2008-02-29

Government Orders
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.):  moved: 
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should end its delays and immediately commence the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about this very important issue, which has been on the minds of Canadians for a long time—around 20 years—and which has still not been resolved. The issue has to do with the likelihood that a government was influenced to engage in certain public activities, which should have benefited all Canadians. But individuals, groups of individuals or companies benefited unfairly from these activities. 
We even know that when Mr. Mulroney's government was defeated, these activities continued and money was still changing hands.
It is a question of looking at what has to come to be known as the airbus affair but is much wider. It includes MBB. It includes Thyssen. It may include other deals. It includes commissions in the area of $25 million that were paid secretly through a company called International Aircraft Leasing, with some money given back, most of or a lot of it in Canada, through a very few individuals closely associated with the prime minister of the day, Brian Mulroney. We have seen that later some money was given directly to Mr. Mulroney himself in cash. It is a matter that remains unresolved.
The motion is quite simple. It is:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should end its delays and immediately commence the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. 
The Prime Minister has been forced or shamed into saying that there would be such an inquiry but has been making every attempt to limit the scope of the inquiry. He has suggested that the inquiry could not begin until the work of the committee had been done.
The committee has heard its final witnesses and at one point shall put forward a factual report, but we know that the commission cannot have access to any of the work of the committee or the testimony of the committee, nor to the report. It must do its own work. The work of the committee is privileged and cannot be used in any other tribunal or forum.
At its base, this is a story of greed. It is a story of betrayal. It is a story of intrigue, and I believe of bribery, and of double-crossing and influence peddling. When we look at how it worked and the people who were involved in this, we see that it is quite complex and has many facets.
What we have here is a group of individuals who saw a void in the leadership of the country. They saw that the Liberal Party had been in power for a long time and that the public of Canada was ready for a change. They saw that within the Conservative Party there was a void in leadership. Joe Clark had to lead and had a minority government that did not survive.
So they arranged, including some offshore money--they were trying to get Conservative governments elected worldwide--to overturn the leadership of Joe Clark. They found what they believed to be a bright, young, perfectly bilingual gentleman with business experience, with charisma, with a certain panache, and they saw him as the vehicle to getting power in Canada. He was somebody who could align all who were on the right political side of the country and bring some people from the centre.
They were successful. They overturned Joe Clark's leadership. They got Brian Mulroney elected as leader of the Conservative Party. They immediately decided how they were going to set things up. What would be the structure? How would one do business with the Government of Canada in the upcoming Mulroney era?
They saw a gentleman very close to Mulroney, part of that group, Mr. Frank Moores, a former premier of Newfoundland. He had a company called Alta Nova that did lobbying in Ottawa. He would bring in new partners. He created a company called GCI, Government Consultants Incorporated. He brought Mr. Gary Ouellet aboard as a partner, another part of the Mulroney organization.
He also brought in Mr. Gerry Doucet. Mr. Gerry Doucet was a former minister of education from Nova Scotia. He was not always a supporter, I believe, not necessarily part of the inner workings of the Mulroney organization, but his brother Fred Doucet was. His brother was chief of staff for Brian Mulroney in opposition and it is my belief that Gerry Doucet was his proxy at GCI.
Mulroney then formed the government. In business, it was well known at that time that Fred Doucet was working in the Prime Minister's Office. He may say that he was attached to external affairs. Some people might use that argument, but I think if one talks to anybody who was around government in the days from 1984 to 1993, they would say that if one spoke to Fred Doucet one spoke to Brian Mulroney, that he was the Brian Mulroney operative, the person closest to Brian Mulroney. Where he was in the organizational chart would not matter too much. It was well known. It was the PMO and the higher reaches of the PMO.
They had it organized like that. That was how business was going to be done. If people wanted to do business with the government on major contracts in Canada, that was the corporation they had to go with.
One of the guys who was involved from the very beginning, brought in because he could bring German money into the leadership, was Karlheinz Schreiber. Karlheinz had been in the country for quite some time and even had Canadian citizenship. He was well established in the Bavarian region in Germany. He was known to Franz Josef Strauss, minister-president of Bavaria. He was well connected with Thyssen Industries, Airbus and MBB. He was well connected with all the industrial companies of that area.
Airbus was in great difficulty. A lot of money and political capital had been expended by the governments of France, Germany and other European nations in creating this company, so they had to get some major sales, and quickly, and the opening had to be the North American market. 
Mr. Wolf was another operative, as well as Mr. Schreiber, and it became their job to get Airbus into Canada. They had built the political contacts. They negotiated a deal, an arrangement, as to how they would be getting paid. From Airbus they would be getting $20 million. They decided how to work it.
I remember a quote by Mr. Schreiber suggesting that Strauss had said that he was either “an idiot or a genius”, because what he devised was that they would go through a smaller company and get Airbus on the ground and flying. It would be so efficient, so much better on fuel and operating costs, that once they got some on the ground in North America, all the other airlines would have to buy it. 
So they did that. They went to see Wardair. They went to see Mr. Ward. They did a deal with him according to Schreiber, but only a public inquiry can get us to the bottom of this, as I do not take all of what has been said by any of the witnesses at the committee as necessarily the full and ultimate facts.
 But what Mr. Schreiber told us was that the same group I mentioned earlier around GCI and a couple of other operatives, who would later be on the board of Air Canada, went and met with Mr. Ward and said that Airbus was going to give him a great financing deal if he bought Airbus. Plus, he would get domestic landing rights for scheduled service in Canada and create a national airline. Wardair later became quite a valuable commodity and was sold to Canadian Airlines, I believe, at a good profit.
The first aircraft came about, so then there were the seeds to bring Airbus into Canada. They had them flying internationally, so not very long after that they would see other companies starting to buy it. The big one was Air Canada because it could get 30 of them. That was based on the value of the aircraft and the probability that Air Canada would buy it, but they do not take that chance. They changed the board, including putting Mr. Frank Moores on that board.
Mr. Moores will have argued that he had nothing to do with Airbus and Mr. Greg Alford of GCI told us that GCI itself had nothing to do with Airbus, but that is contradicted by evidence. We have a letter dated February 3, 1988, signed by Mr. Frank Moores, under GCI letterhead, and it is signed as the chairman of GCI. He was writing to Mr. Franz Josef Strauss, dealing with Airbus and the impediments for getting Airbus to Air Canada, so we have that contradiction already. 
Eventually the Airbuses get sold, $20 million is generated, and it is starting to work. Then there is another deal on the go. It is the same group and the same people. It is called Thyssen. They created a company called Bear Head Industries.
 The deal there was that they would go to Cape Breton, an area of high unemployment, and get the alliance of somebody like Elmer MacKay, who was the regional minister for Nova Scotia at the time and a close friend of Brian Mulroney. They would get his support and then mount a drive to get a factory in Nova Scotia building armoured personnel carriers for the Canadian military, the U.S. military and export generally.
The idea was that Germany would then be able to export into countries, which the German constitution and the law did not permit, through Canada or other countries, manufactured in Canada to an open market.
Twenty million dollars were generated by Airbus on sales of $2 billion. We are looking at potential sales of $7 billion. One can just imagine the commissions we are talking about, which would be a great deal. 
The project required some assistance and some work. Part of it needed agreement by the Government of Nova Scotia and part of it needed agreement by the Government of Canada. The Government of Nova Scotia signed and $2 billion in commissions were generated.
 However, there were some problems with the Government of Canada. The agreement was finally signed in November 1988 or in October when Mr. Perrin Beatty, the then a minister of the Crown, was told by Mr. Fred Doucet that he must sign. 
There is no evidence and I do not make the suggestion that Mr. Beatty did anything untoward. He was told that the Prime Minister wanted the deal to go through so the deal was signed and there was a letter of intent with Thyssen Industries with the Government of Canada for the Bear Head project. This was in October 1988.
That generated $2 million in success fees and secret commissions that were paid. The money went to the international aircraft leasing account controlled by Karlheinz Schreiber. He has told us that it was not his company but we know he had control of it. The money then went to another account called Merkur. Some of it went to a Bitucan account in November 1988, a company registered in Calgary and held by Karlheinz Schreiber.
When we looked at how that money was distributed, we quickly found that a cheque for $90,000 was generated to Fred Doucet Consulting International. What is interesting is that Fred Doucet sent an invoice to Bitucan for $90,000 on November 2, 1988, just days after the agreement was signed. Fred Doucet told us that he had left the PMO late in September 1988. In a matter of a few weeks, Fred Doucet Consulting Corporation had generated $90,000 for what he termed as professional services.
 Maybe he is incredibly good, but what is interesting is that on November 8 the same invoice in the same amount was sent to Bitucan on behalf of Frank Moores. Frank and Bett Moores' invoice for $90,000 was for the same thing, “Services rendered by Frank Moores on your behalf, $90,000”. This was coming out of the success fee. Frank Moores had been working on this for years, not four or five weeks like Fred Doucet. He received $90,000 on the same day at the same time. 
We have Lemoine Consultants and Gary Ouellet, a partner with GCI: professional services rendered, $90,000 at the same time and the cheque went out the same day, November 15. His company had not worked on this for years but all of a sudden there was a success fee for professional services.
Gerald Doucet and Associates was another partner. Fred Doucet was not a partner but he received money under his company. Gerry Doucet, Fred Doucet's brother, received a cheque for $90,000. He had not left the PMO by the end of September but he had been working on that for years. Bitucan Holdings Limited received $250,000.
 I know I will have the support of the government to table these documents later. 
We also have a handwritten banknote from the banker in Zurich indicating that the Canadian $500,000 was put aside in an account called Frankfurt. The interesting thing to note is that the account in Frankfurt was the account the money came out of for Brian Mulroney in 1993-94. One could argue that was a coincidence but was it a coincidence that the amount was exactly one-quarter of the success fee? Was it a coincidence that earlier, when dealing with another project, Pelossi testified at committee that an account was set up in Germany in the name of Brian Mulroney called Devon to receive money on behalf of Brian Mulroney from their success fee? Was that a coincidence?
I will fast forward to the time when the government was going to change. 
If we were to look at the testimony in the Airbus settlement, Brian Mulroney told us that, prior to the Airbus settlement in 1993-94, he had a couple of cups of coffee in passing with Karlheinz Schreiber. He said that he did not really know the guy and that they had no close association. 
In 1993, Brian Mulroney was about to leave office. He was at the prime minister's retreat at Harrington Lake when all of a sudden a meeting was arranged. Karlheinz Schreiber was to visit the prime minister. I have had a close association with two prime ministers but I was never invited to a private family retreat a couple of days before they were to leave office, and I do not think very many people have been, and those who have would have been close friends.
Karlheinz Schreiber told us that the meeting had been organized by Fred Doucet. Fred Doucet appeared at committee and said that he had no recollection of setting up such a meeting. Then we received proof from Karlheinz Schreiber that he had set up the Montreal meeting. We then received a letter from Mr. Doucet's lawyers saying that Mr. Doucet had not said that he had not set up the meetings but rather that he had no recollection of doing it. This is a bit like Oliver North when he was before the senate investigating committee and said that he had no recollection but that if documents could be provided to the contrary they might refresh his memory. That was the situation we had with Mr. Doucet.
They did meet and the best we can figure out is that they agreed to do business in the future. No money changed hands and we have no evidence to prove that amounts were discussed. A short time after that, when Brian Mulroney was still a member of Parliament, they met at an airport hotel where Mr. Mulroney received an envelope containing $100,000 in cash. At two subsequent meetings, he received $100,000 in cash. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  How do you know?
Robert Thibault:  Karlheinz Schreiber said that it was $100,000. Brian Mulroney told us that it was only $75,000. This is a bit like the prostitute where the profession is not at question, only the price. The money changed hands and it was cash.
Arguments then develop among these individuals. Brian Mulroney feared that this could be proven. A meeting was held in Zurich, which, again, was organized by Fred Doucet, and he tried to convince him.
A letter, organized by Elmer MacKay, tried to show that there would be no lawsuits. Elmer MacKay brokered that for Harper so that Mulroney could show Harper that there would be no problem in the future, that the Conservatives would be safe and that it would not go to court.
Karlheinz Schreiber once told me that what has been set up now is exactly the same. Mulroney operatives, like Marjory LeBreton, a law partner like Yves Fortier, a lackey like Peter MacKay, the chief of staff and the minister of transport, all have close association to Brian Mulroney and all were connected with how the money was handled by the Government of Canada. 
I hope we will have the full support of the House to get this public inquiry under way shortly.
[Interjection]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is a little too late now because it already slipped out of the member's mouth, but you will note that he very flippantly used the name of a member in the House and all of us here know that is against the rules.
The Speaker: I am sorry, I missed that. The hon. member for West Nova knows that referring to members by name is out of order. I am sure he would not want to repeat that mistake.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Peterborough.
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member had many inaccuracies in his statement. On some of those things to which he alluded, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps they came from his many dining experiences with Karlheinz Schreiber.
 Mr. Schreiber, of course, cannot back any evidence up because he essentially provided us with three binders full of junk mail. I do understand the member for West Nova had a number of dinners with him dating all the way back to last August, according to Mr. Schreiber, when I guess a number of these conversations took place. Of course, the member for West Nova has taken those comments as fact.
What I take issue with is his point that a report from the standing committee would not be of any value and that it could not be considered. In fact, that is not true. The testimony cannot be used in a public inquiry but the recommendations of the committee are to be considered by Professor Johnston. That was the commitment that was made. 
What this member is saying is absolutely inaccurate. I strongly encourage him to stand in this place and specifically commit that he will work to put recommendations in place that will form the basis of a public inquiry.
[Interjection]
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that everything I have stated here today has been said at committee in testimony and any documents that I referred to have been available to the committee. 
We have received reams of documentation, most of it was without value but some of it had a certain value. As I have said from the beginning, the only way we will get to the bottom of this is with a public inquiry. 
I would refer the member to a letter dated October 29, 2007, written by Mr. Schreiber to the Prime Minister. One could argue as to the validity or the truth of anybody's correspondence, and I do not make that case, but I will read one paragraph. It states:
 During the summer of 2006, you again asked for a certain letter from me to be able to support my case, which I have sent to you on July 20, 2006 for your meeting on July 30, 2006. 
The meeting of July 30, 2006 was a meeting between Brian Mulroney and the current Prime Minister at Harrington Lake. 
The letter of July 20, 2006 is the letter that was shown at the committee that had been brokered by Elmer MacKay. He had done the first draft on the facts and that was modified by Mr. Schreiber prior to signing it.
What he stated again is, “able to support my case”. Those words are important. If we had only heard them from Mr. Schreiber, then perhaps we would need to cast them aside, but we also heard them from a close personal friend and long ime associate of Brian Mulroney, Mr. Elmer MacKay. He said, in my questioning, that the reason that he brokered the letter was that without it Mr. Mulroney could not be helpful to Mr. Schreiber.
There was clearly an intent, at least between those three individuals, that this letter would assist Mr. Mulroney in getting assistance for Mr. Schreiber from Mr. Harper in 2006.
The only thing I can imagine is that it could have been for the extradition matter. The only counterpart that I could imagine that Brian Mulroney would have had in it is that the lawsuit against him by Mr. Schreiber would have been dropped and all the facts based on the $300,000 would have gone the way of the editorial board of the National Post and would have been swept under the rug.
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague from West Nova for the excellent background he provided and for his excellent summary. It will be very useful for the debates today. I am a bit surprised about the reaction of the member for Peterborough, who appears to deny the truths we heard and which are written down and have been documented all over the place. Perhaps the only explanation for this is that he represents the Conservative Party, which is currently under fire.
That said, my question is for the member for West Nova. What mandate does he think the public inquiry should have, and when does he think it should be set up?
[Interjection]
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member on her fine work with the parliamentary committee.
I think it is important that the inquiry commission be given the broadest possible scope and that the chair of the commission be given every latitude required to follow the money trail. That is the most logical approach.
We know that $25 million in commissions was secretly paid on commercial contracts involving Mr. Schreiber and other people in Canada. If we can determine where all that money went, we will be able to uncover all the rats and mice.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opposition motion in one sense. People want to get to the bottom of what happened with Mr. Mulroney and others.
We have a commission of inquiry that is going to be set up. We just had a budget this week, which failed Canadians and my constituents. We have the Hogwarts pork barrel express coming from Peterborough. We have no housing. Why do we have to debate this, when we have a commission of inquiry about to be set up and we know it is going to happen? Why are the Liberals spending their time on this instead of the budget?
