Résumé de la séance
- Le scandale des subventions et contributions de DRHC a dominé la période des questions; des députés réformistes et bloquistes ont cité le propre document questions-réponses du ministère pour alléguer que les fonctionnaires avaient systématiquement été instruits d'ignorer la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques pour des raisons politiques; la ministre Jane Stewart a catégoriquement rejeté les allégations et invoqué le plan en six points et la fermeture de 37 dossiers examinés.
- Les activités de lobbyisme non enregistré de René Fugère et sa relation avec le Premier ministre et le CPM ont été mises en cause par des députés bloquistes et progressistes-conservateurs; le premier ministre Chrétien a d'abord déclaré que Fugère « n'a jamais travaillé pour moi » avant d'admettre qu'il avait agi « bénévolement en remplacement » à une ou deux occasions, et a confirmé que le commissaire à l'éthique avait été saisi du défaut d'enregistrement.
- Le dossier Placeteco a été examiné par des députés bloquistes, qui ont demandé si la subvention de 1,2 million de dollars du Fonds transitoire pour la création d'emplois — dont la majeure partie aurait servi à rembourser des dettes plutôt qu'à créer des emplois — ferait l'objet d'un remboursement comme dans le cas de Vidéotron, et si la nomination du fiduciaire Gilles Champagne au conseil d'administration de Postes Canada influençait le refus du gouvernement d'ordonner une enquête.
- Des députés néo-démocrates ont interpellé le gouvernement sur deux dossiers scientifiques : le génome humain et la protection des séquences génétiques brutes contre l'appropriation commerciale à la suite de l'annonce Blair-Clinton, et la décision de l'OMC contre le Canada sur les produits pharmaceutiques susceptible de coûter 200 millions de dollars au système de santé canadien.
- Le projet de loi 11 de l'Alberta et sa violation potentielle de la Loi canadienne sur la santé a été soulevé par la députée néo-démocrate Judy Wasylycia-Leis; le ministre Allan Rock a refusé de répondre par oui ou non, soulignant que le projet de loi n'avait pas encore passé la deuxième lecture et que les règlements n'avaient pas encore été publiés.
- Le ministre des Finances Paul Martin a nié qu'une décision ait été prise de privatiser le programme d'obligations d'épargne du Canada, mais le député progressiste-conservateur Scott Brison a produit un document interne de la Banque du Canada émanant de Roy Flett, chef des GSS, indiquant qu'on lui avait demandé de préparer les Services des titres publics à déplacer les activités de la dette de détail à l'extérieur de la banque dans les 12 à 18 prochains mois; Martin a précisé que ce qui était à l'étude était une possible fusion des fonctions de la Banque du Canada et de Canada investissements et épargne sous le ministère des Finances.
Le ministre Martin a concrètement révélé que ce qui était réellement à l'étude n'était pas une privatisation, mais une possible fusion de l'administration de la dette de détail de la Banque du Canada et de Canada investissements et épargne sous le ministère des Finances, une précision factuelle spécifique qui a recadré la question de la propriété publique ou privée du programme d'obligations d'épargne du Canada.
Precisely chronicles four specific dates (November 17, December 13, March 2, March 13) with the minister's exact responses on each occasion and asks a single binary yes/no question: does Alberta's Bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act.
En réponse à des allégations détaillées citant une peine criminelle précise prévue par la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques et affirmant que les violations étaient devenues routinières dans son ministère, la réponse intégrale de Stewart a été « Monsieur le Président, nous ne violons pas la loi », sans réfutation factuelle, sans contexte et sans engagement sur le fond de la question.
Questions sans réponse
- Miss Deborah Grey et M. Monte Solberg ont tous deux demandé si la ministre Stewart avait renvoyé les violations potentielles de l'article 37 de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques à la GRC; la ministre n'a jamais répondu à cette question, se réfugiant chaque fois derrière le plan en six points.
- Mme Judy Wasylycia-Leis a demandé au ministre Rock une réponse claire par oui ou non sur la question de savoir si le projet de loi 11 de l'Alberta viole la Loi canadienne sur la santé, ainsi qu'un calendrier pour achever l'analyse du gouvernement; aucune réponse directe ni aucun calendrier n'ont été fournis.
- M. Ghislain Lebel a demandé si le refus du gouvernement d'ordonner une enquête sur Placeteco était lié à la nomination par le Premier ministre de Gilles Champagne au conseil d'administration de Postes Canada; la ministre n'a pas du tout abordé le lien Champagne-Postes Canada.
- Mme Christiane Gagnon a demandé à la ministre Stewart de déposer à la Chambre les documents prouvant que le critère des « poches de pauvreté » existait au moment où les subventions ont été accordées dans sa circonscription de Brant; la ministre a seulement renvoyé à un article de journal local et n'a déposé aucun document.
- Mme Alexa McDonough a demandé si le gouvernement allait porter en appel la décision de l'OMC contre le Canada sur les produits pharmaceutiques, qui selon elle priverait le système de santé canadien de 200 millions de dollars; le ministre Pettigrew a décrit le calendrier procédural sans indiquer si le Canada allait interjeter appel.
Pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il fonctionné pendant des années en dehors de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques et des directives du Conseil du Trésor, comme le montrent des documents internes indiquant que le personnel avait été instruit d'être souple et de ne pas laisser périmer les fonds?
Cites obtained documents and quotes staff language about being told to be 'flexible and responsive' in apparent violation of the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines, with a clear accountability ask, though framed with rhetorical flourish.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have obtained documents that show HRDC officials regularly flaunted the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines because their political masters interfered. Departmental questions and answers were prepared in response to the fallout of this damning internal audit. Staff said “We were told to be flexible and responsive and not to lapse funds. Now we are being told we have to obey the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines”. How inconvenient. Why was this government operating for years outside the law?
Stewart a rejeté l'allégation, a cité la vérification interne comme fondement des améliorations administratives et a signalé que les 37 comptes avaient été fermés et la plupart des trop-payés recouvrés, avec 600 $ encore en suspens.
Stewart categorically rejects the allegation and pivots to the six-point plan and progress on the 37 accounts, providing some concrete numbers ($600 outstanding) but never addressing whether political interference caused staff to operate outside the law.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as is becoming usual, I categorically reject the allegation made by the hon. member. Those members are not interested in dealing with facts, so let us review them again. We received an internal audit which said that we could improve our administrative practices with regard to grants and contributions. I asked for a tough response. We are now implementing that response. I am glad to say that as of yesterday we closed the 37 accounts that we were reviewing as a result of the audit. Of the overpayments identified, the majority has been collected, and $600 is yet outstanding.
