Bob Rae

[Foreign Affairs, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there are two important things here. First, the government has led us to believe that in recent months the Prime Minister did not know anything about Ms. Couillard's past, and that no security officials had asked the government important questions. Second, we have been told that confidential documents were missing for seven weeks and no one knew.

The question remains about how much credibility this government has, and the minister is the one taking the hit for the government. How could the government have us believe two things that are completely unbelievable?

[Foreign Affairs, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking us to believe two things that defy credibility. The first thing is that for a period of several months no one in the RCMP and no one in CSIS informed the Prime Minister about the security situation involving the former minister of foreign affairs and Madame Couillard. The second thing is that no one figured out that for seven weeks classified documents were missing. No one with any experience in either security or government can actually believe these two things are possible.

Can the minister or the Prime Minister, anyone who wants to answer the question, please tell us why they are stretching credibility to this extent?

[Foreign Affairs, June 2nd, 2008]

I have heard worse from better people, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I could ask the same question in French, since he is clearly having problems in English.

The only problem with the review that has been announced, regarding the former minister who had to resign over the issue of classified documents, is that we do not know who will do it, we do not know what questions will be asked and we do not know who will be asked questions. How can the minister justify such a process?

[Foreign Affairs, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the only problem with the review asked for by the former minister of foreign affairs is that we do not know who will do it, we do not know what questions will be asked, and we do not know which people will be asked questions.

My question quite simply is, how can the government possibly justify a process that is clearly designed to do only two things: to help a minister who had to resign and to help a government which is clearly avoiding its responsibilities?

[Foreign Affairs, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, why do I feel I am listening to an audition?

My question is for the--

[Foreign Affairs, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to refuse to answer a simple question. For several weeks, we have asked a simple question that the government has continually refused to answer. The question is very simple.

Why not conduct an independent inquiry that would have the authority to speak to witnesses, to speak to everyone and to return a completely independent report so that all Canadians would be satisfied with the results. We do not understand why the government—

[Foreign Affairs, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister who just answered well knows, and every Canadian well knows, that it is a basic principle of natural law that no one should be a judge in one's own case.

With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs, we do not know whether officials were involved in not reporting classified documents that were missing. We do not know whether there were officials in the minister's office who were involved in not reporting classified documents.

Surely the minister understands a very simple distinction between an administrative review carried out by officials who may in fact be implicated in some of these questions and an independent inquiry, which in fact has--

[Foreign Affairs, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there are now over 2,500 international stories about the missing documents, from every continent except for Antarctica. We are now still waiting for the penguins.

We used to be respected as a country. Now we are simply notorious. Given these facts, I wonder, how can the government justify its refusal to call an independent inquiry when we still have absolutely no explanation--no satisfactory explanation--for the seven week gap in reporting missing classified documents?

[Business of Supply, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, would the government not agree that the dismissal of the judge in the case on the grounds that the military has taken represents a significant new development in the Khadr case?

[Business of Supply, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could try to answer the question since he now says he was aware of it and the government has been aware of it. Can the parliamentary secretary answer the question? Does the fact that the judge in this case has been dismissed affect in any way the attitude of the Canadian government with respect to the treatment of Omar Khadr? What is the answer?