[Interjection]
Robert Thibault: I do not know how to answer that, Mr. Speaker. Only a New Democrat would think that subverting the Government of Canada into signing deals on aircraft worth $2 billion and working on a project that would hit $7 billion, so that a few people get their commissions and influence government, would have no importance to the people of Canada, and that it should not be raised in the House. After that member's colleague brought a motion to the committee to study the Karlheinz Schreiber issue, I find it ridiculous and irresponsible.
Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, credibility is always an issue and there are sins of commission and sins of omission.
I want to ask the hon. member this question. Does he think that telling the truth by commission, saying positively what happened, and telling lies by omission is present in this case? The former Prime Minister of this country did not even tell his own PR people that it was $300,000. He lied under oath by omitting to refer to his meetings in detail with Mr. Schreiber and lied under oath with that discovery.
Does that set up the table for this commission of inquiry to look into the credibility of Mr. Mulroney and everything he said, including the reason why he accepted $2.1 million for lawyers fees and PR fees when he did not even tell the experts the truth?
[Interjection]
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, it is understandable why the former Prime Minister would not return to the committee on invitation. It is because he could not clarify his comments. He could not contradict people who had stated that his comments were not factual.
Under oath he stated that it was that he had killed the Thiessen project in 1990. He told his chief of staff that, I believe, it was in 1990 or 1991 that he had killed the Thiessen project. Then we learned that there were meetings organized that Mulroney was aware of, with his top aides and the Clerk of the Privy Council, all dealing with the Thiessen project until 1993. He said under oath that he had no dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.
We know he had been working with Karlheinz Schreiber throughout this time and that he had been meeting with him. He even brought him to Harrington Lake in 1993 just prior to leaving office. He sent him all sorts of correspondence and accepted money from him in 1993 and 1994. 
He said in committee that he was working for Thiessen internationally selling tanks to China. I am sure that the Chinese government was encouraging the German military and defence corporations. That is exactly what China wanted to do. Thiessen told us it was not true. All his close associates who testified told us they could not confirm that he was doing that and they had no knowledge of him doing that. 
More importantly, Mr. Lavoie, on behalf of Brian Mulroney, had called Karlheinz Schreiber “the biggest f”--and I will not finish the word--“liar we have ever met”. When I asked him if he still believed that, he said that he was in the top five. I believe I know the other ones he is referring to because he has heard all the mistruths and misstatements of his former boss.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Peterborough.
I also want to thank the House for this opportunity to respond to the motion introduced by the member for West Nova. The motion simply states:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should end its delays and immediately commence the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. 
I cannot in good conscience support this motion because to do so would in effect denigrate the efforts of our Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the work of Professor Johnston. 
In fact, this issue came up last night during our committee meeting as well and after some debate we had a vote on the question. I watched later that evening on the cable public affairs channel as our committee chairman suggested that there was unanimous consent in the committee to recommend an immediate public inquiry. There was not.
I believe it is important to correct the public record on this issue. Members of the government expressed that the public inquiry cannot commence immediately for some simple and logical reasons which I will explain in the coming minutes.
There was a vote. My government colleagues and I voted against the motion because of the hasty and intemperate language that would insist on forcing the government to act inappropriately.
As my hon. colleagues are well aware, members of the ethics committee have been hard at work for several months investigating the various allegations made by the former Prime Minister and Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber. To launch a public inquiry before this committee has had the opportunity to complete its work, table its report and recommendations, would not only show a great deal of disrespect for all those involved, but handicap the public inquiry before it even started.
As we all know, our committee has spent the last four months studying four aspects of this matter. We looked at the Bear Head proposal, the Airbus libel settlement, the consulting agreement between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber and the handling of correspondence by the Privy Council Office.
We heard from Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber, and we heard from a number of witnesses who had direct knowledge of their business dealings.
The government made a commitment to Canadians that we would work to seek out the truth in this matter. We asked every witness who appeared a series of questions. In fact, we asked each witness whether or not they had any knowledge of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding Bear Head, Airbus, the consulting agreement and the Privy Council Office. Not a single one did.
Every witness, including Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber, confirmed for us that there was no wrongdoing with respect to these issues. Somewhat ironically, after having made certain allegations, the only wrongdoing we became aware of during our proceedings was Mr. Schreiber's own failure to declare the importation of a large amount of currency into Canada and the United States.
Nevertheless, Canadians are still left with a bad taste in their mouths because a former public office holder took large cash payments. While there may have been nothing illegal about the transactions, it certainly created the appearance of conduct that falls below the standard we expect of former prime ministers, as Mr. Mulroney himself acknowledged in his testimony. He will have to deal with the shame of this matter for the rest of his life.
Surely, after each member of the committee, both government and opposition members, spent so much time examining this issue, it would be foolish to commence an inquiry before the committee has had the opportunity to give its report.
I anticipate that the committee's report will, among other things, identify some specific recommendations regarding the terms of reference for a potential public inquiry. Indeed, I would like to ask the opposition members who currently support today's motion what was the point of hearing the number hours of testimony and scouring through thousands of pages of Karlheinz Schreiber's submissions and numerous other documents if we are not going to offer the House the benefit of our counsel.
Holding hearings for four months is not an insignificant expense, yet that seems to be of no concern to the members opposite.
The opposition insisted in the fall, and we agreed, that a public inquiry was the best way to handle these allegations. Yet, in its haste, the opposition decided to pre-empt a public inquiry with the committee hearings. 
We disagreed with that approach, but we respected the will of the majority and participated faithfully in those hearings. And now in haste once again, the opposition is attempting to have us ignore the work of our committee over the past four months and prematurely move to a public inquiry.
To insist on the one hand that the committee hold these hearings and then not take them to their logical conclusion is irresponsible. 
Members should recall that the Prime Minister asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry once the committee has completed its work.
Until we file our report and give the House and the public the benefit of our wisdom and counsel on this matter, our work will not be complete. Members need to be reminded that although holding hearings and gathering evidence is laborious and time consuming, it is not the full work of our committee. In fact, it is only half of our job.
The other half is to synthesize what we have heard and learned, and condense that knowledge into useful recommendations and conclusions. Often that process does not take as long as the information gathering phase, but it is no less important and that has not happened. Until it has, the committee has not completed its work.
When Karlheinz Schreiber made his allegations last fall, Canadians demanded to know what transpired between Brian Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. At that time this government committed to securing the truth and sharing it with Canadians. We took timely and effective action on this matter.
The Prime Minister appointed an independent adviser to conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney. The mandate assigned to the independent adviser included four areas: first, to conduct a review of the allegations concerning financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the right hon.. Brian Mulroney; second, to make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a full and public inquiry into these allegations including the specific issues that warrant examination; third, to determine whether any prima facie evidence existed to suggest that criminal acts have taken place; and fourth, to indicate whether any additional course of action was appropriate.
To fulfill this mandate the Prime Minister appointed Professor David Johnston, the president of the University of Waterloo. Professor Johnston has impeccable credentials and is widely admired for his considerable legal experience and expertise. During his career Professor Johnston has served on numerous provincial and federal task forces and committees, so there can be no doubt that he is perfectly suited to conduct a thorough and thoughtful review, and provide sage independent advice to the government on this matter.
Nevertheless, soon after Professor Johnston accepted his mandate, the ethics committee initiated its own review of the matter. This move by the opposition pre-empted proceeding directly to a public inquiry because this government respects the sub judice principle. That means the government will not hold a public inquiry while a parliamentary committee is examining the same matter.
Over the past four months the committee subsequently heard the testimony of the two men at the centre of the affair and a number of other witnesses who have knowledge of some elements of this issue. Unfortunately, to its discredit, the opposition overreached its hand and brought witnesses who had no knowledge whatsoever concerning the matters the committee was studying.
Regardless, in honour of the commitment made to the Prime Minister, the independent adviser released a report in January of this year and the Prime Minister accepted it. To quote from the Prime Minister's statement of January 11, he said:
 I have also asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry on an expedited basis once the Committee has completed its work. I am pleased that he has agreed to do so. 
In order to effectively complete the study the opposition insisted on last fall, the standing committee must have the opportunity to carefully analyze the testimony it has heard and render fair and accurate recommendations.
I am confident that once we have supplied Parliament with our recommendations and the full benefits of our work over the last four months, that the independent adviser will provide sound guidance and wise advice regarding a public inquiry into this matter.
The hon. member's motion, however, seeks to short circuit the process. It suggests that the current approach, studied, deliberate and respectful of the serious issues at stake should be immediately set aside and replaced by a public inquiry, but that public inquiry would not have the full benefit of the work we are doing and the knowledge we have gained as a result of these hearings.
The motion would have us ignore the informed counsel of the committee membership and the recommendations we would make based on the last four months of testimony we have heard and the evidence we have examined.
I therefore urge the House to reject this rash, impulsive action.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions because I found some internal contradictions in what the member had to say: Mr. Mulroney told the truth; Mr. Mulroney did no wrong; there were private dealings between private businessmen and we should not delve into it; yet Mr. Mulroney should bear the shame of what he did. Those are the member's words.
What shame, I might ask, is the member talking about? If it is shameful, certainly on this side of the House, that means probably it is something that is not good, something that perhaps cannot be excused. I want to know what he meant by that comment. Would he like to withdraw it? Would he like to say that outside the House? Maybe Mr. Mulroney might sue him.
All through this process, and I was there most of the time, the member and his colleagues decried the methods and the being of the committee as being ineffective, tautological and useless. Why is it now that he is holding up the work of the committee and saying it is a wonderful example of how Parliament works? 
Surely he has enough faith, as was said many times by the ministers here, in Dr. Johnston and his acumen to see what happened before the committee and funnel it into good recommendations to go forward with an inquiry. 
Why is he now for holding up the inquiry which his ministers on the frontbench wanted to get to so soon, so often?
[Interjection]
Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, I normally have a fair amount of respect for my hon. colleague and the questions that he asks the committee, but at the present time, I have lost a great deal of that respect because he is exaggerating some of the accusations and some of the comments that I have made.
I have said repeatedly that the committee has a place, but a limited place, to do this work. I have also said that it is a logical inconsistency for the opposition, on one hand, to demand that the committee address this matter and yet not allow the committee to complete the job that it was demanded to do in the first place. It is irresponsible to suggest that we have taken it this far and that we are not going to complete the job that we began in the first place.
The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on one hand, say it is imperative that the committee address this matter and then, on the other hand, say everything that the committee did was useless or does not matter or will not bear any reference to what a future inquiry might have to say.
Maybe he could explain his inconsistencies on this matter.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am a little surprised by my colleague's remarks concerning the new timeframe for a public inquiry. I am surprised because, according to the information I have, this directly contradicts what his leader, the Prime Minister, said in the past. In his statement on January 11, 2008, the Prime Minister said he would convene the public inquiry as soon as the committee hearings—I would like to emphasize the word “hearings”—were over. He did not say that it would be done as soon as the report was available.
The Prime Minister said:
 After reviewing the report and consulting Professor Johnston, the government has decided to convene a public inquiry once the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has finished its hearings. 
The committee's hearings have been finished since Tuesday. It is now Friday. I therefore do not understand why the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale is now, a month and a half later, contradicting his leader.
[Interjection]
Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. colleague did not hear my speech in its entirety. I will quote just briefly from it because I think it addresses her question.
I, in fact, used the same quote of the Prime Minister that she just referred to:
 I have also asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry on an expedited basis once the Committee has completed its work. 
In order for us to complete our work, I submit, we have to submit a report. We have concluded our gathering of information. We are not going to hear from any more witnesses. However, we have not compiled our data. We have not summarized the testimony. We have not come up with any recommendations. Until we do exactly that, we have not completed our work. I do not understand the accusation made by the hon. member.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the motion:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should end its delays and immediately commence the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. 
This government opposes this motion for a number of reasons. The House of Commons ethics committee has been conducting hearings into the so-called Mulroney-Schreiber affair since last fall. Hearings were held in late November, December, January and February. These included a review of the former prime minister's relationship with Mr. Schreiber and the alleged cash payments. Mr. Schreiber and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney have both testified before the committee. After three months of hearings, the committee is expected to table its report in the House today. 
On November 14, 2007, before the ethics committee stated that it would hold hearings, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of David Johnston as an independent adviser. Mr. Johnston was appointed to conduct an independent review of the allegations surrounding the financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the former prime minister and to make recommendations for an appropriate mandate for a public inquiry. 
The independent adviser conducted a great deal of original research, analyzed potentially relevant terms of reference for the public inquiry, and published his thoughtful report in January of this year. Mr. Johnston has accepted, at the request of the Prime Minister, to follow through with the recommendations for the inquiry after the standing committee finishes its work.
The public inquiry has an important aim: to let Canadians hear from their former prime minister about his dealings with Mr. Schreiber, to get to the bottom of the matter once and for all, to discover the truth, and to ascertain if any wrongdoing did occur and what lessons can be learned.
The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney appeared before the ethics committee and made his statement and answered the initial questions of the committee members. It is important that any public inquiry be able to build upon Mr. Mulroney's testimony. The inquiry will not be open-ended or called to review ground that has already been extensively reviewed in other investigations. The purpose of the public inquiry will be to establish facts that remain unexamined. 
There are clearly unanswered questions in the so-called Mulroney-Schreiber affair and we on this side of the House want answers to those questions as much as anyone else. As I noted before, we need to wait for Mr. Johnston's recommendations for the inquiry.
It is well established that a public inquiry is neither a criminal trial nor a civil action to determine liability. It is a process by which facts are found and the public can be informed and the recommendations for corrective action can be considered and made. Rushing into the process by starting the public inquiry stands to gain nothing, but risks losing any chance, any chance at all, of getting to the truth.
As courts and commentators have cautioned in the past, investigations and inquiries must proceed carefully with due process to avoid excessive costs, duplication of effort, delay and unduly rigid procedures or lack of focus.
Before I conclude, I would like to digress very quickly and say this motion brings to mind one of Aesop's fables, The Tortoise and the Hare. I am sure we are all familiar with that story. The hare was forever boasting about how he could run faster than anyone else and was always teasing the tortoise for its slowness. One day the tortoise challenged the hare to a race. The hare was convinced he could win easily, but as we all know, he was beaten by the slow and steady tortoise. 
The motion in front of the House today reminds me of this fable because I am wondering what the rush is. Why start a public inquiry now without waiting for Mr. Johnston's independent advice on the terms of the inquiry? This is an old story. It is about setting history straight. It is about getting the facts right. What is the rush? We should not act in haste. We should proceed slowly and ensure that the so-called Mulroney-Schreiber affair is uncovered and the truth is known once and for all. As the tortoise said at the end of Aesop's fable, “slowly does it every time”.
The Speaker: The hon. member did his speech in record time, but since it is almost 11 o'clock, I am going to postpone the questions or comments that are consequent on that speech until after question period, if that is all right with the hon. member.
Accordingly, we will start with statements by members. The hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

Statements By Members
Unborn Victims of CrimeMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park for his excellent work on Bill C-484, which is an improved version of a bill that I introduced and debated in the House about a year ago.
This bill, if passed, would protect unborn children who are targets of violence when their mother is a victim of a crime.
Mary Talbot, the mother of 2005 murder victim, Olivia Talbot, and grandmother of Olivia's unborn son, said to Joyce Arthur, who is a detractor of this bill:
 Please show some respect for my daughter's and her unborn baby's memory....And I feel I can ask the same for the rest of the families who are at this time grieving the loss of their loved ones. I hope you never have to experience the pain, anguish and sense of injustice of losing a beloved family member to violence, only to learn that no crime was committed, only to learn that the one your heart breaks for, was of no worth. 
Mary has said it well, and it is enough reason for all MPs to vote for Ken Epp's bill, Bill C-484.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member meant the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. I have had to rebuke one member apparently for using somebody else's name this morning already. I hate to think that this is going to be a constant repeat.
The member for Ottawa—Vanier. 
Dr. André GauthierHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I want to make mention of a recent tribute to a great man, Dr. André Gauthier. The Ontario chapter of the College of Family Physicians of Canada presented Dr. Gauthier with a certificate of recognition for outstanding patient care. Dr. Gauthier received this well-deserved honour during an event held in December to recognize the staff of the Montfort Hospital. 