Étant donné que la violation de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques est passible d'une peine de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et que le personnel était régulièrement instruit de l'ignorer, quelles lois la ministre ne serait-elle pas prête à enfreindre à des fins politiques?
Points to concrete facts — employees taking out radio ads and section of the Financial Administration Act carrying a five-year prison term — but the ask devolves into a broad rhetorical charge about what laws the government will not break.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, she is not out of the crisis yet because very recently her own employees have resented the fact that she continues to blame anybody but herself. In fact, they have resorted to taking out radio ads to defend themselves. They were told to play with the rules. They were told not to pay attention to details like the law. Breaking the Financial Administration Act carries with it a five year prison term, but in HRDC it had become routine. What laws will the minister and the government not break for their own political gain?
Stewart a seulement déclaré que le gouvernement ne viole pas la loi.
The minister's entire answer is four words — 'We do not break the law' — with no engagement whatsoever with the specific statutory provision or the employee radio ads cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we do not break the law.
Étant donné que les documents Q&R du ministère montrent que le sous-ministre a dit au personnel qu'il devait obéir à la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques seulement « à partir de maintenant », pourquoi la ministre a-t-elle permis que la non-conformité antérieure se poursuive?
Quotes verbatim from departmental Q&A documents, including the deputy minister's statement that 'We have to work within the rules, starting now,' making the implied question — why was the law not followed until now — factually grounded, though the explicit ask is vague.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is one girl's opinion. I would like to quote from her own employees.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the actual questions and answers, which I did not dream up. This was something the department came up with and I would like to quote verbatim. The staff said “Now we are being asked and told that we have to obey the Financial Administration Act”, to which the deputy minister has stated “We have to work within the rules, starting now”. I would like the minister to stand and say why in the world she allows this to continue.
Hear, hear.
Stewart a indiqué que le ministère avait cerné des améliorations administratives à apporter, qu'un plan en six points était mis en œuvre, et a félicité les employés pour leur travail acharné.
Stewart references the six-point plan and praises employees' efforts but does not address why the deputy minister's 'starting now' formulation implies prior non-compliance, deflecting with general progress claims.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this girl will answer as she has over the—
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. We have identified that we have administrative improvements to make in my department. We are implementing a six point plan. I have had the opportunity to travel and visit offices where our employees are working their heads off to make sure this plan gets implemented and to improve the system on behalf of Canadians.
Le document Q&R du ministère reconnaît que le personnel avait été instruit de ne pas laisser périmer les fonds, ce qui contredit directement l'article 37 de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques; la ministre peut-elle expliquer cette contradiction?
Cites the specific departmental Q&A document by title, quotes it directly, and cross-references section 37 of the Financial Administration Act verbatim, making a precise and well-grounded accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I refer to the questions and answers from the human resources minister's own department. The title is: “Responding to What We Learned from the Internal Audit Report”. Question one reads: “We were told—not to lapse funds”. However, section 37 of the Financial Administration Act specifically states: “The balance of an appropriation that remains unexpended at the end of a fiscal year—shall lapse”. Clearly what the department acknowledges it told its employees flies in the face of an act of parliament. Will the minister explain that please?
Stewart a indiqué que le ministère avait cerné des améliorations administratives et mettait en œuvre le plan en six points, et a félicité les employés de DRHC pour leur engagement à améliorer le processus.
Stewart does not address section 37, the quoted document, or the contradiction between what employees were told and the statutory lapse requirement, instead repeating the six-point plan and praising staff.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we have identified that we will make improvements to our administrative process. What we are doing now is implementing our six point plan, and we are making serious progress. When it comes to the work of the employees of this department I can tell that party that the men and women of Human Resources Development Canada are together in committing themselves to improving the process for the service of Canadians.
La ministre peut-elle expliquer pourquoi ses propres employés ont été instruits de contrevenir à la loi en ne laissant pas périmer les fonds, contrairement à la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques?
Narrows the ask to a specific directive given to employees — not to lapse funds — and ties it explicitly to illegality, though it largely repeats the ground of Exchange 4 without new documentary citation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister has some serious explaining to do about what her own employees were told by the people in charge; that is to say, herself. Clearly her employees were told not to lapse funds. They acknowledge that. The law says that is illegal. Can the minister explain why her own employees were told to contravene the law of the land?
Stewart a indiqué que le ministère avait élaboré un plan en six points, appliquerait les exigences du Conseil du Trésor et veillerait à ce que les employés aient la formation et les ressources nécessaires, sans expliquer pourquoi on leur avait dit le contraire auparavant.
Stewart does not explain why employees were told to contravene the law, instead restating the six-point plan and Treasury Board requirements, a clear deflection from the specific question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what we have done together as a department is to build the six point plan that will improve the administration of our grants and contributions. We will apply the Treasury Board requirements. We will ensure that our employees are trained and have the resources they need to do the job. We are committed to improving our processes for the betterment of grants and contributions that make a difference in the lives of Canadians.
Comment le premier ministre peut-il justifier les interventions politiques de son gouvernement, étant donné que des fonctionnaires de DRHC affirment être constamment soumis à des pressions politiques qui entraînent une mauvaise gestion?
References HRDC officials' stated reason for poor management — constant political pressure — and asks the Prime Minister to justify such political interventions, but the ask is broad and lacks specific documentary citation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the repeated denials of the Prime Minister, Human Resources Development Canada officials maintain that the reason why the department is so poorly managed is that they are constantly subjected to political pressure in their work. In view of this, how can the Prime Minister justify such political interventions by his government?
Chrétien a déclaré que pour les fonds transférés aux circonscriptions aux fins de création d'emplois, les membres de chaque circonscription électorale, tant de l'opposition que du gouvernement, doivent être consultés.
Chrétien acknowledges that members of both opposition and government ridings are consulted on job-creation fund transfers, which is tangentially relevant but does not address whether political pressure caused mismanagement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of moneys transferred to ridings for job creation, it is provided that members for each electoral riding, both from the opposition and the government, must be consulted.
René Fugère — qui fait l'objet de deux enquêtes, dont une liée à une subvention de 100 000 $ de DRHC à l'Auberge Grand-Mère — illustre-t-il les interventions politiques douteuses que dénoncent les fonctionnaires de DRHC?
