Résumé de la séance
- Les partis d'opposition ont pressé à plusieurs reprises le ministre des Finances de déposer un budget ou des prévisions économiques actualisées, invoquant l'avertissement du chef économiste de la Banque TD selon lequel l'énoncé économique d'octobre 2000 est 'maintenant dépassé'; le ministre a défendu la réserve pour éventualités et les mesures de prudence comme étant suffisantes.
- L'affaire de l'Auberge Grand-Mère a dominé plusieurs échanges, le Bloc québécois et le chef du Parti conservateur pressant le premier ministre de s'expliquer sur l'implication de Jean Carle dans le dossier de prêt de la BDC; le premier ministre a maintenu à plusieurs reprises que Carle n'était pas impliqué, tandis que l'opposition a cité un mémo interne de la BDC.
- Le NPD a soulevé des préoccupations concernant la législation prolongeant la protection des brevets pour les médicaments de marque, déposée au Sénat plutôt qu'à la Chambre des communes; le ministre de l'Industrie a confirmé que le Canada se conformait à une décision de l'OMC et a défendu le recours au Sénat.
- La position du Canada sur le bouclier antimissile a été questionnée par le NPD et le Bloc; le premier ministre a déclaré que le Canada ne dirait pas non avant que des discussions avec les Américains, les Russes et les Chinois aient lieu, tandis que le ministre des Affaires étrangères a qualifié d'hypothétique le scénario de perturbations majeures.
- Un député de l'Alliance canadienne a cité un mémo interne de la BDC indiquant que le prêt à l'Auberge Grand-Mère comportait un risque global 'très élevé' et ne respectait pas les 'politiques et critères normaux de la banque'; le ministre de l'Industrie a répondu en attaquant la crédibilité de la questionneuse plutôt qu'en abordant le contenu du mémo.
- Le ministre du Commerce international a clairement affirmé que le Canada n'accepterait jamais que ses droits de maintenir ses propres systèmes de santé et d'éducation soient soumis à des négociations dans le cadre de la zone de libre-échange des Amériques, et a confirmé que le dossier des pommes de terre de l'Î.-P.-É. serait soulevé avec le représentant américain au commerce Bob Zoellick le lundi suivant.
Le ministre du Commerce international a pris un engagement précis et public selon lequel le Canada n'accepterait jamais que son droit de maintenir ses propres systèmes de santé et d'éducation soit soumis à des négociations dans le cadre de la ZLÉA, offrant aux Canadiens une position gouvernementale claire et vérifiable.
Cites a specific date (February 7), quotes the Prime Minister's exact words from Hansard, and asks a single yes-or-no accountability question about whether that statement was the truth.
Lorsqu'on lui a présenté un mémo interne de la BDC indiquant que le prêt à l'Auberge Grand-Mère comportait un risque 'très élevé' et ne respectait pas les politiques normales de la banque, Tobin a répondu uniquement par une attaque personnelle contre la questionneuse au sujet des pensions parlementaires, sans aborder le mémo.
Questions sans réponse
- Mme Deborah Grey a demandé si le prêt de la BDC à l'Auberge Grand-Mère — documenté dans un mémo interne comme comportant un risque global 'très élevé' et ne respectant pas les 'politiques et critères normaux de la banque' — avait été approuvé parce que le premier ministre l'avait arrangé; aucun ministre n'a abordé le fond du mémo.
- Joe Clark a demandé au premier ministre de confirmer si sa lettre du 10 avril 1999 au National Post — affirmant n'avoir 'aucun lien personnel direct ou indirect avec l'hôtel en question ni avec le terrain de golf adjacent' — était exacte, et s'il déposerait tous les documents pertinents concernant sa tentative de vendre des actions du terrain de golf de Grand-Mère à Akimbo Development Corporation; la question est restée sans réponse.
- M. Monte Solberg a demandé à la ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration de confirmer si FACT est un front terroriste et si des collègues du Cabinet ne devraient pas recueillir des fonds pour ce groupe, étant donné que les propres avocats du ministère ont soutenu cette position devant la Cour suprême du Canada; la ministre a refusé de répondre au motif que l'affaire était devant les tribunaux.
- M. Stockwell Day a demandé directement au premier ministre quel était son plan — plus précisément s'il avait l'intention de réduire les dépenses ou de renoncer à la réduction de la dette — étant donné que les revenus seraient réduits pendant le ralentissement économique décrit dans le livre rouge; le premier ministre n'a pas répondu à la question.
- Mme Judy Wasylycia-Leis a demandé si le gouvernement était prêt à éliminer l'injonction automatique contre la concurrence des médicaments génériques comme mesure pour remédier au coût élevé des médicaments, à la suite de sa décision de se conformer à la décision de l'OMC sur les brevets pharmaceutiques; le ministre n'a pas abordé cette mesure précise.
Day cite l'économiste en chef de la Banque TD selon qui l'énoncé économique d'octobre 2000 est périmé, et demande au ministre des Finances de déposer un budget rapidement plutôt que de faire une vague promesse pour le printemps.
Cites a named expert (TD Bank chief economist and former assistant deputy minister of finance) and a specific document (October 2000 economic statement) with a clear ask: table a budget soon.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, along with the official opposition others are also expressing concern about the government's financial plan no longer being in touch with the changing economy. I would like to quote from the chief economist at the TD Bank. He is also the former assistant deputy minister of finance. He said of the finance minister's economic update that “the October 2000 economic statement and budget update is now outdated”. A vague commitment from the finance minister about some update some time in the spring just will not cut it. If the finance minister is not prepared to listen to concerned Canadians, to the markets, to people in business or to the official opposition, will he at least listen to his former top adviser and now a chief economist and table a budget and do it soon?
Martin soutient que Drummond et la plupart des économistes ont demandé une mise à jour économique, non un budget, et affirme qu'une mise à jour sera faite lorsque le consensus des prévisionnistes du secteur privé sera prêt.
Martin engages the substance by clarifying what Drummond actually called for (an economic update, not a budget) and references the private sector forecaster consensus process, but does not give a timeline or direct commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to listen to the people that he is quoting. Neither Mr. Drummond nor the vast majority of other economists have said that we should be producing a budget. They have asked for us to do an economic update to update the projections. Of course we have said on a multitude of occasions that when the consensus of private sector forecasters is ready, of which Mr. Drummond is one, it will obviously be the time to consider an update, as indeed we did last spring.
Day cite Drummond qualifiant les hypothèses de la mise à jour d'octobre de 'nettement optimistes' et demande quand le ministre des Finances déposera un plan financier concret plutôt qu'une vague promesse de printemps.
