Bob Rae

[Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, March 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate the support of the Liberal Party for this measure, with the proviso that the legislation, together with its companion legislation, SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act, will be reviewed by the House and the Senate over the next five years.

It seems to me that we are living in times when measures such as this one need to be available to the government. The powers that are given to the government need to be exercised carefully and in strict accordance with the wording of the act. However, we are satisfied that the international situation and the fluidity of the movement of capital are such that it is important for us to take certain measures.

We know that there are changes going on in the world. At the same time, we are seeing greater fluidity in the movement of capital throughout the world. There is also the fact that, in corrupt regimes, some people have used their political power to take money. Therefore, we must give our governments the ability to respond. The Liberal Party will support this measure.

[Political Financing, March 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if it is an administrative dispute, I guess all four of them will go to an administrative prison. That is how it looks.

With respect to what we have seen over the last few days, it is really quite remarkable. There are cabinet ministers in the front two rows, not a single one of them prepared to answer a question on this, all affected by the crisis, all affected by the mistake, all affected by the fraud.

Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? Why will not a single cabinet minister answer a question on this issue?

[Jim Travers, March 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to speak on the passing of a good friend, a fine Canadian and a great journalist, Jim Travers.

Jim was a true gentleman whose rumpled presence concealed a sharp mind, a lovely sense of fun and a great pen. He had a distinguished 40-year career in journalism, both at home and around the world. He was editor-in-chief of Canada's largest newspaper, The Toronto Star, as well as a mainstay of the Ottawa bureau.

Jim was rightly honoured by his colleagues, winning the Charles Lynch Award in 2005 and the National Newspaper Award in 2010.

We will all miss his keen mind and shrewd analysis, but even more, we will miss the warmth and kindness he showed to so many of us.

He had a deep love of our country and a profound respect for the importance of our democratic institutions and traditions, and he would have been annoyed with me for not being able to get through this without crying.

Jim's passing leaves so much behind, great friends on all sides of politics and journalism, but also a hole in our hearts. We send our deepest condolences to his wife Joan and children, Ben and Paddy, and his wider family.

[International Co-operation, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in a true democracy, ministers responsible for making decisions are able to provide the reasons for their decisions and tell the truth to the House of Commons.

Why this shameful silence from the minister when we ask serious questions in the House of Commons?

[International Co-operation, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, around the world people are craving democracy, they are craving transparency, and they are craving accountability. Canadians are no different. They have the same expectations and demands of their government.

I would like to ask the minister if she will simply answer a simple question. What happened in that two-month period between the decision by the two officials at CIDA to make the decision and her decision to put the “not” in? What happened in that two-month period, minister? Give us--

[International Co-operation, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is the one who made the decision, then why is she not the one answering questions in the House? It is quite simple.

Why does the government's spokesperson have to answer all the questions today to defend the government's decision? It is clear: it was the Prime Minister's Office that ordered the decision not to fund KAIROS. It was the PMO that covered this up for over a year. The real reason the Prime Minister refuses to dismiss the minister is that she was simply following his orders.

[International Co-operation, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister, since she is now able to answer questions, can confirm that, in fact, it is the Prime Minister's Office that ordered the defunding of the wrong KAIROS, that the Prime Minister's Office ordered the cover-up in all of its answers for an entire year given by the minister and given by her parliamentary secretary, who admitted that in fact he had misled the House, and that the real reason for the refusal to fire the minister is that she was just following orders.

[International Co-operation, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on March 8, in response to a question from my colleague from London North Centre, the minister answered this way.

She responded in writing as follows: “The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.”

My question for the minister, the same minister who is still refusing to answer questions today, is the same: why did she not say, on March 8, that it was her decision and not CIDA's decision?

[International Co-operation, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2009, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism gave a speech in Jerusalem in which he linked KAIROS to the Canadian Arab Federation and Canadian Islamic Congress as being part of an anti-Semitic approach to public policy. He said that KAIROS was taking a leadership role in the boycott movement and that was the reason for the de-funding.

My question is actually for the Minister of International Cooperation. I would like to ask the minister this simple question. What conversations did she have with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, or with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or with the Prime Minister's Office that would lead her to that false and unfair conclusion--

[International Co-operation, February 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the minister takes so much responsibility for her decisions that she is apparently incapable today of standing in her place and telling us why the story that is being told on her behalf, not by her, is a completely different story than the one she was perpetrating around the House of Commons for a full year.

The minister did not have the courage to tell the committee when she met with us in December that in fact she was the one who authorized the “not”. Why did the minister not tell the truth to the committee in December when she appeared before it?