Résumé de la séance
- Le rapport du vérificateur général a dominé la période des questions, les partis d'opposition pressant le premier ministre de s'expliquer sur les constatations de mauvaise gestion généralisée à DRHC, le chiffre de 3 milliards de dollars cité par l'Alliance canadienne et les enquêtes de la GRC en cours dans la propre circonscription du premier ministre.
- Le premier ministre a cité à plusieurs reprises la conclusion du vérificateur général selon laquelle DRHC avait pris des 'mesures correctives tout à fait extraordinaires' et qu'aucun cas de malfaisance de la part de fonctionnaires n'avait été relevé, utilisant ces citations pour esquiver les demandes d'excuses.
- La critique du vérificateur général à l'égard du plan budgétaire 2000 pour 'présentation financière trompeuse' et une surestimation de 7 milliards de dollars du plan quinquennal de réduction fiscale a été soulevée par l'Alliance canadienne avant la déclaration économique du ministre des Finances prévue en après-midi.
- Le Bloc québécois a soulevé des allégations précises de favoritisme concernant l'octroi d'un contrat de l'ACDI à Groupe SM sans processus d'appel d'offres et quatre enquêtes de la GRC dans la circonscription du premier ministre, notamment des affaires liées à Claude Gauthier, Placeteco et Transélec.
- Le ministre de la Santé a annoncé qu'une source de Cisapride avait été identifiée et que la mise en circulation autorisée était en cours, en réponse aux préoccupations des patients ne pouvant accéder au médicament Prepulsid après son retrait du marché par Santé Canada; le ministre a également ordonné une vérification judiciaire concernant l'utilisation alléguée de fonds de Santé Canada pour des croisières.
- Le Bloc québécois a contesté une clause du projet de loi C-44 qui, selon lui, permettrait au gouvernement de détourner le surplus du fonds d'assurance-emploi, tandis que le NPD a demandé si le mini-budget de l'après-midi serait financé à même ce surplus.
Le ministre de la Santé a fait une annonce précise et concrète indiquant qu'une source de Cisapride avait été identifiée et que la mise en circulation autorisée était en cours, répondant directement au problème d'accès immédiat des patients ne pouvant obtenir le médicament Prepulsid.
Precisely pits two ministers' statements against each other — the Minister of Public Works saying no public money was spent on Downsview Park versus the Minister of National Defence admitting money was being spent — and asks which minister is telling the truth, making it a sharp and specific accountability question.
Plutôt que de répondre au fond des allégations de l'opposition concernant le rapport du vérificateur général et les conclusions du commissaire à l'information, le premier ministre a répondu par une remarque sans rapport sur le fait que le chef de l'opposition parlerait trop souvent avec Jesse Helms et par une suggestion de chanter God Save the Queen.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Stockwell Day a demandé si le premier ministre allait s'excuser pour les enquêtes de la GRC liées à des affaires relevant de son gouvernement — aucune excuse ni réponse de fond n'a été fournie. (Échange 4)
- M. Benoît Sauvageau a demandé si la ministre de la Coopération internationale pouvait justifier l'attribution d'un contrat de l'ACDI à Groupe SM sans appel d'offres, étant donné que Groupe SM aurait contribué 90 000 $ au Parti libéral du Canada entre 1994 et 1999 — la ministre a nié la prémisse sans aborder les chiffres précis des contributions. (Échange 16)
- M. Paul Crête a demandé si le gouvernement était prêt à retirer la clause du projet de loi C-44 lui permettant de s'emparer du surplus d'assurance-emploi — la ministre n'a pas répondu par oui ou par non, mais a défendu la clause comme une clarification demandée par le Comité permanent des finances et le vérificateur général. (Échange 20)
- Le très hon. Joe Clark a demandé au premier ministre ce qu'il cherchait à cacher en créant la société du parc Downsview par décret plutôt que par voie législative — le ministre des Travaux publics a esquivé en affirmant que rien n'avait été caché sans expliquer le choix du mécanisme. (Échange 12)
- M. Gilles Duceppe a demandé comment le premier ministre pouvait justifier le copinage, le favoritisme et la mauvaise gestion gouvernementale à la lumière des rapports du vérificateur général et du commissaire à l'information, notamment concernant l'implication de Claude Gauthier dans les scandales Placeteco et Transélec — le premier ministre a répondu en attaquant le bilan de Duceppe sur la souveraineté plutôt qu'en répondant aux allégations précises. (Échange 7)
Day a cité la conclusion du vérificateur général concernant 3 milliards de dollars de gaspillage et de mauvaise gestion dans un seul ministère, et a demandé si le premier ministre s'excuserait au moins auprès des Canadiens.
Cites a specific dollar figure ($3 billion) from the auditor general's report and translates it into concrete comparables, but the ask — will he apologize — is rhetorical rather than a substantive accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report, one of the most scathing in recent memory, talks about one department alone wasting and mismanaging something like $3 billion per year. In one year, $3 billion would hire 4,000 doctors, 4,000 nurses and purchase 500 MRIs. The auditor general goes on to say that apparently whatever has been put in place to supposedly fix the problem in fact is probably not adequate. If the Prime Minister will not even fix the problem, will he at least apologize to Canadians for this?
Chrétien a lu une citation du vérificateur général indiquant que le DRHC avait pris des 'mesures correctives tout à fait extraordinaires' et que le plan 'est sérieux, fonctionne et va dans la bonne direction.'
Chrétien directly counters Day's characterization by reading an auditor general quotation stating HRDC was 'on the right track' and that the corrective action plan 'is serious, is working,' which engages the specific claim made.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. Leader of the Opposition is getting those quotations, but I have a quote by the auditor general that I will read. He says: —HRDC has initiated quite extraordinary corrective action to address these serious problems. We concluded that the Department was on the right track...we did in fact spend a fair bit of effort to assess the adequacy of their implementation or corrective action plan and we found that the plan is serious, is working, and is going in the right direction. That is a quote from the auditor general.
Day a allégué que le premier ministre avait accordé une subvention de l'ACDI à un ami proche non qualifié dans sa propre circonscription, et lui a de nouveau demandé de s'excuser.
Day references a specific grant to a close friend of the Prime Minister in his riding and a CIDA grant, but the ask again collapses into a demand for an apology rather than a precise accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can be as selective as he wants. In fact the auditor general continues to speak about the fact—
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, he calls his MPs nervous nellies and we certainly saw a display of that right there. It has been pointed out that the Prime Minister, in his own riding gave a grant to someone who was unqualified to receive a CIDA grant but who was a close friend of his. This is just one of a depressing catalogue of things that have not been done properly by the Prime Minister. If he will not fix them, as he indicated he will not, will he at least make Canadians feel a little bit better on the apparent eve of an election by saying that he is sorry and apologize?