Cites another specific Drummond quote calling assumptions 'decidedly optimistic' and presses for a concrete date rather than a vague spring promise, though the framing includes rhetorical asides.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to give him that consensus for days and days now, and he is not listening. Here is another quote from Mr. Drummond, his former senior adviser: “The economic assumptions underpinning the October update now seem decidedly optimistic”. He is saying these are not realistic plans. I want to assure the finance minister that we are not blaming the downturn on him. We are not doing that. He had nothing to do with it, just like he had nothing to do with the upturn. I am trying to impress upon him that this is an important issue. Canadians want a financial plan to know how to lessen the impact of an economic downturn. When will he table it, not some vague promise of spring?
Martin dit de façon condescendante que le gouvernement reconnaît depuis longtemps le ralentissement américain et défend la réserve pour éventualités et les mesures de prudence de l'énoncé d'octobre comme étant une prévoyance suffisante.
Martin deflects by sarcastically welcoming Day to 'the real world' and pivots to defending the contingency reserve and prudence provisions rather than addressing the timeline ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would really like to welcome the Leader of the Opposition to the real world if he has only now discovered that there has been a revision by most private sector forecasters that there is a slowdown going on in the United States. Well, then, welcome to reality. The government has been saying that for quite some time. What the government has also said in terms of its own forecasts is that in the October statement we put in a contingency reserve and the prudence to cover this very kind of eventuality. In short, we have shown foresight and that Canada is the stronger for it.
Day invoque l'engagement du livre rouge sur le partage 50/50 des revenus et demande au premier ministre si, face à une baisse des recettes en période de ralentissement, il réduira les dépenses ou renoncera à la réduction de la dette, et comment les Canadiens peuvent le savoir sans budget.
References the red book's revenue formula (50% spending, 50% taxes and debt reduction) and asks the Prime Minister how he will handle reduced revenues without a budget, but the ask is somewhat compound and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it was only last Friday that the government finally admitted we are into an economic downturn. Let us talk about that contingency reserve. In the red book there is a reflection about revenues, with 50% going to increased spending and 50% going to taxes and debt reduction. Since the Prime Minister wrote the red book we will not blame the finance minister. Will the Prime Minister tell us, then, what is his plan? How can we know? With revenues being reduced as they will because we are in a downturn, is he planning to reduce spending, or will he back off on debt reduction which will weaken the dollar? How can we know what he will do without a budget?
Chrétien affirme simplement que tout le monde félicite le gouvernement pour ses réductions d'impôts du 1er janvier et leur synchronisation parfaite avec le ralentissement américain.
Chrétien does not engage the red book formula or the revenue question at all, offering only a one-line boast about January 1 tax cuts praised for their timing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, everyone around who knows the situation is praising the government because we reduced the taxes on January 1. Everyone said that we had perfect timing in doing it at the same time as the downturn in the United States.
Kenney cite le constat de Drummond selon lequel l'énoncé d'octobre omet ses propres changements fiscaux et nouveaux engagements de dépenses, et demande si le ministre des Finances convient que les hypothèses économiques ne sont pas réalistes.
Cites Drummond's memo pointing out that the October statement omits its own promised tax changes, spending commitments from red book three, and the throne speech, and asks directly whether the finance minister agrees the assumptions are not realistic.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I guess the finance minister still has not sent a memo to the Prime Minister pointing out that taxes are going up this year with the CPP increases. Mr. Drummond said in the same report that the October statement “does not reflect the tax changes promised in the statement or spending commitments in red book three or the throne speech”. He also said that economic assumptions in the October statement were “decidedly optimistic”. Does the finance minister agree with his comment that the assumptions are not realistic? If he does agree, what does he believe are realistic assumptions for the future of our economy?
Martin défend la prudence et la réserve pour éventualités de l'énoncé d'octobre comme conçues pour couvrir de telles éventualités, et répète qu'une mise à jour économique viendra quand le consensus des prévisionnistes du secteur privé sera prêt.
Martin defends the contingency reserve and prudence offsets without directly agreeing or disagreeing with Drummond's characterization of the assumptions, and repeats the spring economic update promise without new specifics.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as we have every year, and opposition members have had a lot of difficulty with it because they said we were being too prudent, the assumptions that were made in the October statement were then offset by the contingency reserve and the prudence for just this kind of eventuality. That is why we do not have to rush into an economic update. It is certainly why we do not have to rush into a budget, because in fact we have shown the foresight. I have said that when the consensus of private sector forecasters is ready we will indeed do an economic update. We did it last spring and we will do it this spring. We did it last fall and we will do another one next fall. Welcome to the real world. That is the way the government operates.
Kenney cite des baisses consécutives de la fabrication, de l'indice composite et de l'investissement en machines et équipements, et demande quels plans le ministre des Finances a pour protéger les Canadiens d'un véritable ralentissement économique.
Cites three specific recent economic indicators (manufacturing down two straight months, composite index down two straight months, investment in machinery and equipment down three straight months) and asks for the finance minister's specific plans.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. A statement which did not incorporate its own tax changes or consider new spending increases in the red book showed foresight; I think not. On Monday we learned that manufacturing was down for the second straight month. Yesterday we learned that the key composite index was down for two straight months. Today we learn that investment in machinery and equipment is down for three straight months. With these growing clouds on the economic horizon, what plans does this finance minister have to protect Canadians and their economy from the very real prospect of a downturn?
More, more.
Martin soutient que le stimulus fiscal d'octobre du Canada était quatre fois plus important qu'au Royaume-Uni et huit fois plus important que ce qui était prévu aux États-Unis, affirmant que le Canada a déjà agi là où les autres en sont encore aux discussions.
Martin pivots to comparing Canada's October tax stimulus to the UK and US rather than describing any forward-looking plans to protect Canadians from the downturn, partially engaging the economic context but not the specific ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again all I can say is: Take a look at what we have done compared to other countries. The tax stimulus that we provided the economy in our October update, which took effect on January 1, was four times greater than that of the United Kingdom and eight times greater than those planned in the United States. The fact is what other people are talking about doing we have already done. The fact is that we have provided for the spending.
Duceppe cite une note de service rendue publique la veille prouvant l'implication de Jean Carle dans l'affaire de l'Auberge Grand-Mère, contredisant le démenti antérieur du premier ministre, et demande s'il continuera de nier des faits vérifiables.
References a specific memo made public the previous day that contradicts the Prime Minister's prior denial of Jean Carle's involvement in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, and asks if the Prime Minister will maintain his denial.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister denied in the House that Jean Carle was involved in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair. However, a memo made public yesterday proves exactly the opposite. Is the Prime Minister going to stick to his version and keep denying verifiable facts?
