Bob Rae

[Privilege, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if the House is serious about wanting to protect the security of documents, may I suggest that they not be sent by email to 15 or 20 people. The most dangerous button that we all have in our possession is the send button. If we follow the logic of the member who raised this question and both my colleagues who have spoken to this, then there are some very simple ways of providing security: number the documents; hand documents out at a meeting and take them back when the meeting is over; restrict access to documents; do not let staff see documents. There is a whole variety of ways to keep these documents off the email chain and that will dramatically increase the security of those documents.

Yes, of course, there is a privilege. I fully agree with the hon. member that the documents should not have been leaked. I deplore the leak. It is not a great thing for the House when it happens. However, I do say that if the House is serious about protecting the security of these documents, it needs to take some measures internally to deal with that question. Otherwise these documents are in the ether; they are on the Internet. They are in the air, and as soon as they are there, it only takes one person in a chain of 20 or 30 to send that document to any number of people on the outside. The House should take account of the world in which we are living if we are serious about wanting to protect the security of these documents.

[Omar Khadr, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is the court's third decision unequivocally stipulating that human rights must be respected. It is clear that Mr. Khadr's rights have been violated. He was 15 years old when he was arrested.

Now, we are sending a clear message to this government that Mr. Khadr must be tried under the Canadian justice system and Canadian laws, and not under an illegal procedure in the United States.

[Omar Khadr, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on this same point.

The United States supreme court today, in a five to four ruling, said clearly that habeas corpus applied in the United States and that the detention of several of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay did not meet the standards of the United States constitution.

It is a very simple question for the government today. Just what is it going to take for the government to understand that Omar Khadr should face justice in Canada and not in Guantanamo Bay? That is what should happen.

[Omar Khadr, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the judge in the case was fired, Omar Khadr was 15 years old at the time that he was charged and arrested, and the interrogators have destroyed any records of the notes that were held.

The member has to tell us why this government, the Republican farm team, prefers American martial law to the Canadian system of justice under the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court of Canada? Why does it prefer that?

[Omar Khadr, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a fundamental principle of Canadian justice is that an accused has a right to know all the evidence against him or her. This principle has clearly been violated by American martial law in the case of Omar Khadr.

I would like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs another question. Why does the Canadian government prefer the martial law of the American justice system over the laws of the Canadian justice system?

[Omar Khadr, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is during the watch of the Conservative government that the judge in the trial has been removed because he was not satisfactory to his military superiors. It is during the Conservative watch that Mr. Khadr's interrogators were told to destroy their notes.

Whatever may have happened in the past, that was then, this is now. The government can change an injustice and right a wrong. No Canadian citizen should be treated in this fashion. I would hope the government would at least agree with that.

[Omar Khadr, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns Omar Khadr. I would like to ask someone over there if the government can somehow explain how it is that those people who were interviewing Mr. Khadr were told to destroy their notes, which is something that would be quite improper in the Canadian context.

I would like to again ask the parliamentary secretary if he can please explain why it is that Canada is putting up with this kind of activity with respect to the trial of a Canadian citizen.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to animal transportation that is also signed by a number of people across Canada. They have asked me to present the petition to the House.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions to the House. The first is a petition against Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, which is signed by a great many people in the industry itself.

[Foreign Affairs, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when will the government recognize that this is not a matter of privacy, this is not about someone's private life, this is about the public responsibilities of the Government of Canada?

Surely to goodness, the Prime Minister of Canada must have been informed by the police about Madam Couillard.