Chrétien a affirmé qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'une subvention mais d'un contrat de 2,5 millions de dollars accordé au plus bas soumissionnaire, réalisant une économie de 2,5 millions de dollars, et a dit que Day avait commis une erreur.
Chrétien directly corrects the characterization — distinguishing a grant from a contract and specifying it was '$2.5 million, the lowest price' — but does not address the broader accountability question about favouritism.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. Leader of the Opposition who should say that he is sorry. He made another mistake. That party keeps making mistakes. He referred to a grant. It was not a grant. It was a contract and the contract was $2.5 million, the lowest price. We saved $2.5 million by giving the contract to the lowest bidder.
Day a demandé si le premier ministre s'excuserait pour ce qu'ont dit le vérificateur général et le commissaire à l'information, en encadrant la question autour de la valeur du pardon à la veille d'une possible élection.
Day references both the auditor general and the information commissioner but the question dissolves into a rhetorical flourish about forgiveness and values on the eve of an election, making the ask unanswerable.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there was no mistake. The way that contract went out, it was a grant. If he will not apologize for all the things the auditor general has said, will he apologize for what the information commissioner has said? He has had a day to think about it. We can all make mistakes. Three billion dollars a year, it can happen. Canadians are very forgiving, and I say that sincerely. On the eve of a possible election call, which he says will be based on values, does he believe in the value of forgiveness? Will he just stand and say to Canadians that he is sorry and apologize?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien a détourné la question en rappelant que lorsque Day était député provincial, il avait accueilli favorablement une garantie de prêt de 20 millions de dollars à Fletcher Fine Foods dans sa circonscription, qui avait finalement coûté 14 millions de dollars au gouvernement de l'Alberta.
Chrétien pivots entirely to Day's provincial record involving a $20 million loan guarantee to Fletcher Fine Foods, deflecting from both the auditor general and information commissioner issues entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in public administration there are always some problems for everybody and we try to correct them. I have heard accusations of very bad things. When the hon. member was a provincial MLA he was happy to welcome a $20 million loan guarantee from the Alberta government to Fletcher Fine Foods in his riding saying that it would create local jobs. He, like many other MPs, wanted his riding to have jobs. Unfortunately the deal went bad and the government of Alberta was left with a bill of $14 million.
Day a soutenu que, contrairement à son propre bilan, les affaires du premier ministre ont nécessité des enquêtes de la GRC, et lui a demandé s'il s'en excuserait.
Day makes a pointed contrast between his record and the Prime Minister's by referencing RCMP investigations specifically linked to the Prime Minister, but the ask — will he apologize for those investigations — remains rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister delights in reviewing my record which is encouraging to me because he may learn something from my record. The auditor general talked about the policies I put in place as the finance minister, which were highly effective, and I received praise for those. The main difference between my record of involvement with any kind of grants, or whatever it may be, is that none of my involvements have required RCMP investigations, but his have. Will he apologize for all those RCMP investigations that have had to take place?
Chrétien a cité le vérificateur général affirmant qu'aucune malversation n'avait été détectée chez les fonctionnaires et que le principal facteur était un déséquilibre entre la rapidité du service et le contrôle des dépenses, et a dit que les allégations de scandale de l'opposition n'étaient pas fondées.
Chrétien reads an auditor general quotation explicitly stating no malfeasance was identified and the main factor was 'an imbalance between the desire of their department to provide fast service and the need to have control,' which is partially responsive to the RCMP/wrongdoing framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, members opposite make accusations by association and so on. They have no respect. They always talk about dishonesty. What the auditor general had to say yesterday addresses the question of dishonesty. “I am quick to point out that we did not identify any cases of malfeasance by public servants in those programs. The main factor was an imbalance between the desire of their department to provide fast service and the need to have control over the spending of public funds”. Members opposite have been talking for months about the boondoggle of $1 billion. The auditor general said that he could not find any proof of anyone stealing in the department.
Day a demandé avec sarcasme si le premier ministre prétendait que le vérificateur général, le commissaire à l'information, tous les médias et des milliers de Canadiens avaient tous tort.
Day's question is almost entirely rhetorical — listing media, opposition, and public opinion as agreeing things were done wrong — with no specific factual anchor or answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I guess we have got it all wrong. The auditor general did say $3 billion worth of spending—
Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker, I guess we have got it all wrong. According to the—
Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen Pavlov's dogs before and we are seeing it again. I guess we have got it wrong. According to the Prime Minister, the auditor general did not say that he wasted $3 billion. According to the Prime Minister, I guess the information commissioner did not say that public servants felt threatened, did not say that the Prime Minister undermined democracy. I guess we have got it wrong. Why does the Prime Minister not just say that we are all wrong, every media report is wrong and the Canadian public who are phoning and e-mailing by the thousands are wrong?
Chrétien a fait une remarque sans rapport sur le fait que Day parlait trop souvent avec Jesse Helms et a suggéré en plaisantant que la Chambre chante 'God Save the Queen.'
Chrétien's response about speaking 'too often with Jesse Helms' and suggesting the House sing 'God Save the Queen' has no connection whatsoever to the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking too often with Jesse Helms. It might be very surprising that in order for a Prime Minister, a francophone from Quebec, to correct the Leader of the Opposition, I should perhaps invite the House of Commons to stand up and sing God Save the Queen .
Duceppe a demandé comment le premier ministre pouvait justifier le favoritisme, la mauvaise gestion gouvernementale et sa conduite douteuse dans sa propre circonscription à la suite des rapports du vérificateur général et du commissaire à l'information.
Duceppe references the auditor general and information commissioner reports and the Prime Minister's conduct in his own riding, but the question is compound and vague, dominated by characterizations like 'cronyism' and 'favouritism' without a specific ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the Prime Minister today and I would have expected more restraint, less arrogance and cynicism, and a greater sense of responsibility. In the wake of the reports from the auditor general and the information commissioner, which confirm what we have been saying here for months, how can he justify the unjustifiable? How can he justify the cronyism, the favouritism, government mismanagement and his more than questionable conduct in his own riding?
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Chrétien a cité l'affaire Transélec, où le personnel du vérificateur général a indiqué qu'il n'y avait eu aucune ingérence politique, et a cité le vérificateur général disant qu'aucune irrégularité n'avait été trouvée chez les politiciens ou les fonctionnaires.
