Andrew Telegdi

[Canadian Forces, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during my S.O. 31, I mentioned that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as well as the international firefighters, who have been visiting us in Ottawa, have been observing a minute of silence in respect of our four fallen soldiers. The soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice were Corporal Matthew Dinning, Bombardier Myles Mansell, Lieutenant William Turner and Corporal Randy Payne.

We also remember all the men and women who are serving and have served and all those who are giving their lives in the service of their country.

On Monday, we in this chamber observed a minute of silence on behalf of the Armenian genocide. On Wednesday, we observed a minute of silence in memory of the Holocaust. On Tuesday evening, when I was at the Armenian reception, they observed a minute of silence in respect to our fallen soldiers.

Given the fact that it is the soldiers of our armed forces who are trying to prevent those kinds of events that we commemorated this week, it would be a good opportunity for members of the House to give unanimous consent to the following motion:

That on Thursday, April 27, after question period, we observe a moment of silence in this chamber, as Canadians are doing from coast to coast to coast.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no problem in ensuring that moneys wrongfully taken are refunded. To establish that, it has to be done by a court of law.

Because it is important, everyone should remember the words of Justice Gomery, who stated:

Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively, and emerge from this Inquiry free of any blame.

I say that because it does no good for anyone of us in the House to diminish the roles of members of Parliament and our democratic institutions. It is really important to keep in mind.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

I will do it outside and in the House. It is a matter of public record.

Let me talk about one part, which I think will cause a problem in terms of limiting donations to $1,000. If somebody goes to a convention, there is a cost. We are going to have one this year. The Conservatives and NDP had them in the past. It is a very expensive process. It will cost a couple of thousand dollars. According to the laws, if one is going to do it through a personal donation, one can go.

The other issue that is really lacking and is the weakest point in this bill, the real Achilles heel of the bill, is that it does not ban third party advertising. We know the problems we had with the former head of the National Citizens Coalition--

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me very clear that I am the last member of Parliament in the House who anybody should be accusing of hearing no evil and seeing no evil. If I believe in something and I see something is wrong, I will defend the opposition party against the powers of the minister and of the government.

In terms of the names of the individuals involved, buy the book. It is called On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years. The member will find all the names. If the member wants, I will table in the House tomorrow the names of the nine persons who were convicted of criminal charges.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

I am going to pick up on that. Recently it was on W-FIVE that the former prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, received $300,000 from Mr. Schreiber. Surely we should have a Gomery type of inquiry on this because now this is an established fact. If the Conservatives want to be accountable, they would do the right thing. The Liberal Party did the right thing. The former prime minister called the Gomery inquiry.

However, even before the Gomery inquiry was called, we had the mother of all bills in terms of accountability, and that was Bill C-24. When we came into government in 1993, it was possible for corporations to give millions of dollars to political parties. It was possible for individuals to give millions of dollars to political parties. What this government did with its financing bill was limit corporations to $1,000 from untold millions that they could give. The other thing we did was limit the contribution from individuals to $5,000.

Those were the most sweeping changes that have ever been made. Whatever this bill now wants to do, it will be a small fraction of what we did. This is important because that is where we are coming from.

To get back to the whole issue of the bill, it gives me nightmares when I see that the Conservatives have introduced a part where they want to pay $1,000 to somebody to snitch on somebody else. I have trouble with that because of where I came from. I have trouble with that because, unfortunately, in totalitarian regimes people denounce each other. I have trouble with that because I worked in the courts. I know when testimony is given, it has to be given for the best of reasons, and certainly not because of $1,000. It is an insult to the law-abiding men and women of our country to think that $1,000 would be the reason they would do this. We are not talking about operation watch or rewards being offered for anonymous donations. We are talking about civil servants who have high ethics, for the most part. They are not perfect.

Our party will support the basic thrust of the bill, but I am particularly disturbed that we are going to be able to interfere in the affairs of the first nations, the section relating to the Auditor General. First nations have had a long and troubled history and we have to treat them with respect. We have to respect their leadership. We have to understand that we should no more to them than we do to the provinces.

The Liberals will support the bill. I look forward to further debate on it. We are all responsible for upholding the faith of Canadians in our elected institutions and other institutions.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I hold my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill in high esteem. I really wish that she would have come back and served on the citizenship and immigration committee. When we talk about questions of accountability and holding the bureaucracy accountable, it is important that the government has members who know the issues of the department. She knows those issues very well.

Let me suggest that in terms of the bill the member talked about accountability, but what she is really talking about is conduct. This whole thing is in a lot of ways a charade. It does not matter what segment of society it is, whether it is a service club, a police department, a university, a law firm or a church, there will be some people who will engage in criminal conduct. That is why we have spent billions of dollars on the courts and the police and penal institutions for enforcement.

