Ujjal Dosanjh

[Foreign Affairs, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there are three possible scenarios in the firing of the foreign affairs minister.

First, the RCMP did not look into Ms. Couillard's background even though it had her home under surveillance a decade ago. Second, the RCMP looked into Ms. Couillard's background and found security concerns but did not pass them on to the government. Third, the RCMP looked into Ms. Couillard's background, found security concerns and reported them to the government, but the government turned a blind eye.

I would ask the government, which is it?

[Public Safety, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite continues to raise with nauseating sanctimony the issue of privacy of individuals. Let me advise him national security always trumps privacy, particularly in the bedroom of the top diplomat of the country, when national security is concerned. We know that the Prime Minister and the former minister are refusing to testify before the committee.

Will the Prime Minister tell us now if the RCMP or CSIS informed him of any potential or real security concerns, and if they did so--

[Public Safety, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, an internal review by the Foreign Affairs Department is not adequate at all. With all of the revelations about Ms. Couillard's life, and connections with the mob and the bikers, that her father's house had been under surveillance, and that she may have been under surveillance, this should have been obvious to the RCMP and CSIS that this matter presented a grave issue of national security.

My question is for the public safety minister. Did the RCMP or CSIS raise these security concerns with anyone in government at any time?

[Justice, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Justice that is less than gobbledygook.

The cabinet has the final word on judicial appointments and Canadians deserve to know that when this appointment is discussed the Treasury Board President will not be the one voting to get a job for himself.

The government should show some accountability and admit that appointing the Treasury Board President to the bench would be a blatant conflict of interest.

If the government were not so arrogant, it would never appoint that member to the bench. I bet it never would.

[Justice, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the previous responses of the Minister of Justice that the Treasury Board President is being considered for a judicial appointment.

Let us understand the process here. His application will be approved by a Manitoba committee that he appointed and then will be discussed and approved by the cabinet, of which he is a member.

The conflict of interest is insurmountable. When will the government assure Canadians that this patronage appointment will not proceed?

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the ex-minister first told everyone in Canada that he became aware on Sunday afternoon of the breach and then advised the Prime Minister on Monday. In the second statement, he says that he actually became aware on Sunday and that as soon as he became aware, he actually advised the Prime Minister. Which is it?

The fact is, according to the now ex-minister, the Prime Minister ought to have known--and not just ought to but must have known--by Sunday night that there was a breach. What was he doing on Monday afternoon that he did not want to take seriously any of these serious questions?

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in sequence, the government's claims in the matter of the ex-minister were: one, we do not meddle in the personal lives of the ministers; two, this is a national security issue so we cannot talk about it; three, now that we look ridiculous, we do damage control.

With so many danger signals surrounding the foreign minister's involvement with Madam Couillard, it would be irresponsible for any government to not involve security agencies to review the matter. If I might say so, the departmental inquiry into this matter is absolutely not adequate to get the answers. To end the cover-up we need, nay, we demand, a public inquiry--

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely nonsense. As a former attorney general and a former premier of the province of British Columbia, what this minister is now saying is absolute hogwash.

The fact is that the Prime Minister's Office met with CSIS to discuss the former foreign affairs minister. Why would he not say whether or not a meeting took place? Did a meeting take place or not?

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the absolutely arrogant and dismissive response from the Minister of Public Safety is absolutely unacceptable.

Will he state publicly whether or not there was a meeting between CSIS and the Prime Minister's Office to discuss the conduct of the former foreign affairs minister. This is an absolutely legitimate question?

I ask again, was there a meeting between May 1 and May 8 of this year between the Prime Minister's Office and CSIS to discuss the former foreign affairs minister?

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, since the government House leader would not answer the question, I have a question for the public safety minister.

We have been led to believe that more was happening behind the scenes than has been admitted by the government. Can the public safety minister confirm that between May 1 and May 8 of this year there was a meeting of CSIS and the Prime Minister's Office to discuss the conduct of his foreign affairs minister?