Résumé de la séance
- Les taxes sur les carburants ont dominé la période des questions : les membres de l'Alliance canadienne et du PC ont pressé le gouvernement de réduire les taxes d'accise fédérales à la pompe; le ministre des Finances a conditionné toute action à la coordination provinciale, tandis que le premier ministre a cité des taux d'imposition canadiens inférieurs à ceux des pays européens.
- Le ministre des Finances a annoncé un excédent budgétaire de 12,3 milliards de dollars, dépassant largement les prévisions du gouvernement; le Bloc québécois et le NPD ont contesté l'exactitude des prévisions fiscales, l'utilisation des surplus du fonds d'AE et la promesse non tenue du partage 50-50 de l'excédent.
- La crise des pêches à Burnt Church a suscité plusieurs échanges : les membres de l'opposition ont soutenu que des casiers non autorisés demeuraient dans la baie de Miramichi et que les accords du gouvernement étaient inexécutables; le ministre des Pêches et des Océans a cité le retrait de 2 700 casiers, 16 inculpations et un engagement de la Première Nation de Burnt Church à réduire substantiellement le nombre de casiers.
- La ministre de la Justice s'est engagée à aller de l'avant avec les modifications au code criminel en matière de crime organisé proposées par le Québec, sous réserve de consultations avec les provinces, les territoires et les autorités policières.
- Le ministre de l'Agriculture a annoncé un report d'impôt d'un an pour les agriculteurs et éleveurs du sud de l'Alberta et de la Saskatchewan qui ont été contraints de vendre plus de 15 % de leurs troupeaux reproducteurs en raison d'une sécheresse sévère.
- Le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre des Affaires étrangères a confirmé que le Canada a contribué 1 million de dollars au Fonds international pour l'Irlande et que le général John De Chastelain préside la Commission internationale indépendante sur le désarmement en Irlande du Nord.
Le ministre de l'Agriculture a fait une annonce concrète et précise selon laquelle les agriculteurs et éleveurs du sud de l'Alberta et de la Saskatchewan qui vendent plus de 15 % de leurs troupeaux reproducteurs en raison de la sécheresse bénéficieront d'un report d'impôt d'un an, constituant un véritable nouvel engagement de politique plutôt qu'une réponse rhétorique.
Clark asks two precise, binary yes/no questions: whether a meeting with provinces on cutting fuel taxes has been proposed, and whether the Prime Minister rules out removing the GST on home heating fuel.
Interrogé directement sur l'existence d'un conflit d'intérêts du ministre des Finances ayant alloué l'excédent à la réduction de la dette d'une manière profitant à ses associés de Bay Street, le premier ministre a rejeté la prémisse comme une insinuation et n'a offert qu'une liste générale de dépenses sociales passées, sans répondre à l'allégation précise de conflit d'intérêts.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Joe Clark a demandé si le premier ministre excluait la suppression de la TPS sur le mazout domestique — le premier ministre a cité Mike Harris au sujet des compagnies pétrolières sans jamais répondre à la question sur la TPS.
- M. Jason Kenney a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement continue d'imposer une taxe sur une taxe — la TPS appliquée en plus de la taxe d'accise — que ses propres membres de caucus ont jugée injuste; aucun ministre n'a répondu à l'argument de la double imposition.
- M. John Duncan a demandé combien des 29 accords de pêche conclus avec les Premières Nations sont respectés en pratique, citant des preuves que la bande de Lennox Island avait dépassé de plus du double sa limite de 20 000 livres dans la baie de Malpeque; le ministre n'a pas répondu à la question précise sur le dépassement dans la baie de Malpeque.
- M. Michel Bellehumeur a demandé un calendrier précis pour l'adoption des modifications au code criminel sur le crime organisé proposées par le Québec; la ministre a refusé de fournir des dates, invoquant la nécessité de consultations supplémentaires.
- M. Gerald Keddy a demandé au ministre des Pêches et des Océans quel était le plan B en cas d'échec de la médiation à Burnt Church; le ministre n'a décrit aucun plan de contingence précis.
Day demande pourquoi le gouvernement consulte avant de redonner de l'argent mais a agi unilatéralement lors des réductions en santé et de la hausse des taxes sur l'essence en 1995, et exige un engagement clair pour réduire les taxes à la pompe.
The question cites specific figures (33% health care cut, 1995 gas tax increase) and has an identifiable ask, but is framed heavily with partisan rhetoric about self-interest.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am kind of new around here, so I am trying to get a handle on this government policy. As I understand it now, when the government is in a position to give money back to people, it says it cannot because it has to consult. However, when it wants to take money away from people, as it did when it reduced health care to the provinces by 33%, and as it did when it raised the gas taxes in 1995, there is no consultation. Will the Prime Minister please abandon this self-interested policy and state clearly that his government will in fact allow consumers to have a reduction in their taxes at the pump?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien affirme que la consultation avec les provinces est nécessaire, souligne le triplement mondial du prix du pétrole, et attaque le bilan de Day en Alberta concernant une taxe de 9 cents le litre sur l'essence.
Chrétien deflects to the need for provincial consultation and pivots to attacking Day's Alberta record rather than addressing the ask to reduce pump taxes.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have replied to this question. To have a meaningful policy on that, the Minister of Finance is right to consult with the provinces otherwise it will not work. We have many options that we are looking into, but we have to go back to the fact that the increase in the price of oil in Canada has been caused by the tripling of the price of oil around the world, including those who produce oil in Alberta. By the way, I would like to tell the House of Commons that there was no tax on gasoline in Alberta when the Leader of the Opposition became a member of the assembly. He was the minister of finance for three years and there was a 9 cents a litre tax in Alberta.
Day demande au ministre des Finances de recommander une réduction des prix à la pompe avant de partir pour Prague, en comparant favorablement son bilan albertain à celui de Martin.
Day cites specific fiscal comparisons (lowered debt, low commodity prices) and directs a concrete ask to the Minister of Finance before his Prague trip, though it is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Texte source
The Prime Minister is correct, Mr. Speaker. When I was minister of finance we had the lowest tax on gasoline in the country and lower taxes right across the board. We lowered the debt at a time when oil prices were low and global commodity prices were high. When the Prime Minister was the minister of finance, taxes went up and debt when up. I am asking the Minister of Finance this. While he is parlaying at that palace in Prague next week and the people from P.E.I. to Penticton and Princeton continue to have their pockets picked at the pump, will he please, before he leaves, make the recommendation to lower that price?
Oh, oh.
Martin rétorque que Day, lorsqu'il était ministre des Finances de l'Alberta, a rejeté spécifiquement la réduction de la taxe d'accise dans son propre budget, malgré la pression publique.
Martin deflects entirely by attacking Day's Alberta record — claiming Day rejected excise tax cuts in his own budget — without addressing the ask about making a recommendation before departing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, after imposing the tax, then at a time of rising fuel taxes in Alberta, and public discussion on whether or not the excise tax should be cut when it was at 9%, the minister said he would consider it. In his budget, he specifically rejected it. The question is, why is he recommending in opposition a course of action that he refused to accept when he was in office?