Names a specific individual (René Fugère), identifies two specific investigations (Auberge des Gouverneurs and Auberge Grand-Mère Inn with a cited $100,000 grant), and asks whether this illustrates the political interventions HRDC officials are condemning.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about more than mere consultations. In the series of investigations targeting Human Resources Development Canada, a frequently mentioned name is that of René Fugère. It would appear that he is well known by the Prime Minister. Mr. Fugère is the object of two investigations, one concerning the Auberge des Gouverneurs, in Shawinigan, and another concerning the Auberge Grand-Mère Inn, which received a $100,000 grant from the Department of Human Resources Development. Is this not an illustration of what HDRC officials are condemning, namely that there all kinds of dubious political interventions?
Chrétien a déclaré que dans chaque cas, le député péquiste et le gouvernement péquiste avaient été consultés et avaient approuvé les subventions qui ont contribué à créer des emplois dans la circonscription d'un ministre et d'un député péquiste.
Chrétien deflects by noting that the PQ MNA and PQ government were consulted and approved grants that created jobs in PQ ridings, which does not address the specific investigations into Fugère or the $100,000 grant.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in every case, the PQ MNA and the PQ government were consulted, and they approved the grants that helped create jobs in the riding of a PQ minister and a PQ member of the National Assembly.
Selon TVA, René Fugère perçoit également des honoraires de lobbyiste, notamment auprès de DRHC; comment le premier ministre peut-il nier les interventions politiques à DRHC compte tenu de sa proximité connue avec Fugère?
Cites a TVA report alleging Fugère collected lobbyist fees targeting HRDC specifically, and asks the PM to reconcile his denial of political intervention with his known closeness to Fugère, though 'known closeness' is asserted rather than documented.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to TVA, René Fugère, not content to act as the Prime Minister's representative, is also collecting fees as a lobbyist, lobbying Human Resources Development Canada in particular. In this context, how can the Prime Minister deny political intervention in Human Resources Development Canada, as the departmental employees have decried, given his known closeness to René Fougère?
Chrétien a déclaré que Fugère n'avait jamais travaillé pour lui, a reconnu l'allégation selon laquelle Fugère n'était jamais inscrit comme lobbyiste, a indiqué que le commissaire à l'éthique avait été chargé d'examiner la question et a précisé qu'il s'agirait d'une infraction à la loi administrative, et non au Code criminel.
Chrétien provides a direct denial that Fugère worked for him, acknowledges the lobbyist registration issue, confirms the ethics commissioner was asked to look into it, and distinguishes administrative law from the Criminal Code — a reasonably substantive partial answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that Mr. Fugère has never worked for me. There is legislation on lobbyists. There is a claim that he was never registered, and we ourselves asked the ethics commissioner to look into this. This is an offence, not under the Criminal Code, but under an administrative law.
Compte tenu de la preuve que Fugère a utilisé l'adresse du CPM, le numéro de téléphone et de télécopieur du premier ministre, ainsi qu'une lettre du CPM le désignant comme représentant officiel à un symposium régional sur le tourisme, comment le premier ministre peut-il affirmer que Fugère n'a jamais travaillé pour lui?
Cites specific documentary evidence — a PMO letter designating Fugère as official representative, use of the PMO address, the Prime Minister's telephone number and fax number at a regional tourism symposium — directly contradicting the PM's prior denial.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Prime Minister can say what he has just said in this House, when there is proof that René Fugère acted as a representative of the PMO in a regional tourism symposium, using the PMO address, the Prime Minister's telephone number, the Prime Minister's fax number, and what is more, had a letter from the PMO designating him as his official representative? How can he say such a thing?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien a concédé que Fugère avait agi à une ou deux reprises à titre bénévole en remplacement d'une personne de son bureau qui n'avait pu y assister, mais a soutenu que Fugère n'avait jamais été payé par le gouvernement canadien ou son bureau et l'a décrit comme un solide militant de son parti dans sa circonscription.
Chrétien partially concedes the point, acknowledging Fugère acted 'on one or two occasions on a voluntary basis as a replacement,' but insists he was never paid by the government, offering a partial and partially responsive answer that shifts rather than fully addresses the contradiction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, he did act on one or two occasions—
—on a voluntary basis as a replacement for someone in my office who was unable to attend. He was a volunteer. He was never paid by the Canadian government, by my office, to do so. He is a strong party member from my riding, who works on behalf of business, who has represented the native peoples, who has represented others. This is what he does as a profession.
Le premier ministre suivra-t-il l'exemple de MM. Blair et Clinton et assurera-t-il aux Canadiens que la séquence brute des gènes humains n'est pas à vendre?
References the Blair-Clinton announcement on the human genome and frames a clear policy ask — will Canada ensure raw gene sequences are not for sale — though the question is broad and could be sharper on what specific commitment is sought.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Decoding the human genome is an important key to scientific and medical research. The profits of research into the human genome should be measured in human lives and not in dollars. Will the Prime Minister follow the lead of Messrs. Blair and Clinton and assure us that the raw sequence of human genes is not for sale?
Manley a reconnu l'importance de l'annonce de Blair et Clinton, a mentionné une affaire devant les tribunaux canadiens concernant le soi-disant rat de Harvard et a indiqué que le gouvernement examinerait d'autres aspects de l'annonce Clinton-Blair concernant la protection continue de la propriété intellectuelle.
Manley acknowledges the importance of the Blair-Clinton announcement, notes the Harvard rat case before Canadian courts, and says other aspects will be considered, but does not commit Canada to any position on whether raw gene sequences are for sale.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we know that this was a very important announcement by Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton. We also know that there is already a case before the courts in Canada that will address the question of trademarks with respect to the so-called Harvard rat. Some questions are already before the courts. We will also consider the other aspects of the announcement by Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair with respect to the continued protection of intellectual property.
Le gouvernement est-il prêt à en appeler de la décision de l'OMC contre le Canada sur les produits pharmaceutiques, ce qui signifiera 200 millions de dollars supplémentaires drainés du système de soins de santé du Canada vers les fabricants pharmaceutiques multinationaux?
Cites the WTO ruling against Canada on pharmaceuticals and a specific dollar figure ($200 million) drained from the health care system, with a clear ask about whether Canada will appeal, though the question trails off into a broader rhetorical concern about access.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I hope again that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to indicate where he stands on this issue. The Prime Minister knows that the WTO has ruled against Canada on pharmaceuticals. That ruling will mean another $200 million drained from Canada's health care system to the multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers. Is the government prepared to appeal that ruling, and what steps is Canada taking to ensure that the benefit of modern pharmaceuticals and of genetic research will be available to all human kind and not appropriated primarily for the commercial—
Pettigrew a indiqué que le rapport intérimaire du groupe spécial de l'OMC avait été communiqué aux parties le 3 mars à titre confidentiel, que le Canada avait soumis des observations au groupe le 10 mars et que le rapport final à tous les membres de l'OMC était attendu à la mi-avril.