Chrétien répète sa défense chronologique : le prêt a été accordé en 1997 quand Carle travaillait pour lui et n'avait rien à voir avec ce dossier ; Carle n'a rejoint la banque qu'en 1998, après l'octroi du prêt.
Chrétien addresses the question directly with a chronological account of Carle's employment timeline but does not acknowledge the memo or its contents, making his denial incomplete relative to what was asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, when Mr. Carle worked for me, he had nothing to do with this loan. When the loan was made in 1997, Mr. Carle worked for my office. He joined the bank in 1998. So there was absolutely no involvement by Mr. Carle in this business either before or after, because the loan was made before he joined the bank in 1998.
Duceppe précise qu'une note de Jean Carle suggère des réponses à donner aux journalistes pour défendre le premier ministre dans ce dossier, que les libéraux ont refusé de la déposer, et demande pourquoi le premier ministre nie des faits contenus dans une note qu'il refuse d'examiner.
Clarifies the allegation precisely — a memo from Jean Carle suggesting answers to journalists to defend the Prime Minister — and notes the Liberals refused to table the memo, sharply framing the cover-up issue.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that Mr. Carle received a commission on the loan. What we are saying is that a memo from Jean Carle suggests answers that could be given to journalists in order to defend the Prime Minister, who maintains that Mr. Carle was never involved in this business. This proves the contrary. The Liberals have refused that the memo be tabled. Why is the Prime Minister maintaining the opposite of what is confirmed by verifiable facts contained in a memo he does not want to look at?
Chrétien réitère la date du prêt de 1997 et l'arrivée de Carle à la banque en 1998, et décrit le rôle de Carle comme étant d'assurer les relations entre la Banque de développement du Canada et le ministère, et non de gérer les prêts.
Chrétien repeats the 1997/1998 chronology about the loan and Carle's role in relations between the bank and the department, but does not address the memo or the alleged media-management cover-up at all.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this occurred in 1997, and Mr. Carle joined the bank in 1998. Relations between departments and crown corporations are established by the employees working in these corporations. Mr. Carle's job was to maintain relations between the Business Development Bank of Canada and the department. Mr. Carle has absolutely nothing to do with loans, or with this loan, which was made before he joined the bank.
Duceppe interroge le premier ministre sur la tentative présumée de dissimulation dans l'affaire de l'Auberge Grand-Mère et lui demande s'il admettra des faits vérifiables plutôt que de continuer à nier les preuves.
Attempts to shift focus from the loan to the cover-up dimension of the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, but the question is broadly phrased and does not cite new specific evidence beyond what was already established.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make my question more specific. We are told that he has nothing to do with loans. But we are talking about the entire Auberge Grand-Mère affair. There were negotiations, there was a loan, and there was a subsequent attempt to cover up. My question for the Prime Minister has to do with the cover-up attempt. Will he admit the verifiable facts or is he going to keep denying the evidence?
Chrétien répète que Carle n'avait rien à voir avec le prêt, note que la caisse populaire et le Fonds de solidarité étaient aussi des prêteurs, et dit qu'il n'y a rien à cacher puisque l'entreprise est toujours en activité quatre ans plus tard.
Chrétien repeats the same chronological defence about the loan and Carle's employment timeline without engaging the cover-up allegation at all.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, they have been talking about this for two years. We have answered in the House time and again. I repeat that, when Mr. Carle worked for me, he had nothing to do with this loan. When the loan was made in 1997, he worked for me. In 1998 he left my office and was hired by the Business Development Bank of Canada. The loan had already been running for a year, and it was also held by the caisse populaire and the Fonds de solidarité. There is nothing to hide. All these lenders have continued the loan for four years and the enterprise is still in operation.
Duceppe compare le premier ministre à Richard Nixon, l'accuse d'avoir déclenché des élections anticipées pour cacher la vérité, et le met au défi de se comporter en homme d'honneur et d'admettre qu'il nie les faits.
The question devolves into a rhetorical Nixon/McCarthy comparison and a personal challenge to the Prime Minister's honour, with no specific factual ask or new evidence.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is ducking the questions. We are told that parliamentarians are behaving like Joe McCarthy. I think that the Prime Minister is starting to look more and more like Richard Nixon, and that is the truth. Perhaps that is why he called an early election, to keep the truth from coming out. I call on him to have some respect for the House. Is he able to behave like an honourable person and admit that he is denying the facts?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien dit que le député doit avoir très peu d'arguments pour en venir à de telles comparaisons, réaffirme qu'il n'a rien à cacher et dit qu'il répète la même chose depuis deux ans et continuera de le faire.
Chrétien dismisses the question as evidence of weak arguments and simply reasserts he has told the truth for two years, with no substantive engagement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member must have very few arguments if these are the ones to which he is resorting. I gave the House all the details. I have nothing to hide. I have been saying the same thing for two years now and it is what I will be saying for the next two years.
McDonough demande si le premier ministre condamnera le système de défense antimissile nationale lors de sa rencontre avec le premier ministre britannique Blair demain, et lui dira de ne pas compter sur le Canada, comme il n'a pas su le dire à M. Bush.
Identifies a specific upcoming meeting with Mr. Blair as the occasion and asks for a concrete commitment to oppose national missile defence, but the three-part compound question dilutes its sharpness.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the British Prime Minister will be in Ottawa tomorrow on his way to Washington to meet with President Bush. My question is for the Prime Minister. When he sits down with Mr. Blair, will he condemn the national missile defence system? Will he make it clear that Canadians reject this proposal that would not have been acceptable even during the cold war? Will the Prime Minister tell Mr. Blair what he failed to tell Mr. Bush: do not count Canada in?
Chrétien plaisante en disant qu'il dira à Blair de ne pas suivre les conseils des socialistes du Canada, sans aborder la défense antimissile nationale.
Chrétien deflects entirely with a quip about not following socialist advice rather than addressing the national missile defence ask or the Blair meeting.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will tell Mr. Blair that it is better for him not to follow the advice of the socialists of Canada because he will be in deep trouble.
McDonough note que l'Allemagne, la France et d'autres nations européennes ont de graves réserves et que Lloyd Axworthy s'y oppose catégoriquement, et demande pourquoi le Canada ne peut pas tout simplement dire non à une nouvelle escalade militaire.
References European reservations and Lloyd Axworthy's outright rejection of national missile defence, but the ask — 'why can Canada not just say no' — is more rhetorical than a specific policy question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get a serious answer to serious Canadian foreign policy questions. Germany, France and other European nations have expressed severe reservations about this nuclear missile madness. Lloyd Axworthy rejects it outright. Why can Canada not just say no to more military build up?