People in Ottawa who know him affectionately call him “our Dr. Welby”, referring to the television series that chronicled the life of a family doctor. With the care he gives his patients, the compassion he brings to his profession, his humility, his dedication to his community and the Montfort Hospital, and his house calls—because he does make house calls—Dr. Gauthier is a perfect example of those who have sworn the Hippocratic Oath.
Thank you, André, and thank you to your family for sharing you with the community.
The BudgetMr. Raymond Gravel (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has succeeded in turning all Quebeckers against him. He has even succeeded in displeasing the entire nation of Quebec. The Government of Quebec, the opposition parties, the financial and economic institutions and the manufacturing sector have all stated that this budget is not for Quebec. It is an empty budget that neglects the hardest hit economic sectors and people in need. 
Not one of the Conservatives' elected representatives from Quebec—ministers, secretaries of state or members of Parliament—was able to make the Minister of Finance aware of Quebeckers' needs and aspirations. It is these members from Quebec who tell us, in the House, that you have to be in power to make things happen. Where are these Conservative ministers, secretaries of state and members of Parliament when it comes time to respond to Quebec's demands? 
Fortunately, Quebeckers know better. They can see that the Conservatives are doing nothing for them, and they understand that the Bloc Québécois is the only party in Quebec that can defend their interests and values. 
Public Transit ProjectPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the government announced that while a city like Ottawa is in need of funds for its transit system, the government will instead invest in the pork-barrel express.
The pork-barrel express will go from Toronto through Conservative ridings like Whitby, Oshawa, Durham, Haliburton--Kawartha Lakes--Brock to Peterborough.
No one knows the cost of the pork-barrel express, the estimated number of passengers on it, or who will operate it. It will be costly with a comparatively small number of passengers and it is not on Ontario's list of priority public transit projects.
The NDP will not be found supporting this kind of cynical, runaway political train wreck of physical policy backed by the Liberals. We will put our stock in the needs of hard-working, everyday Canadians who want more investment in all cities, child care, nurses and doctors.
While the Conservatives put pork first, we in the NDP put everyday people first.
BraveryMr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating two Canadian heroes who are a living embodiment of what our Canadian Forces stand for.
On April 26, 2005, during a blizzard in the Northwest Territories, search and rescue technicians, Master Corporal Brian Decaire and Sergeant Darcy St-Laurent, parachuted from a 17 Wing based Hercules aircraft to assist a downed aviator near Boland Lake.
In complete darkness, they performed a challenging night drop. The rescuers and the downed pilot were forced for five days to wait out terrible weather conditions.
As I speak, the Governor General is bestowing medals of bravery on both these men. The motto of search and rescue techs is, “These things I shall do that others may live”.
These two men exemplify the selfless duty that our men and women in uniform perform every day.
Let me say on behalf of all Canadians a humble thank you to these men and every one of their comrades in uniform.
PovertyMr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in stark contrast to the Conservative fend for yourself philosophy, Liberals believe that poverty affects everyone and governments have a moral responsibility to help springboard Canadians to success, dignity and independence.
The Liberal leader is showing leadership on poverty, outlining a bold vision committing to cut poverty by 30% and child poverty by 50% within five years of being elected.
The Liberal leader is showing leadership in this file by presenting an ambitious program and promising to reduce poverty by 30% and child poverty by 50% in the five years following his election.
For the working poor, Liberals would create a making work pay benefit to lower the welfare wall and improve the child tax benefit to support families. Liberals would honour the historic Kelowna accord, which the Conservatives cut, and would work with all levels of government on affordable housing and universal child care.
I believe that when we invest in Canadians, Canada succeeds socially and economically. I ask my colleagues on the other side to take this issue seriously and work toward ending poverty now.
KenyaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Kenya's government and opposition signed a power sharing agreement yesterday to end the post election crisis that plunged the country into its worst turmoil since independence. Canada is hopeful that the power sharing agreement will lead to peace and stability, as well as create the foundations for a strong and democratic Kenya.
Canada had repeatedly called upon Kenya's political leaders to come together in direct discussions to end the crisis and to put its weight behind Kofi Annan's mediation efforts. The Government of Canada also announced in January that it would provide up to $4.3 million in humanitarian assistance to those affected by the post-election violence.
We want to thank former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the AU chairman for their efforts. We look forward to working with the government of Kenya in facing the challenges ahead for the country.
Infrastructure and Gasoline TaxesMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, upon reading the budget we see that the government is going to permanently transfer the gas tax to municipalities. That is good news; however, we have to realize that this measure does not provide any additional funds for the sorely needed renewal of municipal infrastructure. 
This government refused the Bloc Québécois request to increase the refund of the gas tax to municipalities to the equivalent of 5¢ per litre, commencing in 2008-2009. This increase would translate into an additional $1 billion for our municipalities, which already have too much debt. The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to reconsider its decision given that it has the means. 
In addition, given that municipal revenues are not like those of higher levels of government, why not adopt the Bloc Québécois suggestion that, in every tripartite agreement, municipalities receive 15%, provinces 35% and the federal government 50%.
These are the types of proposals that are in the best interest of Quebec municipalities.
Prague SpringMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was a particular pleasure for our Prime Minister to meet with Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek in Ottawa. This is the 40th anniversary of the Prague Spring and also, sadly, of the subsequent Communist invasion and crackdown.
Czechs can nowadays travel freely in the world, and I am happy to report that last year Canada removed all visa requirements for visitors from the Czech Republic. Our two countries share a commitment to a principled foreign policy that promotes freedom, democracy and human rights.
Therefore, on the 40th anniversary of the Prague Spring, let us remember not only the past victims of European communism, but also the victims of present day communism who are still persecuted, imprisoned in gulags and re-education camps and tortured or murdered for the high crime of believing in human freedom.
And, in honour of the Czech nation, which blazed the path to freedom that so many others have subsequently followed, let us offer a warm welcome to a friend of Canada and a friend of freedom as he visits our capital.
Federal-Provincial RelationsHon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what does the government have against Ontario? In everything it does, Ontario is the one being shortchanged. Bill C-22 reduces our representation in Parliament. The government's manufacturing fund does nothing to help manufacturers. The infrastructure plan, although stolen from the Liberals, is shamefully underfunded. Our economy is in crisis. Our cities are crumbling. Our most basic democratic right to representation is being undermined.
Yet, what happens when the Premier of Ontario, seeing his province being dealt one slight after another, dares to question the Conservative government? The same thing that happens to anyone who challenges the wisdom of the Conservative Party. He is denigrated, mocked and ultimately ignored.
In my own riding, Mayor Hazel McCallion pleaded for public transit funding that long had been promised. The finance minister openly mocked her for it. It took months of hand-wringing by Mississauga Liberals to finally get the government to keep its promise.
I do not like what I am seeing here. Ontario deserves better. Canada deserves better.
Status of Women in NunavutMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the opportunity to go to Iqaluit, Nunavut, to see the living conditions of women in the north.
I met with the minister responsible for the status of women in Nunavut, Leona Aglukkaq, who explained to me what challenges women in the territory are facing.
I attended a meeting where the Quillit Women's Council explained the work it does with these women and the limitations that come with the expanse and isolation of the territory. I also had the honour of visiting one of the support centres for battered women.
This trip also gave me the opportunity to announce $1.5 million project under the Status of Women Canada partnership program that will allow the YWCA to make a difference in the lives of these women who truly need it. This project is a perfect example of the kind of work Status of Women Canada does.
I am thankful to all the wonderful people I met there and I particularly want to pay tribute to all those women who have broken the silence on violence.
Arts and CultureMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the front page of the Globe and Mail confirms what Canadians saw quite clearly in this week's budget; that the Conservative government does not care about our cultural sector and it is actively undermining our artists and their capacity to create.
The headline article includes the boasting of evangelical lobbyists who successfully convinced Conservative ministers and MPs to root out artistic works with which they disagree. Canadian heritage officials confirmed yesterday that they would be expanding the criteria used for denying tax credits to artists. What they are doing is called censorship. They are trying to silence voices that diverge from their political agenda.
We can stop this attack on our artists. Unfortunately, as the Toronto Star says today, the “official opposition has repeatedly turned itself into a Conservative doormat”.
It is time to stand up for Canada's artists and Canadian culture against ideological attacks by the government.
Sri LankaMr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada and the world community have taken note of new violence in Sri Lanka following the Sri Lankan government's decision to suspend the peace process.
In a recent community forum hosted in Scarborough on the continuing conflict in Sri Lanka, members of the Sri Lankan Canadian community expressed their desire that Canada consult with the community here in developing a Canadian policy position on this issue, which could offer more leadership in fostering a peaceful and equitable resolution to the conflict. Moving forward with such would require the invitation and cooperation of the government of Sri Lanka.
Many have concluded that a military solution to this conflict is not viable and the renewed civil war would entail losses of life and levels of violence and destruction unacceptable by modern standards. Canadians know that peoples of different language, culture, religion and race can live and prosper and share a country together, but must have the political will and leadership to do so.
I urge all parties to the conflict in Sri Lanka to renew and redouble their efforts at implementing reforms and avoiding violence in achieving a resolution with peaceful means.
The EnvironmentMr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2008, the Conservative government is continuing its policy of inertia when it comes to fighting global warming. Scientists, economists and the business community have criticized this government's inaction a number of times and have asked that it immediately adopt a real environmental policy. Instead of taking tough action right now and doing what is necessary to truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Conservative government is pushing back the effective date of its regulatory framework to 2010. This framework, which is based almost exclusively on intensity targets that favour the oil industry, is so weak that it in no way ensures real reductions of greenhouse gases.
While other countries, including France and the United Kingdom, have adopted tough measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this Conservative government still refuses to act responsibly.
EthicsMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government preaches accountability, but practices Mulroney-style ethics. 
The environment minister embroils himself in the bribery scandal of a mayoral candidate and meddles in Ottawa city politics by killing its light rail project. 
The finance minister hands his friends untendered six figure contracts. 
The industry minister breaks copyright law and demands a gag order on the settlement.
The Conservatives play shell games with cash to exceed campaign spending limits and then try desperately to shut down the inquiry looking into it.
The Prime Minister's communication adviser advises public works to stop suing a Conservative bagman, and the Prime Minister's bagmen try to buy off candidate after candidate, whenever and wherever it suits them.
My Liberal colleagues and I have a responsibility in the House to shine a bright light on the cold, dark backroom of the Conservative Party. It is what Canadians expect of us and it is exactly what we will deliver.
Post-Secondary EducationMr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian students are pleased to see another budget that invests in their education and their future. Budget 2008 will launch a new consolidated Canada student grant program to coincide with the wind-down of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. The new program will provide certainty and predictability for Canadian families.
 Furthermore, budget 2008 will provide an additional $21 million over two years to establish up to 20 global excellence research chairs. This will strengthen the ability of our universities to attract and retain top science leaders. It will help outstanding institutions like the University of Manitoba in my riding of Winnipeg South. Investing in these universities brings a great return.
 With our government's support for post-secondary education rising to $9.7 billion in 2008-09, Canadians in my province and across the country can take pride in the growth we will see now and in the future.
After 13 years of Liberal mismanagement, Canada finally has a government that is getting the job done for students.

Oral Questions
EthicsHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): 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?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no offer was made. Chuck Cadman said this himself on the record, on two national televised interviews with CTV and Global. 
There were three people at the meeting that took place. All three people said that no offer was in fact made.
We all know that Chuck Cadman was an honourable man. He was a man of his word. We should respect his word and accept his word on this very issue.
Ralph Goodale: 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?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wascana is, as usual, misrepresenting what the then leader of the opposition did say. 
The member for Wascana was not at the meeting. Three people were at the meeting. All three people said that no offer was made.
 My colleague does not have to take my word for it. On a nationally televised interview on Global, on May 21, 2005, in answer to the question “Did he offer you a deal?”, Chuck Cadman said “No, absolutely nothing. There was never any deal offered”.
Ralph Goodale: 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?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals started the line of questioning on this subject very well. They said that Chuck Cadman was an honourable, honest and decent man. He managed to do something that is very rare in Canadian politics. He was elected based on his own name, his own reputation as a good, decent and honest man. His word was his bond. His word on this subject was that no deal was offered.
I wish the Liberals would go back to where they began on this file, accept that Chuck Cadman was an honest and honourable man, that no deal was offered, because that is the truth.
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who likes to cloak himself in the Federal Accountability Act, obviously did not take his responsibilities seriously. A recording made at the home of former MP Cadman clearly proves this. The Prime Minister knew that high-ranking officials in his party had visited Mr. Cadman to offer him a shameful bribe in exchange for his vote in the House. The Prime Minister failed to assume his responsibilities by allowing them to undertake such illegal activity.
Why did the Prime Minister fail to do everything in his power to prevent this crime?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, my colleague can invent such stories, but facts are facts, and the fact is, no offers were made to Mr. Cadman. He said so himself. His own words must be taken as the truth.
Raymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not ask himself whether it was moral, ethical or even legal to offer a $1 million insurance policy to a dying man in exchange for his vote in the House. The Prime Minister did not ask himself if it was his duty to try to prevent his closest confidants from taking such action. The Prime Minister did not ask himself if he should report this to the police.
Why is it that the Prime Minister's only question was whether this was going to be published?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, there is a simple fact to this case, and that is my hon. colleague was not at the meeting, and none of the Liberal members were at the meeting. They had their own meetings with Chuck Cadman when they were trying to persuade him to cross the floor to the Liberal Party and to vote their way on the budget. 
There were three people at the meeting about which we are talking. All three of them said that no offer was made. That is the simple fact. I am sorry if it does not jive with the Liberal political tactic here, but it is the truth. The truth in this case is unassailable. No offer was made.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with respect to the Cadman affair, the Prime Minister claimed that all Mr. Cadman was offered in exchange for his vote on May 19, 2005, was the nomination. That is what he said in this House. But that version of events has been contradicted by Chuck Cadman's wife and his daughter, both of whom claim that two Conservative Party representatives offered him a $1 million insurance policy.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that these allegations of corruption reveal his government's true colours, and that they are no better than those of the Liberals who preceded them?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, my colleague should not attack Mr. Cadman's integrity, because Mr. Cadman himself said that no offer was made here. Three people were at that meeting, and all three say that nothing was offered. Those are the facts.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, Chuck Cadman's wife and daughter are not the only ones contradicting the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister contradicted himself in a recording that we all heard in the media this morning, in which he confirmed that he knew about financial considerations offered to Mr. Cadman by legitimate representatives of the Conservative Party.
How could the Prime Minister knowingly allow his party's representatives to attempt to buy Mr. Cadman's vote, which is formally prohibited in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Criminal Code?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, there were three people at that meeting, and my Bloc Québécois colleague was not among them. All three people who were there said that no offer was made. So quite simply, that is what Mr. Cadman said, and those are the facts of the matter.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that Mr. Cadman had been guaranteed a Conservative nomination in the next election. Yet, in 2005, the Prime Minister revealed that Mr. Cadman had been offered financial compensation for losses related to the calling of an election. The Prime Minister has given us two versions of the same story.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, no matter the offer made to Mr. Cadman, if there was an offer, it was attempted bribery?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc are trying to blur two very different things. There was in fact a conversation about Chuck Cadman rejoining the Conservative Party. 
Chuck was a long time friend of mine. He was a member of Parliament, first elected in 1997 from a neighbouring riding. We wanted him to be a member of the Conservative caucus. The Prime Minister made a recommendation to him that he rejoin the Conservative Party, as he was previously a member, so he could be a candidate for us in the coming campaign. 
What she is talking about, in terms of impropriety, is in fact not true. She was not at that meeting. There was no offer that was tabled. Chuck Cadman himself said so. She ought to accept the word of Chuck Cadman.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, just because the financial offer made to Mr. Cadman—and confirmed by the Prime Minister—did not yield the desired results does not mean that there was no bribery.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the offer made by official representatives of the Conservative Party to an MP in an attempt to buy his vote is illegal?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the questions is that there was no offer. Mr. Cadman said so himself. He said it on two occasions on national television. He said so himself: there was no offer.
Arts and CultureMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are deeply concerned by reports that the Conservatives are planning to censor film and video production in Canada to suit their friends from the religious right.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages confirm that her office is working on “updated eligibility requirements” and the “standardized and updated list of illegal and other ineligible content”?
Could the minister assure the House and Canada's cultural community that her department will not place any new barriers to accessing film tax credits in Canada? Will she give that assurance today?
Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, filmmakers are free to make movies as they see fit as long as they are within the law. However, the Canadian taxpayer should not be forced to pay for material that is gratuitously violent or denigrating to identifiable groups.
The government simply reintroduced the same tax measure in an omnibus bill. By the way, that party, along with all parties, voted in favour of the law.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows full well that the bill in question does not reveal the Conservatives' plan to censor Canadian films. Rather it is the guidelines that the department is drafting that would create a Canadian film censorship board, a board that would decide what film and video content would be worthy and what would not.
Therefore, does the minister agree that there can be no role for government censorship in the Canadian film industry? Will she assure Canadians that any plans to curtail artistic freedom will be stopped immediately? No censorship.
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the NDP member is trying to make something out of nothing. The fact is the tax measure is nothing new. The fact is that party, along with every party in the House, passed the bill. She should have known what was in the bill in the first place.
I should note that it originally came to the House in 2003, under the Liberals at that point. There is nothing new. What is the story here? I do not understand.
EthicsHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and members of his government deliberately tried to confuse Canadians.
According to the book, the distasteful offer to bribe Mr. Cadman was made with the Prime Minister's approval on May 17. There was another meeting on May 19, but the bribe was offered on May 17.
Who represented the Prime Minister at the May 17 meeting and what was offered to Mr. Cadman?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, one meeting took place with Mr. Cadman because we wanted him to rejoin the Conservative Party.
Chuck Cadman was a long-standing friend of many of our colleagues here. In fact, he supported the Prime Minister when he ran for the Conservative Party leadership. He was a long-standing friend of the current Prime Minister. Therefore, there was a meeting to encourage him to rejoin the Conservative Party.
With regard to the budget vote and what has been alleged here, it is not true. Chuck Cadman himself said so in two nationally televised interviews. He said that no offer was made.
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, the first reaction of the government is to say anything but the truth.
Yesterday government members said that Mr. Cadman's wife and daughter were not telling the truth. They pretended that the only meeting with Mr. Cadman took place on May 19. However, there was a meeting on May 17 where a $1 million bribe was offered. It was organized by the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Prime Minister knew about it.
I repeat the question. Who represented the Prime Minister at the meeting with Mr. Cadman on May 17?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I did not know my colleague from Vancouver Centre had the ability to transform herself into a fly, fly through a door on to a wall and be at a meeting she had no part in whatsoever. She claims that there was definitely a meeting and this was discussed. She is wrong. 
A meeting took place. All three people at the meeting said that no offer was made. The only discussion that took place was our desire to have Chuck Cadman rejoin the Conservative Party and continue his support of the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister of Canada.
Chuck Cadman said that no offer was made. I hope my friend from Vancouver Centre will accept Chuck Cadman's word, if she does not accept mine.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an offer was made. The Prime Minister's words were caught on tape when specifically asked about the—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The noise level has been excessive, in my view, throughout question period. Now I cannot hear anything. We have to have some order in the House.
I would encourage members who want to have discussions, like perhaps the member for Wascana and the member for Peterborough, to go out into the foyer of the House and have their discussions there while question period goes on in the House. It is very difficult. I see the chief government whip is suggesting the member for Abbotsford might like to carry on some discussions as well, and I agree this could be done.
 There are several members on both sides who seem to constantly make excessive noise while we go on with questions. We are now into a question and we will have an answer, and I hope we will have a little more quiet.
 The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has the floor.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, an offer was made. The Prime Minister's words were caught on tape. When specifically asked about the $1 million insurance policy, did he deny it? No, he did not. He said of the offer to Chuck, “it was only to replace financial considerations”. He went on to say that the Conservative envoys “were legitimately representing the party”. Those are the facts.
 Will the Prime Minister come clean with Canadians on his role in this sordid affair and agree to tell everything he knows to the RCMP?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the first question on this came up by the Leader of the Opposition, he started off by saying that Chuck Cadman was an honourable man. Everybody in the House gave him a standing ovation, including the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Chuck Cadman said that no offer was made. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca just said an offer was made. In doing so, he is saying that Chuck Cadman is a liar. That is what he is saying now. 
Chuck Cadman said “no offer was made”. He said it in two nationally televised interviews. That is the truth. Those are the facts. The member should accept it.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member ought to speak to his own Prime Minister who has admitted an offer was made and such an offer is a criminal offence. His own words were already captured on tape and they prove he knew about the plan to offer the bribe.
My question for the member is this. Can the Prime Minister table any proof that there was an internal investigation into the actions of the officials, or will he just admit that there was no investigation because he condoned it right from the start?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, again, there is one central fact here that the Liberals refuse to accept. It is a simple and obvious fact. There were three people at the meeting. All three of them said that no offer was made. It is simple. It is clear. It is obvious. It is on the record. Chuck Cadman said so in nationally televised interviews on both Global and CTV.
My friend from Esquimalt knows that Chuck Cadman was an honourable man. He would not go on national television and lie about this file. He spoke the truth. He said there was no offer. I hope my colleague accepts his word.
Public WorksMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there was political interference and scheming in the Prime Minister's Office and the fact that it failed does not mean that there was no interference. There were apparently several meetings and communications between Soudas, the unelected Minister Fortier and his office.
Is this not a prime example of superficial ethics, duplicity and hypocrisy on the part of this government?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the record is clear: no special favours were handed out to the parties involved. It is clear and simple.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, Minister Michael Fortier said yesterday, upon leaving committee, that pressure did come from the Prime Minister's Office, but it came from him, the minister. Even if he is just bragging, Michael Fortier is admitting that there was political interference.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the many interventions between his office and that of Mr. Fortier meet all the definitions of the term “political interference”?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there was no political interference. It is clear: no favours were granted.
Jean Lapierre said that in all honesty, after examining the Radio-Canada and other reports, he did not see any smoking gun or scandal. And so it has been for all the other scandals the opposition has come up with.
AirbusCarole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has completed an important step: gathering information and holding public hearings. On January 11, the Prime Minister stated publicly that he would set up his commission of public inquiry as soon as the hearings ended.
The hearings are now over. Will the Prime Minister keep his word and appoint a commissioner as soon as possible to launch this public inquiry?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the government asked Professor Johnston to undertake a third-party review of the matter and to make recommendations concerning a public inquiry and its mandate.
We are waiting for the final report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics so that Professor Johnston can finish his work and make recommendations concerning the public inquiry.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, that is where the government is making a mistake. It must not wait for the final report. The Prime Minister promised to launch his public inquiry as soon as the committee hearings ended. If he wants to keep his promise, he must launch the inquiry now. Otherwise, we will think he does not intend to keep his word.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he has to give this commission the broadest possible mandate in order to shed light on the Airbus transactions, which have cast a cloud of suspicion over the Conservative government?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have said that Professor Johnston wants to look at the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Opposition members justified our work and said that it had to be done to help the public inquiry. We are therefore waiting for the committee's final report. 
EthicsMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed there was absolutely no truth to the story that Mr. Cadman was offered life insurance benefits to change his vote, but Mr. Cadman's daughter Jodi says the offer was indeed made, and her mother Dona confirms the story.
Why is the Conservative government dishonouring the reputation of the Cadman family by suggesting all three family members were liars?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, it was not just the Prime Minister who said that no offer was made. Chuck Cadman also made the statement on May 21, 2005. I will be glad to table this in the House if my colleague does not think I am reading it correctly.
 Tara Nelson of Global television asked the question of Chuck Cadman, “You had a meeting with the Prime Minister prior to the vote, did he ever offer you a deal?” He said, “No, absolutely nothing. There was never any deal--”. She asked, “And the same with Harper?” He said, “Yeah, same with Harper.”
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, what is pathetic is that this Prime Minister wraps himself in accountability, but yesterday the Prime Minister and the junior public works minister tried to discredit Chuck Cadman's widow.
Why would Dona Cadman make up a story about Conservatives offering her husband a bribe? And Jodi Cadman is also confirming this million dollar bribe.
Have they no shame? Why would members of the Chuck Cadman family lie?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, why would the member opposite, the day after she gave a standing ovation saying that Chuck Cadman is an honourable man, now get up in the House and essentially call Chuck Cadman a liar? That is the question that I have for the member opposite.
She is alleging something here that is in fact not true. Chuck Cadman said on the record twice in national televised interviews that no offer was made.
 I think my colleague from Don Valley knew Chuck Cadman and she knew him well enough that he would not mislead about this. He was honest. He was clear. He was direct. He told the clear truth. No offer was made. Accept the truth.
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary saying that he had lied to his family? That Dona Cadman was a liar? Is that what he is saying in this House?
When MPs leave public office, they are allowed to take their life insurance policy and convert it into a private one, through Industrial Alliance Insurance. They are able to go through this conversion process to update and adjust benefits without having to take a medical. It is very costly, but possible.
Can the minister confirm that the documents that Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan prepared for Chuck Cadman were from Industrial Alliance Insurance and that their offer was to have the Conservative Party assume payments for a million dollar payout?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, no Liberal farce is ever fully complete without a cameo appearance by the member for Ajax—Pickering. So, here we go.
The reality is Chuck Cadman said that no offer was made. He has made that very clear. My colleague should accept Chuck Cadman's word and just accept the truth.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, our question is not about the May 19 meeting. The question is about what happened on May 17, the date two Conservative operatives met with Chuck Cadman in his parliamentary office to present him with a million dollar bribe.
Will the Prime Minister admit now what he has already admitted on tape in 2005, that there was a bribe, that they tried to buy a vote, buy this parliament, and that they will do anything, break any rule, bribe anyone for power?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is looking in the mirror when he is making that description. We know what happened with the Liberals on that budget vote, with the member for Newmarket—Aurora, who all of a sudden found herself in cabinet voting in favour of the Liberal budget.
Our government and our party made no offer to Chuck Cadman that was in any way inappropriate. We had a desire to have Chuck Cadman rejoin the Conservative Party.
The member for Ajax—Pickering is doing what he usually does. He takes a little bit from here, a little bit from there, tries to mash it together into some kind of conspiracy and, as usual, he falls flat on his face. He is going to do so again on this file.
AfghanistanMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is news this morning that Canadian Forces have resumed transferring Taliban prisoners to the Afghan authorities. These transfers had been stopped last November because of concerns the military had about the conditions in Afghan prisons. 
The Liberals had feigned interest on this issue in the past but today, it is not politically expedient to ask a question.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell the House why the Canadian military has resumed transferring Taliban prisoners? What changes have been made to assure that these prisoners will be handled in a manner that is consistent with Afghanistan's international obligations?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the military has announced in theatre this morning that an operational decision has been made to resume the transfer of Taliban prisoners. The transfer agreement we have with the Afghan government remains in place and it is working. The decision to transfer prisoners remains an operational matter made by the military commanders on a case by case basis in the field.
Since last November, well over $1 million has been spent improving conditions in the prisons that hold Canadian transferred prisoners. Guards and police have received training. Canadian officials have increased their monitoring visits to the prisoners. The Canadian Forces are confident these changes have addressed the issues at hand and they will continue to monitor the situation.
Veterans AffairsMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in June 2005, the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister promised Joyce Carter, a widow from Cape Breton, that if the Conservatives formed government, they would immediately extend the VIP to all widows of Word War II and Korean veterans. 
In the first two budgets there was absolutely nothing. In this budget there is one-third of what is required, meaning that 70% of the widows of Word War II and Korean veterans will not qualify.
Joyce Carter of Cape Breton is watching TV now. Will someone in the government please stand up, face the camera, and tell--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are now allocating almost $800 million a year more than what the Liberals budgeted for in their last year in office. In three budgets the Conservative government has allocated $1.6 billion more for our veterans. 
We have also delivered on our promise to implement the new veterans charter, establish a bill of rights for veterans, appoint a veterans ombudsman, and resolve the long standing agent orange issue.
I might also note that the member who has just spoken did not support any of those initiatives.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, that is rather hypocritical coming from that bunch of political sycophants. When the NDP moved the veterans first motion, which would have helped every veteran and his or her family in this country, that was the only party to vote against it. Shame on the Conservatives.
The reality is that they denied many people agent orange compensation. They changed the rules. They promised everyone and they misled them. They said the system of clawbacks would end when they formed government. Now they have misled 70% of these widows. These widows were the caregivers of our greatest heroes. 
Why did this government deliberately mislead Mrs. Carter and all the widows in this country?
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that last year we added 12,000 veterans and their widows to the VIP. This year we have added another 12,000 with the $282 million we have put forward in the budget.
The sad record of the NDP is quite clear. Those members voted against the ex gratia payments for agent orange. They voted against doubling our operational stress injury clinics. They voted against hiring front line staff. They voted against funding for the veterans ombudsman and they voted against the veterans bill of rights.
 That gentleman should sit down.
EthicsMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. We are looking for more information about a meeting held on May 17, 2005, between two Conservative staff members and Mr. Cadman.
Will the government confirm that Mr. Finley and Mr. Flanagan met with Chuck Cadman in his office on May 17, and will it confirm, as the Prime Minister did on a recording, that he knew about the $1 million bribe?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting because we wanted Mr. Cadman to join our political party. That is all that was discussed. My colleague and the Liberal Party are fabricating this story. It is clear that there was no financial offer. Mr. Cadman himself said that no offer was made. Mr. Cadman said so himself and we should take him at his word.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, when a journalist asked the Prime Minister about the $1 million insurance policy offered to Chuck Cadman, he did not reply, “What insurance policy?” He did not say, “There was no insurance policy.” Instead, the Prime Minister confirmed that he knew there had been discussions and then asked whether his comments would be published.
If there was no bribe, why did the Prime Minister not just say so? Why did the Prime Minister not simply deny that fact?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, talking about media interviews on this file, there were in fact two media interviews for which there is video and they are clear. They are unedited. They are out there and available for my colleague to view. 
There were three people who were at this meeting: Tom Flanagan, Doug Finley and Chuck Cadman. All three of them have said that no offer was made that was in any way inappropriate.
 In fact, one of the interviews was done by Global National's Tara Nelson where Chuck Cadman said, “There was never any deal offered”. The other interview was on CTV's Mike Duffy Live on May 19, 2005 where he said, “There were no offers”. That was from Chuck Cadman and those were his words.
Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was a Conservative member of Parliament before that party threw me out, I heard the Prime Minister--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. Order. I am sure the hon. member for Halton appreciates all the help with his question, but we have to be able to hear it and not the other questions. The hon. member for Halton has the floor.
[Interjection]
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I was a Conservative member of Parliament, I heard the Prime Minister call Chuck Cadman a poor MP. The Prime Minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization.
I have always wondered why the Prime Minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, how dare he? The member for Halton never served with Chuck Cadman. He did not know Chuck Cadman.
Chuck Cadman supported the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition and supported him in his leadership races. The Prime Minister wanted him to rejoin the Conservative Party. 
Chuck Cadman was a dear friend of mine from a neighbouring riding and we always supported Chuck Cadman. He was a fantastic human being, a great member of Parliament and a dear friend.
The member has no proof. He has no evidence that the Prime Minister ever said that about Chuck Cadman. That is outrageous. We honour Chuck Cadman's memory. He was a dear friend. The member for Halton should withdraw that ridiculous question and those statements.
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, if that is how they treat their dear friends, I am glad I am not on that side of the aisle any more.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Halton has the floor for a question. We had better get on with the question.
[Interjection]
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I urge the hon. member for Halton to proceed immediately with his question. We had better get on with it.
[Interjection]
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, when a journalist at the time, in 2005, taped the Prime Minister in asking him about this incident, the Prime Minister said, “I don't know the details, I know there were discussions”.
My question is for the right hon.  Prime Minister. Was he deceiving the journalist then or was he shamming the House yesterday?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the issue on this is very clear. Chuck Cadman himself said there was no deal.
 We remember well when the member for Halton was a member of the Conservative caucus and our government has never been more on track, more focused and more effective than when we kicked him out and threw him back into the Liberal Party where he belongs. He can stay over there and the Liberals can have him all he wants.
 When we threw him out of the Conservative Party, he said in national interviews,“Why are they throwing me out? I don't get it”. He wanted to stay in the Conservative caucus. With questions like that, he knows clearly why we want nothing to do with that member.
AfghanistanMrs. Carole Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning, the media reported that Canada had resumed transferring detainees to Afghan authorities in Kandahar. According to Lieutenant-Colonel Dane of the Canadian Forces, each transfer is to be assessed on a case by case basis.