Chrétien responds with a specific reference to the Transélec case, citing auditor general staff indicating no political interference, and quotes the auditor general on no wrongdoing by politicians or public servants, which partially engages the accountability concern.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois to stick a little closer to the truth.
Again today, the papers reported that, in the case of Transélec, the auditor general's staff have indicated that there had been absolutely no political interference. In his report, the auditor general said that an examination of all these files did not reveal a single person from the public service—and we, as MPs and ministers, are part of the public service—and clearly said that there had been absolutely no wrongdoing by politicians or public servants in any of these cases.
Duceppe a cité l'implication de Claude Gauthier dans les scandales Placeteco et Transélec, quatre enquêtes de la GRC en cours dans la circonscription du premier ministre, et a allégué que le premier ministre voulait une élection avant la conclusion des enquêtes.
Duceppe names a specific individual (Claude Gauthier), references both Placeteco and Transélec scandals, cites four RCMP investigations in the Prime Minister's riding, and raises the specific allegation of calling an election before investigations conclude, giving real factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my words were very carefully chosen. There was no better way to put it. If we are going to talk about the truth, the truth is that his friend, Claude Gauthier, is involved in both the Placeteco and Transélec scandals. The truth is that there are four RCMP investigations ongoing in the Prime Minister's riding. The truth is that it was not $250 that was misspent; millions have disappeared. The truth is that perhaps this Prime Minister wants an election before the investigations are concluded, before the law gets involved. He does not want to know what is going to happen—
Hear, hear.
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Chrétien a souligné que dans un cas c'est son bureau qui avait appelé la police, et a déclaré que le vérificateur général avait confirmé que l'affaire Transélec était 'complètement en ordre', avant de passer à une attaque contre Duceppe pour avoir brisé une promesse de ne servir qu'un seul mandat.
Chrétien makes a partial responsive point — that it was his office that called the police in one instance — but then deflects into an attack on Duceppe's broken promise to serve only one term and partisan remarks about the Bloc's interest in federal money.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois to have the honesty to say that, in one instance, it was my office that called the police. I hope he will take this opportunity to do so.
Right now, the auditor general has said that, in the case of Transélec, everything is completely in order. He said so himself. When this member was elected, he very clearly promised all Quebecers they would be in the Parliament of Canada for one term only. Then it was two terms. All they are interested in is the federal government's money, because they are not able to win in Quebec.
Gauthier a rappelé la déclaration du premier ministre du 9 février minimisant le scandale du DRHC à 250 $, et a demandé s'il reconnaissait qu'il y avait un problème très grave dans le ministère.
Gauthier references the Prime Minister's specific February 9 statement minimizing the HRDC scandal to '$250' and grounds the question in a contrast with what the auditor general's report revealed, though the final ask is cut off.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I realize that, on the eve of an election, it is trying for the Prime Minister to realize that his score in Quebec will be no more than 20 members. We understand that but we are sorry to say that we are going to knock him flat in this election. Members will recall that on February 9 the Prime Minister said that the whole Human Resources Development Canada scandal amounted to $250. It was nothing, he said. Does the Prime Minister, on the eve of the end of his mandate, not realize that there is a very serious problem in the—
Chrétien a cité le vérificateur général disant que la ministre du Développement des ressources humaines avait pris les mesures nécessaires avec son programme en six points, et que le problème était un désir de service rapide plutôt qu'une malhonnêteté des politiciens ou des fonctionnaires.
Chrétien quotes the auditor general on the minister's six-point program and the fast-service/control imbalance, and repeats that no politician or public official tried to benefit, which is tangential to the specific '$250' mischaracterization raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I quoted the auditor general, who said that the Minister of Human Resources Development had taken the steps necessary when she put her six point program in place to ensure that any abuse would be corrected. He said that one of the department's problems was its desire to provide very quick service to the public and the fact that files were not totally complete as the result. However, he said that no politician or public official had tried to benefit from all of these transactions or succeeded in doing so. The member should recognize this if he is at all honest.
Gauthier a demandé si le premier ministre devait reconnaître qu'il avait fallu dix interventions à la Chambre, après des démentis répétés, avant que le gouvernement ne soit forcé d'ordonner des enquêtes, dont quatre sans précédent dans sa propre circonscription.
Gauthier asks a specific process-accountability question — whether the government was forced to act only after ten interventions in the House and only to avoid losing face — and references four unprecedented investigations in the Prime Minister's own riding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of recognizing things, should the Prime Minister not be recognizing the fact that it was only after some ten interventions in the House, after he denied it and the Minister of Human Resources Development denied it, that the government was forced to face facts and, to avoid totally losing face, ordered investigations, including an unprecedented four in his own riding?
Chrétien a dit que le vérificateur général a confirmé qu'aucun fonctionnaire de son bureau, du ministère, ni lui-même n'avait été impliqué dans les dossiers, et que le vérificateur général avait remercié la ministre d'avoir mis en place un programme qui fonctionne.
Chrétien repeats the auditor general's finding of no official involvement including himself, and credits the minister's program, but does not address the specific allegation that the government denied the problem and acted only under sustained opposition pressure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I know they are incapable of establishing anything clearly and so they try to make people guilty by association. The auditor general has said that no official either in my office, or in the department or any of those involved, including myself, had any involvement in these files. This is what the auditor general said and he thanked the minister for setting up a program that works. He is very satisfied with what we are doing now. I can see that the Bloc Quebecois is rather discouraged by the situation.
Blaikie a demandé au ministre de la Santé d'expliquer pourquoi le personnel d'un centre de traitement médical financé par Santé Canada au Manitoba participait à leur deuxième croisière de l'année déguisée en développement professionnel, alors que l'établissement était fermé et que des patients ne recevaient pas de traitement.
Blaikie raises a specific, concrete allegation about a Health Canada-funded medical treatment centre whose staff went on a second cruise ship event in one year disguised as professional development, with a clear factual ask about what is going on.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. He will be aware there are reports that the staff of a certain medical treatment centre in Manitoba, funded by Health Canada, are now not on their first but on their second cruise ship event this year disguised as professional development. I wonder if the Minister of Health could tell us just what on earth is going on: two cruises in a year in the name of professional development while the place is shut down and people who need treatment are not getting it.
Rock a dit trouver les allégations troublantes, a rapporté que le président de la fondation avait confirmé oralement qu'aucun argent de Santé Canada n'avait été utilisé à ces fins, mais a déclaré avoir demandé au sous-ministre de mener un audit judiciaire et qu'il exigerait le remboursement de tout argent public utilisé à ces fins.