Chrétien dit avoir discuté de la question avec le président et qu'il en discutera avec Blair, que la position du Canada est que les discussions doivent inclure la Chine, la Russie et l'OTAN, et qu'il ne dira pas non avant que ces discussions n'aient lieu.
Chrétien provides a substantive account of Canada's actual position: discussing with the Americans, insisting on consultations with China and Russia and NATO, and not saying no before discussions take place — a more specific answer than the question warranted.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed that with the president and I will discuss that with Mr. Blair. I want to know what the facts are first. I will have discussions with the Americans, who have decided they will not proceed if it will cause a lot of problems for NATO and if they cannot find an arrangement with the Chinese and the Russians. It is our position that there have to be discussions with everyone and if they want to have discussions with everyone, we will not say no before the discussions take place. In discussions we have to listen first.
Clark cite la réponse du premier ministre du 7 février — 'La réponse est non' à la question de savoir si Jean Carle était impliqué de quelque façon que ce soit dans le dossier de l'Auberge Grand-Mère — et demande directement si cette déclaration était la vérité.
Cites a specific date (February 7), quotes the Prime Minister's exact words from Hansard, and asks a single yes-or-no accountability question about whether that statement was the truth.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I asked the Prime Minister the following: —whether Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in the Auberge Grand-Mère file, either during his tenure in the Prime Minister's Office or in his work with the Business Development Bank. The Prime Minister replied “The answer is no”. Was the Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons on February 7 the truth?
Chrétien dit que ce qu'il a dit à la Chambre était la vérité et répète que le prêt a été accordé en 1997 quand Carle travaillait pour lui sans être impliqué, et que Carle n'a rejoint la banque qu'en 1998.
Chrétien asserts the February 7 statement was the truth and repeats the chronological employment defence, but does not directly engage with the new memo evidence or acknowledge any inconsistency in his prior answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what I said in the House of Commons was the truth and I will repeat what I said to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The loan was made in 1997. Mr. Carle was working with me and was not involved in the file. He joined the bank in 1998, so he had absolutely nothing to do with this loan to Auberge Grand-Mère. That was a loan not only from the bank, but from the caisse populaire and from Le Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec. This loan was made in 1997 and the loan is still in operation after four years.
Clark précise que la question ne porte pas sur le prêt mais sur toute implication de Jean Carle dans des transactions liées à l'Auberge Grand-Mère, et demande si la réponse du premier ministre du 7 février tient toujours ou s'il change de position.
Explicitly narrows the question away from the loan to any involvement in any transactions related to Auberge Grand-Mère, directly re-citing the February 7 exchange and asking whether the Prime Minister is changing his position.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the question was not about the loan. The question was about whether Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in this file. The Prime Minister cannot pass this off to Pinocchio. He has to answer this himself.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Jean Carle involved in any way in any of the transactions related to Auberge Grand-Mère? Is the answer to the question asked on February 7 the same, or is the Prime Minister changing his position?
Chrétien affirme que Jean Carle n'a jamais été impliqué dans le prêt de la Banque de développement du Canada, puis s'en prend personnellement à Clark, l'accusant de pure jalousie et rappelant les scandales sous son administration.
Chrétien limits his answer to the specific loan question Clark says is not his concern, then attacks Clark personally and taunts him about never returning as leader of the opposition, wholly evading the broader involvement question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Jean Carle was never involved in the loan by the Business Development Bank. The leader of the opposition has just said that he has nothing against the loan. The problem the leader of not the opposition has, who will never come back as leader of the opposition, is that it is pure jealousy. This government, for almost eight years, had no scandals while he was in an administration that had one every month.
Grey cite une note interne de la BDC indiquant que le risque global pour la BDC est très élevé et que la structure de financement recommandée ne satisfait pas aux politiques et critères normaux de la banque, et demande si c'est pourquoi le premier ministre n'a pas été entièrement transparent avec la Chambre.
Cites and quotes from a specific internal BDC memo stating 'the global risk for BDC is very high' and acknowledging the financing structure 'does not meet the normal policy and criteria of the bank,' and asks whether this is why the Prime Minister has not been forthcoming.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in fact there are a couple of questions that arise from the loan itself, and I would like to bring them up. We have obtained an internal memo from the Business Development Bank that details the very loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère. I will quote from that document. It states: —the global risk for BDC is very high. We are aware that the financing structure recommended does not meet the normal policy and criteria of the bank. Is that why the Prime Minister has not been entirely, shall we say, forthcoming with the House? That is the memo.
Tobin ignore complètement la note et attaque Grey pour avoir posé avec des animaux à quatre pattes devant le parlement tout en se plaignant des pensions parlementaires avant d'en accepter une après l'élection.
Tobin does not address the internal memo, the loan risk assessment, or the Prime Minister's forthcomingness at all, instead attacking Grey personally over parliamentary pensions and posing with animals.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is not forthcoming is the posing with four-legged animals outside parliament complaining about parliamentary pensions and then grabbing one right after the election is over. That is not professional.
Grey cite des chiffres d'une note de la BDC montrant que le prêt à l'Auberge Grand-Mère est passé de 415 000 $ à 600 000 $ malgré le non-respect des procédures normales de la banque, et demande si c'est la nature louche du prêt ou le fait que le premier ministre l'ait arrangé qui l'empêche de répondre.
References specific figures from the BDC memo — an original loan amount of $415,000 increasing to $600,000 — and asks whether the loan's shady nature or the Prime Minister's arrangement of it prevents him from answering, though the question is partially rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the BDC memo which says very clearly—
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty sad over there no matter what day of the week it is. The BDC memo concerns loans to the Grand-Mère of $415,000. What did it end up getting? It got $600,000. Let us look at this. A bank is very worried about lending a large sum of money so it first ignores its normal procedures, it increases the loan by 50% extra and then it hands over the cash. I would love the Prime Minister to call my bank when it is time to renew my mortgage. I want to ask, is this a shady loan or is it the fact that he arranged it?
She surely will, Mr. Speaker. Is it the shady nature of that bank loan or is it the fact that he arranged it that prevents the Prime Minister from answering?
Tobin cite la conclusion du conseiller en éthique selon laquelle le premier ministre n'était pas en situation de conflit d'intérêts et a respecté les règles d'éthique, ainsi que la conclusion de la GRC qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de procéder à une enquête plus approfondie, et qualifie l'affaire de ridicule.