What assurances has the Minister of National Defence received from the Afghan authorities that the transferred detainees will not be tortured?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, for the last four months or so since November, we have been working hard with the Afghans in this area. We have put over a million dollars into improvements for the prisons. We have been training Afghan guards and the Afghan national police force. We have had more visits by Canadian representatives over there.
 We are continuing to work with our Afghan allies to ensure that the system works as it has been doing more recently. We will continue to do that.
Carole Freeman: Mr. Speaker, does the fact that transfers are to be determined on a case by case basis not prove that there are no guarantees on the part of the Afghan authorities and that decisions will be made at the whim of the Canadian Forces, which may or may not decide to comply with Canada's obligations under the Geneva convention?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Canadian Forces take all their obligations very seriously. The forces evaluate them on a case by case basis because they do take this so seriously.
 They want to make sure that each Taliban prisoner is treated in accordance with the obligations, in accordance with the rule of law, in accordance with the procedures and the agreement that we have in place with the Afghan authorities, and in accordance with all the improvements that we have made recently in the system, which will make the system work a lot better. The hon. member should be happy with that.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the transfer of detainees was suspended because of serious allegations of torture and abuse. The Federal Court expressed serious concerns about these transfers.
Now that the transfers have resumed, what new measures, other than those mentioned today, have been taken to address the Federal Court's concerns and to ensure that transfers are taking place according to international law?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, we worked very hard in the last four months to make specific changes in terms of the facility, the infrastructure, the training given to the Afghan national police and the judicial system, and also the guard training program. There are more visits to the Afghan prisons by Canadian officials. 
The Canadian Forces take all of their obligations very seriously. We rely on the forces to exercise judgment and I think we have put our reliance in good hands. Canadian Forces members are doing a great job and we should thank them for that.
The BudgetMrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on February 26 the Minister of Finance tabled our Conservative government's third balanced budget. It is unfortunate that the opposition has not read it. On Wednesday, the member for London—Fanshawe showed her lack of understanding when she questioned whether the budget had anything for women.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages clarify for the member and the House what the budget has for the women of Canada?
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, not only did our government increase the budget for the women's program by 76%, the biggest increase ever, but I am also pleased to say that in Budget 2008, our government confirmed that it will go ahead with the initiative by developing the first Status of Women action plan to advance equality of women in Canada by improving their social and economic conditions and increasing their participation in democracy.
We believe that equality is not just a symbol; it is our reason for being.
The EnvironmentMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the environment simply is not part of the Conservative agenda, as was proven in this week's budget. There is nothing in the budget to take on the big polluters. As the Toronto Star said, the Liberals have turned themselves into a “doormat” in the process.
 In fact, instead of reducing pollution, this budget is going to take hard-earned tax dollars from working families and give them to oil companies in more subsidies and more tax breaks. There is nothing to protect hard-working families. When will the government finally find the courage to stand up to its oil patch buddies?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the member is going to be voting against the budget, a budget that provides $500 million for modern public transit and will contribute to cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
The NDP is guilty of the sin of green-washing, with false bills and false proclamations that it cares about the environment, but when it has an opportunity to vote for a cleaner environment it is constantly voting against good environmental practices.
Nathan Cullen: After that answer, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are going to have to take a shower.
The Conservative-Liberal budget will sink hundreds of millions of dollars into polluting and unsafe industries such as the tar sands and the nuclear industry. Not only is this action morally corrupt, but it is intellectually bankrupt.
 New Democrats are ready to take on the big polluters and we have a plan. It is called the clean air and climate change act. When will the Conservatives abandon their pollution agenda, bring this critical bill back for a free vote in the House of Commons and finally do something about climate change?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in the environment committee over the last month and a half, the NDP time and time again has heard from witnesses that its plan is all hot air, with no action, and it would not stand up to a constitutional challenge.
We now have a government that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. It is real. Why is the NDP voting against real action on climate?
AfghanistanIrwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, in his reply to the question of transfer of detainees, the Minister of National Defence ignored numerous concerns expressed by the Federal Court, including: missing detainees, denial of effective access to detention facilities, dubious reliability of Afghan investigations of mistreatment, post-transfer monitoring techniques that are not effective and, in particular, a serious, systemic problem of detainee torture and abuse in Afghan prisons.
Is the resumption not premature in light of these concerns that the minister has not addressed in his reply, particularly the systemic question of pervasive detainee abuse and torture? Where is the conformity with international law?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about all of those issues. That is why we have an agreement in place with the Afghan government. It is why we have been working so hard for the last four months since those allegations surfaced to improve things in terms of training and monitoring. 
The system is working. We are relying on the Canadian Forces in place. We are relying on the judgment of commanders. We think our reliance on their judgment is well placed. We trust the judgment of the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Forces have never let us down yet and they will not let us down in the future. I wish the hon. member would appreciate that.
The BudgetMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after two long years of delay and obstruction by the Liberals in the House of Commons and Senate, our tackling violent crime legislation is finally law. Today families and communities across Canada can feel safer. Protecting the members of all society is a priority of this government, not an afterthought.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety tell us if there are any measures in the recent budget that can help protect the safety of Canadians?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is the third good question from this side of the House today. As my hon. colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells knows, Bill C-2 includes tough new penalties to crack down on gun criminals, repeat, violent or sexual offenders, impaired drivers and sexual predators targeting our youth. 
Budget 2008 builds on previous efforts to deliver funding by providing funding for provinces and territories to recruit 2,500 new frontline police officers. As British Columbia finance minister Carole Taylor says, “I think an aggressive recruitment program for young police officers is a good thing”. We agree.
IranMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, across the world human rights groups and labour leaders continue to express their concerns about the ongoing situation in Iran. Recently, two labour leaders, Mansour Osanloo and Mahmoud Salehi, were arrested and imprisoned as a result of their efforts to create fair and safe working conditions for Iranian workers.
What has the Minister of Foreign Affairs done to help secure the release of these two labour leaders and to impress upon the Iranian government Canada's concern about human rights violations in Iran?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, including the increased prosecution of minorities.
As my colleagues may recall, last year Canada successfully spearheaded a resolution at the UN highlighting the continued deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran. We will continue to ensure that Canada makes its position very well known to the government of Iran about the situation of human rights in Iran.
Official LanguagesMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the recent Conservative budget once again clearly shows the outright lack of respect of this government for official language communities. No funding appears under the heading “Action Plan for Official Languages”. This plan comes to an end on March 31.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages explain why she has completely abandoned the official language communities since there is nothing in the budget to meet their needs?
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, our government is acting in the interests of official language communities and is ensuring the vitality of French and English in Canada.
A strategy to implement the next phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages is currently being developed. The amounts have not yet been reported because we are working on the second part of the plan. You will be informed in due course, Mr. Speaker, when it becomes available.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker:  I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mirek Topolanek, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I remind hon. members of the reception in Room 216 with the Prime Minister, to which all hon. members are invited immediately.
 I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Fred Chartrand, a Canadian Press photographer who is retiring today after 38 years of service on Parliament Hill. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Points of OrderThe Speaker: We have some points of order. I will start with the hon. secretary of state.
Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC): Mr. Speaker, during question period I used certain unparliamentary terms for which I apologize and which I retract.
The Speaker: I did not know who the culprit was. I did hear some words that were inappropriate. I am pleased the secretary of state has confessed.
The hon. member for Halton is rising on a point of order.
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has beaten me to the point. I would like to thank him very much for doing that. I accept his apology.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Abbotsford is rising on a point of order also.
Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and do so very reluctantly because it involves another member of this House.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, before question period there is a 15-minute period in which we as members have the opportunity to make statements about matters that are dear to our heart. It often involves issues in our riding. Sometimes it involves issues that we are dealing with in this House. We are given one minute to express our views on those issues.
I sit here in my seat right next to another member of the House, the member for Charlottetown. I am a Conservative member of this House. He is a Liberal member of this House. I often disagree with his views. He often disagrees with mine.
However, when we are given an opportunity to make member's statements, it is a one minute opportunity and we typically do not interfere with the ability of the microphones in this House to pick up those comments.
Yesterday I made a one minute statement in the House where I praised the fact that the tackling violent crime act had been passed finally. I expressed my view that it had taken much too long, there had been a lot of delay from the Liberals and the NDP in this House, but finally that act had passed.
During my statement the member for Charlottetown started heckling. I know most of us heckle in this House from time to time and we do it in a good-natured way. However, yesterday he leaned over the microphone which is on his desk and is supposed to pick up my voice, but he leaned over so far it was almost as though he were choking on it, as though he were swallowing it. No one in this House could hear what I was saying. As you know, Mr. Speaker, these proceedings are broadcast across Canada and my statement was not heard.
There is something even more disconcerting about the member for Charlottetown's behaviour. During his comments, as he was leaning over the microphone and trying to interfere with my statement, on five occasions in reference to the former prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, he said the following words, “hang Mulroney”. On two occasions he said “put a noose around his neck”.
That kind of language is unparliamentary under the best of circumstances. It was shameful behaviour on the part of my colleague in this House, the member for Charlottetown. 
I would request that the member offer an unconditional apology for those remarks, as well as an apology for interfering with my statement. I have never leaned over his microphone to interfere. I will heckle from time to time, as most of us do, but we do it in a good natured way.
I would ask that you review the audio and the video tapes of yesterday's proceedings during statements by members and then determine whether an apology is warranted. I certainly believe an apology is warranted. Clearly it was shameful behaviour on the part of a member of this House.
The Speaker: The Chair will be glad to review the tape of the proceedings yesterday. I admit that there was a great deal of yelling when the hon. member was making a statement. I turned and tried to quell the disturbance, but the member for Charlottetown was not the only one yelling. There seemed to be quite a number yelling, which is not infrequently the case in this particular corner of the House.
The Speaker is well aware that there is a lot of shouting back and forth.
I will examine the tape and come back to the House, if necessary, and deal with the hon. member's point of order.
Hon. Jay Hill (Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief. I think upon review you will see that this went way beyond the usual heckling and noise that you just mentioned in the House. As you correctly state, all members heckle from time to time and noise does get excessive and you do your best to try to quell that.
In this particular case though, it really does strike at the very privileges of each member of Parliament to be heard in this place. That is why it is very important that you do a good job of reviewing this, Mr. Speaker, because we do have in this House members from different parties who share desks from time to time. If we are going to allow that type of behaviour, then it is going to get indeed even more unruly.
The Speaker: I thank the Chief Government Whip for his assistance in this regard. I know that he is aware of the noise that happens from time to time in various places in this House and I sometimes have even looked to him for assistance in trying to quell disturbances with his ability to whip members.
I will examine the tape. It is my intention to do exactly that, as I have indicated, and if necessary, as I say, I will come back to the House. 
The noise was excessive, I quite agree, but I have not seen the tape of the proceedings. I only saw what I saw sitting here.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Very briefly, I have to put in my two cents on this.
 I sit on this side of the House and the member for Charlottetown is my seatmate.
I do not want you to come to any conclusions based on just what happened yesterday, because this has been ongoing since there haven been members of the Conservative Party sitting on this side of the House. Therefore, if you are going to review tapes, I think you are going to have to review the tapes since there have been Conservative members sitting on this side.
Let us just be fair on all sides, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I intend to be fair on all sides, as the Speaker's obligation is to be.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, actually I encourage you to do that because the hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton did make a statement yesterday. All of the Conservative members, as we always are, were in their seats. I encourage you to look at that statement, Mr. Speaker, and compare the treatment he got with the treatment that my colleague got. I think you will find a big difference and a big disparity between how Conservative members acted and how Liberal members acted.
The Speaker: I could sit and look at tapes for hours, particularly ones that involve members in this corner, because I sit so close I can hear a lot of what is going on in terms of noise at least, even if I cannot make out the words.
I assure the hon. member that I will review the matter and will get back to the House, if necessary. I think we have heard enough on this point.

Routine Proceedings
Energy Science and Technology TreatyDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, pursuant Standing Order 32, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, one treaty entitled “Agreement among the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology”. An explanatory memorandum is enclosed with the treaty. 
Committees of the HouseMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Growing Forward entitled, “The Non-business Risk Management Programs under Growing Forward”.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which met on February 28, 2008 in relation to the Mulroney Airbus settlement study and agreed to the following recommendation: As your committee has now completed its examination of witnesses in this matter, it recommends, as it did in its second report to the House, that the government immediately initiate a formal public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.
Food and Drugs ActMario Silva:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-516, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food obtained from cloned animals).
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to the House my private member's bill, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food obtained from cloned animals). 
The purpose of the bill is to ban the sale and importation of food obtained from cloned animals. The sale and consumption of cloned meat raises a number of ethical, safety and animal cruelty issues. Parliament has an obligation to weigh these issues carefully, and this bill intends to force this discussion before the sale of cloned meat and milk becomes an irreversible fact in Canada.
According to a 2006 survey, 64% of consumers are uncomfortable with the idea of food from cloned animals. Furthermore, at a time when consumers are rightly demanding the labelling of genetically modified foods, the least we can do is to ensure that we do not slide further down this slippery slope.
I ask all members to support this bill. I look forward to a fulsome debate on this topic.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-517, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods).
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce this bill, which you have just mentioned. The intent of the bill is not to pass judgment on GMOs, but rather to allow consumers to make informed choices about their food.
 Bloc Québécois members have been eager to present this bill for some time now, ever since my hon. colleague from Drummond began expressing her concern about 10 genetically modified organisms when she first came to this House.
I hope this bill will receive everyone's support.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsRichard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition here today containing 869 signatures. These Quebeckers support Bill C-482 and are calling on the federal government to actively respect the Quebec nation and Bill 101.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of many constituents today.
The petitioners note that the unborn child is not respected when it comes to violent crimes. They point to the case of Olivia Talbot of Edmonton who was shot and killed in November 2005. Her 27 week unborn son, Lane junior, also died. Because there is no legal protection under the law, no charge was laid. The petitioners call for that to be changed so there would be a separate charge laid when an unborn child is a victim of a violent crime against the mother.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that brings to light an issue of great concern to the health of Canada's economy. 
Canada is currently facing a crisis in the manufacturing sector. Every year thousands of Canadians who work in manufacturing are losing their jobs and every week, more and more manufacturing companies are shutting their doors. The manufacturing sector is vital to the engine of the Canadian economy and the loss of these jobs and the closing of these companies will have a negative impact on Canada's future economic prosperity.
 I urge Parliament to join with me and these petitioners and develop and implement a plan of action to protect Canada's manufacturing jobs and to protect our economic future.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents, principally emanating from the Barrhaven Legion and led by the very distinguished community leader, David Palmer.
They are seeking that the Government of Canada, through the Governor General, institute a volunteer service medal for volunteer service by Canadians in the regular and reserve military forces and cadet corps support staff who are not eligible for the medals that were brought in for specified periods between 1939 and 1947, and 1950 and 1954.
This new service medal would honour Canadians who would otherwise have qualified for those medals but did not serve during the time period when the medal existed. It is a very good idea and members will be hearing a lot more of it from myself and from Mr. Palmer as we raise this on the national stage in the House of Commons.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from constituents seeking a national strategy to combat suicide.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition containing approximately 100 signatures in support of the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-482. As we all know, this bill aims to ensure that the federal government respects Bill 101 in Quebec.
What is noteworthy about the signatures I gathered compared to those gathered by my hon. colleague is that they are the signatures of unionized employees from across Quebec. They strongly insist that the Canada Labour Code include a provision requiring federally regulated companies to comply with Bill 101, since that is not at all the case at this time.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have, once again, a whole handful of petitions that have been signed by people right across the country in support of Bill C-484, the unborn victims of crime act.
I really appreciate the people who are doing this. I would like to mention a few towns. We have many from the major cities, but there is Pambrun, Saskatchewan, Kelowna, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Regina and Pembroke.
All of these petitioners come from right across the country and they are supporting legislation that would recognize that there would be a separate charge laid when an unborn child dies or is injured when its mother is the victim of a crime.
Questions on the Order PaperRod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Business of Supply[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the member for Peterborough, who spoke about the Mulroney-Schreiber or Mulroney-Airbus affair just before oral question period.
Earlier, I asked the Prime Minister a question, and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons answered. I also asked the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale a question about when the Prime Minister would launch his public inquiry. On January 11, the Prime Minister said:
 After reviewing the report and consulting Professor Johnston, the government has decided to convene a public inquiry once the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has finished its hearings. 
