House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was billion.
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely wrong on this. Mr. Iacobucci is a jurist who possesses specific experience and expertise in the area of documents.
These are documents already reviewed by non-partisan public servants, but to add to the comfort level that possibly the hon. member could have, Mr. Justice Iacobucci will have a look at this. He will work as expeditiously as possible, but it is a big job. We should let Justice Iacobucci do his work.
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not question Justice Iacobucci's credentials. I question a government that ignores his reports.
Justice Iacobucci, Justice O'Connor and others have issued recommendations to this government to stop torture. This government ignored it and did nothing. That is the issue. Now it has set up a process to use this justice's good name, and we are supposed to believe that it will not just ignore him all over again.
This government has spent all of its time on how to spin torture and none on the recommendations that stop it from happening again. Stop spinning. Stop the damage control and call a full public inquiry so we can get the truth.
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, we have complete confidence in the work of Justice Iacobucci. He will have the opportunity to review thousands of documents. I know that this will be done as expeditiously as possible. This should have the complete support of the hon. member and his party.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative government is cutting vacant positions, it is paying huge sums of money for minor work on government buildings. For example, six light fixtures were installed at a cost of $5,000 and extra cleaning was done in ministers' offices for the modest sum of $20,000. This same government has the gall to ask Quebec families to tighten their belts.
When it costs $1,000 to replace a doorbell, would the Prime Minister not do better to preach by example and cut where it really counts?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about a competitive contract awarded several years ago to maintain federal buildings, but it is clear that some of these expenses do not seem justifiable.
The Minister of Public Works has asked her deputy minister to review the contract and examine these invoices to assure us that taxpayers' money is being used responsibly and efficiently.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, if this is a competitive contract, he should investigate to see whether the bidders colluded with each other.
Not only has the government done nothing to stop this waste, but it has extended its contract with the firm doing this work. This government definitely specializes in dangerous conduct, whether at the wheel of a car or in handling the economy.
Will the Prime Minister admit that this waste of public money has gone on long enough and that it is time to clean up all these contracts, which are generous to say the least?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I just said that some of these expenses do not seem justifiable. That is clear. That is why the Minister of Public Works has asked her deputy minister to look at these expenses and examine this contract and these invoices, because our government demands that every dollar of taxpayers' money be spent responsibly and efficiently.
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the six major Canadian banks have raked in a “mere” $5.3 billion in net profit over the past three months.
While the government is raiding the pockets of the unemployed, while it is wasting public money on doorbells and potted plants, the Minister of Finance is not even considering collecting from the banks.
His complacency toward tax havens allows them to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes.
Why does the government not require the banks, these billionaires in times of recession, to pay their fair share of taxes?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, indeed, the banks and financial institutions in Canada pay very substantial taxes each year. They are a tremendous success story. As we look around the world now at the global recession, the worst recession since the 1930s, Canadian financial institutions stand out worldwide as being reliable, solid, well regulated and a beacon of financial stability in a troubled economic world.
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, with $5.3 billion in three months I can see that they are solid.
The banks and the oil companies are the lucky beneficiaries of this government's tax policy, but there are no Conservative tax giveaways for Quebec's forestry companies, sawmills, paper companies and manufacturing companies that have not made a profit during this economic crisis.
Instead of gouging the least fortunate, what is the government waiting for to put an end to the tax holiday for the banks and make them pay their fair share?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I gather that what the member opposite wants is for the government to tell the Desjardins group, the caisses populaires movement, and the National Bank of Canada, headquartered in Montreal, how they should run their businesses, to confiscate their profits and to take money away from their shareholders.
That is not our structure in this country. We are proud of our financial institutions. They are performing well in a difficult economic climate.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, we learned from diplomat Eileen Olexiuk, who was second in command in Kabul, that she told the Liberal government she had real concerns about the possibility of torture of detainees in Afghanistan. In fact, she actually met with victims of torture while she was there and reported this to the government.