Rock directly acknowledges the concern, reports the foundation president's oral denial that Health Canada money was used, and makes a specific commitment — asking the deputy minister to carry out a forensic audit and demanding return of any public money found to have been used improperly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I find these allegations just as troubling. I share the member's concern. We have been informed orally by the president of the foundation in question that there was no Health Canada money used for those purposes. Notwithstanding, I have asked the deputy minister to carry out a forensic audit. I can tell the member and I can tell the House that if it is found that any public money was used for these purposes we will demand its return.
Blaikie a demandé au ministre du Revenu national d'assurer la Chambre que le gouvernement fédéral cesserait d'entraver le projet loophole — une affaire portée par George Harris de Winnipeg dans laquelle la cour fédérale a statué en sa faveur — et de rendre compte de la façon dont il a permis à une famille de ne pas payer 700 millions de dollars d'impôts.
Blaikie names a specific individual (George Harris), a specific case (project loophole), a specific court ruling in his favour, and a specific dollar amount ($700 million in taxes), and asks for assurance that the government will stop obstructing the matter.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer, but it is not only through government programs that money is wasted. It is also through various tax loopholes. The Minister of National Revenue will perhaps be aware that in the case called project loophole, pursued by a person from Winnipeg by the name of George Harris, the federal court has now ruled in his favour, once more in spite of federal government obstruction on this matter. Could the minister give us the assurance that the federal government will stop obstructing this and finally account for how it allowed a particular family to get away without paying $700 million in taxes?
Cauchon a dit qu'il n'y avait aucune obstruction de la part de l'agence, a invoqué des préoccupations de confidentialité touchant tous les contribuables, et a déclaré que l'affaire était en instance devant les tribunaux dans le délai prévu par la loi, sans aborder le chiffre de 700 millions de dollars ni la décision judiciaire spécifique.
Cauchon denies obstruction and cites confidentiality concerns and that the case is pending in court, but provides no factual engagement with the $700 million figure, the specific ruling, or the obstruction allegation, amounting largely to a non-answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can say first that there is no obstruction at all from the agency. Second, it is a very important matter. It implies some question of confidentiality, so it concerns each and every taxpayer. I would like to say as well that the case is pending in court. We are in the process of proceeding within the timeframe we have as per the legislation.
Clark a cité le rapport du vérificateur général notant que la société d'État du Parc Downsview avait été créée par décret plutôt que par une loi du Parlement, et a demandé ce que le premier ministre essayait de cacher en tenant cela à l'écart du Parlement.
Clark quotes directly from the auditor general's report on Downsview Park, identifies the specific mechanism used (order in council instead of parliamentary legislation), and asks what the Prime Minister was trying to hide — a pointed, document-grounded accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the issue of secret deals made by the government which were raised by the auditor general's report. In particular I want to refer to Downsview Park. The auditor general said: Normally, when a new Crown corporation is established with unique operating characteristics, it receives a mandate from Parliament through legislation establishing a parent Crown corporation. Instead in the Downsview case the Prime Minister acted by order in council. Will he tell the House of Commons what he was trying to hide when he kept the Downsview corporation away—
Gagliano a dit que rien n'avait été caché, que la création de la société était conforme à la législation régissant les sociétés d'État, et que le Parc Downsview ne reçoit aucun crédit du gouvernement du Canada, ses revenus étant générés par la location des terres adjacentes.
Gagliano denies any attempt to hide anything and offers a brief procedural justification (consistent with legislation governing Crown corporations) and notes Downsview Park receives no appropriations, but does not address the specific auditor general finding that Parliament was bypassed through the order in council.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we did not try to hide anything. The creation of this corporation was undertaken in a manner which was consistent with the role and authority of parliament as expressed through legislation governing crown corporations. Downsview Park does not receive any appropriations from the Government of Canada. Almost all revenues for the development of the park are generated by leasing lands adjacent to the park.
Clark a cité la conclusion du vérificateur général selon laquelle la défense nationale avait dépensé environ 4,8 millions de dollars en 1999–2000 qui ne constituaient pas une charge valide sur le budget de la défense nationale, et a demandé pourquoi le ministre de la Défense nationale avait laissé faire cela et s'il allait cesser cette pratique et récupérer l'argent.
Clark cites the auditor general's specific finding that national defence spent approximately $4.8 million that were 'not a valid charge against the national defence budget,' names the minister responsible, and asks two clear questions: why was the money spent and will it be recovered.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general says during 1999-2000 national defence spent approximately $4.8 million. Is that nothing? My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Because the auditor general said that those funds were not a valid charge against the national defence budget, why did the Minister of National Defence let that money be spent on purposes that were invalid? Will he stop those practices and get the money back to national defence?
Eggleton a dit que tous les fonds avaient été dépensés à des fins légitimes pour une propriété toujours détenue par le ministère de la Défense nationale avec des utilisations de défense, a reconnu qu'une somme était passée par le mauvais crédit 1 et que les transferts depuis ce crédit ont cessé, et a dit qu'un plan d'affaires avait été demandé.
Eggleton acknowledges that funds went through the wrong account (a vote 1 account) and that those transfers have stopped, and asserts all moneys were spent on legitimate purposes, which partially addresses the question but does not address recovery of the funds.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all those moneys were spent on legitimate purposes. This property is still in the ownership of the Department of National Defence. There are defence uses on that property. There has been for quite a number of years moneys paid from national defence for the upkeep of those properties to the corporation responsible for managing the entire site. There was a sum of money that went through one of the accounts, a vote 1 account from parliament which was the wrong account. Funds have stopped going from that account. We have asked for a business plan, but the funds have all been spent on legitimate purposes.
Day a demandé au premier ministre de dire soit qu'il n'avait rien fait de mal, soit de s'excuser, en citant le vérificateur général, le commissaire à l'information, tous les partis d'opposition, les médias et des milliers de Canadiens disant que des choses avaient été mal faites.
Day lists the auditor general, information commissioner, all opposition parties, media, and Canadians as agreeing things were done wrongly, but the actual ask — say you've done nothing wrong or apologize — is entirely rhetorical with no specific factual anchor.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, people have said to me just get used to the fact that in question period the Prime Minister will not respond and he will resort to insults and all kinds of negative associations. I will never get used to that but I will ask the questions.
Oh, oh.
And so I will ask the question. The auditor general says things have been done wrongly. The information commissioner says things have been done wrongly. In a rare moment of unity all the opposition parties are saying things have been done wrongly. The media, bless their hearts, are saying things have been done wrongly. Canadians are saying things have been done wrongly. Will the Prime Minister simply stand and either say he has done nothing wrong or apologize?