Pettigrew provides specific procedural facts — the interim report provided on March 3, comments submitted to the panel on March 10, final report expected mid-April — but does not address whether Canada will appeal or its position on access to medicines.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the WTO panel's interim report was provided to the parties on a confidential basis on March 3. We are in the process of carefully examining the report and provided comments to the panel on March 10. It is very important at this stage to look at it very carefully and measure its implications. The panel is expected to issue the final report to all WTO members some time in mid-April.
Pourquoi le ministre des Finances appuie-t-il la décision de la Banque du Canada de privatiser le programme d'obligations d'épargne du Canada?
Asks a direct yes/no accountability question about whether the Minister of Finance supports the Bank of Canada's decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program, though it presupposes a decision has been made.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Why is the Minister of Finance supporting the Bank of Canada's decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program?
Martin a déclaré que la décision de privatiser le programme d'obligations d'épargne du Canada n'avait pas été prise et n'était pas envisagée.
Martin directly denies that a decision has been taken and states it is not being contemplated, which is a clear and direct answer to the question asked, though he opens with a partisan jab.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the hon. member. I have not seen him since 6.30 this morning when he voted both ways on the clarity bill. Let me say that decision has not been taken and it is not being contemplated.
Compte tenu d'un document interne de Roy Flett, chef des GSS à la Banque du Canada, indiquant qu'il a été chargé de transférer les opérations de la dette de détail à l'extérieur de la banque au cours des 12 à 18 prochains mois, pourquoi le ministre affirme-t-il que la décision n'a pas été prise?
Quotes directly from an internal document attributed to Roy Flett, chief of GSS with the Bank of Canada, describing a 12-to-18-month mandate to move Retail Debt operations outside the bank, directly contradicting the minister's prior denial.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at least I admit my mistakes. This minister tries to cover his up. The fact is that the decision has been made. I have an internal document from Roy Flett, the chief of GSS with the Bank of Canada, who said I have been asked...to prepare Government Securities Services...to move the Retail Debt operations outside the bank. Achieving this objective will be my main preoccupation over the next 12 to 18 months. If the decision has not been made, why is a senior bureaucrat devoting the next 12 to 18 months of his life to making it happen?
Martin a expliqué que la Banque du Canada administre les obligations d'épargne du Canada tandis que Placements Canada, un organisme du ministère des Finances, s'occupe de la commercialisation, et a indiqué que ce qui est examiné est la possibilité de fusionner les deux sous le ministère des Finances, qui fait partie du secteur public.
Martin clarifies the institutional structure (Bank of Canada administers, Canada Investment and Savings markets), explains what is actually being examined — whether to merge the two under the Department of Finance — and notes that the Department of Finance is part of the public sector, substantially addressing the contradiction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the Bank of Canada administers the Canada savings bonds. In fact the marketing is done by Canada Investment and Savings which is an agency of the Department of Finance. What is being examined is whether the status quo should exist or that they might merge the two under the Department of Finance. I would simply remind the hon. member that the Department of Finance is part of the public sector of this country.
Étant donné que le 4 novembre la ministre a déclaré à la Chambre qu'elle n'avait trouvé aucune violation de la loi lorsque des fonds de DRHC ont été placés en fiducie dans la circonscription du premier ministre pour éviter la péremption en vertu de l'article 37 de la LGFP, a-t-elle renvoyé cette affaire à la GRC?
Cites a specific date (November 4), a specific ministerial statement to the House about no breach of law, references section 37 of the FAA, and asks a binary and highly specific question — has the minister referred the matter to the RCMP.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on November 4 the minister told the House that she found no breach of the law when HRDC funds were put in a trust in the Prime Minister's riding so that they would not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, completely contrary to what is stated in section 37 of the FAA. The minister's opinion does not count for much in a situation like this. I want to know from the minister, has she referred this matter to the RCMP.
Stewart a déclaré qu'il est clair qu'il y a des améliorations administratives à apporter au ministère concernant les subventions et contributions, et qu'un plan est mis en œuvre avec les employés du ministère.
Stewart does not address whether she has referred the matter to the RCMP, instead repeating the administrative improvement framing and the six-point plan, a complete non-answer to the specific binary question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again it is clear to all that there are administrative improvements that we can make in our department with regard to the management of grants and contributions. That is a fact. It is also a fact that along with the men and women who are employees of the human resources development department we have a plan that is being implemented to improve this undertaking. Those are the facts and that is what this story is all about.
La ministre a-t-elle renvoyé à la GRC la violation potentielle de l'article 37 de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques par son ministère, étant donné qu'elle n'a offert que son propre avis selon lequel aucune loi n'a été enfreinte?
References employees running radio ads, explicitly invokes section 37 of the Financial Administration Act, and again presses the specific binary question of whether the matter was referred to the RCMP, though it re-treads Exchange 14.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, right now employees of her department are trying to defend themselves in radio ads because of her incompetence in running that department. We are not merely talking about an administrative matter; we are talking about a potential breach of the law. I am suggesting to the minister that the actions of her department have violated section 37 of the Financial Administration Act. She has said that is not the case. She has offered that opinion to the House but her opinion in this matter does not count for anything. Has the minister referred it to the RCMP?
Stewart a déclaré avoir parlé avec les employés du ministère et que ceux-ci ne se défendent pas contre elle, mais contre les attaques qu'ils reçoivent du Parti réformiste.
Stewart does not address the RCMP referral question at all, instead claiming employees are defending themselves from the opposition party's maligning rather than from her, a complete deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to talk to the employees of my department on a number of occasions. They are not defending themselves from me. They are defending themselves from the maligning that they are receiving from that party.
Étant donné que Vidéotron a dû rembourser 220 000 $ et que Placeteco a utilisé 1 million $ d'une subvention de 1,2 million $ pour payer des dettes, Placeteco devra-t-elle rembourser comme Vidéotron?
Cites specific figures ($220,000 for Vidéotron, $1 million of $1.2 million for Placeteco) and asks a single clear yes/no accountability question about whether repayment will be required.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Human Resources Development Canada administrative scandal, we learned that Vidéotron had to give back $220,000 for 44 jobs that were not created. In the case of Placeteco, $1 million of the $1.2 million grant was used to pay off debts rather than create jobs, and $200,000 has been lost track of. Are we to understand that Placeteco will receive the same treatment as Vidéotron and that repayment will be required?
La ministre a confirmé des problèmes administratifs mais a indiqué que les factures fournies couvraient la contribution du fonds de transition pour l'emploi et que les paiements étaient conformes aux conditions du programme.