Day demande pourquoi, si le premier ministre croit sincèrement que la hausse des prix de l'essence risque de provoquer une récession, il ne soutient pas la proposition de l'Alliance de réduire le prix de l'essence de presque 5 %.
Day ties the question to the Prime Minister's own stated concern about recession risk and cites a specific Alliance proposal to reduce gasoline price by almost 5%, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my record as finance minister was to continue to lower taxes at a rate unseen across the country, even when prices were low. If the Prime Minister is sincere when he says he thinks the increase in the price of gasoline may increase the risk of a recession, why will he not support the Alliance proposal to reduce the price of gasoline by almost 5%, which would reduce the risk of a recession?
Chrétien précise que le risque de récession a été évoqué à New York dans un contexte mondial, et note que le Canada est mieux placé car il produit du pétrole et ses taxes sur l'essence sont trois fois moins élevées qu'en Angleterre, en Allemagne ou en France.
Chrétien contextualizes his New York remark but does not address the Alliance proposal, instead noting Canada has domestic oil and that Canadian gas taxes are three times lower than in England, Germany or France.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this was a risk I mentioned while discussing this problem in New York last week. There is a danger in the western world that countries which are very dependent on oil may find themselves in a much more difficult situation than we have in Canada, because we have oil in this country. Moreover, the level of taxation on gasoline in Canada is three times lower than what it is in England, Germany or France.
Kenney demande pourquoi les Canadiens paient encore la hausse de 1,5 cent le litre sur l'essence instaurée en 1995 pour éliminer le déficit, maintenant que celui-ci a disparu.
Kenney cites the specific 1995 justification for the 1.5-cent gas tax increase and asks a pointed, narrow question about why that tax persists now that the deficit is gone.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister tells us that he is waiting for leadership. I guess leadership from the provinces when it comes to cutting taxes. He is waiting for the provinces. He is waiting for OPEC. He is waiting for the G-7. Maybe now he is waiting for Christmas to cut taxes. His 1995 excuse was that he was waiting to end the deficit when he introduced a 1.5 cent increase in the tax on gas. Now that the deficit is gone, why are we still paying that tax on gas?
Martin affirme que toute réduction de taxe doit être importante et ressentie par les consommateurs, et qu'agir conjointement avec les provinces est nécessaire pour s'assurer que l'argent aille dans les poches des consommateurs et non des compagnies pétrolières.
Martin states the government's position on coordinating with provinces for a significant cut visible at the pump but does not explain why the 1.5-cent deficit-era tax has not been removed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that the impact of any tax cut must be one that is significant and felt. That view is also shared by provincial governments. That is why we have said that if we were to act in that area we would only do so in conjunction with the provinces. We are prepared to show the leadership. No single level of government can provide a large enough cut to make an impact. We do not want to see this money lost at the pumps. We want to see it go into the pockets of consumers, not into the pockets of oil companies.
Kenney demande pourquoi une réduction de 3,5 cents le litre ne serait pas un vrai allègement fiscal, et pourquoi le ministre ignore ses propres députés en maintenant une taxe sur taxe sur l'essence.
Kenney asks two substantive sub-questions — why a 3.5-cent cut would not be real relief, and why the double tax condemned by government's own caucus is still in place — but the compound framing weakens focus.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The finance minister wants to take leadership, but he actually wants the provinces to lead him. I am not sure but I think that is followership. Why does the finance minister not explain to Canadians why a 3.5 cent cut per litre at the pumps would not be real tax relief for those who are hard pressed? Why does he continue to impose a tax on tax, a double tax which his own caucus says is unfair and should be removed? Why does he not listen to his own backbenches on this issue?
Martin dévie en attribuant le mérite au leadership de son propre caucus, notamment au député de Pickering, et affirme vaguement que le gouvernement agira.
Martin does not address either sub-question, instead pivoting to praise backbench caucus leadership and asserting vaguely that the government will act.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly right when he talks from the leadership that has come from his caucus, the member from Pickering and the others. The government will act. One of the reasons we will act is that we have been studying this issue. There has been leadership from this caucus while that opposition sat silent.
Duceppe demande si le ministre des Finances admettra que sa stratégie de cacher les surplus — il avait prévu 3 milliards, le Bloc 11,5 milliards — est une façon commode d'éviter le débat et de redorer son image à la veille d'une élection.
Duceppe cites a specific prior Bloc forecast of $11.5 billion versus the minister's $3 billion and uses the confirmed outcome to ask a pointed question about deliberate surplus concealment for electoral purposes.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last year, the Minister of Finance made fun of the Bloc Quebecois because we said that the surplus would be $11.5 billion. He said it would be $3 billion. Today, we see that we were right. Will the Minister of Finance admit that his strategy of hiding the surpluses does not fool anybody and that it is just a convenient way of avoiding debate and bolstering his image on the eve of an election?
Martin présente la réduction de la dette de 12,3 milliards comme une bonne nouvelle pour la dette, avec des économies de 1 milliard en frais de service de la dette et des investissements futurs en santé, éducation, innovation et réductions d'impôts.
Martin celebrates the $12.3-billion debt reduction and lists spending benefits without admitting the forecasting discrepancy or addressing the accusation of hiding surpluses.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems to be having a little trouble accepting the good news. A reduction of $12.3 billion is good news. It will lower the debt. This is $1 billion we will save on debt servicing. It is $1 billion we will be able to use for health, education, innovation and tax cuts. It is good news.
Duceppe demande ce que le ministre a à dire aux travailleurs qui manifestent à Chicoutimi, sur la Côte-Nord, dans Charlevoix et au Saguenay, étant donné que 6 milliards de dollars du fonds d'assurance-emploi ont contribué au surplus pendant que les familles peinent à joindre les deux bouts.
Duceppe grounds the question in a specific $6-billion EI surplus figure and refers to workers demonstrating in named regions, but the ask is largely rhetorical and aimed at eliciting a political defence.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it was not news for us. We have known about it for a year. Even the minister knew. Even he knew, I am certain. However, what he is not saying is that half of the surplus has come right out of workers' pockets as a result of the $6 billion in EI cuts. This is a disgrace. What does he have to say to all the workers who are demonstrating today in Chicoutimi, on the North Shore, in Charlevoix and in the Saguenay region? What does he have to say to them when we know that he helped himself to $6 billion from the EI fund and that this had a direct impact on families, which are having trouble making both ends meet? What does he have to say to them? These are perhaps not people he knows very well. They are not people of his class.
Martin souligne que le taux de chômage est passé de 11,5 % à 7 %, que plus de 2 millions d'emplois ont été créés et que le revenu disponible réel par habitant est en hausse depuis que le gouvernement est au pouvoir.
Martin responds with macro employment figures (unemployment down from 11.5% to 7%, 2 million new jobs, rising real disposable income) without addressing the EI surplus accusation or the demonstrating workers.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what we will say is that when we took power unemployment stood at 11.5% and it is now down to 7%. We have created more than 2 million new jobs since we took power. Real disposable income per capita is on the increase. So is growth. What we will say is that Canada is doing just fine, and Quebecers know it.
Loubier demande si le ministre sait qu'une famille avec deux enfants commence à payer des impôts fédéraux à partir de 14 948 $ et si le surplus connu aurait pu alléger dès l'an dernier le fardeau des familles à faible revenu gagnant moins de 30 000 $.