Tobin cites the ethics counsellor's finding of no conflict of interest and the RCMP's finding of no need for further investigation, partially engaging the loan legitimacy issue, but does not address the specific figures from the memo or why the loan exceeded normal criteria.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the facts are pretty clear. The facts are that we have had a request by the Leader of the Opposition directly to the ethics counsellor for an investigation. That has now occurred and a definitive answer has been given saying that the Prime Minister of Canada was in no conflict and has complied with the ethics rules. Then we had two letters from the leader of the Conservative Party to the RCMP. Surely all Canadians can agree that the RCMP are objective and professional. It did an investigation that said there was no need for a further investigation. Then the leader of the Conservative Party wants to coach the RCMP on how to be policemen. This matter is ridiculous and—
Le député demande au ministre du Commerce international de confirmer que la position du Canada est que la culture, la santé et l'éducation ne seront jamais incluses dans les négociations sur la zone de libre-échange des Amériques.
Cites a prior ministerial commitment and asks for explicit confirmation that culture, health, and education will never be included in FTAA negotiations — reasonably specific with an identifiable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has said time and again that Canada's position was that culture, health and education would never be included in the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas. Could the minister confirm today that Canada's position is still the same and that our country will never accept that these issues be negotiated under the free trade area of the Americas?
Le ministre affirme que le Canada développe une approche différente pour les produits culturels et qu'il a toujours été clair que le Canada ne permettrait jamais de négocier son droit d'avoir ses propres systèmes en matière de santé et d'éducation.
The minister addresses culture and health/education separately but uses hedged language ('never allow negotiations on its right') rather than a flat confirmation that these issues are off the FTAA agenda entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as regards culture, we have done some very important work, along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to develop a different way of treating cultural products. We feel it is important that these products not be subjected to standard trade legislation. As for the other issues, namely health and education, I have always made it very clear that Canada would never allow negotiations on its right to have its own systems and its own way of doing things in these most important areas.
Le député demande l'assurance que la culture, la santé et l'éducation ne figurent pas à l'ordre du jour des négociations sur la ZLEA, soulignant que le public n'a pas accès aux textes de base.
Sharpens the prior question by noting lack of access to basic negotiating texts and asks for explicit assurance that culture, health, and education are not on the FTAA agenda — clear and specific ask with factual framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, since we do not have access to the basic texts to be used in the negotiations, could the minister give us today the assurance that none of these issues are on the agenda of the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas?
Le ministre prétend avoir déjà répondu clairement, puis décrit les réunions à venir des ministres de l'environnement, du travail et du commerce international en préparation du sommet de Québec et des négociations de Buenos Aires.
The minister claims he just gave that assurance but then pivots to describing upcoming ministerial meetings on environment, labour, and trade without directly stating these issues are absent from the FTAA agenda.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is what I just did in a very clear manner. We intend to keep working with our colleagues from the hemisphere and to conclude, through negotiations other than those on the FTAA, agreements on the environment. Environment ministers will meet in preparation for the summit in Quebec City. We will also have meetings with labour ministers, who are holding their own talks. In early April international trade ministers will negotiate in Buenos Aires the extensions and the integration of the free trade area of the Americas.
La députée demande pourquoi le gouvernement a défendu les subventions accordées au Strathroy Community Resource Centre plutôt que de protéger les fonds publics, maintenant que des accusations de fraude ont été portées contre trois membres du conseil d'administration.
Cites a specific grant recipient (Strathroy Community Resource Centre), references a prior parliamentary exchange, and grounds the question in a police announcement of fraud charges — factually specific with a clear accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last April, when we enquired about grants to the Strathroy Community Resource Centre, the parliamentary secretary not only defended the grants but attacked us for even questioning them. As it turns out, we had every reason to be concerned. Last Thursday the police announced that fraud charges were going to be laid against three members of the board. I ask the minister: Why was the government defending these grants instead of protecting taxpayer money from criminal misuse?
La ministre affirme que les allégations d'irrégularités ont toujours été prises au sérieux, que le ministère a demandé une enquête policière, que la PPO a porté des accusations contre trois personnes et que l'affaire est devant les tribunaux.
The minister confirms the OPP laid charges and that the department asked police to investigate, but declines to explain why the government defended the grants rather than protecting taxpayer money, citing the matter being before the courts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, whenever there were allegations of wrongdoing in circumstances involving government money we took them seriously. The department did ask the police to investigate. The hon. member is correct, the OPP have laid charges against three individuals. This is before the courts and, as such, I will say no more on the case.
La députée demande à la ministre d'expliquer comment le rapport de rendement du DRHC peut affirmer qu'aucune somme n'est manquante alors qu'au moins 20 enquêtes policières sont en cours et que des accusations de fraude sont portées.
Cites the HRDC performance report's finding that 'no money was found to be missing' and juxtaposes it with at least 20 police investigations, creating a pointed and factually grounded contradiction demanding explanation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the minister really does not know what is going on in her department. The HRDC performance report states that last year's audit of grants and contributions found “that no money was found to be missing”. This is quite interesting given that there are at least 20 police investigations into the grants and contributions program. If no money is missing, as the minister claims, can she then explain to the House why there are these police investigations and why they are laying fraud charges on the files?
La ministre affirme que la grande majorité des investissements gouvernementaux ont fait une différence dans la vie des Canadiens et que les allégations d'irrégularités sont toujours prises au sérieux avec des enquêtes menées au besoin.
The minister does not address the contradiction between the audit finding and the police investigations at all, instead pivoting to the positive impact of government investments in communities and a general statement about taking allegations seriously.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is absolutely clear is that the vast majority of investments made by the government in communities right across the country, including investments in the hon. member's own riding, have made a difference in the lives of Canadians. I respect, from time to time, that there are allegations made about wrongdoings. We always take them seriously. If investigations are required, they are undertaken and action is followed.
Le député demande pourquoi le solliciteur général a ignoré ses demandes pendant deux ans concernant les gangs qui terrorisent les agriculteurs, et quelles mesures il entend prendre à la lumière d'un rapport d'une agence de l'ONU critiquant l'inaction du Canada.
References a specific UN agency report criticizing Canada, cites two years of unanswered entreaties, and asks a dual question about past inaction and intended future action — reasonably grounded but the ask is compound.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a United Nations agency has criticized Canada's lack of action against the illegal cultivation of cannabis and its inability to properly control the production of synthetic drugs. I too have called upon the solicitor general here in this House to take action on the gangs terrorizing farmers, but with no satisfactory response. Could the solicitor general tell us why he has turned a deaf ear to my entreaties for the past two years and could he tell us, in light of such a damning report, what action he intends to take so that farm families will no longer fall victim to gang threats?
