Marlene Jennings

[Foreign Affairs, June 16th, 2008]

Oh, oh!

[Foreign Affairs, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that he failed to mention the contracts with Public Works and Transport Canada, and the fact that the RCMP and CSIS should have been investigating. He left that out completely.

The government can no longer claim that this is a private matter. Security experts and even Conservative cabinet colleague Michael Fortier, the unelected minister, disagree.

Will the government finally tell Canadians who in the Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for this investigation, and what are the investigation's mandate and mission?

[Foreign Affairs, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, more and more questions are arising regarding the extent to which Julie Couillard infiltrated the Conservative government. The government claims that the Department of Foreign Affairs is conducting a review.

How can that department investigate the affairs of Julie Couillard within Transport Canada, Public Works and Government Services, and Public Safety, and within the RCMP and CSIS? How?

[Youth Employment Strategy, June 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the youth awareness initiative of the youth employment strategy is “delivered at the national, regional and local levels”. However, a project sponsored by Concert'Action Lachine was recently turned down because all the program's money is reserved for the Vancouver Olympics.

Why are national funds, which are sorely needed by youth across the country, being channelled to only one region?

[National Security, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Couillard affair remains a persistent grease spot. Every day, its stain spreads to the reputation of another department. Julie Couillard had access to secret Foreign Affairs documents, she had conversations with the Minister of Public Safety, and she tried to influence Public Works Canada's contracting process.

What more does the government need to launch a public inquiry into this affair? What more does the Prime Minister need to finally show proof of good judgment?

[National Security, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, according to the RCMP, it is not private life, it is public interest.

We now learn that Ms. Couillard's attempts to infiltrate the Conservative government targeted not one, not two but three different government departments. She had access to secret foreign affairs documents. She dined with the public safety minister. She tried to influence real estate contracts at Public Works.

How many more departments did she try to infiltrate? Does the Prime Minister not realize that nothing short of a full public inquiry will reassure Canadians about his government's integrity?

[Airbus, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it seems ridiculous that, seven months later, the government is still promising to act soon. We are several months past soon.

Will the Prime Minister appoint someone to lead the inquiry into the Mulroney affair, or will he tell the people of this country that he has made yet another error in judgment and changed his mind about an inquiry concerning Mr. Mulroney and his cash-stuffed envelopes?

[Airbus, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it has been seven months since the Prime Minister promised a public inquiry into Mr. Mulroney's dubious financial dealings. It seems ridiculous that it has been seven months and the government still cannot find someone to lead that inquiry.

Is it the Prime Minister's contempt for the judges? Is it the Conservatives' desire to protect Mr. Mulroney? Or are they just waiting for the President of the Treasury Board to be appointed to the bench so he can head up the inquiry?

[Foreign Affairs, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it shows good judgment on the part of the television companies.

Their refusal to testify before a parliamentary committee means that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the member for Beauce are hiding something. Why else would they steadfastly refuse to answer questions in this House and in committees when one of the fundamental principles of the Conservative party is, and I quote, “the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law”?

Is this not another example of the Conservatives' hypocrisy and arrogance?

[Foreign Affairs, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it would take a lot of effort to get him on television in the nude.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the member for Beauce are thumbing their noses at accountability by not testifying in committee. They refuse to address all the unanswered questions concerning this sad affair.

How can this be when a belief in “the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law” is part of the founding principles of the Conservative Party? Does that not make their refusal the height of arrogance and hypocrisy?