He did not mention the committee's work or its report; he said “hearings”. Our hearings ended this past Tuesday. Why did this government, in this case Mr. Del Mastro, announce earlier—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Madam—
[Interjection]
Carole Lavallée: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, let me try it this way.
Earlier, the member for Peterborough said that he wanted to wait for the report, which is due in two weeks. The only reason for waiting is that the Conservatives are trying to find any reason to put off a public inquiry. They do not want a public inquiry. They want to hide and conceal things and not hold a public inquiry. In the meantime, they want to delay it for as long as possible.
Dean Del Mastro: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We went through all these hearings and conducted these studies but the member is now essentially indicating that these should not form any basis of the public inquiry.
Professor Johnston, an appointed, non-partisan eminent Canadian, specifically wants to look at our findings so that he can frame the ultimate terms of reference of a public inquiry into this matter.
As I said in my speech, this is an old story. I do not understand what the rush is. Let us do it right.
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague for intervening on this very important subject. 
Just to review, the motion before us today is the motion from the Liberal member for West Nova who is a member of the ethics committee, as is my colleague. The problem is that the motion wants the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair to move forward before there is a final report from the ethics committee. 
It was the understanding of most in the House and most Canadians that Professor Johnston had recommended that a final report be delivered before an inquiry move forward.
My Conservative colleague knows that the member for West Nova, today in the House, made a startling accusation, which I do not believe is true, that somehow our Conservative government is implicated in the Schreiber affair. However, I have not seen any evidence to that effect.
Since the hon. member for Peterborough actually participated in the committee hearings at the ethics committee, he is probably in the best position to advise the House whether there was any evidence to show that the current government was implicated in the Schreiber affair.
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, what the committee heard was exactly the opposite. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Every witness who came forward said that this had absolutely nothing to do with the current government or any member of the current government. They also said that they had absolutely no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of any public officer holder at all.
The only unethical behaviour that has occurred, in my personal opinion, is the unethical behaviour of the member for West Nova, who has been attending dinners with Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber, according to Mr. Schreiber, dating all the way back to August, which is well in advance of a-- 
[Interjection]
Brian Murphy: Dinners?
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro: I agree with that--well in advanced of a statement made by Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber in court and in sworn testimony that is contradictory to statements he has made before, but then again, just about everything Mr. Shcreiber says--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me some time to talk about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.
This morning, the hon. member for West Nova painted an excellent picture of the Mulroney-Schreiber, or Mulroney-Airbus affair. As far as we are concerned, the person involved is a former parliamentarian. This also concerns the ethics committee, which, as we know, is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I will refer to it as the ethics committee.
This committee has been dealing with the Mulroney-Airbus affair. The person we are most interested in is Mr. Mulroney, because he is a former parliamentarian. In fact, he is the former Prime Minister of Canada and it was his actions that worried us. At first we were concerned about his actions, but after what we have heard we are now worried. It is for these reasons that, as you heard a few moments ago, the committee has presented a motion to this House asking the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry as soon as possible to shed light on this whole affair.
The hon. member for West Nova painted an excellent picture, provided an excellent summary of what has happened since the early 1980s, and even the 1970s. It is a very complicated story. I say “story”, but I know that is not the right word. It is not a story; these are events that occurred one after the other and some even overlapped. Some 20 years later it is quite difficult to understand. 
Four books have been written on the subject. I invite those watching us to read them. The first book that was written was On The Take. Then there was A Secret Trial, and then Presumed Guilty, followed by The Last Amigo. All these books were written in English and, to my knowledge, have never been translated. They shed light on some of what has happened since Airbus decided to flood the North American market.
That is why the committee is calling for a public inquiry and asking that it be launched as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, promised on January 11, that there would be one. The Prime Minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I would ask the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to sit down for a few moments. This is the second time in 10 minutes that she has named a member of this House. I hope it will be the last time.
Thank you. 
[Interjection]
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is the first and second time this has happened since I was elected. I am terribly sorry and I hope it will be the last time. 
On January 11, the Prime Minister promised that he would start the public inquiry as soon as the committee hearings had ended, and we believed him. Now that the hearings are over, he is delaying it for another two weeks. What new excuse will he give us in two weeks?
So far, the Conservative government has been trying everything it can to put off a public inquiry that would shed light on what happened under Conservative rule. 
It goes without saying that our committee did an excellent job. All the committee members did their jobs. We all worked differently and with a different perspective, but we did so within the limitations of a parliamentary committee. Some people were disappointed, but it was not a court of law. Some people were disappointed, but it was not an inquiry or a police investigation. It was a parliamentary committee with members sitting around a table asking questions in the best faith possible to get a clear understanding of the situation. This was very difficult, considering the amount of time we were given. 
We think that the committee has finished its work, and that it did a good job. However, the committee was working under some constraints, and that is why the matter must be turned over to a public inquiry with the broadest possible mandate. I will explain why.
First, a public inquiry is justified because of conflicting information. Brian Mulroney's explanation of his international work does not make sense. Nobody believes that a former Prime Minister, who claimed to be against selling arms to China, would set off the day after leaving office on a contract to sell weapons. That does not make sense.
Mr. Mulroney was unable to prove that he actually worked for the $225,000 or $300,000 he received. The people working on the Bear Head-Schreiber project—Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Alford, and Mr. Marc Lalonde, do not remember having seen Brian Mulroney work on the project. Nobody can confirm that he did. Not only is there nobody in Canada who can confirm that Mr. Mulroney worked on the project, as Mr. Schreiber claims, but there is nobody anywhere in the world who is still alive and who can testify that Mr. Mulroney did the international work he was supposed to do.
That is very troubling, and I wanted to mention it. Some people claim that there is no need for a public inquiry. Yet, as I said, there are too many contradictions, too many inconsistencies, too many implausibilities, and too much suspicion. Some people say that suspicion alone, no matter how great, does not constitute proof, and they are right. However, suspicion surrounding potentially criminal actions led to the creation of the Gomery commission, which was an excellent initiative. This public inquiry must take place so that everyone can testify under oath. We are looking forward to hearing the former Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, testify under oath.
Some people say that this was not public knowledge, and that it does not concern the public because public funds were not involved. However, Canadian and Quebec taxpayers paid some or all of the $25 million in commissions through their taxes because Airbus and other companies made the Government of Canada pay $25 million more to cover those costs. Moreover, perhaps if there had not been so many secret commissions, the government at the time might have made a different decision about buying 34 airplanes, and the purchase might have ended up costing less.
Some say that nothing illegal went on. However, the mandate was unclear and implausible on both sides, as I mentioned earlier. The former prime minister was paid in cash. He was paid $300,000 in $1,000 bills. We would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois was responsible for having $1,000 bills withdrawn from circulation. Why? Because we believed and we convinced this House that $1,000 bills were used in illegal dealings and mafia transactions.
For that reason the Bloc Québécois convinced this House to withdraw $1,000 bills from circulation. In the end, it was unanimous.
Let us try to imagine the former prime minister of Canada receiving $225,000 or $300,000—it is no longer clear—in $1,000 bills in a brown envelope, always associated with something secret, in a hotel room, away from prying eyes, without an invoice, receipt or supporting documents. He was asked about these but he was unable to provide any receipts for expenses incurred here or abroad. There are no accounting records. He put the money in a safety deposit box. If everything was above board, why did he not deposit it in the bank? It was five years before he reported the money as income, just when Karlheinz Schreiber was arrested for the first time because he ran afoul of the law. The two events are related. Mr. Mulroney stated as much in his testimony. When he discovered that Mr. Schreiber had problems with the law, Mr. Mulroney finally reported the $225,000 or $300,000 to the tax authorities.
When a former prime minister of Canada receives that kind of money, under the circumstances I just explained, from a businessman who pocketed $25 million in commissions for contracts he obtained from the government of this prime minister, we should all be asking questions. A public inquiry must be held.
No one has been able to corroborate Brian Mulroney's version of the facts. Even his friend, Fred Doucet, testified that he did not hear what was said. No living person on earth can corroborate the international meetings of Brian Mulroney and no documentation has been provided to support his account.
Taken separately, his actions may not be illegal. However, in sociology, there is a principle according to which the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It seems that this would apply in this case.
Mr. Mulroney said he had made a mistake, a colossal mistake. He admitted he was wrong. He said he had made a serious error in judgment. But he never said why he had made that error. That is what he must be asked. What clouded his judgment? What was his motivation? Why did he not react as he would have ordinarily? He must be asked these questions. Unfortunately, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics did not have time to do so.
People have said they did not learn anything from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I am sorry, but we on the committee learned a great deal, and many people have said so.
First and foremost, the hearings allowed all the information that was circulating in English-language publications in English Canada to circulate in Quebec as well. This gave Quebeckers the chance to learn about this serious and disturbing situation. 
It was the first time we understood that there were so many contradictions. In fact, it was the first time we heard Brian Mulroney's own version of events, rather than the subjective version given by his spokesperson, Luc Lavoie. Mr. Mulroney told us that he and Luc Lavoie only spoke for 10 minutes or so now and again, which is why Mr. Lavoie did not have full information. By the way, Luc Lavoie, who told us he had been Mr. Mulroney's spokesperson for years, was much more knowledgeable about specifics and details, such as the RCMP code number for journalist Stevie Cameron. He remembered her code number, but he was not aware of information such as the amount of money Brian Mulroney had received. 
 It was the first time Brian Mulroney had given his version of events publicly, and it differed from his spokesperson's version. It was the first time we could see that there were so many contradictions as to the amount of the agreement, the agreement itself and even the company that was to give Brian Mulroney the contract.
I must say that I personally learned a lot. Of course, I have read all the books written on the topic and have had the opportunity to question the witnesses. I did so in good faith and I learned a great deal.
I learned, for instance, that an invoice for $90,000 and a cheque for $90,000 had been given to Fred Doucet by one of Mr. Schreiber's businesses just a few weeks after Mr. Doucet left an official government position and only three weeks after Airbus had deposited $5 million in one of Mr. Schreiber's accounts.
Let us review the chronology of events—of what probably happened or what appears to have happened. A $5 million commission is deposited into a Swiss bank account for Mr. Schreiber, by Airbus. Three weeks later, Fred Doucet sends an invoice for $90,000 for services rendered, although he had been on the open job market for only a few weeks. That was $90,000 and I will come back to that in a moment. Then, a few days later, he receives a cheque for $90,000 for services rendered. Who makes that kind of money? Imagine, $90,000 for a few weeks of work, for services rendered. Exactly what kind of services? Please!
In any case, as I said earlier, it was the first time we heard Brian Mulroney's version. Now, Canadians and Quebeckers have the right to hear him under oath.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, happy Friday to you. First, I would like to commend my colleague for all her extremely serious and diligent work in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I find it reassuring that a parliament has an ethics committee. Ethics are neither laws nor morals, but the best behaviour that one must display in all circumstances. I know that my colleague has worked very hard, read the documents and questioned the witnesses. In fact, journalists have even relayed the questions she has asked in committee. We have seen the relevance of her questions on TVA and Radio-Canada.
I have two or three questions for her so that she can help us understand something that seems quite incredible, and that is how a former Prime Minister, who held the most senior office in the country, could have accepted contracts in the final days of his public life. He was no longer the Prime Minister, but he was still a member of Parliament.
I would like our colleague to go over some things. When the former Prime Minister agreed to meet with Mr. Schreiber and do some lobbying work, a code of ethics already existed in the House of Commons for all members of Parliament. I would like our colleague to comment on how the former Prime Minister ended up breaching this code of ethics.
I would also like her to show us how important it is for a parliamentary committee or public representatives, who are elected, to play the role of guardian. We are the guardians of public integrity. It is very important that this committee be more than just any committee.
I have always thought that the contribution of MPs to an issue like this is important in terms of research, even though I have heard some analysts say that we do not have the same means available to a public inquiry. There is no doubt about that. And nor do we want parliamentary committees to turn into courts of law, but the fact remains that parliamentarians have a job to do.
I would like her to describe her contribution and that of her committee to clarifying one of the most disturbing political events of past few years.
[Interjection]
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Hochelaga for his question.
First, the code of ethics exists to guide elected representatives in acting with integrity, thereby maintaining the public's trust in them. That is extremely important. Most of the provisions in the code of ethics say that not only must one not do certain things, but also one must not appear to have done or appear to be doing certain things.
The matter before us now involves several elements of the code of ethics that existed at the time. Those elements still apply, and many have even been strengthened. For example, one may not benefit or appear to benefit from one's regular work here in Parliament, nor may one's family. That is the code of ethics. One must act with integrity and appear to be acting with integrity. That is extremely important. 
I would like to share a story, but unfortunately, there is not enough time. The Bloc Québécois is made up of people of integrity who pay for things out of their own pockets so that they do not appear to be taking something that is a public asset.
The committee made a particularly significant contribution. Every member of the committee worked very hard. As I said earlier, each member worked in his or her own way to achieve his or her goals, but most sought to shed light on matters of concern to the committee and to all Canadians and Quebeckers. People want to know what really happened.
The committee concluded that only a public inquiry with the broadest possible mandate could help us answer the many questions that remain unanswered. The most important question is, where did the Airbus commissions paid to Mr. Schreiber end up? We are talking about $20 million. Apparently, $10 million of that was given to politicians on Parliament Hill. That is what people everywhere have said. Yet that money seems to have disappeared without a trace. We simply have to find it.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I attended the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics as an observer and I very much appreciated the hon. member's contribution. I have a brief question for her.
Unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to question Mr. Mulroney a second time. However, if the other inquiry has the opportunity to question Mr. Mulroney, I wonder if the member would agree with the following questions.
First of all, Mr. Mulroney said nothing to Luc Lavoie, his spokesperson, regarding the amount of money he received from Mr. Schreiber during the Airbus scandal. That was after Mr. Lavoie charged more than half a million dollars in fees to Canadian taxpayers. Why did Mr. Mulroney not say anything to Mr. Lavoie?
Second, in 1991, Fred Doucet had many meetings and conversations with Mr. Mulroney and other members of the Conservative Party to discuss the Bear Head project. However, Norman Spector said it was clear that Mr. Mulroney cancelled that project. Why did Mr. Mulroney not say anything to Fred Doucet, his long time friend from Nova Scotia? Why did he not say anything to Fred Doucet in 1991?
I consider these two questions very important. Even if it takes him 10 or 15 minutes, why will Mr. Mulroney not attend the meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?
[Interjection]
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two excellent questions.
We had a number of questions to ask, but we were not able to do so because of the inherent limitations of a parliamentary committee. At other times, this is fine, but for this inquiry, we did not have enough time to ask all the questions we would have liked to ask or hear all the answers we wanted to hear. It was very frustrating and very difficult to understand what was going on and to get real answers about certain topics.
This is why a public inquiry is so important. A commission of inquiry would have access to research services, more time and expertise to question and cross-examine.
I think that we did shed light on it. My colleague was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and he asked excellent questions, but we were not able to ask everything we wanted to.
The two questions he is asking are excellent. Why was Luc Lavoie so curious about everything that was going on with the Airbus affair publicly? And why was he so incurious when he spoke to his boss, his friend, Brian Mulroney? He had worked with Mr. Mulroney for years and was his spokesperson. When a person speaks for someone else publicly, they should at least know what to say. If they have to answer media questions on behalf of someone else, they should at least know the answers to any questions that may come up.
Luc Lavoie is a prominent communications professional, an expert in communications. Unfortunately, a public inquiry will have to ask him that question, as well as the question the member asked concerning Mr. Mulroney, who did not tell his friend Fred Doucet and his friends at GCI that the Bear Head project was dead.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Before moving on to the next speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her gracious acceptance of my earlier reproach.
The member for Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will serve notice at the beginning of my speech that I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
As the vice-chair of the ethics committee, I have spent the last three months totally immersed in a very dark and troubling period of Canadian history. It seems there was a time when our great country was hijacked by some very bad people, people who abused the power of their office for their own self-interest and benefit, who would break faith with the Canadian people by abusing the checks, balances and rules that we put in place to preclude such a thing from ever happening.
We have been studying an era of Canadian politics where corporate lobbyists were running roughshod over everything that was good and decent about Canadian politics and our democratic institutions. We have been studying an era where corrupt politicians abused the power of their office to line their own pockets. We have been researching a period of history where there were mandatory 5% minimum kickbacks on public works projects.