Chrétien a reconnu que les administrations ont parfois des problèmes et qu'elles essaient de les résoudre, puis a défendu le bilan du gouvernement sur sept ans et a signalé une élection imminente où les libéraux opposeraient leurs valeurs à celles de l'Alliance canadienne.
Chrétien acknowledges problems can occur in administrations, pivots to a seven-year record defence, and signals an imminent election appeal to Canadians, without addressing the specific accountability question or any of the underlying findings.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I said and I repeat that with an administration, either the government of Alberta or the Government of Canada, yes sometimes there are problems and we try to resolve them. Let us look at what we have done in the last seven years, look at the record of this government. When we entered office the country was bankrupt and there was unemployment. I will talk to Canadian people about what we have done in the House of Commons. We will go there. The hon. member challenged me to talk to the Canadian people. Very soon we will talk to the Canadian people. They will know the values of the Liberal Party and that party over there which proposes to eliminate any good programs that help the poor in Canada.
Day a cité le fait que seulement environ 76 dossiers du DRHC avaient été examinés par le premier ministre mais avaient déclenché 12 enquêtes de la GRC, et a demandé si la GRC avait tort ou si le premier ministre s'excuserait simplement.
Day cites a specific figure — 76 HRD cases reviewed by the Prime Minister launching 12 RCMP investigations — giving the question some factual grounding, though it ends with a binary rhetorical choice (is the RCMP wrong or will you apologize).
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, our budget program will help the poor and will take 1.4 million low income Canadians from having to pay federal taxes at all. His will not do that. He talked about administration and doing a few things wrong. Only a handful of cases were even reviewed by the Prime Minister in terms of HRD. I think it was 76. It launched 12 RCMP investigations. Is the RCMP wrong, or will you simply stand and apologize?
Chrétien a défendu des programmes de dépenses spécifiques — 48 millions de dollars par année pour l'alphabétisation, 318 millions de dollars pour la formation des Autochtones, 334 millions de dollars pour l'emploi des jeunes et 220 millions de dollars pour les personnes handicapées — et a accusé l'opposition de vouloir supprimer des programmes qui aident les pauvres.
Chrétien entirely ignores the RCMP investigations and the 76-case figure, instead listing specific dollar amounts for literacy, aboriginal training, youth employment, and disability programs to argue the opposition wants to scrap programs that help the poor — a complete deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have had programs. It will be very interesting to go to the people because we are proud of all these programs. The Leader of the Opposition said he wants to scrap them. All I want to know from the Canadian people is whether it was wrong for us to have spent $48 million every year on literacy programs. Was it wrong to spend $318 million devoted to training for the aboriginal community? Was it wrong to spend $334 million for youth employment programs? Was it wrong to spend $220 million on programs for people with disabilities? Those people over there do not care about the poor and the—
Pourquoi Groupe SM a-t-il obtenu un contrat de l'ACDI sans appel d'offres, et cela est-il lié aux 90 000 $ versés au Parti libéral du Canada entre 1994 et 1999 ? Pourquoi le processus d'accès à l'information n'a-t-il pas permis de révéler ce cas de patronage ?
Cites a specific auditor general finding, names Groupe SM, and cites a specific dollar figure ($90,000) for Liberal Party contributions, making a clear accountability ask about preferential treatment and access-to-information delays.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the dark saga is still unfolding. In his report, the auditor general mentions a blatant case of patronage. I am referring to Groupe SM, which was awarded a CIDA contract without going through the bidding process, which is in violation of the rules. Does the Minister for International Cooperation justify this preferential treatment by the fact that between 1994 and 1999 Groupe SM contributed $90,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, this is quite the coincidence. Here is another example of how the government is controlling information. The Bloc Quebecois has been trying for months to get information through the access to information process. In spite of repeated requests, complaints and questions in the House, we had to wait for the release of the auditor general's report to know what is really going on. Does the minister feel that it is not in the public's interest to shed more light on this case of patronage?
La ministre affirme que les demandes d'accès à l'information sont traitées le plus rapidement possible et que l'ACDI a introduit un système concurrentiel en 1996, citant la reconnaissance par le vérificateur général des efforts de l'ACDI en matière d'équité et de transparence.
The minister disputes the premise and touts CIDA's competitive system introduced in 1996, but does not address the specific Groupe SM no-bid contract finding or the $90,000 contribution figure, nor the access-to-information delays.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the member gets his information. First, all the access to information requests are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Second, CIDA has a competitive system which we introduced in 1996 which was not in existence prior to our government coming to power. According to the auditor general, CIDA has made efforts to make its selection process for competitive contracts more fair and transparent under our government.
Étant donné qu'un audit de 1994 avait confirmé de graves problèmes de gestion au DRHC et que le vérificateur général du Canada a maintenant constaté des problèmes généralisés et une défaillance des contrôles, comment les Canadiens peuvent-ils faire confiance à un gouvernement libéral qui a laissé ce désordre s'aggraver d'année en année ?
Cites a direct auditor general quote ('We found widespread problems. We found that controls had broken down') and references a 1994 audit, grounding the question factually, though the ask ('how can Canadians trust') is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal record on HRDC is completely shameful. When the Liberals took office in 1993 they knew there were deep management problems in that department. A new audit in 1994 confirmed that. Just yesterday the Auditor General of Canada found more of the same, and I quote: “We found widespread problems. We found that controls had broken down”. He said that public money had been put at risk. How can Canadians trust a Liberal government that let this mess get worse year after year?
La ministre conteste l'affirmation du chef de l'Alliance selon laquelle 3 milliards de dollars ont été gaspillés, défendant des programmes tels que les prêts étudiants canadiens, les transferts aux provinces pour la formation du marché du travail et le financement contre l'itinérance.
The minister does not address the auditor general's findings or the question of trust; instead she pivots to attacking the Alliance leader's '$3 billion wasted' claim and defends government programs, entirely avoiding the specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I must use this question to clarify something very important. Time and again the leader of the Alliance Party has said that $3 billion has been wasted and that has been repeated by his party's members. I want the House to understand that when he says that he is saying that the $15 million we invest every year for the Canada student loans program is a waste. He is saying that the $1 billion we transfer to the provinces every year for labour market training is a waste. He is saying that the $100 million we invest in communities across the country for homelessness is a waste. Members of that party will either stand up and say that they will cut these programs or they will come clean and say they do not know what they are talking about.
Étant donné la déclaration du vérificateur général selon laquelle le gouvernement a continué à minimiser le problème et que les constatations de mauvaise gestion généralisée vont au-delà de ce qui était déjà connu, est-ce que tromper, cacher la vérité et mal gérer les fonds publics constituent les vraies valeurs libérales ?
