Gilles Duceppe

[Afghanistan, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not Quebec's vision.

We are not asking the Prime Minister to sacrifice safety in the name of truth. We are asking him not to use safety as an excuse for hiding the truth. The Prime Minister was elected because he promised greater transparency and democracy.

Will he seize this opportunity and respect the will of the House?

[Afghanistan, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Speaker's ruling about the Afghan detainee documents could also apply to the government's attitude in general. When dealing with various issues, the Conservative government has lacked transparency, exhibited ideological stubbornness and scorned democracy. The right of women in developing countries to have abortions and the Rahim Jaffer affair are just the latest examples of that.

Now that the Speaker of the House has given him a slap on the wrist, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is in the minority and stop trying to impose his backward ideology at all costs?

[Ethics, April 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has hidden many things. First of all, that a member of his riding staff met with Rahim Jaffer and, second, that this meeting took place in the office of the former status of women minister in Ottawa. According to the Prime Minister's reasoning, which he just repeated, Mr. Jaffer did not lobby members of his government because he did not obtain any contracts. That is twisted logic.

If that is true, why is the Prime Minister demanding a list of ministers who met with Rahim Jaffer?

[Ethics, April 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter involving the former status of women minister and her husband, Rahim Jaffer, the Prime Minister has repeated on several occasions that it did not involve the government. New revelations prove otherwise. The Prime Minister has instructed his ministers to report their meetings with Rahim Jaffer.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his defence of the first few weeks has been shattered and that there are ties between his ministers—the ministers of his government—and Rahim Jaffer?

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the RCMP decides not to lay charges, the former status of women minister will be able to return to the Conservative caucus. In short, a minister will have been thrown out of caucus and then taken back without a reason being given. This logic makes absolutely no sense and the Prime Minister is hiding behind this absurd logic.

When will he reveal the allegations? When will he explain his actions? We want to know.

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we still do not know why the Prime Minister threw the former status of women minister and wife of Rahim Jaffer out of the caucus. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner stated that the Prime Minister's office simply suggested that she contact two people who might have compromising information about this matter. The commissioner decided not to investigate and we still do not know what the RCMP will do.

Whether or not charges are laid, the Prime Minister must reveal the allegations that made him throw the former status of women minister out of the caucus. What is he waiting for to do so?

[Ethics, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there is no contract, but the fact that Mr. Jaffer broke the law does not excuse the Prime Minister, who is a control freak, from checking whether any of his ministers met with Mr. Jaffer as a lobbyist.

The Minister of State for Science and Technology confirmed that Mr. Jaffer's business partner had met with him about a number of projects. The minister himself said that.

Will the Prime Minister admit that Mr. Jaffer lobbied ministers? Surely Mr. Jaffer was not lobbying himself. He was meeting with ministers to lobby them.

Did he meet with one or more ministers, yes or no?

[Ethics, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister made a surprising statement. When asked whether Rahim Jaffer, the husband of his former status of women minister, had lobbied members of his cabinet, he answered that Mr. Jaffer had never been awarded a contract. But it seems clear to me that the fact that Mr. Jaffer did not get a contract does not mean he did not lobby cabinet members.

The Prime Minister, who is a control freak, surely must have done some checking on Mr. Jaffer.

Did he check whether Mr. Jaffer lobbied members of his cabinet?

[Ethics, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, lobbying does not mean one will automatically get a contract. One can act as a lobbyist without getting a contract. When the Prime Minister says that he expects people to adhere to the rules, I imagine that he expected his former status of women minister to adhere to the rules. It would appear, on the face of things, that she did not, given that she was fired.

Instead of merely stating generalities, could the Prime Minister stand up and tell me whether Mr. Jaffer lobbied one of his ministers or secretaries of State? That he should know.

[Ethics, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one of his business partners said that Rahim Jaffer acted as a lobbyist. Yet, the Prime Minister stubbornly insists that this matter is no concern of the government. However, the fact is that, if Mr. Jaffer did act as a lobbyist, he had to lobby a minister or a secretary of State, which makes sense to me.

Could the Prime Minister tell this House whether Mr. Jaffer acted lobbied a minister or a secretary of State in his government?