The minister confirms administrative problems and that invoices covered the contribution amount, but does not directly answer whether repayment will be required as in the Vidéotron case.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the particular file to which the hon. member is making reference, I can confirm as I have before that there were administrative problems with this particular file. I can also confirm that my department has verified that the company provided invoices for supplies and salary costs which covered the amount of the transitional jobs fund contribution, and that in fact payments to the sponsor were consistent with the terms and the conditions of the transitional jobs fund program.
Puisqu'au moins 1 million $ a servi à payer des factures plutôt qu'à créer des emplois, la ministre ordonnera-t-elle une enquête sur le dossier Placeteco?
Sharpens the prior exchange by pointing out the purpose of the grant money was job creation, not debt payment, and asks a specific question about whether an investigation will be ordered.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the grant money was to create jobs, not to pay bills. Since at least $1 million was used for purposes other than creating jobs, should she not require an investigation into this case as well?
La ministre a répété que les factures étaient conformes au programme du fonds de transition pour l'emploi et a souligné que 159 personnes travaillent grâce à ce programme.
The minister repeats that invoices were appropriate and pivots to citing 159 jobs created, without addressing the question of whether an investigation will be launched.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will say again that the invoices we received were appropriate with the context of the transitional jobs fund program. Speaking about jobs, there are 159 people, who otherwise would not be working, who are working as a result of this program.
Des documents du propre ministère de la ministre indiquent qu'elle et le sous-ministre ont ordonné de respecter les règles immédiatement; que leur disait-elle avant ce moment?
Quotes directly from departmental documents stating the minister and deputy minister instructed staff to follow rules 'starting immediately,' and asks a pointed accountability question about what instructions were given before that point.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister has not denied that the grant rules were broken in the House today. Documents from her own department state, and I quote “The minister and the deputy minister have instructed us to follow the rules starting immediately”. If the minister had to tell her department to start following the rules immediately, what was she telling them before this point?
La ministre a dit que les employés mettent en œuvre le plan en six points et font des heures supplémentaires, puis a accusé les membres du Parti réformiste de se contredire.
The minister ignores the quoted document entirely, talks about the six point plan and employee effort, then attacks the Reform Party for inconsistency — a clear deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again I will confirm that the employees of the department are working very hard to implement the six point plan. The men and women of this department are working overtime to review the files and implement the aspects of the plan that will make a difference in the structure that is so important to us. I would ask the members of that party to remind themselves that it was not too long ago that they were asking me to fire employees in my department. Now they seem to be defending them. Which way would they have it?
Pourquoi le ministère a-t-il dû demander 'Devons-nous vraiment commencer ces mesures avant la fin de l'année?' si le respect des règles n'était pas une nouvelle pratique?
Cites a specific quote from departmental documents ('Do we really have to start these measures before this year end?') and asks a focused question about why the department had to be told when to start following the rules.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that the minister is refusing to answer these very serious questions. The minister's department did not follow the law. They had to be instructed to start doing so. They said things like this “Do we really have to start these measures before this year end?” If following the rules was not a new practice for the minister, why did her department have to ask about when to start following the rules?
La ministre a dit que le ministère met en œuvre un plan pour améliorer l'administration des subventions, citant la fermeture de 37 dossiers et le recouvrement des trop-payés à l'exception d'un peu plus de 600 $.
The minister does not address the quoted document or the question at all, instead describing the six point plan and citing the closing of 37 files and recapture of overpayments — a pivot away from the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again let me be clear. The department is implementing a plan that will improve the administration of our grants and contributions. We have made that a priority for the department. We have already showed the results of the plan with the closing of the 37 files and the recapturing of any overpayments with the exception of just over $600. Together as a team we are improving the activities of our department and that, quite frankly, is what Canadians expect.
Comment la ministre peut-elle justifier les subventions dans sa propre circonscription en invoquant le critère des 'poches de pauvreté' alors que ses propres fonctionnaires disent que ce critère n'existait pas à l'époque?
Points to a direct contradiction between the minister's repeated justification of grants using the 'pockets of poverty' criterion and the statement by her own officials that this criterion did not exist at the time.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has spent days in this House justifying the fact that her riding received grants under the transitional jobs fund citing the famous pockets of poverty criterion. How can the minister decently justify the grants received in her own riding by talking of pockets of poverty, when her officials tell us that this criterion did not exist at the time?
La ministre a simplement déclaré que ce n'est pas ce que les fonctionnaires ont dit, sans autre explication.
The minister's entire answer is a single sentence flatly denying what the officials said, with no elaboration, evidence, or engagement with the substance of the contradiction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is not what the officials said at all.
Puisque la ministre et ses fonctionnaires se contredisent, déposera-t-elle des documents prouvant que c'est elle, et non ses fonctionnaires, qui a raison?
Presses the minister on the contradiction between her account and her officials' account and asks her to table documents proving her version, which is a concrete ask but somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister and her officials are totally contradicting each other. Does the minister realize that she now bears the burden of proof and that she has no choice but to table in this House the documents proving that she and not her officials is right.
La ministre a renvoyé la députée au journal local de sa circonscription de Brant, qui a examiné chacun des programmes et n'a rien trouvé d'irrégulier.
The minister does not table any documents; instead she refers the member to a local newspaper article that reviewed the programs and found nothing wrong — an indirect and unverifiable deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, time and again I have talked about the use and the value of the transitional jobs fund in my riding of Brant. I would ask the hon. member to look at the local paper in my riding that was presented last week that went through every single one of these programs and found that there was nothing wrong.
La feuille de questions et réponses du ministère indique 'Les règles ne sont pas nouvelles; elles sont simplement appliquées', ce qui suggère que les infractions étaient une politique; qu'est-ce qui a fait croire à la ministre qu'elle pouvait enfreindre la loi?
Cites a specific departmental question and answer sheet ('The rules are not new; they are just being enforced') and begins asking what made the minister think she could break the law, though the question is cut off before completion.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, breaking the law was not an accident at HRDC, it was policy. The department's questions and answers—
Oh, oh.
Breaking the rules was not an accident at HRDC, it was policy. The department's question and answer sheet produced after the audit says “The rules are not new; they are just being enforced”. Officials are being told to disregard the rules and all for partisan political gain. What made the minister think that she could break the law—
La ministre a catégoriquement rejeté les allégations et dit que la politique du ministère visait à s'assurer que les subventions aidaient les Canadiens handicapés, les jeunes et les collectivités dans toutes les circonscriptions, y compris celles du Parti réformiste.
