Denis Coderre

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, since the Couillard affair began, the Prime Minister and his House leader have been dodging our questions for the past three weeks. Every time, they claimed that it was a question of privacy. But yesterday, we asked the Minister of Public Safety if there had been any meetings between May 1 and May 8, 2008, between our intelligence agency and the Prime Minister's Office regarding the Couillard affair and his minister. He did not want to answer because he said it was a question of national security. However, yesterday, a few hours later, outside the House, one of his staff denied that such a meeting took place.

First it was privacy, then it was national security and now, it is anyone's guess. Was there a meeting, yes or no, and why did he not want to answer?

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, he did not understand. This is Earth calling. My question was not complicated. For five weeks, the Prime Minister said that there was no problem and not to worry, because there was no problem. If he thought there was no problem, it must have been because he had information. And if there is information, it is because a minister had done some checking.

My question is simple. Have the RCMP or CSIS investigated what the Prime Minister said? That way we will know that there is no problem with these documents.

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Prime Minister would rather collect Air Miles in Europe than answer our questions. He is letting his puppets do the covering up. But he did say something in Paris. He said that he was sure there was no problem for five weeks, that the only thing that happened to the documents was that the former minister forgot them, but that it was nothing serious. If it was nothing serious, he must have known something was going on and had some information.

Could the naive Minister of Public Safety tell us whether the RCMP and CSIS conducted any checks for the Prime Minister?

[Foreign Affairs, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a former foreign affairs minister leaves secret documents lying around and, until recently, had a partner with a shady past who set up a security firm to win contracts at airports and who was in possession of secret military documents for five weeks—five weeks—before she reacted.

My question is simple. What steps have been taken to ensure these documents were not photocopied and passed on to organized crime? Or is the Prime Minister reassured because he has seen the transcript of the conversations recorded using the microphone the government planted?

[Foreign Affairs, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the sequel to The American Trap, a film by Fabienne Larouche, could be called The Canadian Conservative Trap. That is what we have before us today.

The arrogance and lack of judgment of the Prime Minister and his cronies prove that if the government had answered our legitimate questions from the start, we would not be in this situation.

Now we learn that Ms. Couillard's home was bugged.

Can the Minister of Public Safety tell us that neither the RCMP nor the Canadian Security Intelligence Service planted a microphone and, if they did, can he tell us whether they were instructed to do so?

[National Security, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when someone's private life threatens to undermine the security of Canadians, it is not a personal question, but a matter of public concern.

Is it not true that the main reason the government refused to allow Ms. Couillard to attend certain confidential meetings and certain interviews given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was that the Conservatives knew about Ms. Couillard's past?

[National Security, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the continuing saga of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we learned this morning that, contrary to what the government would have us believe, Ms. Couillard had links with the underworld not a decade ago, but until just recently, in 2005. This confirms what security experts say: people who get into organized crime do not get out.

My question is simple: if investigative reporters were able to uncover Ms. Couillard's shady past, how are we supposed to believe that the offices of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety did not?

[National Defence, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we need to get one thing straight. In 1993, we inherited a $42 billion deficit and had to clean up the mess they left behind. Starting in 1999, we reinvested in the armed forces and, in 2005, we made the largest one-time investment in the Canadian armed forces. So they have nothing to teach us.

Instead of hiding the truth, especially their defence plan because he is afraid of the consequences, could the Prime Minister be transparent for once and table his strategy? Because his speech is a disaster.

[National Defence, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot say that they are choking on the truth.

We already knew that the Prime Minister was trying to create a diversion on Monday because his Minister of Foreign Affairs is a disgrace.

And now two days later the Conservative government's so-called defence strategy is a disgrace as well. Even military personnel are saying that the government has mixed up the numbers.

Taxpayers want to know how much this will cost over the next 20 years, and, above all, who is telling the truth? Is it the Prime Minister, who says it is $30 billion, military officials, who say it is $50 billion, or the journalists, who are now saying $96 billion? Who is telling the truth?

[Official Languages Act, May 15th, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-548, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (understanding the official languages — judges of the Supreme Court of Canada).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for seconding this bill. The Official Languages Commissioner, Graham Fraser, said that the highest court of the land must be composed of bilingual judges in order to reflect our values and our Canadian identity as a bijural and bilingual country. I would add that legal skills must include linguistic skills, especially since this court represents a last resort.

I propose an amendment to the Official Languages Act. Section 16(1) of the act sets out the requirements concerning the understanding of both official languages for every federal court, with the exception of the Supreme Court. I propose that this exception be removed, so that the highest court of the land truly reflects our bijural and bilingual values and identity.

Translation is not enough, because as members know, there is parallel drafting. Judges must grasp legal nuances in both English and French. I urge the House to vote in favour of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)