When will the Prime Minister launch a full and public inquiry so that we can get everybody who knows anything to speak about it, from the former Liberal defence minister, Bill Graham, right up to the current defence minister in this government?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, in this country, prime ministers are not in the business of calling public inquiries on their predecessors.
The fact of the matter is that this government worked within the framework of the transfer agreement that was in place. We ultimately determined that there had to be an element of strength in that agreement. That was done over three years ago and the transfer arrangements are working well.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, diplomat Eileen Olexiuk tried to warn the government about detainees being tortured. Paul Martin's Liberal government ignored her concerns, and so did the Conservatives. She said that nobody really cared. She wrote reports calling for action but, like Richard Colvin, she was completely ignored.
Does the Prime Minister understand how disappointing this is to people, to Canadians who do not want their country associated with torture?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the record is clear. In the face of allegations and evidence of torture, our diplomats and military took action. We have a transfer agreement that is working well. There is no evidence to suggest that any officers, Government of Canada officials or members of the military participated in the torture of detainees. That is contrary to Canadian values.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that it is all clear. It is far from being clear what is going on here. He claims that the agreement is working just fine, but everybody knows that torture was taking place and that there is a very strong possibility that it is taking place today, that the agreement is not being followed to the letter as it should be, and that torture is commonplace in Afghan prisons.
Is the Prime Minister trying to deny that, or does he agree with his own Minister of National Defence who said last November that the Conservatives were aware of torture from the day that they took office? If so, why did the transfers continue, and why are they refusing to--
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, any suggestion that Canadian military forces, or diplomatic or other personnel have been involved in any of these kinds of activities are allegations made without any foundation whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is Canadian government officials act responsibly whenever they face information. We have a transfer agreement in place with the Afghan government that involves surveillance and follow up, as well as capacity building for the Afghan government itself. At all times Canadian personnel take their international obligations seriously.
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Speaker, following his appearance before a parliamentary committee on December 8, chief of defence staff General Natynczyk ordered a board of inquiry into the transfer of detainees as he had not received all the information about an incident known since May 2007. The report was delivered on Monday.
I ask the Minister of National Defence, now that the report is complete, when exactly will this report be made public?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, what General Natynczyk actually ordered was a report on information that was obtained with respect to a specific incident that involved a transfer of Canadian Forces to Afghan officials.
Mr. Natynczyk is out of the country presently. He will be back this week. I will have an opportunity to speak to him about that report and the information will be made public in due course.
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Speaker, this report was questioning the following sentence in the June 2006 field memo. The memo said, “Police did assault him, as happened in the past”.
Can the minister assure us that this particular section of the report will not be censored? What did it mean by such assault having happened before?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, this really gets to the root of the misunderstanding of the hon. member and many on the opposition side. It is not for the government to censor documents. These documents are examined by impartial arm's-length public servants within the Department of Justice.
With respect to information about this, information will be forthcoming. We have provided documents to parliamentary committees, to military police complaints commissions, and on every occasion Canadian Forces personnel have been found to have performed to the highest standards of integrity. We support them 100%.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. He said in the past, “The truth is there is no credible evidence to suggest that a prisoner was ever tortured”. There now appears to be evidence of photographs being taken in order to ensure that something that happened in the past did not happen again.
If something happened in the past, would the minister not agree with me that that in fact is credible evidence?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
I will answer the righteous member this way, Mr. Speaker. What I will say is that if there is credible evidence and we have seen in the past information that led us to believe there were concerns, we acted.
We have continued to put our faith in members of the Canadian Forces, senior diplomats, those individuals who are closest to the ground. On the speculation that the hon. member raises, there will be an opportunity for it to be brought forward and discussed at a parliamentary committee.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have very simple questions for the minister.
First, will Mr. Justice Iacobucci be able to review this document, and how much of it can and should be made public? Second, could the minister please tell us what are the terms of reference of the Iacobucci inquiry? Who will be represented at that inquiry? Who will have the ability to make representations to that inquiry? What exactly is that inquiry?
