Preston Manning

[Foreign Affairs, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when will the minister tell the House where these passports are?

[Foreign Affairs, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government is being completely evasive on this issue and we are wondering why. I think Canadians are wondering why. This has been in the news now for a week. Foreign Affairs has had ample opportunity to investigate.

Either the government simply does not know what is going on, or the government does know what is going on and is reluctant to tell this House. We ask which is it. Is it simply that the government does not know what is going on, or is there something about this that makes the government reluctant to share what it knows with this House?

[Foreign Affairs, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not know where these passports are, how can he be determining that they are forged?

[Foreign Affairs, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we want to get to the bottom of this passport affair.

Let us get this straight. We asked if these passports were forged or stolen or valid and the minister said they were forged. Then we asked had any Canadian officials actually seen the passports to determine that they were forged and he said no, other people had seen the passports. Then he got a note from somewhere and said no, it was not other people and Canadian officials actually were investigating that they were forged.

We want to know what is the correct story. Are these—

[Foreign Affairs, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said it would be unacceptable for foreign operatives to use the Canadian passport. Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs even threatened diplomatic retaliation.

All of these are fine words, but where are the actions to prevent the illegal use of Canadian passports no matter how or by whom they are used?

Since the government has done little in the past to quell the illegal use of Canadian passports, what concrete steps will it take to ensure that Canadian passports will not be used illegally in this manner in the future?

[Foreign Affairs, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has an obligation to protect the good reputation of Canadians overseas. The maple leaf flag is trusted and our passport is internationally respected.

Our concern is that any use of the Canadian passport to cloak foreign operatives damages the reputation of Canadians abroad and endangers their safety.

Just to be absolutely clear, did the Canadian government know anything at all about the mission in Jordan in which Canadian passports were used? Were any Canadian agencies involved in any way, shape or form in that mission?

[Foreign Affairs, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a full week since Canadian passports were found on two men believed to be Israeli counterterrorist agents operating in Jordan.

We agree that the world must be vigilant against terrorism but Canadians want some answers on this affair and they want them now. We do not even know who these men are.

My question for the government is are these two men Canadians? Are the passports they were holding valid, forged or stolen?

[Privilege, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, you suggested that if one had any new information that might help you would receive this.

I know of this particular official. I spent 20 years in the consulting business in Alberta. One of our areas of work was trying to improve relations between aboriginal people and oil companies. In the conduct of that work I had encounters with this official.

The real problem—and the minister simply does not address it—is that many bureaucrats in this department started out idealistic and got into this matter to try to help aboriginal people. Because of the difficulties of the problems being dealt with and the machinery they had to work with, they have become utterly cynical about whether there is anything they can do. They now no longer try to help. They simply play by the bureaucratic rules and the more bureaucratic the better. Those are the real problems.

The minister's response does not address those problems at all. Perhaps the minister could think for a moment. If we were first nations people who were pulled in from that band, 15 to 25 of us, could she put herself into their shoes and listen to her own statement? It is utter bureaucratic nonsense that does not address the concerns of the people.

This is what the hon. member was endeavouring to get beyond by arranging this meeting. The minister's response takes the side of the bureaucrats, not just against this member of Parliament but against the interests of ordinary people who would find her answer utterly incomprehensible, as do the members on this side of the House.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's remarks. He suggested that maybe the committee does not need any instruction, although I would suggest that a committee with some senators on it might at least require instruction on the subject of democratic consent. Maybe he would concede that.

He supports the amendment which has come to us from the Quebec legislature which includes asking Parliament to strike down section 93(1) as it applies to Quebec. The section says nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.

The hon. member's province has a very similar quotation in the Manitoba act. It is virtually identical. I am wondering what his position is.

Does he support striking down that section of the Manitoba act as it applies to Manitoba? Does the member have any fears that if this section is struck from 93(1) it might create a precedent for striking that section from the Manitoba act?

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

I would like to thank the member for his speech and his invitation to serenity. I did not realize that serenity was part of the Bloc's platform but I am glad to hear that it is.

I have just one question that I would like him to perhaps enlighten us on. He appealed in his talk to section 43 of the Constitution Act 1982 as this would be an appropriate formula for amending the Constitution in the way that Quebec desires. But the very resolution that Quebec has brought to this Parliament says that this in no way constitutes recognition by the National Assembly of the Constitution Act 1982. In other words we are being asked to amend the Canadian Constitution in compliance with a section of the Constitution that the Quebec assembly does not recognize.

Would the hon. member explain how he reconciles those two positions?