Le ministre affirme que la GRC appuie la SQ, qui dirige les enquêtes au Québec, et que le gouvernement soutient les forces policières fédérales, provinciales et municipales partout au pays pour lutter contre le crime organisé.
The minister does not address the UN report, the resource insufficiency, or the specific threat to farm families, merely stating that the RCMP supports the SQ and that federal-provincial-municipal cooperation will continue.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is personally well aware, the RCMP supports the SQ, which leads the investigations in Quebec. We support federal, provincial and municipal police forces across the country and we will continue to do so to fight organized crime.
Le député demande au solliciteur général, à la lumière des critiques de l'ONU sur la laxité du Canada en matière de trafic de drogue, quelles mesures concrètes il prendra contre les trafiquants et quelle protection il offrira aux familles agricoles.
Focuses the previous question on the specific issue of resources, cites the UN report as international validation, and demands concrete action for farm families — clearer than the prior exchange but still somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of support, but one of resources. Resources are insufficient, as he well knows. We are not the ones saying it this time, the UN is. Now that the laxity of the government is being criticized on the international level, is the solicitor general going to finally tell us what action he intends to take against drug traffickers and what protection he intends to provide to these farm families, who have had enough of his promises?
Le ministre affirme que le dernier budget a engagé 1,5 milliard de dollars dans l'enveloppe de la sécurité publique et que le gouvernement fournit à la GRC et aux autres organisations policières des outils comme le CIPC.
The minister cites $1.5 billion in the last budget for the public safety envelope and mentions CPIC as a tool given to the RCMP, which is partially relevant to resources but does not address the specific UN criticism or protection for farm families.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware that in the last budget the government committed $1.5 billion to the public safety envelope, which is something that is very important. We give the RCMP and other police organizations across this country the tools to do the job, like CPIC and many other tools.
Le député demande à la ministre de l'Immigration de confirmer que FACT est un front terroriste pour les Tigres tamouls, puisque les avocats de son propre ministère plaident exactement cela devant la Cour suprême, et si des collègues du Cabinet auraient dû assister à une collecte de fonds de FACT.
Identifies a specific supreme court case, names FACT and its alleged link to the Tamil Tigers, references specific cabinet ministers attending a FACT fundraiser, and asks a pointed yes/no confirmation — highly specific and factually grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Tamils are law-abiding good people but in any group there are a few bad apples. Right now the Department of Citizenship and Immigration lawyers are arguing at the supreme court to have a man deported because of his association with FACT, a group they say is a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers. Last year the finance minister and the CIDA ministers argued there was nothing wrong with attending a FACT fundraiser. Will the immigration minister confirm that FACT is indeed a terrorist front and that her cabinet colleagues should not be out raising money for them?
La ministre affirme seulement qu'il serait tout à fait inapproprié de discuter d'affaires dont est saisie la Cour suprême du Canada.
The minister refuses entirely to engage with the question, citing only that it is inappropriate to discuss matters before the Supreme Court of Canada, without addressing the broader question about cabinet colleagues.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that it is completely inappropriate to discuss matters that are before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Le député cite les propres avocats du ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration décrivant FACT comme un front de collecte de fonds pour les Tigres tamouls et demande comment la ministre peut nier que des collègues du Cabinet recueillaient des fonds pour un front terroriste.
Quotes directly from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's own court submissions describing FACT as a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers and cites specific claims about drug trafficking — highly specific with a pointed accountability ask directed at cabinet conduct.
Texte source
Especially, Mr. Speaker, when her neck is on the line. In their case before the supreme court, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration lawyers flat out say that FACT is a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers. They go on to say that the Tigers “raise money through drug trafficking and by relying upon the willing or unwilling expatriate communities abroad, such as the large number of Tamil refugees in Canada”. That is what her own lawyers have said. How can the minister deny that her cabinet colleagues were in fact raising funds for a terrorist front?
Aucune réponse n'a été enregistrée pour cet échange.
No ministerial answer is recorded in the source text for this exchange.
Le député demande au ministre de la Défense nationale quel rôle son ministère joue concernant la qualité de l'eau à Shannon et comment il entend rassurer la population de Shannon.
A government backbencher sets up a question for the Minister of National Defence about the Shannon water quality issue, framed partly to rebut Bloc allegations — a clear softball setup.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the problem facing the people of Shannon and contrary to the allegations of certain Bloc Quebecois members, we have been working together with the various parties since this matter was raised. I would direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of recent press releases by the Quebec minister of the environment on the quality of the water in Shannon, could the minister tell us what role his department is playing in this matter and how he intends to reassure the people of Shannon?
Le ministre affirme que le ministère a dépensé plus de 2 millions de dollars depuis la découverte du problème et sa divulgation au gouvernement provincial en avril 1998, en effectuant des études et des mesures correctives, et s'engage à poursuivre la coopération avec les autorités provinciales et locales.
The minister provides substantive information: the department spent over $2 million on studies and remedial action since April 1998, brought the matter to provincial attention at that time, and commits to continued cooperation with provincial and local officials.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my top concern and the top concern of the government is the health and welfare of the people in this community, the people on our base and the people in the surrounding communities. I hope the Quebec government will make that its priority as well. Since discovering this matter and since bringing it to the attention of the provincial government back in April 1998, we have spent over $2 million in terms of doing studies, doing research as to the source of the problems and taking remedial action. We will continue to do that. We want to continue to co-operate with all officials, provincial and local, to make sure that the health of the people in this area is looked after.
La députée demande pourquoi le gouvernement a présenté une législation prolongeant la protection des brevets pour les médicaments de marque au Sénat plutôt qu'à la Chambre des communes, et pourquoi il se conforme à une décision de l'OMC qu'il avait dit pouvoir ne pas accepter.
References specific legislation extending patent protection introduced the previous day and raises the procedural choice of the Senate, but frames the ask in rhetorical terms ('cave in,' 'ashamed') making it partly partisan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government introduced significant and far-reaching legislation extending patent protection for many brand name drugs, which will add enormously to the cost of drugs already going through the roof. Interestingly, the government chose not to introduce this bill in this House but chose the other place. The question today is really why this cave in to the WTO and why in fact the Senate? Are the Liberals ashamed of the fact that they are bringing in legislation to conform to an idea which they had previously condemned?
Le ministre affirme que la législation est traitée à l'autre endroit en raison de sa capacité à traiter les projets de loi efficacement, et confirme que le Canada cherche toujours à se conformer aux décisions de l'OMC.
The minister explains the Senate route as efficient and confirms compliance with the WTO ruling, but does not address the substantive concern about drug costs or the prior government position that non-compliance was on the table.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the legislation which I sponsored is being dealt with in the other place because of its ability to deal efficiently with legislation. It will move over here at the appropriate time. With respect to the package of amendments, they are in compliance with the ruling of the WTO. Canada always seeks to be in compliance with WTO rulings.
