Gilles Duceppe

[École secondaire Pierre-Dupuy, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today we have with us 10 students from Pierre-Dupuy high school in my riding.

As part of a school activity, these young people have traded their books and backpacks for a journalist's pen. They will have an opportunity to visit Parliament Hill, to see the work of members and to gain a better understanding of how our democratic system works.

The 10 novice journalists will then share what they have learned in La plume étudiante, a student newspaper that will be read by their classmates, teachers and parents.

The younger generation has a hunger for knowledge and understanding, and clearly has a keen interest in politics. The student newspaper at Pierre-Dupuy high school is a perfect example of that. The Bloc Québécois would like to welcome these young people and commend them for their initiative.

[Ethics, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, no, they only affect a former minister. How does that make sense?

The Prime Minister is refusing to do anything about the Afghan detainees issue because he claims that it boils down to allegations made by a couple of diplomats. In the matter involving the former minister for the status of women, the Prime Minister acted quickly in response to allegations from a private detective who collects tanks and bazookas. That is very serious.

Will the Prime Minister finally disclose the substance of the allegations that prompted him to act so quickly, as he did not do in the Afghan detainees file?

[Ethics, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter involving the former status of women minister and her husband, Rahim Jaffer, new allegations surface daily. First came rumours of prostitutes and cocaine use, influence peddling and tax havens. Now there are new revelations from the private detective who provided the information in the first place. This government wants everyone to think it is so tough on crime, but in fact, it is criminally incompetent.

Is it not time for the Prime Minister to disclose what he knows?

[Ethics, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was not sure how he was going to conjure up an answer to that question. That being said, in one case, they turn a blind eye because there are only allegations and no action is taken, but in the other case, they take action.

Does that mean the case of the former minister for the status of women was more serious than simple allegations and that is why action was taken? Is that what this means?

[Ethics, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs responded earlier to a question about those who turned a blind eye to allegations of torture of Afghan detainees and did not take any action, since it was a matter of allegations. A little earlier, the Prime Minister told us that the Minister for the Status of Women had resigned following serious allegations.

Could the government explain its rationale? In one case of allegations it takes action and in another case it does not. Why the double standard?

[Ethics, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner said she did not have the authority to conduct an inquiry into the matter. But the commissioner reports to Parliament. We are therefore entitled to know why she does not have the authority to look into the affair involving the former minister for the status of women and her husband, Rahim Jaffer.

Will the Prime Minister finally disclose the exact nature of the allegations that forced him to put the matter in the hands of the RCMP?

[Ethics, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is refusing to investigate the affair involving the former minister for the status of women and Rahim Jaffer. She says that it is not up to her to look into this matter. We are forced to conclude that the allegations forwarded to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner are of a criminal nature.

Will the Prime Minister finally agree to show some transparency and explain what the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner does and does not have the authority to do?

[Ethics, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the last time a prime minister asked the RCMP to investigate one of its ministers was when Brian Mulroney was in power. At the time, Mr. Mulroney gave the reasons for his actions.

Is the Prime Minister less transparent than his predecessor, Mr. Mulroney?

[Ethics, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a whole host of reasons could be behind the fall of the former minister for the status of women, such as: obtaining a $800,000 mortgage without a down payment; the use of her ministerial mailing privileges and driver by her husband, Rahim Jaffer; supposed ties of this couple to the underworld; or a dinner that the minister is alleged to have attended with an individual associated with organized crime.

Is this why the Prime Minister decided to relieve the former minister for the status of women of her duties and turn the case over to the RCMP? Are there other reasons besides those already uncovered by the media?

[Ethics, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, those are the same answers that Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Gagliano gave and that outraged the opposition leader, who is now the Prime Minister. In changing sides, he has changed his tune.

It is hard to follow the government in this case. A week ago, the Prime Minister came to the defence of the Minister for the Status of Women, saying that there was nothing wrong, that everything was fine and that she was entitled to her privacy, as in the case of the member for Beauce. We are not talking about something that happened 25 years ago.

The government must have had serious reasons for kicking the former minister out of caucus. It should tell us what those reasons are.