Loubier cites the specific income threshold of $14,948 where a family with two children begins paying federal tax and frames the question around a 300% surplus miscalculation, making it factually grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is telling us today that, a few months ago, he miscalculated budget surpluses by 300% and that he had an additional surplus of $9 billion last year, money that comes from excess taxes paid by taxpayers. Does the minister know that a family with two children starts paying federal tax at $14,948 and that with these surpluses, which the minister knew about, he could have alleviated, as early as last year, the burden of low income families and all those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister know that?
Martin dit à Loubier de revoir ses chiffres, affirmant qu'à la suite du dernier budget, une famille avec deux enfants et un revenu de 30 000 $ ne paiera aucun impôt fédéral net.
Martin directly contests the figure cited, stating that following the last budget a family with two children and an income of $30,000 will not pay any net federal income tax, which partially addresses the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should review his figures. Following our last budget, a family with two children and an income of $30,000 will not pay any net federal income tax.
Loubier demande si le ministre réalise qu'en raison de sa stratégie de cacher les surplus, environ cinq millions de contribuables gagnant moins de 30 000 $ ont payé des impôts l'an dernier alors qu'ils n'auraient pas dû.
Loubier cites the minister's own department as the source and claims five million taxpayers earning less than $30,000 paid taxes unnecessarily, but the question is framed more as an accusation than a precise ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all the figures given here are from the minister's own department. Does the minister realize that, because of his incompetence, because of his crass electioneering strategy, about five million taxpayers who should not have paid taxes last year did pay taxes, namely those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister realize that?
Martin affirme que 900 000 Canadiens avec un revenu ne paient désormais aucun impôt grâce au budget, un chiffre qui passera à 1,5 million dans quatre ans, et dit à Loubier que le ministère peut lui fournir les données mais qu'il doit savoir les lire.
Martin partially responds by citing 900,000 Canadians now with income but paying no taxes, rising to 1.5 million in four years, but dismissively tells Loubier he must know how to read the figures rather than reconciling the discrepancy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again, thanks to our budget, there are now 900,000 Canadians who have an income but do not pay any taxes. Four years from now, there will be 1.5 million. All I can say to the hon. member is that the department can provide him with the figures, but he must know how to read them.
McDonough demande pourquoi le premier ministre est revenu sur sa promesse de diviser le surplus en parts égales, étant donné un surplus record de 12 milliards de dollars et un nombre record de pauvres, de sans-abri, de dettes étudiantes et de personnes non admissibles à l'assurance-emploi.
McDonough cites a record surplus of $12 billion, record poverty, homelessness, student debt, and reduced EI eligibility, and holds the Prime Minister to his own fifty-fifty surplus commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As we now know, the government has a record surplus of $12 billion, thanks to the tricky practices of the Minister of Finance. We have a record number of poor, a record number of homeless, a record student debt load, and fewer people eligible for employment insurance. The Prime Minister promised to divide the surplus fifty-fifty. Why has he gone back on his word?
Chrétien cite un accord signé la semaine dernière avec les provinces pour consacrer plus d'argent aux enfants, les crédits d'impôt existants pour les familles pauvres, et affirme que le surplus sert à rembourser la dette.
Chrétien cites the child agreement signed with provinces last week and tax credits for poor families but does not address the fifty-fifty promise or why it was not honoured.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to be aware of certain things, for example that we signed an agreement last week with the provinces to devote more money to children in all provinces. Since we have been in government, we have established tax credits for poor families. We have put a great deal of money into improving the social situation. Here is the situation. We have a government that is working very well, there is a great deal of optimism in Canada at the present time, and revenue is coming in faster than expected, fortunately, so we are using this surplus to pay down the debt. This means that we will not have to deal with that problem further down the road—
McDonough demande pourquoi le premier ministre trahit les priorités des Canadiens — l'environnement, l'éducation et la santé — en cédant aux banquiers et aux grands financiers plutôt qu'en aidant ceux qui en ont le plus besoin.
McDonough accuses the finance minister of lowballing surpluses and asserts the government is yielding to bankers and financial big shots, with only a vague rhetorical ask about betraying Canadians' priorities.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister always lowballs the surplus so that Canadians will not have a clear picture of the truth. The truth is that the government is giving into the bankers and the financial big shots rather than helping the people who need it most. The priorities of Canadians are the environment, education and health. Why is the Prime Minister betraying the priorities of Canadians?
Martin affirme que les trois quarts des dépenses ont été consacrés aux soins de santé, à l'éducation, à l'environnement et à l'innovation, que d'importantes réductions d'impôts bénéficiant aux Canadiens à faible et moyen revenu ont été introduites, et que la réduction de la dette est une question d'équité intergénérationnelle.
Martin responds with a specific claim that three-quarters of spending has been on health care, education, the environment and innovation, and mentions massive tax cuts and debt reduction, which partially engages the priorities question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why three-quarters of our spending has been on health care, education, the environment and innovation. At the same time we have brought in massive tax cuts that will benefit low and modest income Canadians. At the same time we are reducing the debt so that the next generation of Canadians will not have to bear the huge cost our generation has incurred. This is a question of generational equity.
Clark demande pourquoi le premier ministre accorde aux provinces un droit de veto sur la réduction des taxes fédérales sur le carburant.
Clark asks a precise, narrow question: why the Prime Minister is giving the provinces a veto on cutting Ottawa's own fuel taxes, cutting through the consultation framing directly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. His finance minister has just confirmed that the government's position on fuel taxes is that there will be no help from Ottawa unless the provinces agree. Why does the Prime Minister give the provinces a veto on cutting Ottawa's taxes on fuel?
Martin affirme que le gouvernement examine diverses options et agira, et explique qu'agir conjointement avec les provinces produirait une réduction de prix suffisamment importante pour être visible à la pompe et ne pas profiter aux compagnies pétrolières.
Martin confirms the government is examining various options and will take action, and reiterates the provincial coordination rationale, but does not directly answer why provinces should have a veto over federal tax decisions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I said in and outside the House that the government is examining various options. The government will certainly take action in that area. I also said when I was looking at excise taxes, and according to most provincial governments, that it would be far better to act together if one is to have a price cut which will be of sufficient size to take effect at the pump, be visible and not end up in the pockets of oil companies.
Clark demande d'abord si le gouvernement a proposé une réunion avec les provinces pour réduire les taxes sur le carburant, et ensuite si le premier ministre exclut la suppression de la TPS sur le mazout.
Clark asks two precise, binary yes/no questions: whether a meeting with provinces on cutting fuel taxes has been proposed, and whether the Prime Minister rules out removing the GST on home heating fuel.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me ask whoever is answering for the Prime Minister the following two questions. First, has there been a proposal to the provinces for a meeting on cutting fuel taxes? Second, does the Prime Minister rule out removing the GST on home heating fuel?
Chrétien renvoie aux remarques antérieures de Martin et cite la préoccupation de Mike Harris selon laquelle les réductions de taxes pourraient profiter aux compagnies pétrolières plutôt qu'aux consommateurs, sans répondre à aucune des deux questions précises de Clark.