The minister categorically rejects the allegations and pivots to describing how grants benefited all ridings including Reform ridings, without engaging with the quoted document or the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again let me categorically reject the allegations made by the hon. member. What was policy in my department was to ensure that these important grants and contributions got administered in the ridings of each and every one of the members of the House and that includes members of the Reform Party. They know that when they are back home in their ridings the money that comes from the Government of Canada to help Canadians with disabilities, to help young people who have not been able to find jobs and to help in their communities where men and women do not have the opportunity for employment, is money well spent.
Le député a allégué que les fonctionnaires de DRHC avaient été contraints par leurs maîtres politiques d'enfreindre les règles et a commencé à demander pourquoi les libéraux croyaient pouvoir le faire, mais la question n'a pas été complétée.
Makes sweeping allegations that officials were told by political masters to break the law but the question is cut off before being completed, leaving no answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all the training in the world does not help when we are ordered to break the rules. Even the minister's own officials are saying that they were forced to break the rules. This minister and her predecessor mismanaged millions of taxpayer dollars. Now we find out that much of it was done illegally. HRDC officials were told by their political masters to break the law. Why do the Liberals think they are—
Aucune réponse ministérielle n'a été consignée pour cet échange.
There is no ministerial answer recorded for this exchange.
Le gouvernement fédéral suspendra-t-il la taxe d'accise de 10 cents le litre sur l'essence et de 4 cents le litre sur le diesel pour donner un répit aux contribuables face à la hausse des prix de l'essence?
Identifies a specific proposal (suspending the excise tax of 10 cents a litre on gasoline and 4 cents a litre on diesel fuel) and asks the Prime Minister directly whether the government intends to act on it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and deputy chair of the team in charge of organizing the next election, established yesterday by the Prime Minister, expressed her opinion on the current increases gasoline prices. She has adopted the idea already proposed by the Bloc Quebecois of suspending the excise tax of 10 cents a litre on gasoline and of 4 cents a litre on diesel fuel. My question is for the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether the federal government intends to do its share to give relief to taxpayers by suspending excise taxes on gasoline?
Le ministre a précisé que la ministre du Travail avait soulevé la question fiscale auprès du ministre des Finances, a confirmé les taux de taxe d'accise d'environ 10 cents le litre sur l'essence et 4 cents le litre sur le diesel, et a noté que la taxe sur le diesel n'a pas changé depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir du gouvernement.
The Minister of Natural Resources clarifies the record on the Minister of Labour's communication and confirms the exact excise tax figures, but does not answer whether the government intends to suspend the taxes.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the record, the Minister of Labour communicated with the Minister of Finance with respect to raising the fiscal question. I should point out to the hon. gentleman that the excise tax on gasoline is about 10 cents a litre. The excise tax on diesel is about 4 cents a litre, and particularly with diesel where the concern is concentrated, that tax has not changed since we have been in government.
Le ministre peut-il informer la Chambre des résultats du Canada en matière d'exportation de produits de la pêche?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on fish export performance, with a partisan jab at the opposition included.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as a nation we are one of the largest exporters of fish products in the world and export to about 100 different countries. Last week in Boston, the famous Boston seafood show was attended by our minister and by representatives of our various provinces and Canadian companies. Would the minister please update the House on how we are doing on exporting fish? The side over there needs a lot of fish products. It would be good for them and would develop some of their brains too.
Le ministre a annoncé que le Canada a battu tous les records d'exportation de produits de la pêche et des fruits de mer à 3,7 milliards de dollars, une hausse de 500 millions de dollars par rapport à l'année précédente, annoncée au Salon international des fruits de mer de Boston.
The minister provides a concrete figure — $3.7 billion in fish and seafood exports, a $500 million increase over the prior year — which is specific and factual.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Miramichi for taking an interest in the subject. I had the opportunity to visit the International Boston Seafood Show which, by the way, was started by Canadian companies and is now world renown. At the International Boston Seafood Show I had the opportunity to announce our export figures. We have broken all records for our fish and seafood products which are at $3.7 billion, a $500 million increase over last year.
Les notes d'information du propre ministère de la ministre montrent que les fonctionnaires avaient reçu l'ordre d'enfreindre les règles; sans l'audit, la ministre aurait-elle jamais mis fin aux infractions?
Quotes directly from the minister's own departmental briefing notes ('We were told to be flexible. Now we are being told to obey the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines. Why doesn't management make up its mind?') and asks whether the rule-breaking would ever have stopped without the audit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot hide from the fact that her own departmental briefing notes, the very papers that she uses for her departmental officials state: “We were told to be flexible. Now we are being told to obey the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines. Why doesn't management make up its mind?” In other words, officials were told that it was okay to break the rules and only after she got caught did the minister slam on the brakes. If the audit had not caught the minister red-handed, would she have ever stopped the rule breaking?
La ministre a dit que le député avait tort et s'est dit surprise qu'il ne soutienne pas un système de prestation de services aux collectivités et une gestion moderne axée sur la responsabilisation.
The minister says the member is incorrect but does not address the quoted briefing notes, and instead pivots to praising modern comptrollership and service delivery — a near-complete deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is incorrect in his assertions. I know him to be a proponent of strong public administration. That is why I am surprised he would not be supporting us to continue to have a system of service delivery that speaks directly to communities and individuals, and to work together to build a system of modern comptrollership that allows us to be even more accountable to Canadian taxpayers.
Étant donné que la feuille de questions et réponses du ministère indique 'les règles ne sont pas nouvelles, elles sont simplement appliquées', la ministre aurait-elle jamais mis fin aux infractions si elle n'avait pas été prise en flagrant délit?
Again quotes the departmental question and answer sheet ('the rules are not new, they are just being enforced') and asks directly whether the minister would have changed the rules if she had not been caught.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister still will not acknowledge what is in her own departmental questions and answers. It is clear there was no intention to have HRDC officials abide by the rules. To have done so would have made it impossible to channel all these loans into Liberal ridings. To quote the question and answer sheet again, “the rules are not new, they are just being enforced” from now on. The minister obviously changed her mind about the rule breaking after she got caught. I will ask again, if she had not been caught red-handed, would she have ever changed the rules?
La ministre a qualifié l'affirmation d'absolument inexacte et a dit que le ministère s'est engagé à bâtir un solide système de gestion moderne pour renforcer la gestion des subventions et contributions, le plan étant déjà en œuvre.
The minister again calls the assertion incorrect without addressing the quoted text and describes the plan to build modern comptrollership — another complete deflection from the specific question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again the assertion is absolutely incorrect. The facts are these. We have agreed within the department that we are going to build a strong system of modern comptrollership to strengthen our management of grants and contributions. The plan is already at work. We are improving our system in order to better serve Canadians.
