Ralph Goodale

[Point of Order, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of Labour confirmed that the industrial dispute between CN and its engineers has been resolved.

I appreciate the acknowledgement by the minister that all sides of the House played a very constructive role in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion. For our part, I would want to particularly acknowledge our transport and labour critics, and especially the member for Beaches—East York, who was particularly active in trying to be helpful.

I wonder if the government House leader would be so kind as to confirm that, in light of these fortunate events, in fact there will be no further requirement for procedures in relation to Bill C-61 this afternoon. I wonder if he could indicate formally for the benefit of all members of the House what the government would intend to call when we get to the matter of orders of the day.

[Points of Order, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, given that you are in the chair of the House at this propitious moment and given the fact that the colour of the chair is green, I wonder if you will take this opportunity to declare, indeed, that green is the colour and that we wish the Rider nation every success at the Grey Cup festival in Calgary this weekend.

[Business of the House, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the government House leader has to do with the work over the next two weeks until the normal adjournment at Christmas.

In the remainder of the supply period, two more supply days need to be allocated. I wonder if the House leader is in a position to indicate precisely when he expects those to come.

Also, discussions have been held among House leaders about the appropriate steps to take in the House to mark the 20th anniversary of the tragedy at École Polytechnique. I wonder if the House leader is in a position to indicate on what day that commemoration is likely to be held.

Finally, we are closing in on the deadline for some changes to the Standing Orders having to do with the allocation of supply days in the calendar year 2010. I again ask the government House leader if he is in a position to make a proposal with respect to that matter pursuant to the motion that was adopted by this House in June.

[Points of Order, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the line of argument being advanced by the minister, who was answering today on behalf of the government with respect to the situation in Afghanistan, was that there were no proven allegations with respect to what Richard Colvin had put on the record. That was the minister's defence: where is the evidence that would prove the allegations?

The point is, what kind of evidence would the government consider sufficient or satisfactory to satisfy it that the allegations are in its words “proven”? The point of the intervention in question period was to ask the government to be specific. What kind of evidence is sufficient from its point of view to be a proven allegation?

If the government found a particular interjection to be offensive from its point of view, we can completely withdraw that allegation. The point is, answer the question. What evidence is sufficient to satisfy the government?

[Afghanistan, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, serious allegations have been made by a high level diplomat with at least some corroboration. Canada's reputation is now at stake. Until those allegations are resolved, Canadians serving in Afghanistan may be at greater risk and Canada's credibility on human rights issues is compromised. Decent democratic governments are not afraid of transparency. They get to the bottom of tough issues.

If a proper inquiry has not been launched by the time the Prime Minister goes to China, what will he say about human rights to President Hu Jintao?

[Afghanistan, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's reaction is so aggressive, so nasty and so personal it smacks of desperation.

The defence minister slandered Richard Colvin as unbelievable, but in the same breath he says that he eventually acted on Colvin's information. The minister depicts Richard Colvin as naive and irresponsible, but Mr. Colvin continues in Canada's senior intelligence post in Washington.

The contradictions are rife and the government cannot be the sole judge of what is credible and what is not. How can the truth be found without a full inquiry?

[Afghanistan, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister was out to shoot the messenger, but the more he called Richard Colvin a liar, the more the minister contradicted himself.

After four years of denials, he now admits that he did in fact receive and read at least one of Richard Colvin's reports. He also admits that at least part of Colvin's story has been corroborated by the Red Cross, the Canadian ambassador and the Canadian Forces.

Why will the government not help Canadians get the whole truth in this matter through a full, independent judicial inquiry?

[Business of the House, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would indicate his business plan for the rest of this week and into next week, including whether or not any of the days next week would be designated as part of the supply day process.

I would also draw to his attention that Monday is the final day provided by the government for the consultation process with respect to the NAFO agreement, and with that time rapidly coming to an end, I wonder if there is any time today or tomorrow or on Monday when he would allow a take note debate to take place so that members of the House could offer their views with respect to the proposed NAFO agreement.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative defence is that they were either negligent or lazy. It is simply ludicrous. Officials in Afghanistan told Ottawa the truth. The torture issue was all over our newspapers. It dominated question period. It even caused a cabinet shuffle. The Minister of Public Safety bragged about having his people on the ground, getting details first hand. However, through it all the Conservatives say that Mr. Colvin was treated no more seriously than yesterday's garbage.

If Mr. Colvin is so unbelievable, why was he promoted to be the senior official for security in our embassy in Washington?

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the mission in Afghanistan is controlled by a committee of the most senior Conservative cabinet ministers. They are supported by the most senior public servants. They were and they are directly responsible for the handling of all issues, including Afghan detainees and the risk of torture.

Canadians in Afghanistan reported honestly to their superiors in Ottawa. Senior officials here were fully informed. The minister claims that he acted two years ago. If Richard Colvin is not credible, what was the evidence two years ago that he acted on? What problem was he trying to fix if he does not believe Mr. Colvin?