 These are facts. These are not theories before our committee. Some of those corrupt politicians were caught, tried and convicted in subsequent years. Some continue to enjoy the spoils of their malfeasance and their abuse of our system. Some of the key actors in fact of this era continue to operate unmolested in exactly the same way today. 
This might be one of the most disturbing things that we realized as committee members. Some of the very key actors in this, the darkest period of recent Canadian history, continue to operate in the same modus operandi that so offended the sensibilities of Canadians at the time and in subsequent generations.
The question as to whether there was political interference in the Airbus purchase for Air Canada has taken us on a long circuitous journey, a journey where we have learned of a parcel of rogues perhaps unparalleled in Canadian history. We have witnessed the dark underbelly of Ottawa, some place that I never care to go again, some place frankly that nauseates me as a Canadian, as it would offend the sensibilities of all good people in our country who expect better from their public office-holders.
Our research took us back to a disturbing period in Canadian history where foreign money undertook a silent coup in Canada. Franz Josef Strauss, premier of Bavaria, a man who the media in his country calls an unrepentant Nazi, and also the CEO of Airbus, rigged the 1983 Conservative convention to unseat Joe Clark and six months later put in place Brian Mulroney. That alone should have been enough to horrify Canadians. They should have taken to the rooftops to scream their derision over this political interference by foreign powers, an unrepentant Nazi from a foreign country running roughshod over our democratic process in Canada.
This was orchestrated by the team that put Brian Mulroney in place: Walter Wolf, Karl Heinz-Schreiber, Frank Moore, Gary Ouellet and the Doucet brothers. Yet Brian Mulroney claimed he had absolutely nothing to do with the Airbus purchase. However, as soon as he was in power, put in place by this dirty money from an unrepentant Nazi, one of the first things he did was fire 13 of the 15 members of the board of directors of Air Canada and put in place 13 Conservative allies, one of whom was Frank Moores, the chief lobbyist for Airbus.
We also took note that the CEO of Air Canada at the time was Pierre Jeanniot. Where did he retire to? As soon as the Airbus purchase was officially announced in 1988, Mr. Jeanniot retired to Toulouse, France, home of Airbus. It was an odd choice, coincidence, I suppose. 
These are the things with which we have been dealing. That is where the story started. 
We now move on to the issue of the $2.1 million that Canada paid out in the defamation lawsuit that Brian Mulroney filed against the Government of Canada. Brian Mulroney filed a lawsuit for $50 million to sue the people of Canada because they implied that he took money from Karlheinz Schreiber. We now know that he did take money from Karlheinz Schreiber in the most shady of circumstances. This phantom lobbying where he claims that he earned the $300,000, he admits that it was a mistake, but now he would have us believe he earned that money legitimately.
Let me say at the outset of this particular section that no amount of bafflegab will ever take the stink off the image that is tattooed, that is emblazoned on people's minds of a former prime minister of Canada taking sacks full of cash from an arms dealer in secret hotel room meetings. We could have studies for years and explanations by hired mouthpieces on behalf of Brian Mulroney for years. Nobody will ever forget that image and we are horrified even as we speak of it today.
The reason I say “phantom lobbying” is because the very company he says that he was lobbying for, ThyssenKrupp, the arms of Krupp, did not know that Brian Mulroney was on its payroll. We have all read our history books on the second world war. Those are the guys who armed the Nazis and they now own one of the largest companies in the world in terms of arms dealers. How Brian Mulroney could be lobbying for such a huge international corporation and how a huge corporation like that did not know that a former head of state of a G-7 nation was on its payroll, defies credulity, and some of us on the committee simply cannot accept that without some more proof.
 We asked Mr. Mulroney to please present some documentation to prove that he did meet with the leaders of China, Russia and France to earn the $300,000 he was given. Some of us think that was awfully rich compensation for three brief meetings with three heads of state, but it also begs the question as to why Mr. Mulroney would he be trying to sell tanks to China right after Tiananmen Square when he was so outraged and we had international agreements to not arm those Communist countries at that time. The story simply begs for further investigation and validation.
Our committee was wrestling with a number of issues that time does not permit me to go through, but let me know say that as of 12:10 today, the chair of our committee introduced the third report of the Standing Committee on Ethics which clearly states that the work of our committee is now concluded. We are not hearing anymore witnesses. I am proud of the work that our committee did. I would be happy to debate any of the armchair quarterbacks who have criticized the work that we did, mostly Conservative Party members in the country who do not like this era of Canadian history being dredged up.
We did a great deal in a short period of time at no cost to the taxpayers because, I remind colleagues, that our committee meets every Tuesday and Thursday whether we have Brian Mulroney as our witness or anybody else. It was at no cost to the taxpayer and we moved the puck down the ice a great deal in the struggle to shed some light on this dark era. It is now time to pass the puck to those best able to put it in the net and that means the public inquiry should begin without delay. This is the subject of our opposition day motion we are debating today. The Liberals are trying to change the channel from the humiliation of having to vote in favour of the Conservative budget, so they want us to talk about Schreiber-Mulroney, which is fine, we have this opportunity.
The Prime Minister of Canada and the justice minister have both stood in their place promising Canadians that there would be a full public inquiry. They said, “let's wait until the ethics committee finishes hearing witnesses”. We are finished. All some of us want to do is go home, take a shower and pretend it never happened, but we now are passing the files, passing the baton over to the public inquiry. It should be implemented and begun without delay. We understand that it takes some time to set up a full public inquiry but that process should begin today. 
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I look forward as well to a public inquiry but I am not sure it would be scoped out broadly enough to include an examination of the money that went missing from Airbus to some individuals. I wish it would because it is clear that some money changed hands.
 I know it is a bit inappropriate to mention names but I have always been intrigued by the notion that a role might have been played by Lucien Bouchard. I think an inquiry would clear his name if he was not involved at all. At the time of the Airbus transaction, Mr. Bouchard was the ambassador for Canada to France. It is no secret that Airbus is a consortium which involves France and it is probably no secret to conclude that Mr. Bouchard may have felt stronger allegiances to France than to Canada because as a separatist he does not have too many allegiances to this country. In fact, he became leader of the Parti Québécois some time later. I have always been curious. 
Airbus at that time was anxious to establish a presence in the North American airplane market, especially the passenger market because it did not have any presence there and it was desperate to get a leghold on the North American market. Its competition was Boeing. If money did change hands, this is probably why. 
At the same time, Air Canada had a very rigorous evaluation of the bids. A group evaluated the bids from Boeing and Airbus along a number of different lines, such as operational efficiency, capacity, fuel economy, price, et cetera. Airbus really sharpened its pencils and had a very good bid proposal because it wanted to penetrate the North American passenger airplane market. I am quite confident of that fact. 
With respect to the point about the board of directors, I personally believe that Prime Minister Mulroney probably did not receive much directly in terms of the money from the Karlheinz Schreiber's of the world, but I do believe a lot of these other people did get some money. Sometimes I think it is a question of showing one's influence. 
However, in my wildest dreams I cannot imagine the former prime minister picking up the phone and saying to the chairman of Air Canada that they really had to do this with Airbus. It goes beyond the realm of possibility in my mind.
The member for Winnipeg Centre touched on the question of the appointment of board directors sympathetic to Mr. Mulroney and other aspects. I wonder if he could comment on whether he believes Mr. Lucien Bouchard may have been involved.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's knowledge and his flushing out of some of the details about the Airbus sale which added to the debate. 
I will simply say that Mr. Bouchard's name has come up a number of times in our inquiry. We do not know the extent of his involvement but I too would be very interested to learn what influence he may have exerted as the ambassador to France. I have no doubt that he was involved or included in this process in some way.
I did not have time in my speech to deal with where the money went but there were millions of dollars of grease money. It was not unusual for European companies at that time to realize that in order to grease the wheels of commerce for a sale of that size they had to sprinkle some money around. In this case it was $20 million, about $10 million on the European side and $10 million on the Canadian side. We do not know who the beneficiaries were of that grease money. 
We have a better idea of where the commissions went. They went to Frank Moores and GCI. Some have alleged that GCI was a lobby firm set up by Brian Mulroney's closest associates to act as a piggy bank, to hold the loot until such time as the smoke cleared and the beneficiaries could avail themselves of the loot. There were foreign bank accounts. 
It is extremely complex, which this is why a public inquiry may be able to put the puck in the net where we can only move the puck down the ice.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think I will get most of my 10 minutes in and I may be able to avoid questions. I would expect one or two intelligent ones from this House but that may be a fond hope.
My opening comments will be somewhat critical of this motion coming forward at this time. As one looks at it and at the other issues confronting us in this Parliament right now, the budget and the debate around that in particular, one cannot help but wonder about the motivation of the Liberals. They obviously do not want to be confronted with their flexibility on the budget and their unwillingness to stand up, as they should as the formal official opposition, and challenge the government on a great deal of this budget. They would rather sit on their hands, as they have so often done in these last six months, and not play the role they properly should and protect the Canadian people in the kind of budget that we have. Instead, they move on this.
I do not want to downplay in any way or demean the significance of the Mulroney-Schreiber and Airbus inquiry and the need for it, but that message has been clearly sent out by the ethics committee, by a great deal of the positions of all political parties, except for the Conservatives, and by the Canadian public generally.
 This debate today, I would suggest, is not really necessary because all the points that I have heard so far today have been made repeatedly in the past. The political pressure is on the House and, more specifically, on the government to get the public inquiry going as quickly as possible.
It is quite obvious that the government is very interested in prolonging the establishment of the public inquiry until the next election occurs and have the election done and over with before the public inquiry gets started and certainly before it completes its work.
 In that regard, I think the crucial issue here is not only to get the inquiry going, but that a mandate for that inquiry be given. If it follows the very clear message from the government at the present time and, to some degree, the recommendations that came from Dr. Johnston, this will be a very limited mandate that basically will do nothing. 
I would argue strongly that, if we see that limited mandate, it is intentional that it will not do anything. We will spend a chunk of money on it, we will put a lot of resources into it for a very limited mandate and we will come to no conclusions.
I want to acknowledge the work that my colleague from Winnipeg has done on the committee and the work of the committee generally in moving this forward. We also need to recognize the limitations it was functioning under. It lacked the financial and professional resources and, in particular, the forensic accounting resources that would have allowed the committee to move it even further along.
It has been a rather significant problem for me as I analyze how Parliament and our committees function as opposed to the way committees function in other Parliaments around the globe. As we see with the present government and as we saw with the prior Liberal government with the sponsorship scandal, we do not provide sufficient resources in the structure within this House and within the committees. Our structure is not flexible enough and not resourced enough to do the job that we are required to do or expected to do when we are faced with this kind of an issue and these kinds of facts. I address it specifically as a situation where we as a committee are expected to conduct a quasi inquiry without having anywhere near the resources. 
We saw that very clearly during the sponsorship scandal. I remember speaking at that time with the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who was an accountant himself, and saying that this was everything we had and that there was no way we would be able to get to the bottom of it. The committee did excellent work but, because of the limited resources, it took the Gomery inquiry to get much further along that line. 
We saw the same thing here. Excellent work, as I saw it, by the ethics committee, as far as it could go. But we saw with Mr. Mulroney his refusal to give documentation to back up what was a fairly incredible story. However, the one that really got me was when he claimed that his income tax returns were sacred.
My relationship with my wife is sacred. My relationship with my children is sacred. I want to be very clear to this House that my relationship with my accountant and the Revenue Canada office is not sacred, and neither should Mr. Mulroney's be.
That is what we are up against and not having adequate resources to really challenge that. That is why we need the inquiry established as quickly as possible and follow the report that was tabled today. We say to the Prime Minister that he must do it now and must make it with a mandate that is broad enough to get at all of the issues and to finally put this to bed for all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five members or more having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 3, 2008, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake on a point of order.
[Interjection]
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 12, 2007 consideration of the motion that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to allow for the once in a lifetime sponsorship of a relative. 
As all members have heard, the bill before the House is not new. Governments and stakeholders have debated and analyzed for several years whether such a provision would be workable.
All of us believe in the principle of reuniting families. That is not an issue. The list of those who can be sponsored from abroad is already quite extensive, contrary to the assertion made previously by the member for Parkdale—High Park. This is a point I will return to later.
Currently, those who can be sponsored include: spouses; common-law and conjugal partners; parents; grandparents; dependent children, including those who are adopted; as well as orphaned brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces or grandchildren who are under the age of 18.
The one time sponsorship option, such as that proposed in Bill C-394, is fundamentally flawed because it is an expansion of the family class which would be unsustainable and unmanageable.
Bill C-394 would define an eligible relative to include a brother or sister, an aunt or uncle, a niece or nephew, and so on.
Past experience has shown that even with more resources such an open-ended system would generate an increase in the backlog and processing times for this and other categories of immigrants, and would seriously undermine the integrity and credibility of the entire immigration program.
Responsible members will also recognize that such an expansion of the family class would create additional problems for our immigration program. As it is, our officers are already pouring significant time and effort into the family relation verification process. 
Understandably, we must ensure that family members and relatives are who they say they are. Expanding the family class in the way this bill proposes would make the family relation verification process extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Provisions already exist to process applications from relatives who are not immediate family members in certain circumstances. There is little reason to duplicate this in a separate piece of legislation with such serious problems.
If Canadians and permanent residents have no close family members in Canada, and none abroad whom they can sponsor, they can sponsor a more distant relative, regardless of their age or relationship.
Paragraph 117(1)(h) of the immigration and refugee protection regulations defines foreign nationals as members of the family class with respect to a sponsor if they are a relative of the sponsor, regardless of their age and if the sponsor does not have a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner, or any other immediate family member in Canada or abroad.
In addition, section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act can be used to permit the sponsorship of a foreign national relative who would not otherwise qualify as a member of the family class if exceptional humanitarian and compassionate grounds exist.
Furthermore, foreign nationals who apply as skilled workers and who have close family members in Canada are given the advantage of five additional points on the selection grid.
As well, regulations already exist to make it much easier for Canadians and permanent residents to sponsor their loved ones from abroad and expand the family class in a well managed and sustainable way.
Our system for sponsoring family members is one of the most flexible in the world. Canada allows citizens, as well as permanent residents, equal opportunity to sponsor members of their family. This is different from countries such as the United States, which restricts some sponsorship privileges only to citizens.
Canada is also different from some other countries in that we do not apply economic selection criteria to family class members. Far from being too restrictive, Canada's family class program is expansive in a balanced and well managed way.
Today we include spouses, common-law and conjugal partners, dependent children, as well as orphaned siblings, nieces, nephews and grandchildren.
Canadians and permanent residents can also sponsor their parents and grandparents. If a citizen or permanent resident has none of these close relatives, that person may sponsor any other relative who would not otherwise be eligible for sponsorship from abroad.
In exceptional cases certain requirements of the family class program can be waived on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to allow individuals to sponsor their loved ones who otherwise would not qualify.
Countries such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom include different and various combinations of individuals in their respective definitions of family class members, but none of those four follow the wide open example of the private member's bill before us today. This could greatly increase the potential for fraud and abuse, in addition to having an incalculable impact on the backlog and processing times, all imposed controls on intake through either their selection criteria or more restrictive definitions of who may be considered a family member. The model Canada has chosen, therefore, compares favourably on the world stage.
The family class has already been expanded in a well planned and responsible way. Provisions already exist for individuals who wish to sponsor an individual not included in the family class without jeopardizing the integrity of the immigration program itself. 
Once again, I must repeat that such a potentially wide open approach would have a huge impact on our processing capacity and would significantly increase the already large backlog our government inherited from the previous government.
That said, I would note that the previous Liberal government expressed clear opposition to this legislation when it came up for debate in previous versions of the bill. Our colleagues in the Liberal Party have also expressed misgivings about this bill more recently, during the first hour of debate. The former Liberal parliamentary secretary, the current member for Vancouver Centre, said on February 12, 2004: 
 If this proposal is adopted, not only will we need significant resources to deal with a larger number of cases, but we will also need proportionally more resources to deal with the family class applications, simply to maintain the existing ratio between family and economic class immigration. 
She went on to say:
 The changes proposed...runs counter to...the principles of fairness, balance and consultation, and so we cannot support it. 
More recently, in the first hour of debate on this bill, the Liberal immigration critic and member for Vaughan said:
 The bill essentially could create an exponential influx of immigration applications that could result in delays in processing priority members of the family class that are spouses, partners and dependent children. 