Après des mois à dire 'nous l'étudions' en réponse au projet de loi 11 de l'Alberta, ce projet de loi viole-t-il la Loi canadienne sur la santé, oui ou non?
Precisely chronicles four specific dates (November 17, December 13, March 2, March 13) with the minister's exact responses on each occasion and asks a single binary yes/no question: does Alberta's Bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on November 17 Alberta made its plan known for privatization of health care. The Minister of Health at that time said “We are looking at it”. On December 13 the Alberta health minister confirmed its intentions. The Minister of Health stood in the House and said “We are studying that matter”. On March 2 Bill 11 was tabled. The minister said “We are studying it”. On March 13 the minister said “We are still studying the matter”. On the most important issue facing Canadians, Canadians deserve an answer today from the minister. Does Alberta's Bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act, yes or no?
Le ministre a assuré que le gouvernement fera tout ce qu'il faut pour protéger les principes de la Loi canadienne sur la santé, mais a noté que le projet de loi 11 n'a pas encore été lu en deuxième lecture, pourrait encore être modifié, et que les règlements n'ont pas encore été publiés.
The minister commits to protecting Canada Health Act principles but refuses to answer yes or no, instead noting the bill has not received second reading and regulations have not been published — a substantive but evasive response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should rest assured that the government will do whatever it takes to protect the principles of the Canada Health Act. With respect to Bill 11, I invite the hon. member to observe that the premier of Alberta himself is still talking about possible amendments to that bill. It has yet to receive second reading in the legislature. We have yet to see regulations which are referred to extensively in the bill. If the hon. member has a legal opinion with respect to it now, I wish she would share that with the House.
Puisque le ministre a dit qu'il agirait si le projet de loi 11 violait l'esprit et la lettre de la loi, agira-t-il aujourd'hui, fournira-t-il un calendrier, s'engagera-t-il à préserver l'assurance-maladie à tout prix et dira-t-il non à Ralph Klein?
Holds the minister to his prior commitment to act if Bill 11 violated the spirit and letter of the law but asks multiple compound questions (act today, provide a timetable, commit to preserving medicare, say no to Ralph Klein), diluting the accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who said he would act if Bill 11 violated the spirit and the letter of the law. It is absolutely clear. Bill 11 violates the spirit of the Canada Health Act. Canadians want an answer. Since the minister is spending more time developing slogans than on actually developing a response to save medicare, will he act today? Will he give Canadians a timetable for when he will have completed his analysis? Will he state clearly that medicare is a program that will be preserved at all costs? Will he say no to Ralph Klein?
Le ministre a dit que le gouvernement fera ce qui est nécessaire pour protéger la Loi canadienne sur la santé, puis a attaqué le NPD pour s'être allié aux forces de droite au lieu de travailler avec le gouvernement pour renouveler l'assurance-maladie.
The minister restates that the government will do what is required but then turns the answer into an attack on the NDP for aligning with forces on the right and urges them to work with the government — a deflection rather than any of the specific answers sought.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we will do what is required to protect the Canada Health Act. Let me remind the hon. member that she can make a real contribution to preserving medicare by working with us to renew it for the 21st century rather than aligning herself with the forces on the right who would destroy medicare. I wish the New Democratic Party would work with us toward making the long term changes that are necessary, rather than playing into the hands of the Reform Party and others who would destroy medicare in the country.
Le premier ministre admettra-t-il qu'il connaît René Fugère et que celui-ci a utilisé le nom du premier ministre pour faire avancer sa carrière d'homme d'affaires?
Asks the Prime Minister to admit he knows René Fugère and that Fugère used the Prime Minister's name to advance his business career, which is a reasonably specific accountability ask but relies on partisan framing about coming clean.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, René Fugère had a close working relationship with the Prime Minister. He represented the Prime Minister at events. Yet the Prime Minister would like us to believe that he does not know this unregistered lobbyist. Would the Prime Minister come clean and admit that he knows Mr. Fugère and that he has been using the Prime Minister's name to advance his business career?
Le premier ministre a dit que beaucoup de gens au Canada connaissent Jean Chrétien étant donné qu'il a été élu 11 fois dans Saint-Maurice depuis 1963 et a travaillé à créer des emplois en tant que député.
The Prime Minister does not confirm or deny knowing Fugère specifically, instead speaking generally about knowing many people in Saint-Maurice after being elected 11 times since 1963 — a clear deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people in Canada who know Jean Chrétien. I have been elected 11 times in Saint-Maurice. I have been the member of parliament for Saint-Maurice since 1963. A lot of people have worked for me and I know a lot of people in my riding. I am grateful that they keep electing me. The more questions I am asked like that, because I am doing my job as a member of parliament to create jobs, the more votes I will get in the next election.
Dubé demande si le Premier ministre demandera à la GRC d'enquêter sur les activités de lobbying de René Fugère pour le compte de la scierie Opitciwan alors qu'il n'était pas inscrit à titre de lobbyiste.
The question cites a specific individual (René Fugère), a specific file (Opitciwan sawmill), a specific legal issue (unregistered lobbying under the Lobbyists Registration Act), and makes a clear single ask about RCMP investigation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are starting to know the Prime Minister and the actions of his government through the HRDC debacle. René Fugère advised HRDC that he represented the Opitciwan sawmill when it was negotiating with HRDC. Fugère was not registered at the time as a lobbyist. Will the Prime Minister ask the RCMP to investigate the lobbying activities of his friend René Fugère?
Manley affirme que le gouvernement ne demande pas à la GRC d'enquêter sur qui que ce soit, et que le sous-registraire général adjoint est responsable de l'application de la Loi sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes et prendra les mesures appropriées en cas de non-conformité.
The minister clarifies the correct enforcement mechanism (assistant deputy registrar general under the Lobbyists Registration Act) rather than the RCMP, which is relevant, but does not confirm whether a referral or investigation is actually underway.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we do not ask the RCMP to investigate anybody. What will happen is that the assistant deputy registrar general of Canada, who is responsible for registrations under the Lobbyists Registration Act, will ensure that it is complied with. Where there is failure to comply, the appropriate action will be taken.
Myers demande au ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire de faire le point sur les frais de recouvrement des coûts et leur incidence sur son portefeuille.
A governing-party MP asks a minister to 'update the House' on cost recovery fees — a classic backbench setup with no accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, members in the House are well aware of the tough times that farmers in Canada are facing. One of the pressures is cost recovery fees. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food update the House with respect to cost recovery fees and how it pertains to his portfolio?