What really happened in the last Parliament is that the opposition parties were very successful in undermining people's belief in this place and in the role of government. I think our member from Vancouver Quadra spoke very eloquently on that subject.

What has to be remembered is that if the basic underpinnings in a system are undermined, we are all hurt. This Parliament is hurt, the government is hurt, the bureaucracy is hurt, and a bad impression is given to the rest of the world.

No one party has a monopoly on virtue. If we examine the record and if we want to talk about accountability, the first thing the Conservative government should have done when it came into the House was to apologize for the previous Conservative government that left office in 1993. I raise that because ministers and MPs were charged and convicted. Nine people went to jail.

Let me also underline a way that the Conservatives have undermined our belief in the legal system. I know the truth is not welcomed. I note that some of the members were not around. But the fact of the matter is that the Conservatives deeply undermined the system by trying to infer that all politicians are corrupt. This does not serve us well, Mr. Speaker. You would know more than virtually anyone else in this place since you are the dean of this Parliament.

The other canard that has been floated is that somehow former prime minister Mulroney was prosecuted by the government. In a democracy the prosecution is done by the police, the RCMP and the crown attorney. It is not done by politicians. Let me say that I would not want to live in a country where politicians can direct the police or can direct the prosecution to persecute someone.

I came from a country like that 49 years ago. This year will mark the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution. I can tell members that the basis of democracy is that government should never be in a position to single out an individual and say politically to the head of the RCMP or the head of the prosecution that it wants the person charged.

A lot of people have come to this country from places like I did. They came as refugees. They came as immigrants from oppressive regimes. We have to ensure they do not get the wrong impression that any political party can direct the police or the prosecution.

It was because of what happened with the sponsorship issue that the former Liberal government launched-

[Request for Emergency Debate, April 26th, 2006]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Request for Emergency Debate, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today during my S.O. 31, I mentioned that Canadians from coast to coast to coast as well as the international firefighters who have been visiting us have been observing a minute of silence in respect of our fallen soldiers.

On Monday we in this chamber observed a minute of silence on behalf of the Armenian genocide. On Tuesday we observed a minute of silence in memory of the Holocaust. Actually, yesterday evening when I was at the Armenian reception, they observed a minute of silence in respect to our fallen soldiers.

Given the fact that it is the soldiers of our armed forces who are trying to prevent those kinds of events that we commemorated this week, it would be a good opportunity if members of this House would give unanimous consent to a motion that on Thursday, April 27 after question period we observe a moment of silence in this chamber, as Canadians are doing from coast to coast to coast. I ask for unanimous consent.

[National Defence, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the decision to send our troops to a combat zone is made in this building. Ultimately it is Parliament that is responsible. It is a disgrace that the flag at the top of this building is not at half-mast as a show of respect for our soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms.

When we lower the flag, not only do we honour the latest casualties, we remember all our war dead. Lowering the flag is an expression of the appreciation of a grateful nation to those who are serving and those who have served. Remembrance should not be restricted to one day a year.

Further, the new policy to banish the media from the repatriation ceremony of the bodies of our fallen soldiers is a disgrace. I suggest that the new government policies on the flag and repatriation be reversed.

The firefighters, at their convention being held in Ottawa today, had a minute of silence in memory of our fallen soldiers. This sign of respect is being repeated by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I suggest that we in this chamber do the same by having a moment of silence in remembrance, gratitude and respect.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I worked with the hon. member on the citizenship and immigration committee, and I see another colleague of mine across the way from Surrey. We really had a wonderful experience as parliamentarians because we could work in a non-partisan fashion. We could take very difficult issues and arrive at a consensus.

I agree with the member that the refugee appeal division has to be enacted into law. One of the things we continually worked on was to make that happen. We said that when the government appoints members of the refugee board, it should be based on competence. That is essentially what has happened. We have put that in place and I must say I am a little disturbed to find out that three members of the Montreal refugee board, who have received excellent appraisals and who were hired by an independent tribunal, have lost their positions.

We have always said that things must be based on competence. One of the problems with the refugee board has been that people did not have the experience. We needed experienced people on that board and I hope that the minister will revisit that decision.

In terms of temporary workers, there is a solution. We must begin from the premise that if we were to take every worker in this country who is undocumented and ship them out of the country tomorrow, our economy would take a big cut because those jobs need to be filled in this economy. We must issue temporary work permits and see if over time we can regularize these workers, so they can become landed immigrants and Canadian citizens, and partake in the Canadian dream.