Chrétien does not answer either binary question, instead deferring to Martin's earlier remarks and quoting Mike Harris on the risk of oil companies capturing tax cuts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has spoken very clearly on this subject. I think we have to make sure that any move, if we were to have a move, goes into the pockets of consumers and not of industry. I would like to quote a good friend of the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Mike Harris, who said “We are not about to cut taxes to give oil companies more money. I can tell you that. We need a guarantee that the oil companies won't suck up the difference with higher prices”. I think that is why the Minister of Finance and the provincial governments are careful. They do not want oil companies to pick up the difference and not consumers.
Cummins demande quand le ministre retirera les casiers illégaux de l'eau, citant ses propres déclarations selon lesquelles la médiation ne peut pas protéger des activités non autorisées et qu'il ne mettrait pas en péril la conservation en laissant la pêche se poursuivre sans contrainte.
Cummins directly quotes the minister's own prior statements about mediation not shielding unauthorized activity and not jeopardizing conservation, and holds him to those words with a specific ask to remove illegal traps.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the reported deal at Burnt Church is not a deal. It is a capitulation. Illegal traps remain in the water. Yesterday the minister said “Mediation cannot be a shield for unauthorized activity”. He said that he “would not jeopardize conservation of the viability of the fishery by letting fishing continue unabated”. This deal allows fishing to continue unabated. It jeopardizes conservation. It legitimizes illegal activity. When will the minister get the illegal traps out of the water?
Dhaliwal rapporte que Rae a obtenu un engagement de la Première Nation de Burnt Church pour réduire substantiellement le nombre de casiers dans la baie Miramichi, et réaffirme son mandat de protéger la ressource tout en résolvant la situation pacifiquement.
Dhaliwal reports Rae's commitment from Burnt Church first nation to substantially reduce traps but does not address the specific demand to remove illegal traps already in the water, and does not acknowledge the contradiction with his prior statements.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that Mr. Rae has reported and sent out a press release saying that he has a commitment from Burnt Church first nation to substantially reduce the number of traps in the Miramichi Bay. The intent is to ensure that we have conservation as a priority. As I said in the House before, and I want to say it again, I will carry out my mandate to make sure we protect the resource for all Canadians and future generations, but we owe it to the communities to bring the communities together to make sure that we make every effort to resolve this situation in a peaceful way. That is exactly—
Cummins, citant le chiffre de deux mille casiers donné par le ministre lui-même et calculant 20 000 livres de homard par jour prélevées dans une baie fermée, demande pourquoi le ministre ne retirera pas les casiers de l'eau maintenant.
Cummins cites the minister's own figure of two thousand traps, calculates a specific daily harvest of 20,000 pounds of lobster from a modest 10-pounds-per-trap-per-day rate, and poses a direct demand to act now.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister was quoted as saying that there were two thousand traps in Miramichi Bay. At a modest catch of 10 pounds of lobster per trap, per day, that is 20,000 pounds of lobster coming out of Miramichi Bay every day at a time when the bay is closed for conservation purposes. The minister continues to jeopardize conservation. He is threatening the viability of the fishery. Why will he not get the traps out of the water now?
Dhaliwal affirme que 2 700 casiers ont déjà été retirés de la baie Miramichi par des mesures d'exécution, note 29 ententes conclues avec des Premières Nations sur 34, et réaffirme qu'il protégera la ressource et s'assurera que la règle de droit est respectée.
Dhaliwal directly counters by stating 2,700 traps have already been removed through enforcement action, engages the conservation concern, and reaffirms commitment to the rule of law, though he does not address the ongoing daily catch calculation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not been following what we have been doing. We have been taking enforcement action. In fact we have taken 2,700 traps out of Miramichi Bay, so there has been enforcement action. We have always said from day one, unlike the hon. member, that it is through co-operation and dialogue. That is our first preference. That is why we were able to get 29 agreements with first nations out of 34. That is working well. We will continue to do it, but at the end of the day I will take my mandate seriously. I will protect the resource and make sure the rule of law is followed by all Canadians.
Asselin demande si la ministre proposera des mesures transitoires pour les travailleurs saisonniers admissibles à l'assurance-emploi entre le 9 juillet et le 17 septembre, qui ne recevront que 21 semaines de prestations fondées sur 525 heures et se retrouveront à l'aide sociale le 15 février.
The question cites a specific date (February 15), a specific eligibility window (July 9 to September 17), a specific benefit figure (21 weeks, 525 hours), and asks a clear yes/no policy question about transitional measures.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, thousands of seasonal workers in Charlevoix, the north shore, the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé, even in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, are worried. Next February 15, they will all end up on welfare. I am asking the Minister of Human Resources Development whether she is going to propose transitional measures for these people who qualified for employment insurance between July 9 and September 17 and will receive only 21 weeks of benefits based on 525 hours.
Stewart affirme que le gouvernement a accepté d'introduire progressivement les changements aux frontières de l'assurance-emploi et propose la création d'un groupe communautaire pour examiner les possibilités d'emploi dans la région.
Stewart confirms a phase-in of EI boundary changes and proposes a community group but does not directly address whether transitional measures for the specific cohort described will be introduced.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I met with the hon. member and constituents from his area just a few days ago on this very issue. He knows full well that we have agreed to phase in the changes for employment insurance boundaries in his part of Quebec. As well we have offered and are very anxious to start a community group to look at expanding the employment opportunities in that part of Quebec. The workers want to work. The workers want new opportunities. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman if he would join us in that undertaking to make sure that the workers get what they really want.
Asselin demande si la ministre reconnaît avoir reçu de mauvais conseils et avoir commis une grave erreur dont les travailleurs saisonniers font les frais, et si elle agira rapidement pour y remédier.
The follow-up is mostly rhetorical, asking the minister to acknowledge she made a 'very serious mistake' and acted on 'bad advice,' with only a vague call to 'remedy this mistake promptly.'
Texte source
Does the minister realize that she has been given bad advice on this matter and has made a very serious mistake, for which the seasonal workers must pay, and does she realize that she needs to act promptly to remedy this mistake, which is having negative effects for workers in the regions?
Stewart affirme que le gouvernement a agi rapidement en introduisant progressivement les changements aux frontières de l'AE et en annonçant un comité communautaire, puis suggère que le BQ ne comprend pas que l'emploi dépasse l'assurance-emploi.
Stewart repeats the phase-in and community committee announcements without acknowledging any mistake or specifying any new remedial action for the workers described.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have acted quickly. We are phasing in the changes to the EI boundaries. We will be announcing a committee working right in the community to look at opportunities there. I, along with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, will be investing and supporting that undertaking. The real question is if that party understands that the issue of employment is about more than just employment insurance. It is about finding new opportunities and work for the people in that region.
Duncan demande pourquoi le ministre prétend protéger la ressource homardière avec des accords sans signification, citant que la bande de l'Île Lennox, dont l'accord portait sur 20 000 livres dans la baie Malpeque, a maintenant pêché plus du double selon des sources du MPO.