Vanclief annonce le gel des frais obligatoires d'Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada et de l'Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments jusqu'à la fin de 2002 au moins, et mentionne 83 millions de dollars annoncés la semaine précédente ainsi que des chiffres d'appui plus larges de 600 millions par an et 2,3 milliards sur 18 mois.
The minister provides specific dollar figures, agency names, and concrete policy announcements directly responsive to the topic raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It gives me a chance to remind everyone of the government's commitment to agriculture. Not only is there the $600 million a year to support farmers but there is also the $2.3 billion we put out in support in the last 18 months to farmers. A week ago I announced another $83 million to cover the debts and to allow the Canadian Grain Commission to freeze its mandatory fees until 2003. I am pleased to announce today that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will freeze mandatory fees until at least the end of 2002.
Mills cite des fonctionnaires d'DRHC qui demandent dans quelle mesure 'flexible' signifie flexible, et demande si la directive de la ministre de ne pas suivre la loi s'appliquait seulement à la circonscription du Premier ministre ou partout.
The question quotes an official document ('How are we supposed to know how flexible is flexible?') and asks a pointed accountability question about whether flexibility applied only to the Prime Minister's riding, but the ask is somewhat compound and rhetorically framed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister's own officials are asking her, “How are we supposed to know how flexible is flexible?” When she instructs her officials to not follow the law, did that flexibility only apply to the Prime Minister's riding or did it apply everywhere?
Stewart nie catégoriquement que les employés de Développement des ressources humaines Canada aient jamais reçu l'instruction de ne pas respecter la loi.
Stewart gives a one-sentence denial that employees were instructed not to follow the law but does not address the substance of the quoted memo or the question about geographic scope of flexibility.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the employees of the Department of Human Resources Development Canada have never been instructed not to follow the law.
Lebel demande si le refus du gouvernement d'ordonner une enquête sur Placeteco est lié à Gilles Champagne — le fiduciaire nommé par Ressources humaines Canada qui n'a pas protégé 1,2 million de dollars et dont le client Claude Gauthier en a bénéficié — que le Premier ministre lui-même a nommé au conseil d'administration de Postes Canada en 1996.
The question names specific individuals (Gilles Champagne, Claude Gauthier), cites a specific dollar amount ($1.2 million), names a specific program (Placeteco), identifies a specific role (trustee appointed by Human Resources Canada), and draws a specific link to the Prime Minister's 1996 appointment of Champagne to Canada Post's board of directors — a highly grounded accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the Placeteco issue, the trustee appointed by Human Resources Canada, Gilles Champagne, had a responsibility to protect the $1.2 million from HDRC. He did not do so and his own client, Claude Gauthier, benefited from that money. My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government's refusal to order an investigation into Placeteco not related to Gilles Champagne, whom the Prime Minister himself appointed to Canada Post's board of directors, in 1996?
Stewart reconnaît que la création du fonds de fiducie était inappropriée et que le ministère l'a fermé, et souligne que l'entreprise a investi 5 millions de dollars et que le gouvernement du Québec a également approuvé le projet, mais n'aborde pas la nomination de Champagne à Postes Canada ni la question de l'enquête.
Stewart acknowledges the trust fund issue was inappropriate and that the department was advised to close it, but does not address the specific question about Gilles Champagne's dual role, his appointment to Canada Post, or the government's refusal to order an investigation — instead pivoting to other investors' involvement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the House I have accepted that the creation of trust funds in this particular file was inappropriate. The department was advised to close the trust fund. It did that. I would remind the hon. member that in the case of this particular project, it was not only the Government of Canada that was a partner. The company itself invested $5 million and it was HQ, headquarters, the Government of Quebec, that also agreed that this was a wise investment.
Dockrill souligne les réponses contradictoires du ministre au sujet des emplois et de l'argent liés à Scotia Rainbow, note qu'après 20 millions de dollars en subventions gouvernementales l'entreprise est sous séquestre, et demande si le ministre acceptera une vérification judiciaire.
The question cites $20 million in government subsidies, notes inconsistencies in previous answers about jobs and money, references Scotia Rainbow's receivership, and makes a specific ask for a forensic audit, though framed with rhetorical colour ('fishy smell').
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, question after question about the mismanagement of public funds by the government and Scotia Rainbow have resulted in a series of inconsistent answers. There are inconsistencies about how many jobs were created and inconsistencies about how much government money. The fact is after $20 million in government subsidies, Scotia Rainbow is now in receivership. Will the minister now attempt to clear the air of this fishy smell and agree to a forensic audit?
Baker affirme que le gouvernement fédéral a le moins investi dans l'entreprise par rapport aux banques à charte, aux investisseurs privés et au gouvernement provincial, et invoque le soutien des communautés et des éditoriaux tout en critiquant les députés du NPD.
Baker does not address the request for a forensic audit at all, instead ranking investors by contribution size, citing community and editorial support, and attacking NDP members — a near-complete deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out in the House before, the federal government has invested the least in this enterprise. The most was invested by the chartered banks, private investors, then the provincial government, and then way down is the federal government. We have received support from all of the communities in Cape Breton Island and all of the newspaper editorials. The only people out of step are NDP members. When are they going to get in step with their own constituents?
Casey demande si le ministre de l'Industrie a modifié la formule de financement du programme de chaires de recherche pour inclure les petites universités comme le Nova Scotia Agricultural College qui avaient été exclues de la conception initiale.
The question identifies a specific program (research chair program), a specific excluded category (small universities like Nova Scotia Agricultural College), notes the issue has been raised several times before, and asks a direct yes/no whether the plan has been adjusted — reasonably specific but lacks documentary grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. When the department developed the research chair program to provide research money for universities across the country, it left out a small group of universities that do great work, like Nova Scotia Agricultural College and many, many more. We have raised this question in the House several times before. I would like to know if the minister has adjusted the plan now to include universities like Nova Scotia Agricultural College.
Manley indique qu'il espère annoncer la formule de financement avant la fin du mois et souligne l'ampleur du programme — 2 000 chaires de recherche et 900 millions de dollars — mais ne confirme pas si le Nova Scotia Agricultural College ou des établissements similaires seront inclus.
Manley says he hopes to announce the funding formula before the end of the month, which partially addresses the timing but does not confirm whether institutions like Nova Scotia Agricultural College will be included, pivoting instead to broader program statistics.
Texte source
Mr. speaker, I hope before the end of this month to be able to announce the funding formula that will be used in order to allocate the research chairs. I would like to point out to the hon. member what a significant difference this program is going to make to Canadian universities: 2,000 research chairs across Canada, $900 million. That is the equivalent of creating two virtual MITs in Canada. This will make Canada competitive in the 21st century.