Quotes the auditor general saying 'The government has continued to understate the problem' and references widespread mismanagement findings, but the concluding ask ('are misleading, hiding the truth, and grossly mismanaging public funds the real Liberal values?') is essentially rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, is that not interesting? The auditor general yesterday had something to say about that kind of answer. He said “The government has continued to understate the problem”. He confirmed that his findings of widespread mismanagement went beyond the problems we already knew about. Are misleading, hiding the truth, and grossly mismanaging public funds the real Liberal values?
La ministre cite le vérificateur général confirmant que les mesures et les plans permettent de remédier aux lacunes relevées dans l'audit, que les engagements du plan d'action sont respectés et que les mesures correctives vont au-delà du plan en six points.
The minister quotes the auditor general directly on the action plan — noting that 'commitments in the action plan are being met' and 'corrective actions go beyond the six point plan' — which is substantively relevant, though it does not engage the specific charge of continued understating.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what the auditor general did say is that the actions and plans address the deficiencies that we found in our audit. He writes that the “commitments in the action plan are being met” and that “corrective actions go beyond the six point plan”. He said that HRDC has corrective actions planned and being implemented in response to the problems identified in its 1999 internal audit and “the actions and plans also address the deficiencies we found in our audit”.
Le premier ministre peut-il expliquer comment le gouvernement justifie une clause du projet de loi C-44 qui lui permettrait de détourner à ses propres fins l'excédent du fonds d'assurance-emploi qui ne lui appartient pas ?
Identifies a specific clause in Bill C-44 that would allow diversion of the employment insurance fund surplus, framing a clear accountability question, though the 'hold-up' framing adds partisan rhetoric.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to take advantage of Bill C-44 amending the employment insurance program to slip by us a clause that would enable the government to divert for its own purposes the employment insurance fund surplus which does not belong to it. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how he can justify to employees and employers this attempt to legalize a hold-up of the employment insurance fund?
La ministre exhorte le député, s'il est profondément préoccupé par les enjeux du projet de loi C-44, à se joindre au gouvernement et à faire adopter le projet de loi le plus rapidement possible.
The minister does not explain or justify the clause in question; she simply urges the member to support quick passage of the bill, which is a deflection rather than an engagement with the substance of the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member feels so strongly, as do we, about the issues involved in Bill C-44, he would join with us and pass the bill as quickly as possible.
Le gouvernement est-il prêt à retirer la clause du projet de loi C-44 qui lui permettrait de mettre la main sur l'excédent de l'assurance-emploi afin que le projet de loi soit adopté rapidement, même en une seule journée ?
Poses a direct and binary ask — will the government withdraw the specific clause enabling seizure of the employment insurance surplus — and offers a concrete quid pro quo of expedited passage, making it a sharp and answerable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Prime Minister would like to see Bill C-44 passed quickly. We have no problem with that if the purpose is to do the right thing for the unemployed. My question is a simple one: Are they prepared to withdraw this clause which will enable them to get their hands on the employment insurance surplus so that we can get this bill through quickly, in a single day if need be?
La ministre indique que le Comité permanent des finances et le vérificateur général ont demandé des éclaircissements sur le calcul des primes, que le projet de loi s'engage à le faire, avec des mesures de stabilité des primes identifiées pour cette année et une action du gouverneur en conseil prévue pour l'année prochaine.
The minister references the Standing Committee on Finance and the auditor general requesting clarification on how premiums are calculated and describes interim premium-setting measures, but does not directly answer whether the government will withdraw the specific clause.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance and the auditor general have asked us to clarify how premiums are calculated. In the bill we have committed to do just that. In the interim, to ensure stability, we have identified the premium reduction for this year and the governor in council will do it next year.
Étant donné que le vérificateur général a déclaré que le plan de réduction fiscale sur cinq ans annoncé dans le dernier budget était surestimé de 7 milliards de dollars, pourquoi les Canadiens devraient-ils croire que les chiffres qui seront présentés dans l'énoncé économique cet après-midi seront exacts ?
Cites a specific auditor general finding that the five-year tax reduction plan was overstated by $7 billion and directly asks whether the numbers in the afternoon's economic statement will be reliable, grounding the question in a concrete, documented claim.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has gone back to his creative accounting tricks but was caught yesterday by the auditor general. The auditor general said that the five year tax reduction plan announced in the last budget was overstated by $7 billion. The tax reduction is just not there. My question is for the Minister of Finance. If the auditor general says the numbers do not add up, why should Canadians think that the numbers that will be presented this afternoon will add up?
Le secrétaire d'État affirme que l'énoncé économique de l'opposition comporte un trou noir de 25 milliards de dollars et invite les députés à attendre environ 65 minutes pour l'annonce du ministre.
The secretary of state deflects entirely by attacking the opposition's alleged '$25 billion black hole' and then asks members to wait for the minister's statement, providing no engagement with the $7 billion overstatement finding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the auditor general had the opportunity to look at the economic statement put out by the official opposition, he would have verified that there is about a $25 billion black hole there which is totally unaccounted for. I would suggest that hon. members wait for about 65 minutes. In a few minutes we will be hearing directly from the minister on this very important announcement affecting all Canadians.
Étant donné que le vérificateur général a affirmé que le dernier budget constituait une 'présentation financière trompeuse', pourquoi les contribuables devraient-ils croire les chiffres de l'énoncé économique cet après-midi alors que le vérificateur général a déclaré que les derniers ne s'additionnaient pas ?
Directly quotes the auditor general's phrase 'misleading financial disclosure' regarding the last budget's numbers and poses a focused question about whether taxpayers should trust the afternoon's figures, grounding the ask in a specific and serious indictment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general said yesterday there was a $7 billion overstatement in the tax reduction and the way that he presents his numbers are suspect. The auditor general said “In our opinion, this results in misleading financial disclosure”. It is a serious indictment. Why should taxpayers believe the numbers this afternoon, when the auditor general said that the last ones do not add up?
Le secrétaire d'État affirme que l'énoncé économique du ministre présentera le calendrier et les chiffres exacts, respectant le droit des Canadiens à une information ouverte et évidente, contrairement à l'opposition.
The secretary of state does not address the 'misleading financial disclosure' finding at all, instead making a general claim that the minister's forthcoming statement will show timing and exact numbers, which is an unsubstantiated forward-looking assertion with no engagement with the auditor general's findings.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister will be tabling an economic statement which will, unlike the opposition, show timing, show exact numbers. They will all be there respecting Canadians' right to see what is open and what is evident. Unlike the opposition we are not going to hide and we are not going to fudge on the figures.
