Michael Ignatieff

[Afghanistan, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he accepted the broad recommendations of the Manley report. I wonder whether he accepted the scathing criticism of his leadership.

The Afghan mission cannot be delegated to an assistant deputy minister, no matter how hard he works. When will the Prime Minister address this failure? Specifically, when will he grab hold of the mission, show prime ministerial leadership and end the departmental dysfunction that has plagued this mission on his watch?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2008]

With respect to the “internal reallocation of resources” of $36,778,000 from Vote 1 to Vote 5 by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development in the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2007-2008, as tabled in the House of Commons on October 30, 2007: (a) what programs or services will be cut or reduced as a result of the proposed reduction of $36,778,000 under Vote 1; and (b) to what programs or services will this sum be reallocated under Vote 5?

[Afghanistan, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, three times in November, the Minister of National Defence boasted about the detainee transfer agreement; however, this agreement was suspended on November 6.

Could he give us a little glimpse of the truth today? Can he tell us when the transfer of detainees to the Afghan authorities will resume?

Even more important, what concrete measures will he take to ensure that Afghan detainees will not be abused or tortured?

[Afghanistan, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on November 22 the Minister of National Defence stood in the House and claimed there had “not been one single, solitary proven allegation of abuse of detainees” in Afghanistan. We now know that a whip was found in an interrogation cell on November 5. Abuse occurred. The detainee transfer was stopped on November 6, while that very minister was in Kandahar.

Was the minister asleep, out of the loop, or did he knowingly withhold information from Canadians and from this House?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows that this is entirely false. We worked in cooperation with the government to get this done.

Let me ask this. On Tuesday the Department of Justice told the nuclear regulator that it was not going to provide legal counsel on the Chalk River crisis. Why did the Minister of Justice withdraw legal services to the commission? Why did the government subvert the legal authority of the regulator? What message is the government trying to send to other federal regulators: “Watch out or we'll come after you too?”

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one minister is not talking to the other. The same minister admitted that he only learned of the crisis two days after the Minister of Natural Resources. We are talking two days and 210,000 patients put in danger.

The left hand of the government does not know what the right hand is doing. Why did it take 48 hours for one minister to talk to the other in the middle of a national crisis?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday in this House, the Minister of Health said that a two or three day delay in the production of isotopes would affect more than 200,000 patients around the world.

Can the Minister of Health explain why his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, waited two days before informing him of the impending crisis? He waited two days and put 200,000 patients at risk.

[Hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I would like to express my fondness for our hon. colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie. I have tremendous respect for her and hold her in the highest esteem. She has devoted her entire career to the service of the public, as a committed social worker and public trustee in Quebec, as a member of the Quebec National Assembly and the House of Commons, as a provincial and a federal minister in many important departments, and finally, as deputy leader of our party.

No one in this House can question her dedication to the public good or her political judgment. Whether it was about reforming Quebec's cultural policy, pay equity in the public service, education or economic development, she has made an immense contribution to Canada.

If I may, I would like to continue in my mother tongue.

Canada is a better place because of her public service.

We will miss her. We will especially miss her political wisdom, her laugh and her wonderful sense of humour.

In conclusion, I think the finest tribute I can pay my dear colleague and friend is to say that when she finished reading her statement a few minutes ago, a colleague of hers came up to me and whispered, “What a loss. What a loss to our party.”

We want to thank her for her service. We want to thank her for her friendship and her devotion. We wish her bonne route.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House knows that the people who feed us are the Canadian farmers. The pork producers of our country are having an extremely hard time. It is the worst crisis in their history. Bankruptcies and foreclosures are closing down even the most efficient producers and there is real misery raining down on hard-working families.

Will the Prime Minister instruct his Minister of Agriculture to bring forward an emergency federal package, above and beyond existing programs, to assist pork producers as they weather this crisis?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for 17 months, the Chalk River facilities were being run in violation of the licence. The backup reactor does not work. The operator let Canadians down; this government let Canadians down.

Since the minister failed to do his job, will the government immediately ask the Auditor General to conduct an inquiry?