La députée demande ce que le gouvernement fera pour s'attaquer au prix élevé des médicaments étant donné sa décision de se conformer à la décision de l'OMC, et plus précisément s'il éliminera l'injonction automatique contre la concurrence des médicaments génériques.
Cites the pre-election government statement that all options were on the table including non-compliance, and asks a specific policy question about eliminating the automatic injunction against generic competition — factually grounded with a clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that just before the federal election, in response to the WTO ruling, the government said all options were on the table, including non-compliance. Today the government is prepared to roll over and play dead. The patients, the seniors and the provincial health systems will pay the price. Since the government has obviously decided to cave in to the WTO, we want to know what the government is prepared to do to address the high price of drugs. Is it at least prepared to eliminate the automatic injunction against generic competition?
Le ministre affirme qu'il n'existe aucune preuve que les coûts des médicaments augmenteront de façon spectaculaire et défend la conformité aux règles de l'OMC, soutenant que le Canada a très bien réussi dans le commerce mondial.
The minister denies that drug costs will increase dramatically and defends compliance with international trade rules but does not address the specific ask about eliminating the automatic injunction against generic competition.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the cost of drugs in Canada will increase dramatically in the fashion being proposed by the member as a result of complying with the WTO. We will continue to still see many people from south of the border taking buses across the border to try and access cheaper drugs in this country. The hon. member and the NDP cannot be serious in suggesting that Canada alone in the world should decide to create some kind of survivor society completely outside international trade rules. We intend to respect those rules because we have done very well in the world of trade.
Le très honorable député demande si le premier ministre maintient sa lettre du 10 avril 1999 au National Post niant tout lien personnel avec l'hôtel et le terrain de golf de Grand-Mère, et s'il déposera tous les documents pertinents concernant sa tentative de vendre des actions du terrain de golf de Grand-Mère à la société Akimbo Development Corporation.
Cites a specific letter from the Prime Minister to The National Post dated April 10, 1999, quotes it directly, and asks a single specific request — to table all relevant documents respecting the attempt to sell shares in the Grand-Mère golf course to Akimbo Development Corporation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is dodging on Jean Carle. Let me ask him whether he stands by his assertion in his letter to The National Post on April 10, 1999, in which he said “I therefore had no direct or indirect personal connection with the hotel in question or with the adjacent golf course”. If the Prime Minister stands by that statement, will he agree to table all relevant documents respecting his attempt to sell shares in the Grand-Mère golf course to Akimbo Development Corporation?
Le ministre retrace le calendrier de l'emploi de Jean Carle et conteste qu'un document cité par le chef de l'opposition provienne du Cabinet du premier ministre, l'identifiant plutôt comme un document de la BDC.
The minister addresses the timeline of Jean Carle's employment and disputes the source of a document cited by the opposition leader, but does not answer whether the Prime Minister stands by his letter or whether the documents will be tabled.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. In 1997 when this loan was approved, the gentleman in question, Mr. Jean Carle, was employed on Parliament Hill in the Prime Minister's Office. He was not anywhere near BDC at the time. In 1998 he was employed at BDC. Yesterday the leader of that opposition party said that he was quoting from a document from the Prime Minister's Office. I have actually examined it. It is not a document from the Prime Minister's Office. It is a document prepared by the BDC. Insofar as Mr. Carle is concerned, he is the vice-president—
Le député cite une lettre des quatre premiers ministres atlantiques demandant le renouvellement de l'accord sur le bois d'œuvre résineux et l'accord maritime, notant une déclaration contradictoire du secrétaire parlementaire, et demande au premier ministre de confirmer qu'il comprend la demande des premiers ministres et y donnera suite.
Cites a specific letter from four Atlantic premiers requesting renewal of the softwood lumber agreement and the maritime accord, quotes from the parliamentary secretary's contradictory statement, and asks for a clear commitment from the Prime Minister — well grounded with a specific ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I just sent a letter over to the Prime Minister from the four Atlantic premiers requesting renewal of the softwood lumber agreement and specifically the maritime accord. In the letter they said “Failure to continue the current agreement and arrangements would have a devastating impact on our region's softwood lumber industry”. I was surprised a week ago when the parliamentary secretary rose in the House and said “the government is very clear that nobody in Canada wants to see the current deal extended”. I would say that was little disrespectful of the premiers. Would the Prime Minister confirm that he understands the request of the four premiers? Would he commit to act on this request by the four premiers?
Le premier ministre affirme que le bois d'œuvre résineux est extrêmement important et que c'est l'un des premiers sujets qu'il a abordés avec le président américain il y a deux semaines, mais ne s'engage pas à donner suite à la demande spécifique des premiers ministres.
The Prime Minister confirms softwood lumber is important and was raised with the US president two weeks earlier but does not confirm receipt of the premiers' specific request or commit to acting on it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important file for all provinces because softwood lumber is an extremely important commodity which Canada exports to the United States. It was one of the first items I mentioned to the president when I met him two weeks ago.
Le député demande si le gouvernement tiendra un débat d'une journée complète sur le revenu agricole tel que réclamé par les agriculteurs qui ont organisé un banquet dans le Hall d'honneur, et le cas échéant, quand.
References a specific event (farmers' banquet in the Hall of Honour), cites apparent support from the Liberal rural caucus, and asks a specific question about whether and when an all-day debate will be held — reasonably specific but with some rhetorical framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last night farmers continued their efforts to get the government to finally pay attention to the farm income crisis through a banquet in the Hall of Honour. The purpose of this banquet was to demand an all day debate on the issue of farmers receiving adequate returns for their investment and labour. The Liberal rural caucus seems to support this debate. We have heard nothing from cabinet. Will the government hold this debate as demanded by farmers? If so, when will it be done?
Le ministre remercie le député de Toronto—Danforth d'avoir organisé l'événement et affirme que le gouvernement a appuyé les agriculteurs dans le passé et continuera de le faire.
The minister thanks the member for Toronto—Danforth for organizing the event and offers a vague assurance that the government will continue to be there for farmers, without addressing the debate request at all.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the farmers across Canada and everyone in the House I thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for organizing the event last night. It continues to point out the need for support from the government to Canadian farmers. The government has been there for farmers in the past and will continue to be there for them.
Le député demande quand le ministre fournira une aide financière concrète aux agriculteurs, citant trois ans d'inaction gouvernementale et une crise persistante du revenu agricole illustrée par les manifestations d'agriculteurs sur la Colline du Parlement.