Le premier ministre a-t-il demandé au ministre des Finances d'inclure des mesures appropriées pour l'industrie canadienne de la construction navale dans le mini-budget qui sera présenté cet après-midi, en remplissant un engagement négligé depuis le début du mandat du gouvernement ?
Asks whether the Prime Minister directed the Minister of Finance to include measures for Canada's shipbuilding industry in the afternoon mini-budget, which is a specific enough ask tied to a stated long-standing commitment, but the framing ('end of the Liberal regime') is partisan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the end of the Liberal regime at this time. The government has had seven years to meet its commitments. Among those it has not met is one it has neglected right from the very beginning of its mandate toward the shipyards. Has the Prime Minister asked his Minister of Finance to include in the mini-budget he will be bringing down this afternoon the appropriate measures which Canada's shipbuilding industry has been awaiting for years now?
Le secrétaire d'État refuse de répondre au motif qu'il ne veut pas voler la vedette au ministre des Finances.
The secretary of state declines to answer entirely, framing it as not wanting to 'scoop the finance minister' in a joking manner, providing zero substantive information.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it would be unforgivable for me to scoop the finance minister. I value my life and my friendship too much. I shall not do it.
Pourquoi les patients qui ne répondent pas aux thérapies alternatives sont-ils incapables d'obtenir le Prepulsid par le programme d'accès spécial que Santé Canada avait annoncé, et que fait Santé Canada à ce sujet ?
Although a government-backbench question, it identifies a specific named drug (Prepulsid), a specific prior Health Canada advisory, a specific promised special access program, and a concrete present problem — patients unable to access the drug — making it unusually substantive for a softball.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. A few months ago Health Canada issued an advisory that the drug known as Prepulsid would no longer be available to Canadians from pharmacies by summer's end. It also said that patients who do not respond to alternative therapies could obtain it through a special access program. Yet today patients who need this drug cannot access it, cannot obtain it. My question is why? What is Health Canada doing about this?
Santé Canada a retiré le Prepulsid du marché en mai en raison de problèmes cardiaques ; il cherche à persuader le fabricant de le rendre disponible sur demande d'accès spécial et a identifié une forme générique, le Cisapride, dont une source de diffusion autorisée est actuellement en cours.
The minister explains the May withdrawal of Prepulsid due to cardiac problems, describes two specific ongoing actions (persuading the manufacturer to provide special access and identifying a generic Cisapride source), and announces that a source of Cisapride has been identified and authorized release is in progress — directly addressing the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in May of this year Health Canada took this particular drug off the market because of reported difficulties with cardiac problems. We recognize that there are some Canadians who do not respond to alternative treatments or therapies. Health Canada is doing two things. First of all, it is trying to persuade the manufacturer to make it available on special access requests. So far it has not but discussions continue. Second, we have identified a generic form of the drug, Cisapride, that can also treat serious gastrointestinal conditions. I am happy to announce that a source of Cisapride has been identified and authorized release from this source is currently in progress.
Étant donné que le vérificateur général condamne le plan budgétaire 2000 comme constituant une présentation financière trompeuse — avec des surestimations des réductions d'impôt et des sous-estimations des dépenses — le premier ministre admettra-t-il que les budgets libéraux ont tout à voir avec la stratégie électorale et très peu avec la vérité ?
References the auditor general's finding of 'misleading financial disclosure' and mentions tax cut overstatements and spending understatements, but the concluding ask about 'electioneering' rather than truth is rhetorical and compound.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report says that the budget plan 2000 amounted to a misleading financial disclosure. Since the auditor general condemns the last budget as being error ridden and rife with misconceptions, tax cut overstatements and spending understatements, will the Prime Minister admit that his Liberal budget creations have everything to do with electioneering and very little to do with truth?
Le secrétaire d'État affirme que l'opposition ne respecte pas les Canadiens parce que ses énoncés économiques ne contiennent pas de chiffres ni d'échéanciers.
The secretary of state does not engage the auditor general's 'misleading financial disclosure' finding at all, instead attacking the opposition for not putting figures or timelines in their economic statements.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for a party which has said that it was going to bring a new sense of respect toward all Canadians, it is not respecting Canadians when it brings out its economic statements and it will not put figures to it and will not put a timeline to it. That is not respect.
Compte tenu des constatations du vérificateur général concernant des faiblesses dans les accords de contribution, des modifications sans justification à l'appui, des paiements pour des coûts inadmissibles, des paiements sans réclamations soumises et la construction de fontaines dans la circonscription du premier ministre, comment le gouvernement peut-il parler de respect envers les contribuables canadiens ?
Lists specific categories of findings — weaknesses in contribution agreements, amendments without supporting rationale, payments for ineligible costs, payments without submitted claims — and references the fountain in the Prime Minister's riding, but the overall ask devolves into a general attack on Liberal respect over seven years.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, here is the respect the Liberal government has for Canadian taxpayers: weaknesses in contribution agreements; amendments made without supporting rationale; payments made for ineligible costs and expenses; and payments made without having claims submitted. This is taxpayers' money. On top of that there is the building of fountains in the Prime Minister's riding. How can the government talk about respect when the Liberals have earned nothing, no measure of respect? They are suspect. There has been no measure of respect in seven years of governing this country.
Le secrétaire d'État invite les Canadiens à comparer le programme économique du gouvernement avec celui de l'opposition officielle pour voir qui respecte vraiment les droits de tous les Canadiens.
The secretary of state does not address any of the specific findings listed or the fountain allegation, instead inviting Canadians to compare the government's forthcoming economic program with the opposition's.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would simply invite Canadians to compare the economic program that will be put forward in a couple of minutes by our finance minister with that put forward by the official opposition to see who is really respecting the rights of all Canadians and not just the elite.
L'argent destiné au mini-budget pour séduire les électeurs canadiens proviendra-t-il des travailleurs canadiens sans emploi, du très médiatisé excédent de l'assurance-emploi ?
Asks a reasonably specific question — whether the money for the mini-budget will come from the EI surplus — but the framing ('woo Canadian voters') is partisan and the question is partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance will be bringing down a mini-budget in preparation for a possible election. My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the money for this mini-budget to woo Canadian voters come from unemployed Canadian workers, from the much talked about EI surplus?
Le vice-premier ministre répond non et affirme que l'énoncé du ministre des Finances aidera les chômeurs et tous les Canadiens, demandant à tous les députés d'appuyer l'initiative.