Duncan cites a specific band (Lennox Island), a specific quota (20,000 pounds in Malpeque Bay), a specific source (DFO sources), and a specific alleged overrun (more than double), asking a pointed question about the meaningfulness of the agreements.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister brags that 29 out of 34 bands in the maritimes have signed fishing agreements. He suggests that if only Burnt Church would sign on that would end the problem. The reality is quite different. The Lennox Island Band agreement was for 20,000 pounds in Malpeque Bay. DFO sources say they have now fished more than double that and they are still fishing. Why is the minister pretending to protect the lobster resource with meaningless agreements?
Dhaliwal vante les 29 accords comme créant de vraies possibilités pour les communautés autochtones, mentionne des mesures d'exécution incluant la saisie de quatre navires et des accusations contre 16 personnes, et promet de protéger la ressource pour tous les Canadiens.
Dhaliwal describes the benefits of the 29 agreements and lists enforcement actions (four vessels seized, 16 people charged) but does not address the specific Lennox Island overrun allegation at all.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take the time to read the 29 agreements we have signed. For the first time we are creating real opportunity, providing not only access to the resource but providing vessels, providing training and providing mentoring so that the aboriginal community can truly be successful in the fishery as it participates more and more in the commercial fishery. We have taken enforcement action, as I said earlier. We arrested and seized four vessels. We charged 16 people, so enforcement action has been taken. We want to make sure that every step is taken to try to resolve this issue in a peaceful and co-operative manner. However, at the end of the day, we will enforce the law and make sure we protect the resource for all Canadians.
Duncan demande combien des 29 accords sont des supercheries comme celui de la baie Malpeque, notant que le ministre a dit hier qu'il n'utiliserait pas les accords comme bouclier pour des activités non autorisées, mais qu'il le ferait quand même.
Duncan quotes the minister's own statement from the previous day about not using deals as a shield for unauthorized activities and asks how many of the 29 deals are shams like the Malpeque Bay deal, making it a specific accountability challenge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we cannot have two sets of rules. In Malpeque Bay the minister is legitimizing illegal fishing by calling it a deal. Yesterday the minister said that he would not use deals as a shield for unauthorized activities, but he is and he has. How many other of the 29 deals are shams like the Malpeque Bay deal?
Dhaliwal vante l'engagement de 160 millions de dollars et les 29 accords comme créant de vraies possibilités pour les Premières Nations, et dit qu'une ou deux bandes ne signent pas mais que le gouvernement y travaille.
Dhaliwal does not address the contradiction between his previous statement and the alleged Malpeque Bay overrun, instead promoting the overall $160 million commitment and deflecting by telling Duncan to talk to the chiefs.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should meet and talk to some of the chiefs who have signed deals and then he would have a firsthand view. They are very reluctant to go out to talk to the aboriginal community because then they would see the good work that has been done with the 29 deals which have been signed for this year that are creating real opportunity for first nations. This has been a big commitment by the federal government of $160 million, to make sure that we have a plan to deal with Marshall. It is doing well. Unfortunately one or two bands are not signing, but we are working on that. At the end of the day we will make sure we will protect the resource for all Canadians.
Bellehumeur demande si la ministre donnera suite aux deux propositions spécifiques du Québec — modifier le code criminel pour criminaliser l'appartenance à un groupe criminel et soumettre immédiatement cet amendement à la cour suprême — le plus rapidement possible.
Bellehumeur cites a specific meeting (deputy ministers of justice, previous day), two specific Quebec proposals (criminalizing membership in a criminal group; immediate supreme court reference), and asks a clear yes/no question about acting on them as quickly as possible.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a meeting was held between the deputy ministers of justice of the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. Quebec submitted specific proposals to the federal government. The first was to amend the criminal code in order to criminalize membership in a criminal group. The second was to submit this amendment to the supreme court immediately for validation in order to avoid lengthy appeal proceedings. My question is as follows. Will the minister agree to act on the proposal by Quebec as quickly as possible?
McLellan confirme que les discussions fédérales-québécoises ont été constructives et dit que le gouvernement envisage des modifications législatives, mais consultera les autres provinces, territoires et forces de l'ordre avant d'agir très prochainement.
McLellan confirms constructive discussions, acknowledges Quebec's work, and pledges to move forward very soon, but does not commit to either specific proposal and adds the condition of provincial/territorial consultations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, federal officials had very constructive discussions with their Quebec counterparts. There are a number of fronts on which we will be working. One is looking at possible legislative change. Indeed the government of Quebec has done some very good work in that regard, and we will be working with them further. We will be consulting with the other provinces and the territories and with law enforcement authorities before we move forward, but I can assure the hon. member we are taking this matter very seriously and we will be moving forward very soon.
Bellehumeur demande à la ministre de préciser le calendrier d'adoption des amendements proposés par le Québec, la défiant de démontrer une véritable volonté politique.
Bellehumeur asks the minister to specify a timetable for adopting the amendments Quebec proposed, a concrete and answerable follow-up that tests sincerity with a specific deliverable.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the minister is sincere in her response, if she really intends to act and has the political will to do so, she has the government behind her on that. Can she specify the timetable for adopting the amendments Quebec has proposed?
McLellan dit que les fonctionnaires fédéraux et québécois ont convenu de consulter d'abord leurs homologues provinciaux, territoriaux et policiers, et que des mesures suivront, mais refuse de donner un calendrier et dit que le gouvernement ne se laissera pas bousculer.
McLellan references consultations agreed to by officials and says action will follow their completion, but gives no timetable whatsoever and adds a caveat about not being rushed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was agreed yesterday by federal officials and Quebec officials that it would be important to consult with provincial and territorial counterparts and that it would be important to have discussions with law enforcement authorities. As soon as those discussions are completed, we will be in a position to act. However, we will not be rushed into passing a law that is not the very best that we can make to protect all Canadians from organized crime.
Abbott demande pourquoi le gouvernement a mis fin à sidewinder, une opération conjointe de la GRC et du SCRS examinant le crime organisé et l'influence étrangère, qui soulève selon lui de graves préoccupations pour la sécurité des Canadiens.
Abbott identifies the specific operation (sidewinder, joint RCMP and CSIS), describes its subject matter (organized crime and foreign influence), states he has read the report, and asks a clear yes/no question about why the government shut it down.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, sidewinder was a joint RCMP and CSIS operation that looked into the influence of organized crime and foreign companies on Canadian companies and our security. I have had an opportunity to read the report and it raises very serious concerns about Canadians' personal safety, national security and foreign influence in Canada. Why did the government shut down the report?
Myers annonce que l'examen du CSARS est maintenant terminé et soumis au solliciteur général, avec trois conclusions : aucune interférence politique, le rapport provisoire était profondément défectueux, et aucune preuve de nature substantielle n'en faisait partie.
Myers announces the SIRC review is complete and submitted and provides three specific findings, which partially addresses the question by explaining what happened to the report, though not why it was shut down.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the member opposite has gone on repeatedly about this project. He knows full well that the Security Intelligence Review Committee has conducted a review. I am pleased to report to the House today that review is now complete and has been submitted to the solicitor general. There are three points in that submission that I would like to refer to all members of the House. The first is that there was no political interference as alleged in the media. The second is the draft report in fact was deeply flawed. The third is that no evidence of any substantial nature was part of that draft report. This is good news for all of us. It underscores—
Abbott remet en question l'affirmation d'absence d'influence, soutenant que même en réduisant de 50 % les conclusions, elles demeurent menaçantes, et demande rhétoriquement si la GRC aurait volontairement cessé d'enquêter sur de telles conclusions.
