these questions in the House of Commons until such time as they could try to persuade or threaten some reporters into actually publishing the story so they could finally go with it.

They know it has no place here but it still does not stop them.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, matters of public interest do have a place in Parliament.

According to Professor Wark, who is a member of the Prime Minister's security advisory committee, people who have or have had connections to biker gangs are considered high-risk by those responsible for government security. I would also remind members of the government that he said that the Hell's Angels are not to be taken lightly. Yesterday, Michel Juneau-Katsuya reminded us all that infiltration is one of the many tactics used by biker gangs.

Why did the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who knew of his girlfriend's shady past, not have the basic good sense—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House of Commons that the Prime Minister has no intention of interfering in the personal relationships of members of his caucus.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the matter was of no consequence, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs claim, it is hard to imagine why a journalist from The Hill Times had such a terrible time trying to obtain the name of the minister's companion. She contacted Foreign Affairs, Industry Canada and the Privy Council to establish the identity of the minister's companion, but no one would talk.

Is this not further proof that, at the time of the swearing in, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister's Office were aware of this woman's somewhat shady past and that they wanted to conceal her identity?

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Bloc Québécois does not want to talk about serious issues. For instance, it does not want to talk about today's news that, last month, 19,000 new jobs were created in Canada. That is good news for Canada.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the head of Canadian diplomacy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be subject to a more stringent security screening than his fellow cabinet ministers.

Since the government and the minister were aware of the shady past of the spouse of the Minister of Foreign Affairs but failed to do a security screening on her, is that not further proof of this government's carelessness?

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

Mr. Speaker, there were some who thought that the Bloc Québécois had some respect for people's privacy. I find it surprising to hear what they are urging upon us.

As I said earlier in French, I can assure the House that the Prime Minister has absolutely no intention of controlling, regulating or monitoring the dating lives of the caucus.

Burma

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the military junta in Burma is preventing international aid from entering the country. The United Nations was forced to suspend its humanitarian flights. There are claims of soldiers confiscating shipments. Canadian NGOs have thousands of people on the ground, but the aid has not arrived.

Will the government send a special envoy to Burma? Why is one not already en route to Rangoon?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the junta in Burma is causing a lot of problems with its undemocratic approach. Therefore, it is difficult to establish democratic relations with this country.

Today, the House adopted a very strong motion that represents the feelings of all members on this issue.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the military junta in Burma is letting its own people die. Canada must use every single tool available to convince the Burmese dictatorship to accept the world's help.

Our aid agencies need assistance to get supplies into the most devastated regions. Canada's aid agencies have a long history of working with the Burmese people and Canada must be in the lead here. Why will the government not appoint a respected eminent Canadian, a special envoy, for cyclone relief in Burma?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are interested in doing is delivering results. We have been in the lead in dealing with Burma. We delivered, in a symbolic way, honorary citizenship to Aung San Suu Kyi. We delivered, in a very substantial way, the toughest sanctions in the world to show where we stand on the Burmese regime.

We are working with our colleagues, our allies and others with an interest in the issue to press that as strongly as possible. We are doing exactly the same thing with regard to the aid problem. We are working with our allies, together with the United Nations, to find any way we can. Make no mistake, it is not easy working with the Burmese regime. It will resist at every step. We are working together with others to stop that resistance and help the people in need.

Airbus

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than six months since the Prime Minister promised an inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair and over a month since the government received the final report from Dr. Johnston.

Can the government House leader please tell us when the commissioner is going to be named? Also, will it be a true public inquiry or will it be held in secret and behind closed doors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that very soon a commissioner will be appointed to conduct the inquiry consistent with the terms of Professor Johnston.

As we indicated, there are some legitimate questions of public interest that need to be delved into and they will be. They were not delved into properly at the committee that dealt with the matter in the House of Commons, although that did provide some useful information. It will be a public inquiry and we look forward to that announcement soon.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was over a month ago that the government House leader said, “We expect that will happen very soon”. It clearly turns out that “very soon” means in their own sweet time.

I know the government is tied up with one ethical crisis after another, but how could it possibly have forgotten this one? Or is this crisis just too large and the spin unit in the PMO just too busy to deal with another one?

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

Mr. Speaker, far be it from Liberals to speak about the ethical conundrum in that issue.

It was the member for West Nova who, on the very question of participating in questioning at the committee that dealt with this matter, was found in conflict of interest by the ethics commissioner, who said that the member for West Nova's “participation in the Committee proceedings involved acting 'in [a] way to further' his private interest in the lawsuit” and that “I conclude, therefore”, that he is in conflict with “section 8 of the Code”.

Liberals are the only people who have been found guilty of anything in this matter.

Elections Canada

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election the Conservative Party shuffled thousands of dollars in and out of local campaigns to buy national ads but avoid national spending limits. It was a laundromat.

The parliamentary secretary refuses to answer any questions but instead repeats irrelevant examples that have no bearing on this matter and that have already been dismissed by the Federal Court. Will the government recognize that the Conservative Party is under investigation for committing fraud to get elected, yes or no?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have systematically demonstrated that the Liberals participated in a program of in and out. They did this to get around national spending limits and to amplify their taxpayer funded Elections Canada return.

On July 8, 2004, the Liberal Party transferred to Beth Phinney's local campaign $5,000. On July 9, 2004, Beth Phinney's local campaign transferred to the Liberal Party $5,000. Five thousand in, five thousand out: in, out--

[Some hon. members]

In, out.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. Any more chanting like that and some people will find themselves just out.

The hon. member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary demonstrates that the only reason he is here is that, as Conservatives say publicly, “he'll do what's asked of him without too much questioning”.

The government is so conflicted that the best the Conservatives can do is recite redundant, irrelevant, farcical responses to confuse the issue, so let us make this very simple. Will the government acknowledge that the Conservative Party is under investigation for cheating in the last election, yes or no?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that on July 21, 2004, the Liberal Party made a transfer to the local campaign of the member for Oak Ridges—Markham for $5,000. On August 6, 2004, the local campaign of the member for Oak Ridges—Markham made a transfer to the Liberal Party for $5,000. Five thousand dollars in, five thousand dollars out: in, out, how could he?