The Deputy Prime Minister says 'No' without explaining the funding source, then pivots to claiming the statement will help the unemployed and all Canadians, without substantively addressing whether the EI surplus is the funding mechanism.
Texte source
No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance's statement will help the unemployed and all Canadians. I ask that all members support this fine initiative for the betterment of the Canadian people.
Comment le premier ministre défend-il le choix de son gouvernement de consentir d'énormes réductions d'impôt à l'élite des entreprises plutôt que de financer les besoins humains fondamentaux tels que le logement, étant donné que la pauvreté et l'itinérance sont devenues de tragiques industries en croissance sous ce gouvernement libéral ?
Frames poverty and homelessness as growth industries under the Liberal government but the ask — defending a 'shameless choice of billions for the few and crumbs for the many' — is highly rhetorical with no specific policy cite or data point.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said the Alliance did not care about poverty. I want to say that the Prime Minister has nothing to crow about. The public records clearly show that poverty and homelessness have become tragic growth industries under this Liberal watch. There is a very clear choice here. Is it shovelling out huge tax cuts to the corporate elite or is it funding our basic human needs to shelter? I would like to ask the Prime Minister how does he defend his government's shameless choice of billions for the few and crumbs for the many? How does he defend that?
Le vice-premier ministre affirme que le gouvernement a dépensé des milliards pour aider les plus démunis grâce à des programmes comme la Prestation nationale pour enfants et un programme de 700 millions de dollars pour les sans-abri.
The Deputy Prime Minister cites the national child benefit and a $700 million program for the homeless as concrete programs addressing the least well off, which is partially responsive, but does not engage the specific charge about corporate tax cuts versus basic human needs.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the crumbs are in the unsupported insinuations of the hon. member's question. The fact is that we have been spending billions of dollars to help the least well off in our country through programs like the national child benefit and our $700 million program for the homeless. We are helping the least well off in this country and we will continue to do so even if the NDP does not know how to help bring about those results.
Le ministre des Travaux publics a déclaré qu'aucun fonds public n'était dépensé pour le parc Downsview, mais le ministre de la Défense nationale a admis que la Défense nationale dépensait de l'argent — quel ministre dit la vérité ?
Precisely pits two ministers' statements against each other — the Minister of Public Works saying no public money was spent on Downsview Park versus the Minister of National Defence admitting money was being spent — and asks which minister is telling the truth, making it a sharp and specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Earlier in the House the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that no public money was being spent on Downsview Park. Then the Minister of National Defence admitted money was being spent by national defence. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me which minister is telling the truth?
Oh, oh.
Le ministre des Travaux publics affirme que le seul argent reçu du gouvernement est des remboursements de la Défense nationale, car Terrains Canada a géré la mise en service du site, et suggère que le chef du Parti conservateur aurait dû faire ses recherches.
The Minister of Public Works explains that the money involves reimbursements from DND as Canada Lands managed the commissioning of the site, which provides some clarification of the apparent contradiction, though it does not fully reconcile the two ministers' statements or confirm which was accurate.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the only money being received from the government are reimbursements, like the Minister of Defence said before, from DND as Canada Lands managed the commissioning of the size. Maybe if the hon. leader of the Conservative Party did a little bit of research he would have found that out.
Le ministre des Anciens combattants s'engagera-t-il aujourd'hui à ce que chaque ancien combattant de la marine marchande admissible ou conjoint survivant reçoive l'intégralité de son indemnisation à 100 % telle que garantie par le précédent ministre des Anciens combattants ?
Asks a specific, binary commitment question — will every eligible merchant navy veteran or surviving spouse receive their full 100% compensation package as guaranteed by the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs — grounding it in a prior ministerial commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the minister commit to the House today that every eligible merchant navy veteran or surviving spouse will receive their full 100% compensation package owed to them as guaranteed by the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs?
Le nouveau ministre des Anciens combattants félicite son prédécesseur pour son excellent travail et assure la Chambre que quels que soient les engagements pris par son prédécesseur, il s'efforcera de les respecter.
The minister personally commits to respecting the commitments made by his predecessor, which is a direct though qualified answer (using 'I will try to respect' rather than an unambiguous guarantee), partially addressing the ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this new Minister of Veterans Affairs wants to compliment my predecessor for the excellent work he has done. I also want to assure the House that whatever commitments he has made I will try to respect.
Le Président a souligné la présence de visiteurs à la tribune, et les députés ont répondu par des marques d'approbation.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
M. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) a cité des chiffres tirés du rapport sur le financement des partis montrant que le Groupe SM avait fait des contributions au Parti libéral entre 1993 et 1999, après que sa question précédente eut été jugée irrecevable. M. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) et M. Stéphane Bergeron ont soulevé des recours au Règlement en faisant valoir que des questions similaires liant des décisions gouvernementales à des contributions partisanes avaient déjà été autorisées, et ont demandé au Président de consulter les bleus et l'enregistrement de l'échange. M. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) a demandé le consentement unanime pour procéder à l'étude du projet de loi C-213 à l'étape du rapport et en troisième lecture, mais le consentement a été refusé.
- BQ Mr. Benoît Sauvageau
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
- Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
- BQ Mr. Antoine Dubé
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, earlier I put a question to the government and to my great surprise you ruled the question out of order. I would still like an answer so I will put the question to you because the figures I wished to give come from the report on party financing. The report on party financing is a public report. According to the report of the chief electoral officer, Groupe SM donated $1,098 to the Liberal Party in 1993; $4,379 in 1994; $232 in 1995; $7,000 in 1997; $955 in 1998; and $22,000 in 1999.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to understand and I am not contesting your ruling, but we simply want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In the past on a number of occasions if I remember correctly, we have put questions to the government on various matters linking the government's decision to partisan action, such as in the case of a contribution to the party in office. In all these cases the Chair allowed these questions. Before you rise, I would simply like to point out that there is a problem. We cannot obtain information because documents are no longer circulating. We cannot obtain satisfaction because the information commissioner is stymied. We can no longer ask questions in the House of Commons. I do not know how to proceed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Far be it from me also to wish to oppose your decision in any way. I would respectfully request that you read the blues and listen to the recording of this portion of oral question period. Listening to the preamble and to the question, at least the portion of the question we are able to hear, it will be clearly seen that it is a matter of a government decision.
Mr. Speaker, I rise also on a point of order. Since the hon. member for York South—Weston indicated he would be unable to present his motion during private members' business today, I would seek unanimous consent, notwithstanding any standing order, for the House to proceed today at the end of government orders to examination of Bill C-213 at the report stage and, if possible, to move on to third reading of this bill.
Agreed.
No.