Bob Rae

[Correctional Service Canada, November 5th, 2012]

Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. There is not a correctional minister or a senior official at the Correctional Service of Canada who has not had access to those videos. It was entirely possible for them to view those videos for five years. In fact, they must have seen the videos, because for such a long time they told the inquest and everybody that the videos could not be shown because they were so serious.

Now Canadians have seen them and now we understand what the problem is.

I would like to ask the government, how can it justify this level of inaction over five years in which the correctional investigator has said that the situation is unacceptable?

[Correctional Service Canada, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has had access to the videos in question for five years. The government has been well aware of the situation for five years. It was only on Friday that the Conservatives admitted that the videos contained something unacceptable, despite the fact that they have been aware of the problem since they came to power and certainly since the death of Ms. Smith.

What really changed? The government is guilty of a certain amount of hypocrisy.

[Correctional Service Canada, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in indicating on Friday that the government was doing a complete reversal of its previous position at the Ashley Smith inquest, the government did not tell us what exactly has changed in the government's position.

There have now been a number of reports from the correctional investigator, indicating that the Ashley Smith death was not alone, was not a singular act, and in fact there are dozens of people who have died while in custody and who have committed suicide.

I would like to ask the government: Can it please explain to the House what exactly has changed over the last few days that has caused the government to change its position at the coroner's inquest?

[Budget Implementation Legislation, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion on the omnibus legislation, it is now clear that because of the short week next week and the break week thereafter, the committees to which all of these bills and measures have been referred will have very little time to deal with the substantive matters before them. Would the Prime Minister agree that it would be a much better idea if the House were to direct the committees to meet during the break week so that these substantive measures could be dealt with?

[Correctional Service Canada, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are no arguments between lawyers. There is the federal government's position, which completely restricts the Ontario coroner's ability to do his job and conduct his inquest. That is the problem.

I will make it clear for the Prime Minister: if the federal government is not prepared to give full authority to the person responsible in Ontario, will he have the decency to authorize a federal inquiry to investigate this matter?

[Correctional Service Canada, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith is the young girl from Moncton who died tragically five years ago in a Kitchener prison. In her last year of life, she was shunted 17 times among 9 different prisons in 5 provinces, with very little treatment for her mental illness. In the coroner's inquest that is now under way, the federal government has consistently taken the position that the jurisdiction of the coroner has to be restricted, that he cannot look at videos. It has consistently taken a position that has been antithetical to the interests of the truth and the interests of the family.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, why is this happening?

[Foreign Investment, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement as it is set out does not give Canada any greater access to the Chinese market than we have now. There are still whole sectors in China that are out of bounds for Canadian investors and Canadian companies. There are still requirements with respect to what Canadian companies can do.

In discussing the Nexen deal publicly, the Prime Minister said that reciprocity was one of the things that the Government of Canada was looking for with respect to this agreement. If that is the case, why would the Prime Minister not agree that, in the words of Justice Brandeis, “sunshine is the best disinfectant”? Why would he not ask himself the question, what would Preston do?

[Foreign Investment, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will agree with me that, while some people oppose the agreement, there are others who simply have some questions and want clear answers, and still others who want some debate and some clarification regarding the situation.

So I will ask the Prime Minister the same question. Why not organize committee meetings where experts could give their testimony and provide us with information?

Does the Prime Minister not think that that is what his predecessor, Mr. Manning, would have done?

[Foreign Investment, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the Canada-China investment deal, could the Prime Minister explain why one of the terms is different in this agreement from any other agreement that has been negotiated in the past? That is the 15-year notice period, as opposed to 6 months or a year, with respect to the termination of the agreement. Could the Prime Minister explain that?

Also, in order to clear up some of the issues that have been raised, and some of them may in fact not be as real as the people who raise them think they are, would he not agree that a committee hearing would be a very good way to let expert witnesses appear and resolve some of these questions?

[Ethics, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador received contributions from one particular company, from individuals working for that company, two days after the election was over. This is another additional issue and challenge for the member.

However, the overall problem remains, and that is that the member was elected spending $21,000 more than the amount permitted. One of the hallmarks of Canadian democracy is that we stick to the limits and one does not have to be rich or poor in order to deal with it.

Why did the government not call the member in and ask him to resign—