Abbott's follow-up is more rhetorical than precise, posing a hypothetical about RCMP motivations and questioning what 'no influence' means, without a clearly defined single ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, we have been after this information for an extended period of time. What seemed to us to be totally incredible is that this report, with all of the findings that it had, even if we were to discount them to 50%, are still very threatening and of concern to Canadians. It raises the question of would the RCMP have actually said “This report is terrible. Look at all the evidence we are uncovering. We had better stop investigating”. What does the member mean there was not any influence on this process?
Myers répète qu'il n'y a eu aucune interférence politique, dit que le SCRS et la GRC continuent de travailler selon les valeurs canadiennes, et accuse Abbott de chercher une théorie du complot similaire à celle du monticule herbeux.
Myers repeats that there was no political interference, praises CSIS and RCMP, and dismisses Abbott's concern as a conspiracy theory with a 'grassy knoll' reference, without engaging the substantive hypothetical raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite did not listen to my answer and does not get it. The answer is quite simply that there was no political interference. CSIS, the RCMP and all involved in this matter continue to work very hard on it and will continue to do so based on the values of this country and based on the values of all Canadians. Instead of looking for the conspiracy theory, which the member opposite always wants to do in trying to get the theory of the grassy knoll and other things, he should bear down on the facts. The facts today are evident and they are presented here in the House.
Venne demande pourquoi la ministre de la Justice n'a pas tenu son engagement de proposer des modifications au code criminel permettant au Québec d'utiliser des antidémarreurs éthylométriques pour les récidivistes en état d'ivresse au volant.
Venne cites a specific commitment made this summer to a named Quebec minister, a specific policy tool (ignition interlock systems), a specific target group (repeat offenders), supporting evidence (favourable opinion from lawyers in other provinces and proven effectiveness), and asks why the promise has not been kept.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice made a commitment this summer to the Quebec minister of transport to propose amendments to the criminal code so that Quebec could use ignition interlock systems to fight cases of repeat offenders under the influence of alcohol. Why has the minister not kept her promise, when Quebec obtained a favourable opinion from lawyers in other provinces and this system has already been shown to be effective?
McLellan dit avoir écrit au ministre des transports du Québec pour exprimer sa volonté de donner suite aux suggestions et avoir chargé son sous-ministre d'en discuter avec ses homologues lors de leur réunion de novembre.
McLellan confirms she wrote to the Quebec minister of transport and instructed her deputy minister to take it up with fellow deputy ministers in November, but does not explain the delay or commit to criminal code amendments.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, indeed I have had the opportunity to write to my colleague the minister of transport in the province of Quebec indicating my willingness to pursue the suggestions that the hon. minister has made. I have instructed my deputy minister to take this up with his fellow deputy ministers at their meeting in November.
Harvard demande ce que le gouvernement du Canada peut faire pour aider les producteurs du sud de l'Alberta et de la Saskatchewan qui ont dû vendre leur cheptel reproducteur en raison des graves conditions de sécheresse cet été.
This is a government-backbench softball: Harvard describes a known weather situation and invites the minister to announce what the government can do, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. This summer, producers in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan have faced severe drought conditions. As a result of that, many of them have had to sell some or all of their breeding stock. Can the minister tell the House what the government of Canada can do to assist these producers who have been hit by the severe weather in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
Vanclief annonce que les agriculteurs et éleveurs qui doivent vendre plus de 15 % ou la totalité de leur cheptel reproducteur bénéficieront désormais d'un report d'impôt d'un an sur les revenus provenant de la vente de ces animaux.
Vanclief provides a specific new measure—a one-year tax deferral on income from sale of breeding herds for farmers selling over 15%—directly answering what the government will do.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as we know, in a country this size there is great variability in weather. As the hon. member has said, in some parts of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan this year there has been a severe drought. I am pleased to announce today that those farmers and ranchers who see fit and have to sell over 15% and maybe all of their breeding herds will now receive a one year tax deferral on income from the sale of those animals. This is another program that is in place to assist, along with the other safety net programs in Canada, farmers in situations of financial stress.
Johnston demande quand le ministre instaurera un mécanisme de règlement des différends, citant la menace de grève des manutentionnaires de grain à Thunder Bay pendant la récolte et les échecs répétés du gouvernement à protéger le système de transport du grain.
Johnston identifies a specific imminent threat (Thunder Bay port grain handlers threatening to strike during harvest), references the government's prior assurances, and asks when a dispute settlement mechanism will be introduced, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again the government failed western Canadian grain farmers. The grain transportation system is in a mess at the moment. While harvest is under way, the grain handlers at the seasonal port of Thunder Bay are threatening to strike. Time and time again the government has said to just trust it, that nothing will stand in the way of grain shipments and that these will not be held hostage again. The fact is Canadians do not trust the government's crisis management solution. They want the minister to bring in some dispute settlement mechanism that would bring the Canadian code into the 21st century. When will the minister be prepared to do that?
Collenette rejette la description du système de transport du grain comme étant en désordre, cite le projet de loi C-34 et les 178 millions de dollars réinjectés dans le système, et dit qu'il est prématuré de parler de problèmes qui ne se sont pas encore manifestés.
Collenette rejects the characterization of the grain transportation system, cites Bill C-34 and $178 million returned to the system, and says it is premature to talk about problems not yet manifested, without addressing the dispute settlement mechanism request.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny and reject the assertion of the hon. member that the grain transportation system is as he describes it. As hon. members know, Bill C-34 was passed by the House on division. There was great co-operation by members. This is good news for western farmers because $178 million has been put back into the system. It is very premature for the hon. member to start talking about problems that have not yet manifested themselves. I just read a note that talks about grain shipments having increased so far this year. I think that good trend will continue.
Johnston note que les travailleurs sont sans contrat depuis janvier et demande pourquoi le ministre ne modifiera pas le code pour instaurer un mécanisme de règlement des différends afin de prévenir les crises, compte tenu de la menace que les bas prix des produits de base font peser sur les agriculteurs.
Johnston adds the specific fact that workers have been without a contract since January and reiterates the call for a dispute settlement mechanism, though the framing remains somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister has not noticed that the workers have been without a contract since January and they are frustrated. Of course, the grain companies are frustrated too. The farmers have had it right up to their ears. With low commodity prices threatening to put many grain farmers completely out of business, I would think it is about time that the minister changed the code so that there would be a dispute settlement mechanism whereby these things could be nipped in the bud before they became a crisis.
Vanclief dit que l'opposition ne croit pas au processus de négociation collective, exprime sa confiance qu'il fonctionnera, et dit que le gouvernement s'occupera de tout échec le moment venu.
Vanclief deflects by defending the collective bargaining process and accusing the opposition of not believing in it, without addressing the specific request for a dispute settlement mechanism.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the opposition across the way does not believe in the collective bargaining process. The collective bargaining process is in action. Let us hope that it works well. If it does not work well, then we will have to deal with it when that happens. We cannot be premature and start dictating to somebody what they should and should not do. The collective bargaining process is there. It has worked in the past and I am confident it will work now.