These are the words of the opposition in this legislature and are not our own but are worth repeating. They are positions that have been expressed by the Liberal Party, both when it was in government and in opposition, and they are positions that it still holds. I hope the Liberal Party will do the responsible thing and oppose this legislation as it did a short time ago when it was in government.
Before I close, I must say that I find the NDP position on the immigration backlog issue astounding. As the NDP has already indicated, it will be voting against our measures in budget 2008 that will help reduce the immigration backlog. Not only is it going to vote against measures to reduce the backlog but through Bill C-394 it is actively working to exponentially increase that backlog. That is what this bill does. 
I cannot stand for that and I encourage my colleagues in the House not to stand for it, either. I cannot support the concept of a once in a lifetime sponsorship and will vote against this fundamentally flawed scheme set out in Bill C-394. I hope that all hon. members will join me by not voting for this bill.
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-394, this private member's bill, is not a new initiative. It is a repeat of several previous initiatives of private members to put forward amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would change the definition of family class, expanding it to allow a greater number of people in the relative class to be viewed as family class. 
Taken in isolation, it might be seen as somewhat benign and not complex. Certainly, as I will mention later, the proposal in concept has been received favourably in immigration quarters, among immigration groups and settlement groups. One can understand why they might see this as a positive change, but I will address some of those issues later in relation to immigration settlement.
We in the Liberal Party know that immigration is a critical and fundamental component of Canada's future growth and prosperity. Without a healthy immigration program, our country, our children's country, may fail to achieve many of the very promising objectives that we see out there in the future, both economically and sociologically.
 We see that immigration has not just built the country to where it is now, but that it is actually fundamental in taking us from the present into the future as a strong and independent economy with the necessary skills and connection to the rest of the world. We are a trading nation and we see that immigration is a factor in how we will maintain and improve our trade relationships around the world.
The current immigration intake in Canada is approximately 300,000 persons per year. It is just slightly under that, but I will use the round number of 300,000.
 Within that number, there are included what we call the economic class, which would be the skilled workers, investors and other persons in those categories, and there is the family class, where the criteria applied, aside from the normal criteria involving health and criminal record checks, simply involve the relationship between the Canadian who sponsors and the family member who has applied. That category of immigration has served us well and is continuing to do so. Then there is the refugee class, a small component of the 300,000, but in the vicinity of 15,000 to 25,000 persons each year.
With all of that coming together, we have a fairly decent immigration flow. The one point I would make in understanding this is that between the family class and the economic class, based on a policy decision, those numbers are split between 60% being economic class and 40% being family class. It used to be in the range of fifty-fifty, but a decision was taken at about the time of the adoption of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on the advice of the standing committee and other stakeholders, that 60% of our non-refugee class intake be economic class people with skills and 40% be family class.
That has a big impact on how we operate the immigration system now. It has huge implications for the type of bill proposed in this case, which would purport to expand the family class.
We have had a lot of complaints in the House, going back many years, about the so-called immigration backlog. Everyone says that the processing times take too long, but if we look closely at the immigration system, we will see, not to our surprise, that in virtually every year, going back 25 years, we have succeeded in bringing into Canada numbers of people within our targets.
 Those targets are selected every year by the government and by the department. Every year, we have successfully brought into Canada the exact number of people, give or take a few thousand, of persons that we projected we would bring in. In order to bring in those people, we have to process them, get them into Canada and get them settled here. There is a whole process involved in that and it is complex too.
Therefore, even though we have a so-called backlog of approximately 800,000 people, we are succeeding every year as a country in bringing in exactly the same number of people that we want to bring in, and that is approximately 300,000. If we have a backlog of 800,000 and we bring in about 300,000, that averages out to about two and a half to three years of inventory of applications. That is a given.
Thus, somebody who complains that there is a three year processing time for a particular immigrant is simply looking at the reality, because it takes us three years to move the 800,000 people through the system. There is no way to do it any more quickly. The officials abroad cannot process any more quickly than they do. 
Our immigration receiving areas, including Toronto, where I proudly represent a riding, Vancouver, Montreal and other places where we receive large numbers of immigrants, are hardly capable of assimilating and settling numbers much larger than what is coming in now. These people must have places to live, jobs, opportunities and schools. There are large numbers coming in now, with approximately 1% of our population coming in every year, and this is a huge challenge for communities. We invest federal money in that process.
The point is that the complaints about processing times are in most cases completely unfounded and do not take into account the fact that the department successfully achieves its targets every year.
What the current bill would do is expand the definition of family class, but if we think about it, all the bill would do is expand that 40% family class component and push it out beyond where it is now. If we stick to the 40% rule for the family class, the backlog in the number of applications will just get bigger and suddenly we will have a six year or seven year backlog, which may impair our ability to prioritize the spousal component of family class.
 We do process spouses within six to twelve months. If we promise to do that, but the rest of the family class is still sitting there in a queue and this current bill adds thousands and thousands of new family class applicants who are not in the spousal category, that family class queue is going to go out to five to ten years. I do not think members of the House would want to see that happen.
My time is quickly coming to an end. It is normal for immigration groups and settlement groups to want to support a bill like this, but we have to keep in mind that those people legitimately speak in favour of their clients and their members. They naturally have an interest in expanding the family immigration class. 
However, we have to look at the bill in the overall picture. We have to look at the overall immigration system. At the present time, it simply is not doable. It is not achievable to simply change the definition and hope that all the rest of the system will work well. I regret that.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the bill of my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. I listened carefully to what my colleagues said earlier. If this does raise concerns about allowing more people to enter Canada, we should examine this bill from another perspective.
When we talk about people who can be a sponsor once in their lifetime, we are speaking of human beings and not quotas or numbers. We are talking about people who came to Canada, perhaps years earlier, with dreams and sometimes without possessions, and who were able to integrate, to put down roots, to contribute to society and who now wish to have family members—not necessarily immediate family members—join them so they, too can have a better future and a better life.
There is nothing more noble than wanting to help someone who would like to immigrate to Quebec or Canada, even if you are a distant relative. We must not forget that when people leave their own country to go elsewhere, it is because they are looking for a better life in place where they can grow financially, physically and spiritually. That should be uppermost in our minds as we talk about this bill.
I am able to speak to this bill in this way because two people in my riding whom I know quite well are political refugees from Tanzania. These people have a specific problem today. They would like to be reunited with their family and have their children come and join them. Unfortunately, that is proving to be very difficult.
There has been mention of an immigration backlog. There certainly is a backlog, because roughly 50 of the 156 commissioner positions have been cut, even though there are 115,000 immigration applications. There were 115,000 as of September 2005, and then 50 position were cut. How are the poor commissioners who are left supposed to examine more applications? They are not robots.
These cuts were made after the Conservatives came to power. When the Conservatives took power two years ago, Canada was short five commissioners. The person who was to appoint replacements had a list of 80 people who could fill the positions effectively and immediately. But instead of acting right away, the government preferred to wait and leave the positions vacant.
If there is a backlog, it is not because Canada is accepting too many immigrants, but because the government cut immigration commissioner positions.
The two people who live in my riding are Tanzanian refugees who met in a refugee camp. The woman had children whom she believed had died when her village was attacked. She narrowly escaped death and was taken to the refugee camp before being brought here.
Imagine her surprise a few years ago when she was told her children had been seen alive. Since then she has been trying to find them to reunite with them, but she has had to go through so much red tape.
The case of the man in this couple also concerns us. He was working for the Tanzanian government at the time. When he realized that something bad was brewing, he quit his job. He was then perceived as an enemy of the military and he was set to be assassinated. He also ended up in a refugee camp. He then came here as a political refugee. When he left the camp, he failed to mention that he had children because he feared for their lives.
The one believed her children were dead and the other did not want his children to be killed. Today, these two people are having difficulty bringing their children here. They are being denied DNA testing, under the pretext that it is too complicated and too expensive.
All these immigrants are asking for is permission to sponsor a member of their extended family once in their lives. The government is in a position to help them. As my colleague said earlier, when immigrants come here, they have to find a school or a job, they have to put down roots and integrate and so on. Is there a better way for people to integrate than to come to a country where they know people, where they have family, people who love them and will help them settle in? Is there a better way than being able to count on people upon arriving rather than finding oneself alone, which was, sadly, the case for these two people?
I do not think there is a better way than that. Claiming that this would put the country at risk is not a valid argument. How could it possibly put the country at risk? People who were allowed to become permanent residents and citizens here have already had their backgrounds checked. The people they want to invite here, the people they want to sponsor, will also have to go through background checks. If an immigrant seeks to sponsor a person once in his or her life, that does not mean that the applicant will be exempt from the process that all immigrants have to go through. That is nonsense. People are trying to misrepresent the issue by saying anything they please to make others believe that this bill is no good. 
I am sorry, but we believe this bill has merit and certainly deserves to be referred to committee for further study and review of the parameters. If certain things about the bill bother or upset the members, they can examine them. That is what parliamentary committees are for.
I hope my hon. colleagues will not listen to our Conservative colleague and that, quite the opposite, they will be willing to side with reason for once, and vote to refer this bill to committee.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to support Bill C-394, put forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park.
This is a terrific bill. All members of the NDP have given very strong support to this idea. It is one simple thing we can do to fix our terrible immigration system. We support the idea of allowing families in Canada to sponsor, once in a lifetime, a relative who would not otherwise qualify under the existing family clause.
Originally I sponsored the bill and I am delighted now that the member for Parkdale—High Park has it. I know she has been a passionate advocate for family reunification, as have all of us in the NDP.
I want to remind the House, because members have probably forgotten, especially the Liberals, that the idea of being able to sponsor a family member once in a lifetime came from a former Liberal citizenship and immigration minister. We know the Liberals like to turn their backs on all the things in which they once believed, and this is another example of that.
The minister, Elinor Caplan, suggested this program. She came to Vancouver and talked about it publicly. It got a huge reception in the community and people thought it was a great idea. She came back to Ottawa and the bureaucrats got hold of her, I think, and maybe other members of her caucus, and that was the end of it. I thought this was a good opportunity, and as a result of that, we developed this bill, and we have not let go of it since. We believe it is a very sound idea.
It is interesting to hear the debate today. It is interesting to hear the Conservative members say that the bill will be unsustainable and unmanageable and that it will create a huge backlog. Is that not the party that claimed it would fix the immigration system? Is that not the party that went out and campaigned on this? Yet we still have a system in which people get completely clogged. It takes years and years to get a family member here, to reunite with a loved one, to come here as an independent. The Conservatives did nothing, as the Liberals before them.
 Therefore, I find it ironic that the folks who said they would clean up the immigration system and allow people to come to Canada now deny this very straightforward simple proposal, which would allow families here at least some relief, some way of reuniting with a family member.
As well, it strikes me ironic that in Canada, for example, we have the province of Manitoba, which has the most successful provincial nominee program in Canada. The Premier of Manitoba just came back from the Philippines with agreements and proposals to increase immigration from the Philippines. I know that Manitoba, over the last year, has seen something like 10,000 new immigrants come to that province along with their family members. It is using its provincial nominee program because it is so fed up with the fact that the federal program does not work any more. This is an indication of something that actually works. We should give credit to the Government of Manitoba for recognizing the importance of immigration in its community.
I know in my own community of Vancouver East, we would not exist in Vancouver. The history of immigration has built our city, the people who work in our city, the people who provide businesses, who provide services and cultural contributions. Vancouver would not exist as a modern day city if it were not for immigration.
 I, like all my colleagues in the NDP, and I am sure other members of the House, have people coming to my office every day with the most heartfelt stories of being unable to be reunited with family members. We deal with hundreds of cases every year. Some of them just make us want to cry when we hear the stories that unfold of how people have to deal with this system and the heartbreak they go through, when all they want to do is to have a reunification of their families. 
The studies and the evidence of what the net benefits are to Canada from immigration are huge. I do not think anybody here would dispute that. Therefore, the question that remains is this. Why today, when we have an opportunity to vote on the bill, would we have the Conservatives and the Liberals speaking against it? Why would we not take this opportunity to do something straightforward and simple, something that will not affect the system overall, but will make a huge difference in the lives of tens of thousands of families in our country to have the opportunity to bring forward a son or a daughter over the age of 22 who is not a dependant, or maybe an aunt or an uncle, a brother or sister or a first cousin? It might be someone who is very close to them in their family relations, but under existing provisions would be prohibited and prevented from doing so.
The bill has always been a complete win-win situation. It speaks to our deep values and the history of supporting and encouraging immigration and seeing the incredible positive benefits coming from it. We know the system overall doe not work, but we have the opportunity now to at least do this one thing that would allow some people to come here and be reunited with their family.
It is disappointing today to hear Conservative members dish this and say that it will not work. It is disappointing to hear Liberal members say that they do not care about this any more and that they will not allow it to happen.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Where is Elinor when you need her?
Libby Davies:  Exactly. Where is the former minister of immigration? Maybe we should have her in the House and she could speak to it.
Members of the NDP are behind the bill 100%. We think it is workable. It is manageable. It has incredible support in the community. We have had petitions and letters come in on this issue. People want to see this happen. We could do something small, but it would have a big impact on the lives of people.
This is a private member's bill, so members should be make up their own minds about it. They should look at its merits, never mind what the parliamentary secretary said, and think about their constituents and whether they would support a measure like this. If members address the bill on that basis, they will find that they have to support it.
Again, I congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park for bringing the bill forward and for sticking with it. Members of the NDP will stick with it too and we will do everything we can to get it through the House.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their input in this debate, especially my colleague from Vancouver East, who has been a trailblazer when it comes to immigration policy. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Bloc who have spoken in support. Colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative parties have expressed opposition to this bill and I guess I am little baffled by that. 
Of course, there is no one perfect solution to an immigration system. However, as we look around the world and we see insecurity and hardship, we appreciate what we have built here in Canada. We know that there are others who want to come to Canada. We know there are many newcomers who come here as refugees who are separated against their will. However, we know that one of the best predictors of newcomer success in settlement is the support of family members, and that is why family reunification is so important. The enormous advantage newcomers have when they can count on the economic, social and psychological support of family members is readily apparent. We need to assist families to reunite as quickly as possible.
The sponsorship requirements on families are enormous. To take responsibility for another person for 10 years is a huge commitment and responsibility. Ten years is a long time. Things can change. But the sponsor is still on the hook, which is quite a significant responsibility. People do not take sponsorship lightly, as some in the Conservative and Liberal parties suggest. There is not going to be an opening of the floodgates here because of the very onerous requirements of the sponsorship responsibilities.
Members of the government expressed concern that the bill would open the floodgates and increase the backlog, but clearly, the unacceptable delays in the immigration system today are caused by inadequate resources. Families did not create this backlog. It is clearly the factor of a lack of resources by this government and the previous government. Certainly there would be some additional applicants under this bill, which is why I am proposing it, but let us look at the facts.
 As Canada positions itself early on in the 21st century, we face some steep challenges. We have an aging population. There is a demographic shift in the workplace as baby boomers retire, which means a greater burden on our social programs, especially medicare. New growth in Canada's future workforce will come from immigration. We will be competing with countries around the world for the best and brightest newcomers. One factor newcomers look at is the ability to be joined by their family members, their closest relatives, in the new country of their choice. Others come to Canada as a safe haven. They come as refugees and they are desperate to have their family members join them here.
Why would we place additional barriers in front of newcomers? There are other options.
 I sit on the industry committee and I hear corporate executives come to the industry committee calling for a rapid expansion of the temporary workers program, but I do not think that is the way to go. People who come here temporarily are often unskilled, are paid very low wages, may not speak either official language and are extremely vulnerable to exploitation. We have seen this already with some high-profile problems across our country.
The better way to address a labour shortage is to increase the acceptance of working age adults as immigrants so that they start off when they come to Canada with full rights and full participation in all aspects of Canadian society. My family reunification bill would do just that.
Let us also recognize that Canada falls far behind many other countries in looking after some of our most vulnerable members. When family members come here and reunite with newcomer families, they can provide child care, elder care and care for people with disabilities. That is how they help family members settle. They will save Canada resources in doing so.
We will have the opportunity to demonstrate whether or not we support the idea of family reunification. We do not have to agree on all the details. However, if we support the goal, let us vote in favour of this bill, take it to committee and there we can answer questions and make any amendments that need to be made.
I thank my hon. colleagues for their support on this important initiative. And for those members who have spoken against it, I urge them to reconsider, support newcomers and support this bill for family reunification.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:56 p.m. the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 1:56 p.m.)