Wajid Khan

[Points of Order, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to read several stories yesterday about the Khadr report that the foreign affairs committee has under consideration. Since the newspaper quoted directly from the draft report, I can come to no other conclusion except that this report was leaked to the press by a member of the either the foreign affairs committee or the subcommittee.

Steven Edwards of the Ottawa Citizen wrote, and I will read only one line, “In a report marked confidential because it has yet to be officially released...”.

In the Toronto Star, Tonda MacCharles lists the recommendations that the report includes.

This is a serious beach of the confidentiality of the committee. The subcommittee and the main committee have to be able to meet in confidentiality to debate what recommendations the committee wishes to make. If one member feels he or she has the right to break that confidentiality and leak what happens during in camera sessions, or the draft report that the committee looks at, then both the credibility of the committee and the significance of the report are attacked.

If members of the committee cannot keep a draft report secret until it is tabled, do we think any foreign diplomats who meet with us from time to time in camera would be able to trust that their comments would stay off the record? If the committee cannot be trusted to keep in camera confidentiality, when we ask for in camera briefings on matters such as the war in Afghanistan and other sensitive military or diplomatic issues, would the government be willing to cooperate? I think not.

In case members have forgotten or are simply ignorant of the rules, let me read from page 838 of Marleau and Montpetit:

At in camera meetings, neither the public nor the media is permitted, and there is no broadcasting of any kind...Minutes of in camera meetings are publicly available, but certain information usually found in the minutes of committee meetings is not included... Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

Page 884 of Marleau and Montpetit states in reference to committee reports:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public. The majority of committee reports are discussed and adopted at in camera meetings. Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House. In addition, where a committee report has been considered and approved during in camera committee meetings, any disclosure of the contents of a report prior to presentation, either by Members or non-Members, may be judged a breach of privilege. Speakers have ruled that questions of privilege concerning leaked reports will not be considered unless a specific charge is made against an individual, organization or group, and that the charge must be levelled not only against those outside the House who have made in camera material public, but must also identify the source of the leak within the House itself.

[The Environment, June 9th, 2008]

They can scream all they want, but they will not be allowed to conceal the carbon tax. Liberals are now busy concealing the real nature of this tax from the public. Shame on them.

Could the government tell this House if there are any plans to impose this punitive carbon tax on Canadians?

[The Environment, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has admitted he cannot set priorities and has made tens of billions of dollars in non-budgeted spending priorities.

To fund his spending promises, he is trying to trick Canadians into paying a permanent new carbon tax he once vehemently opposed.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Liberals, this Conservative government values immigration and the critical role newcomers play in making Canada a better place.

The Liberals imposed a $975 immigrant head tax, froze settlement funding and caused the backlog to skyrocket to over 800,000. The Liberals have no plan, no vision and no right to call themselves the party of immigrants. They are trying to divide ethnic communities with their misinformation and fear-mongering. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Unlike the Liberals, this government is taking real action to help immigrants and their families. In fact, last year we welcomed almost 430,000 newcomers, the largest number in almost 100 years. We cut the Liberal immigrant head tax in half and provided $1.4 billion in settlement funding. We want to bring families together faster and skilled workers sooner.

This government is helping immigrants succeed because the success of the immigrants is the success of Canada.

[Justice, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Winnipeg the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice unveiled more measures the government is taking to protect Canadians from crime, tough new provisions to combat auto theft. Yet, some were critical of the new measures, saying they do not go far enough to address petty auto theft and dangerous joyriding.

What can the Minister of Justice tell us about the history of the bill and other efforts of the government to deal with auto theft?

[Justice, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is the party--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Davenport that the labour shortage in Toronto is important. That is exactly what Bill C-50 addresses. I also agree that there is a significant impact on the lives of immigrants. This bill will make that impact much better.

The Conservative government brought in the last remaining residents who would join their families. The Liberals did away with it. The Liberals also brought in the $975 landing fee and then they opposed the reduction of the same. Right now it takes skilled workers six years and if we do not change the regulation it will take ten years to come in.

They may not agree with the policies and they want to criticize them for the sake of criticism, but I thank them for showing their confidence in the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party by supporting all our budgets and everything else. However, how does the member justify keeping people in their countries so that they are not able to come to Canada? He may not care for them, but does he not at least care for the Canadian economy? Does he not agree that a 20% to 40% faster reunification of families is a good thing for the country? His own deputy leader agreed that the Liberals did not get it done on immigration. I would like to hear his comment on that as well.

[Immigration, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Liberals when it comes to immigration is unbelievable. The fact is it is the Liberals who allowed the backlog to balloon from 50,000 to 800,000 applications. For 13 long years they did nothing.

The Liberals also opposed measures this government took to clean up their mess. They voted against $1.3 billion in new settlement funding for newcomers to Canada. They voted against the foreign credentials referral office. They voted against our cutting the $975 head tax on immigrants.

The deputy leader of the Liberal Party admitted the Liberals did not get it done on immigration and I have to agree with him.

The Conservative government wants families to be reunited faster. We want skilled workers to come here sooner.

The question is, what do the Liberals have against immigrants? With their track record we certainly will not take lessons on immigration from the Liberal Party.

[Health, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last summer the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health announced Canada's first ever Mental Health Commission. Mental health groups from across the country gave an enthusiastic welcome to this long overdue action to help some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Those who failed Canadians sit on the benches on that side of the House. After years of struggling in the shadows under the previous government, individuals and families dealing with mental health issues can finally count on help from this federal government.

Could the Minister of Health inform the House on how this Conservative government is keeping its promise to help Canadians?

[Infrastructure, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last year the government set aside $83 million for public transit infrastructure in Mississauga. I am delighted that the contribution agreements were recently signed. this money is now flowing to the municipality for this long overdue project.

Mississauga has been waiting for 12 longs years for this funding. That is because for 10 years the previous Liberal successive governments ignored the needs of Mississauga.

I thank the Prime Minister, as well as the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for helping the people of Mississauga.

This government continues to address the infrastructure deficit left by the successive Liberal governments. We are investing in the future with our building Canada plan, which will deliver $33 billion to municipalities over seven years. In budget 2008 we are making the gas tax fund permanent so municipalities can better plan and finance their infrastructure.

As we can see, the Conservative government is investing in the infrastructure that Canada needs.