Nystrom demande pourquoi le ministre des Finances a choisi de consacrer tout l'excédent au remboursement de la dette nationale pour les détenteurs d'obligations de Bay Street plutôt que de réduire le déficit humain en investissant dans la santé, l'éducation, les agriculteurs et les pauvres.
Nystrom's question is mostly rhetorical partisan framing accusing the minister of favouring Bay Street bondholders, with a vague embedded ask about why he chose debt repayment over programs, and no specific figures or documents cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance put all the surplus into paying down the national debt, but he had a choice. He chose the bondholders of Bay Street before paying down the human deficit in this country. He chose the bondholders of Bay Street before putting more money into health and education. He chose Bay Street before helping the farmers and helping poor people in this country. I want to know why the Minister of Finance chose his friends on Bay Street instead of paying down the human deficit by putting money into programs for people in this country.
Martin énumère les dépenses sociales, notamment 900 millions de dollars pour la Fondation canadienne pour l'innovation, 2,5 milliards de dollars en transferts de santé dans le budget, et l'accord provincial de 21 à 23 milliards de dollars signé par le premier ministre et les premiers ministres il y a deux semaines.
Martin lists specific figures—$900 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, $2.5 billion in health transfers, and $21 billion to $23 billion in provincial transfers—providing real budgetary context though not directly rebutting the Bay Street framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me simply explain the balanced approach to the hon. member. He may well remember that in the budget we put $900 million more into the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. At the year end we put more money into western and eastern agriculture. In that same budget we put $2.5 billion into transfers to the provinces for health care. It is that surplus which will allow us to finance the very large funding of $21 billion to $23 billion in transfers to the provinces in the agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers two weeks ago.
Nystrom demande au premier ministre si c'est un conflit d'intérêts pour le ministre des Finances de consacrer l'excédent au remboursement de la dette, citant la déclaration matinale du ministre selon laquelle il a été conseillé par ses amis de Bay Street, et si le ministre devrait démissionner.
Nystrom cites a specific statement made that morning by the Minister of Finance about being advised by friends on Bay Street, and asks whether directing the surplus to debt constitutes a conflict of interest, though the call for resignation makes it partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question then goes to the right hon. Prime Minister. This morning the Minister of Finance said he was advised by his friends on Bay Street as to what to do with the surplus. Of course, the surplus going to the debt would help his friends on Bay Street and that is exactly what the minister did. I ask the Prime Minister, is this not a conflict of interest? Is it not a conflict of interest for the finance minister to give the money to an institution that would help his friends? Should the minister not resign because of that?
Chrétien rejette l'insinuation, loue l'honneur et l'objectivité de Martin depuis six ans, énumère les investissements sociaux incluant la santé, le programme pour les enfants, la recherche et développement et le programme de bourses du millénaire, et défend le remboursement de la dette.
Chrétien defends Martin's honour and objectivity and lists social spending items but does not address the conflict of interest allegation or the specific morning statement about Bay Street advice.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not like the insinuation. I think that the Minister of Finance has shown how honourable he is and how objective he has been over the last six years. I have to tell hon. members that he recited a long list of agreements and payments that we are giving in the social field. There is the health agreement. We have invested a lot of money in the children's agenda since we have been here. We have invested in research and development, high technology for connecting all Canadians, the millennium scholarship program and I could go on and on. I will always be happy when we can pay the debt in Canada because we are paying the mortgage that the previous generation put on the children of today.
Vautour demande au ministre de confirmer que tout accord conclu avec Burnt Church appliquera la même saison de pêche commerciale et les mêmes règles à tous les pêcheurs afin de faire de la conservation de la pêche au homard une priorité.
Vautour asks a specific and answerable yes/no question about whether any Burnt Church agreement will apply the same season and rules to all fishers for conservation purposes, which is a concrete policy accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm in this House that if an agreement is reached in Burnt Church today, or tomorrow—we hope it will be as soon as possible—that agreement will provide that commercial fishing is subject to the same season and the same rules for all fishers, so as to ensure that the conservation of the lobster fishery is a priority?
Dhaliwal rapporte que la Première Nation de Burnt Church a accepté de réduire considérablement le nombre de casiers dans la baie Miramichi et dit que tous les casiers doivent être autorisés et légaux, promettant des mesures d'exécution contre la pêche non autorisée et illégale.
Dhaliwal reports that Burnt Church first nation has agreed to substantially reduce traps in Miramichi Bay and pledges to enforce against unauthorized and illegal fishing, but does not directly confirm whether an agreement would apply the same season and rules for all fishers.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said earlier. As the hon. member knows, Mr. Rae is the mediator who was trying to bring the communities together. He has reported that Burnt Church first nation has agreed to substantially reduce the number of traps in the water in Miramichi Bay. This is a good step. We will watch to make sure that happens. It will really be in the action and not the words. I have always said that we want to make sure that all of the traps that are out there are authorized and legal. Any that are not authorized are illegal fishing and we will take steps to make sure that we deal with unauthorized and illegal fishing.
Le ministre a-t-il un plan b si une solution pacifique à la crise de Burnt Church ne peut être garantie, et si oui, lequel?
The question asks a reasonably specific accountability question about whether a 'plan b' exists for Burnt Church, but lacks documentary grounding or precise factual context.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rae cannot guarantee a peaceful solution to the crisis in Burnt Church. The House has a right to know if the minister has a plan b and if so, what is it?
Le ministre affirme que le gouvernement a toujours des plans, renvoie à son exposé au comité des pêches et cite John Crosbie qui approuve sa gestion de l'arrêt Marshall.
The minister deflects by citing his appearance at the fisheries committee and quoting John Crosbie rather than describing any actual plan b for Burnt Church.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, of course the government always has plans to deal with situations that do not work out. The hon. member should know because I have gone to the fisheries committee. I have laid out the direction in our response to Marshall. Obviously he is not listening. Let me quote for him a Progressive Conservative member who said “I congratulate and support the federal fisheries minister in accepting his responsibility and exercising his powers”. This was said by John Crosbie, the former fisheries minister.
Quels efforts le Canada a-t-il déployés pour appuyer le processus de paix en Irlande du Nord, y compris la réforme policière?
This is a government-backbench softball setup inviting the parliamentary secretary to tout Canada's role in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Peter Mandelson, the British secretary of state for Northern Ireland, met with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and several parliamentary groups. Could the parliamentary secretary explain to the House the efforts that Canada has been making to the peace process in Northern Ireland, including its efforts to reform policing in that part of Ireland?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has encouraged and participated in the peace process at all levels. Canada has contributed $1 million to the international fund for Ireland. Eminent Canadians have been actively involved in the peace process. General John De Chastelain, for example, heads the independent international commission on decommissioning. Secretary of State Mandelson said yesterday of General De Chastelain “John De Chastelain was head of the decommissioning body for some years. He is a man who commands great trust in Northern Ireland. He has immense authority and credibility”.
Le Canada a versé 1 million de dollars au fonds international pour l'Irlande et le général John De Chastelain préside la commission internationale indépendante sur le désarmement, louée par le secrétaire d'État Mandelson.
