Michael Ignatieff

[Immigration, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what the government says and what it does are two different things. It says it is trying to fix the immigration system, but what it does is it centralizes unprecedented power in the hands of a minister. It says it wants more immigrants, but what it does is it lets in 36,000 fewer permanent residents over the last two years.

Why is it fudging the numbers? Why has it been admitting fewer permanent residents? Why will the government not be straight with the Canadian people?

[Immigration, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the sudden change in the immigration policy raises the question of its application in the province of Quebec. It is not clear whether the new powers the minister wants to assume are compatible with Quebec's immigration policy.

Can the minister explain, in a concrete manner, how her new discretionary powers will affect immigration management in Quebec?

[Immigration, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the government snuck changes to the immigration system into the budget and it hoped Canadians would not notice but they did notice. They noticed that the minister will be able to cherry-pick from the queue, not reduce the queue, and keep families that applied in good faith from ever being reunited.

Will the government separate the new immigration regulations from the budget and allow Parliament and Canadians the chance to debate these radical and unwelcome changes?

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to my colleague's speech. I think everybody who heard it was very struck by the affectionate remarks he made in respect of his beloved daughters and his clear affection for them, and also the impression made upon him by the visit of the Afghan parliamentarians.

I remember their visit as well and I think that in this debate it has been obvious that the question of the advancement of women's rights in Afghanistan has been one of the strongest reasons why there has emerged a cross-parliamentary consensus in favour of the continuation of the mission. Of all the things we are trying to do in Afghanistan, raising up the condition of women strikes us all as a cause that we can all defend, despite our partisan differences on other issues.

The issue to which I want to ask the member to reply is whether our joint commitment to women's rights necessitates a change of emphasis as we go forward, a change of emphasis that would put more investment in women's education and women's health.

There have been criticisms of the mission, as it is currently configured, that it has an excessively military focus. We are aware that the budgetary allocations are heavily freighted on the military side and not as much on the side of investment in women's health and women's education, which both sides of the House support.

I am just wondering whether the hon. member could pursue, in other words, the budgetary or financial implications of his estimable commitment to women's rights, which we both share, and I put this question in the context of us both understanding that we cannot do development without security. I put this in the context of sustaining a military commitment in Afghanistan. But one of the questions I am left with as I listen to him and other hon. members is the question of whether we should not simply be putting more investment in the causes that he has defended so well this afternoon.

[Ethics, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to a previous question some time earlier, thePrime Minister insisted that the Cadman tape was not in its full form. “Doctored” was the word.

If there is a full version of the tape, will he undertake to present it to the House so that all Canadians can hear it?

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a previous question about the Military Police Complaints Commission, the Minister of National Defence assured the House of the government's cooperation on this matter.

Can he explain, then, why it is that the commission is talking about this: “Despite persistent efforts by Commission staff, responses were slow, censored, and in some cases ignored” and “the government's refusal to provide the Commission with full access to...documents”?

We cannot have a Canadian approach to the Afghan mission, on which we are going to vote later this afternoon, unless we have accountability for the government--

[Ethics, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we accept the word of Mrs. Cadman and her family. For two weeks, the Prime Minister has been avoiding our questions about the Cadman affair. He has launched lawsuits, gone on a trip and avoided the press.

For the next two weeks, he is going to have to face the Canadian people. Will he treat them with the same contempt?

[Ethics, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are all heading back to our constituencies this weekend, with some relief, but the Prime Minister will not be able to evade Canadians the way he has evaded the House. He will not be able to threaten them with lawsuits.

They will be asking one question. The Cadman family maintains that a financial offer was made. The Prime Minister is on tape discussing such an offer. In light of these facts, how can he maintain that an inappropriate financial offer was not--

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh will know the high regard in which we hold him, so I rise only because I was surprised by some of the things he had to say, since I always associate his contributions in committee and in the House with wisdom.

I did want to put one simple question to him. His party keeps saying we are not going to abandon Afghanistan and the Afghan people. I was in Afghanistan three weeks ago. What would the hon. member say to the Afghan people, particularly the women I met, who said to a woman, and the men to a man, “Do not abandon us. Maintain a security presence. We will not last five minutes if you leave us. The Taliban will take over”.

I do not like the facts we face in Afghanistan any more than the hon. member does, but I do want a policy in Canada that meets the test of fidelity to the people to whom we have given our word.

I ask the hon. member in all seriousness how he can stand in the House and maintain that he wants to keep faith with the Afghan people and the people who want us to stay by withdrawing the security component on which their very lives depend? Can he stand in this House and explain what he would say to the Afghan women who said to me, “Do not abandon us. Maintain a security presence in Kandahar”?

[Ethics, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is a bit troubling because yesterday, outside the House, the parliamentary secretary refused to say whether or not the Conservatives had made an offer to Chuck Cadman.

If we ask the question again, inside the house, will the parliamentary secretary answer in the same way? Will he say the same thing outside the House that he is saying here, inside the House?