Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. In a Vancouver--
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 31% of the vote.
Ethics March 3rd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. In a Vancouver--
Ethics March 3rd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that Conservative representatives tried to bribe Chuck Cadman but now they are trying to misquote and twist his words from media interviews to defend themselves. Actually, however, those quotes just dig them in deeper.
The parliamentary secretary quoted a Global TV interview where Mr. Cadman said that no offers were made but that was about a meeting with Liberals. He was also asked about meeting the current Prime Minister, not a meeting with the two Conservative operatives.
Dona Cadman said again today that the meeting did happen. Why are the Conservatives twisting the words of Chuck Cadman?
Business of Supply February 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I attended the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics as an observer and I very much appreciated the hon. member's contribution. I have a brief question for her.
Unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to question Mr. Mulroney a second time. However, if the other inquiry has the opportunity to question Mr. Mulroney, I wonder if the member would agree with the following questions.
First of all, Mr. Mulroney said nothing to Luc Lavoie, his spokesperson, regarding the amount of money he received from Mr. Schreiber during the Airbus scandal. That was after Mr. Lavoie charged more than half a million dollars in fees to Canadian taxpayers. Why did Mr. Mulroney not say anything to Mr. Lavoie?
Second, in 1991, Fred Doucet had many meetings and conversations with Mr. Mulroney and other members of the Conservative Party to discuss the Bear Head project. However, Norman Spector said it was clear that Mr. Mulroney cancelled that project. Why did Mr. Mulroney not say anything to Fred Doucet, his long time friend from Nova Scotia? Why did he not say anything to Fred Doucet in 1991?
I consider these two questions very important. Even if it takes him 10 or 15 minutes, why will Mr. Mulroney not attend the meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?
Business of Supply February 29th, 2008
Dinners?
Business of Supply February 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions because I found some internal contradictions in what the member had to say: Mr. Mulroney told the truth; Mr. Mulroney did no wrong; there were private dealings between private businessmen and we should not delve into it; yet Mr. Mulroney should bear the shame of what he did. Those are the member's words.
What shame, I might ask, is the member talking about? If it is shameful, certainly on this side of the House, that means probably it is something that is not good, something that perhaps cannot be excused. I want to know what he meant by that comment. Would he like to withdraw it? Would he like to say that outside the House? Maybe Mr. Mulroney might sue him.
All through this process, and I was there most of the time, the member and his colleagues decried the methods and the being of the committee as being ineffective, tautological and useless. Why is it now that he is holding up the work of the committee and saying it is a wonderful example of how Parliament works?
Surely he has enough faith, as was said many times by the ministers here, in Dr. Johnston and his acumen to see what happened before the committee and funnel it into good recommendations to go forward with an inquiry.
Why is he now for holding up the inquiry which his ministers on the frontbench wanted to get to so soon, so often?
Business of Supply February 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, credibility is always an issue and there are sins of commission and sins of omission.
I want to ask the hon. member this question. Does he think that telling the truth by commission, saying positively what happened, and telling lies by omission is present in this case? The former Prime Minister of this country did not even tell his own PR people that it was $300,000. He lied under oath by omitting to refer to his meetings in detail with Mr. Schreiber and lied under oath with that discovery.
Does that set up the table for this commission of inquiry to look into the credibility of Mr. Mulroney and everything he said, including the reason why he accepted $2.1 million for lawyers fees and PR fees when he did not even tell the experts the truth?
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic when we talk about the official languages scenario in this country. The Official Languages Act has an action plan that in fact has the name of the Leader of the Opposition attached to it. It had commitments of $750 million committed to it. During many of the speeches made by our leader, it is very clear that he is committed to funding it.
The Conservative government has not funded it. In the new budget there is no money. The Conservatives recently have been panned, if the parliamentary secretary wants a copy of L'Acadie Nouvelle, by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, for not providing any money.