The parliamentary secretary provides specific facts including a $1 million contribution to the international fund for Ireland, General John De Chastelain's role heading the independent international commission on decommissioning, and a direct quote from Secretary of State Mandelson.
Pourquoi le ministre a-t-il interjeté appel de la décision de l'OMC sur les brevets pharmaceutiques alors que les propres négociateurs du Canada avaient dit en mai qu'il s'agissait d'une cause évidente?
The question cites a specific WTO drug patent ruling, references Canada's own negotiators and their May assessment that it was an open and shut case, and asks a clear accountability question about why the minister appealed a case he knew would be lost.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the WTO drug patent ruling is yet another example of the government wasting valuable time and money on a senseless dispute before the WTO. Canada's own negotiators involved with the TRIPS agreement said in May that this was an open and shut case. Yet the minister went ahead with an appeal that he knew would be lost when his priority should have been to inform Canadian consumers of the impact of the WTO decision. Why?
Le ministre a dit être déçu de la décision du groupe de l'OMC mais soulagé qu'elle n'oblige pas le Canada à modifier substantiellement l'équilibre global de sa législation actuelle.
The minister acknowledges disappointment with the WTO panel decision and expresses relief that Canada's legislation need not change substantially, but does not address why he pursued an appeal his own negotiators called an open and shut case.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we received the answer from the WTO panel and did not particularly like it. I was disappointed with the decision. I am very relieved, however, that that particular decision will not force Canada to change substantially the overall balance of our present legislation.
Compte tenu des nouvelles données confidentielles d'Énergie atomique du Canada limitée correspondant aux pires scénarios évoqués par Dr Gilles Grenier, le ministre croit-il toujours qu'il n'y a aucun risque pour la population?
The question cites a named expert, Dr. Gilles Grenier, and references new confidential data at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited matching worse case scenarios, giving factual grounding to a direct yes/no accountability question to the minister.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources keeps repeating that the importation of MOX does not pose any risk. Yet Dr. Gilles Grenier, who is an expert on emergency situations relating to nuclear accidents, recently said that new confidential data at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited basically match the worse case scenarios described by those who oppose the project. In light of this new information, does the Minister of Natural Resources still believe that there is no risk for the population?
Le ministre affirme qu'EACL a tenu compte des commentaires du Dr Grenier durant le processus de consultation publique et que Transports Canada, à titre d'organisme de réglementation, déterminera si les circonstances permettent le transport.
The minister notes that AECL addressed Dr. Grenier's comments during the open public comment process and defers to Transport Canada as regulator, engaging the topic but not directly answering whether he still believes there is no risk.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman to whom the hon. member refers made some comments during the open public comment process. AECL took those comments into account and responded to them during the process. It is now in the hands of the Department of Transport as the regulator to determine whether all of the circumstances are sufficient to allow the transportation to occur. I have every confidence that Transport Canada will discharge its responsibilities in the public interest.
Compte tenu d'un surplus de 12 milliards de dollars dont 7,5 milliards proviennent du fonds d'assurance-emploi, et sachant que la Chambre a appuyé unanimement une révision de l'AE le 9 mai, la ministre agira-t-elle immédiatement ou attendra-t-elle la veille des élections?
The question cites the $12 billion surplus, specifies that $7.5 billion came from the employment insurance fund, and references the May 9 unanimous House vote on EI review, giving a clear factual basis for an accountability question about timing of reforms.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Finance announced an unexpected surplus of $12 billion. Out of that $12 billion, $7.5 billion comes from the employment insurance fund and from those who have lost their jobs. My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Since on May 9 the House of Commons unanimously supported a review of the employment insurance program, will the minister wait until the eve of an election to make changes to the employment insurance program for the benefit of the Liberals, or will she act immediately for the benefit of Canadian workers?
La ministre décrit sa visite dans la Péninsule acadienne avec la ministre du Travail, des rencontres avec des employés et des employeurs, et des groupes communautaires actifs au Nouveau-Brunswick, affirmant obtenir de vrais résultats.
The minister pivots entirely to describing community activities in the Acadian Peninsula rather than addressing the question about when EI program changes will be made or why action has not followed the unanimous House vote.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about immediate action. Let me describe to him the things that we are doing in his community in the Acadian Peninsula. I was there with the Minister of Labour and together we met with employees and employers. There are very active community groups in that part of New Brunswick where the unemployment levels have been significantly high. We are getting real results.
Le ministre des Finances utilisera-t-il les surplus anticipés pour remettre aux provinces l'argent convenu lors de l'accord sur la santé de la semaine dernière?
The question mixes partisan rhetoric about the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance with a substantive ask about whether anticipated surpluses will be used to deliver money agreed in last week's health agreement to the provinces.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, bad news for the Prime Minister: thanks to his Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister has broken yet another Liberal promise, the one about the 50:50 ratio for the budget surplus. This is bad news for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance is hiding future surpluses from the Prime Minister because he knows him so well. This is bad news for the Prime Minister, but that is how things are between them. For the benefit of Canadians, could the Minister of Finance tell the House today that he will use the anticipated surpluses to hand over to the provinces the money agreed on in last week's health agreement now?
Le premier ministre affirme que des fonds sont disponibles cette année pour l'équipement et d'autres volets du programme de santé, et que les transferts globaux aux gouvernements provinciaux commenceront l'année prochaine, tous les gouvernements provinciaux ayant été satisfaits de l'accord.
The Prime Minister confirms the health agreement signed the previous Monday, specifies that money is available this year for equipment and other program parts and global transfers begin next year, partially addressing the question though without detail on anticipated surpluses.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have a plan and we are following it. Fortunately, the economy is exceptional and future generations will be the ones to benefit because the debt will go down. As for the money that will be given to provincial governments, I signed an agreement with them last Monday, and all of them were happy. Money is available starting this year for the purchase of equipment and for other parts of the program. As for the global transfers, they will begin next year. All of the provincial governments were happy and they included representatives of all parties. The member should perhaps realize that, when there is an agreement—
La diversification de l'Ouest joue-t-elle un rôle précieux dans l'économie de l'Ouest?
This is a pure government-backbench softball inviting the Secretary of State to affirm whether western diversification has a valuable role to play, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification. I heard a lot about the regional agencies and their role and effectiveness in the Canadian economy. Does western diversification have a valuable role to play in the western economy?
Oh, oh.
Le secrétaire d'État mentionne 2,3 milliards de dollars investis dans l'économie de l'Ouest depuis la création du ministère et affirme que les Sociétés d'aide au développement des collectivités ont généré 10 % des nouveaux emplois en Colombie-Britannique au cours des dernières années.
The Secretary of State provides specific figures including $2.3 billion invested since inception and the claim that Community Future Development Corporations produced 10% of new jobs in British Columbia over the last few years, giving real informational content.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, my department has invested $2.3 billion in the western economy since its inception. With its partners it has created the tools that have permitted the western economies to diversify in a significant kind of way. Last week I was in the western provinces, particularly in British Columbia. I was told that one of the tools developed, the Community Future Development Corporations, has produced 10% of the new jobs in British Columbia over the last few years. The department also comes to the aid of communities in crisis such as the west coast fisheries and the Red River flood.
They really do not want to hear the good news. We are proud of the record of the western economic diversification.