Ralph Goodale

[Ethics, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot escape by twisting an interview with Mr. Cadman totally out of context.

The Conservatives admit to a meeting on May 19, which talked about party nominations. That is not the issue. The issue is the previous meeting with Mr. Cadman, which talked about financial insecurity and life insurance. That meeting was not on May 19; it was on May 17. That is the meeting, a financial meeting, confirmed in the Prime Minister's taped interview.

Why was the Prime Minister so concerned about his taped conversation being published? What did he want to keep secret?

[Ethics, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government attacks the word of Mrs. Cadman, but her story is consistent. It is confirmed by her daughter and by the Prime Minister's own words.

In an interview taped in 2005 he was asked explicitly about the insurance offer. He did not deny it. In fact, he confirmed an offer was made. He confirmed it was about “financial insecurity”, not about a nomination. He told Conservative officials to “make the case to Mr. Cadman”.

Did the Prime Minister know that would be an indictable offence under the Criminal Code?

[Ethics, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Dona Cadman has repeatedly confirmed that Conservatives offered her husband life insurance benefits to buy his vote. Yesterday, Mrs. Cadman was asked if she considered it a bribe and she said “yes”. Her daughter says the same thing.

Under the existing parliamentary life insurance plan, if members cease to be MPs, they can keep their insurance, but the premiums go up and the benefits go down.

Did the Conservatives offer to make up that difference in exchange for Mr. Cadman's vote? Was that the offer?

[Business of the House, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions continuing from question period, but I will resist the temptation.There is a lot of grist for that mill and we will follow it very carefully.

With respect to House business, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate what his intentions are for the period of time that remains between now and the Easter adjournment which comes at the middle of March, bearing in mind that part of that time is occupied by the budget debate, part of it will probably be occupied by some resumption of the discussion about Afghanistan, and he has to, in that period, work in seven opposition days in the space of time that is only twelve days.

I wonder if the government House leader would specify which days in the next very few he intends to designate for all these various purposes.

[Ethics, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the widow of Chuck Cadman says clearly and unequivocally that an illicit offer was indeed made. “They wanted him to vote against the government, and if he died, I'd get the million dollars”, Dona said.

The book about Mr. Cadman also quotes none other than the Prime Minister mentioning “the offer to Chuck”. Therefore, an offer was made. However, the Standing Orders of the House say that any offer of money or advantage is a high crime and misdemeanour.

Why did the Prime Minister authorize any offer to be made?

[Director of Public Prosecutions, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader confirm the date he has in mind for the taking of the vote? I, unfortunately, missed that and I would ask him to confirm the timing of the vote on this matter.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some considerable anticipation about the bill that was just tabled and now that it is in the public domain and members will have an opportunity to examine the provisions of the bill in detail, I wonder if the government would be prepared to consider, later this afternoon, the opportunity to gather unanimous consent in the House to expedite the passage of the legislation, assuming that what is in the bill measures up to how it was described in principle in advance.

I think there may be a disposition to move quickly on the legislation, perhaps even by the procedure of using the committee of the whole and expedite the provisions that are in the bill.

[Afghanistan, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the existing commitments run until 2009. It is important to know the change that will occur after 2009.

The government left discussions with NATO about new and additional troops to the very last minute and now there is a mad scramble.

Specifically, which NATO allies have been approached bilaterally so far? Specifically, which ones? What clear commitments have been made to date, if any? When will we know for sure? Parliament needs full disclosure of what the government knows or does not know.

[Afghanistan, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the House will begin a debate on Afghanistan a week from Monday. It must follow an open and transparent process. It must be serious, thoughtful and substantive.

I would ask the government House leader how many days of debate is the government prepared to devote to this vital topic beyond the two days that have now been scheduled and what exactly will the House be debating?

Will the government accept the terms of the Liberal amendment?

[Afghanistan, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, does the government agree that Canada's mission in Kandahar, which must change to one of training, reconstruction and development in February 2009, must also have a clear end date in February 2011, not a vague approximation around 2011 and not just a review date, but a clear end date in February 2011? Does the government agree with that?