To go back to the point, the parliamentary secretary misunderstands the question. The question was, why did the government ask for costs? Clearly the courts can award costs if they wish. They are not likely to award costs if they are not asked to award costs. In this case, they were asked for the first time in a public interest case in the history of the Department of Justice--
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the Minister for Democratic Reform about the demand for court costs currently being sought in a case taking place this week in Fredericton, New Brunswick, in front of a Federal Court trial judge.
That case, for anybody who has been around the official languages scene for some time, challenges the government's decision with respect to the elimination of the programme de contestation judiciaire, or the court challenges program.
At first instance, people might wonder why we would not demand costs in a litigious situation from parties if they were not to be successful. In terms of outlining how these things work, it is very clear that in civil litigation that is the rule. However, in public interest litigation, which is where the cause is being presented before the court, the practice is that the government does not ask for its costs in a case where a true policy argument is being presented, such as in most of the constitutional cases.
We know that some $15,000 to $20,000 could be at stake should the parties be unsuccessful. We pray on this side that they will not be unsuccessful but that is for the courts to determine. However, the $15,000 to $20,000 will be borne by the francophone groups, the minority linguistic groups, who are bringing this case. The lawyers are working on a pro bono basis in this public interest matter.
Just so members know that I am not making this up, I want the parliamentary secretary to know that in the case of Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, the court costs were not asked for by the government. That was a very important case brought under the rubric of the programme de contestation judiciaire. It was very instrumental in enforcing the section 23 charter rights of the community in and around Summerside, Prince Edward Island, to have a French language school in their community, as is guaranteed by the charter. The case was successful, but what is important is that the government did not ask for its court costs.
There are a number of other court cost situations involving the federal government going back to Operation Dismantle involving the interpretation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has been the practice.
The simple question I put to the Minister for Democratic Reform was why he was ignoring the custom of the Canadian government, the Department of Justice and, in fact, the people's representatives before the courts. Why should the court costs be sucked like blood out of the pro bono groups trying to promote public interest cases? Why are they ignoring the case of Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia? Why are they ignoring the case of Société des acadiens et acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc., et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. 2006? Also, why is it that they seem to be so hurt by the programme de contestation judiciaire?
We know this program was cut in the Mulroney years. That seems to be a name that is bandied around the House a bit more often these days. The Conservatives do not like the program and they are doing through the back door what they are also trying to do through the front door, which is to eliminate the program. Anybody who says that it is a good program, may I say Montfort, Montfort, Montfort.
It may be a bad thing in the Conservative psyche, but it does not change the practice of the Department of Justice and the Government of Canada in not seeking court costs in public interest cases. Why did the government do this?
Committees of the House February 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's problem. He is in a government that is not francophone rights friendly and he is in a riding where he is in a fight, where he has to seem to be francophone rights friendly.
I understand the problem. I understand why he asks questions about funding of the Dion plan and does not ever address the topic tonight, the preservation of the court challenges program. He has not addressed it once in his questions but, presumably, he will eventually give an answer.
However, is he in favour of preserving the program or not? Does he think that linguistic rights are important or not? Does he think that the Dion plan was named after someone who is not the Leader of the Opposition now? Does he think that the Official Languages Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and bill 88 were all Conservative programs?
He is wrong. His party does not have the heritage or the culture of embracing official bilingualism and he is in the fight of his life. I understand why he has to stand there and pretend that he is in favour of official languages and the Dion plan. I know at committee he is always trying to find a loophole to fight against those rights. I understand his problem.
Committees of the House February 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Gatineau.
The question is clear. Yes, I think there may a risk of problems in the future. Let us not forget that delivering services in both languages is not so easy because it costs the governments money. In a context of budgetary pressures, governments in this country—and one government has already made up its mind—might decide to eliminate programs.
That is why it is very important to preserve these programs because we may need them to protect existing legislation. You never know when a provincial Conservative government might cut bilingual services. That will never happen in New Brunswick because we have constitutional guarantees, but it might happen in Ontario. The City of Ottawa is not a bilingual city and Ontario is not bilingual either.