Michael Ignatieff

[Ethics, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Dona Cadman continues to maintain that her dying husband was offered a $1 million insurance policy if he changed his vote. Chuck's daughter says that it broke her heart that her father was put in this position. Chuck's son-in-law confirms that a financial offer was made.

Is it the Prime Minister's position that the people close enough to Chuck Cadman to know are lying? If so, how are Canadians going to believe that he alone is telling the truth?

[Ethics, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is not clear. During his interview with Mr. Zytaruk, the Prime Minister clearly said that two legitimate Conservative representatives made an offer to Chuck Cadman and that the offer had a financial aspect to it.

What was that financial aspect?

Who were those two emissaries who made a financial offer to Chuck Cadman, not on the 19th, but on the 17th?

[Ethics, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley made an offer to Chuck Cadman on May 19. No one disputes this.

However, we also know, based on statements from the Cadman family, that two Conservative operatives approached Chuck Cadman on May 17 with a financial offer of some kind.

The Prime Minister acknowledges both the operatives and the financial considerations on the tape we have just been discussing.

Will the Prime Minister tell us who these two other operatives were? What does he have to hide?

[Ethics, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on the tape made by a reporter, Mr. Zytaruk, we have a Prime Minister who clearly states that he is aware that two representatives of his party tried to change Mr. Cadman's vote by making him a questionable offer.

The key question is very simple: why did the Prime Minister not put an end to this pathetic attempt?

[Ethics, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for the charming letter he sent me this morning. I was very impressed.

In the taped interview with Mr. Zytaruk at Mr. Cadman's residence, the Prime Minister clearly mentions Mr. Cadman's “financial insecurity” and financial considerations he might lose due to an election.

I want to know whether that was why the two individuals, who in the Prime Minister's own words were “legitimately representing the party”, offered Mr. Cadman a financial inducement to change his vote?

[Ethics, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the minister's comments is that the widow of a respected member of Parliament denied the Prime Minister's statements. We need to clarify this issue.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by failing to stop his party's agents, he is an accomplice to attempts to corrupt a parliamentarian?

[Ethics, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the Prime Minister's answers, there is one thing that I think the House needs to have clarification about. Is he saying that the widow of Chuck Cadman is lying? Is he saying that a Conservative candidate is lying?

He needs to make this point clear, because the issue then is why did he not stop the offer in the first place, why did he not treat a dying man with respect, and why did he not control his own desire to win at any price?

[Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is odd; he is praising a program that he is the process of cancelling. That makes no sense.

In 2005, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy found that the feebate program was not effective. But as always, the government ignored the experts. One year later, after losing time and wasting money, the government has just cancelled that ill-fated program.

Will the government now acknowledge that it was wrong and the experts were right?

[Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's budget, the government snuck in the cancellation of its disastrous ecoAuto rebate program. Canadians need to know just how disastrous it was.

It failed to incentivize the purchase of green vehicles. It had the perverse effect of increasing the market share for gas guzzlers. It burdened Canadian auto manufacturers with a competitive disadvantage.

Will the government now admit that the program was an egregious policy mistake that hurt both the environment and the auto industry?

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, now that the imminent crisis in Chalk River is over, now that the government has compromised the regulator's independence—and then fired her—can the government finally clarify its intentions for Atomic Energy of Canada?

Will it uphold Canada's internationally renowned leadership in this field or is it going to sell to the highest bidder?