Notes three years of inaction on the farm crisis, references farmers protesting on the Hill with combines and machinery, and demands immediate financial action — has some factual grounding but is largely rhetorical in tone.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the farmers up there in the stands do not want platitudes. They do not want banquets. They want action, and they want it today. The government has had three years to take care of the farm crisis in the country, and I guarantee it is a crisis. What has the minister done? We have farmers coming here with combines and machinery. They are protesting on the Hill and inside the House. When will he do something to get some money to farmers now?
Hear, hear.
Le ministre note que c'est la première question de l'opposition sur ce sujet depuis deux semaines, affirme que le gouvernement y travaille et promet de continuer à appuyer les agriculteurs avec toutes les ressources possibles.
The minister deflects by claiming it is the first question on agriculture from the opposition in two weeks and offers only a vague commitment to continue working on the issue with all resources available, without any specifics.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the event took place last night because it is the first question on this issue from the opposition for two weeks.
Mr. Speaker, while opposition members have been asking questions on other issues, the government has been working on this issue. We have in the past and will continue to do so in the future. We will be there for farmers with all the resources we can possibly muster.
Bourgeois demande si la ministre est prête à modifier le projet de loi C-2 pour permettre aux femmes qui accouchent prématurément de bénéficier d'un congé parental prolongé.
The question identifies a specific group harmed (women who give birth prematurely), references a specific bill (Bill C-2), and has a clear ask, though it lacks data or citations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, entitlement under the parental leave program of the federal government for women eligible for employment insurance discriminates against women who give birth prematurely. My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Is the minister prepared to amend Bill C-2 to treat these women fairly and enable them to enjoy extended parental leave?
Stewart défend le doublement des prestations parentales et la date de début de fin 2000, sans aborder la discrimination envers les femmes qui accouchent prématurément ni une éventuelle modification du projet de loi C-2.
The minister speaks only about doubling parental benefits and the commencement date without addressing the specific discrimination concern for women who give birth prematurely or whether she would amend Bill C-2.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very proud of our undertaking to double parental benefits. The new program came into place at the end of the year 2000 as we promised. As is the question whenever changes are made, there has to be a date of commencement. We undertook discussions with Canadians. We had to talk with the provinces and territories. We had to create legislation. We set the date for the end of the year 2000 as we promised. We are very glad that on a go forward basis all parents will have access to the program.
Bourgeois demande si la ministre reconnaît que négocier avec le Québec pour lui permettre d'établir son propre régime de congé parental serait moins préjudiciable aux femmes.
The question raises a substantive policy alternative (negotiating with Quebec for its own parental leave program) but is framed rhetorically and lacks specific details or data.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, if she agreed finally to negotiate with the government of Quebec to enable it to establish its own parental leave program, the program would be far less prejudicial to women?
Stewart réitère que les prestations parentales ont été doublées et indique que le Québec peut bonifier le programme, sans aborder les négociations fédérales-provinciales.
The minister restates the doubling of parental benefits and deflects by saying Quebec can add to the program, without engaging with the negotiation request.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again, as we have always said, we have expanded the parental benefit by doubling it in a very significant way. If the province of Quebec wishes to add to that program, we would encourage it to do so.
Ablonczy demande pourquoi une scientifique de Santé Canada a été punie en se voyant retirer sa paie pendant deux semaines après avoir confirmé que l'interdiction du bœuf brésilien n'était pas fondée sur des données scientifiques.
The question references a specific case (a Health Canada scientist punished with a two-week paycheque suspension) and a specific allegation (Brazilian beef ban not based on scientific evidence), though the ask is framed in broad rhetorical terms.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, today brings more troubling evidence of the lengths to which the government will go to sacrifice Canada's impartial public service if it does not willingly go along with the Liberal self-serving political agenda. A Health Canada scientist has been punished and her paycheque taken away for two weeks. Her crime was being honest enough to confirm the Brazilian beef ban was not based on scientific evidence but was a pretext to escalate a trade war. Why is there this blatant intimidation of a public servant who dares to step out of the official line?
Gray précise que la scientifique ne travaillait pas sur ce dossier, n'était pas employée de l'ACIA, dispose d'une procédure de grief et d'un recours judiciaire, et est représentée par son syndicat.
Gray provides some relevant context — that the scientist was not working on the file, was not a CFIA employee, and has grievance recourse — but does not address why she was punished or the broader intimidation allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I should remind the House that the individual in question was not working on this file. This was not within her area of responsibility in the health department. She was not an employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This individual has available to her a full grievance procedure and eventually, if she wants, recourse through the courts. She is represented by her union. Under the circumstances I think it is appropriate to confirm that ordinarily ministers and members are not involved in these types of public service decisions.
Ablonczy demande pourquoi le gouvernement continue à empêcher les citoyens de connaître la vérité, citant la victoire de la scientifique contre une ordonnance de bâillon de Santé Canada.
The question is largely rhetorical, referencing a Health Canada gag order and a pattern of silencing public servants, without citing specific documents or a single clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this scientist has just fought a Health Canada gag order and won, but the government continues its efforts to shut her down from telling Canadians the truth. Canadians are unable to feel secure when examples pile up of our public servants being prevented from telling the truth and being made political pawns of the government. Why does the government have to go to such extreme lengths to keep citizens from knowing what is really going on?
Gray affirme que les hauts fonctionnaires et les vétérinaires liés au dossier fournissent toute l'information, et réitère que l'employée a accès à une procédure de grief complète.
Gray notes that senior officials and veterinary scientists on the file are giving full information and reiterates the grievance process, but does not address the specific allegation of continued efforts to silence the scientist.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, senior officials who are directly connected with the file, veterinary scientists and officials of the health department linked with the file are giving full information. She mentioned a court case. I understand the fact situation is different. I also remind her that these types of matters which involve employees are not matters where ministers of the government are directly involved. However, the official in question has recourse to a full grievance procedure. I am sure she is aware of her rights in that regard.
Easter demande quelles mesures le ministre du Commerce international entend prendre auprès des Américains pour rouvrir la frontière aux pommes de terre de l'Î.-P.-É. après 119 jours de fermeture.
This is a government-backbench softball setup: Easter cites 119 days and a warehouse-full framing but the ask is a cue for the minister to announce action rather than a genuine accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has now been 119 days since the United States took unwarranted and illegal trade action by closing the border to P.E.I. potatoes. We have proven scientifically that this product is safe to export, yet the border remains closed and our warehouses are full. It is time to be aggressive. What action is the minister prepared to pursue with the Americans to have them open the border so our products can get back in the marketplace?
Pettigrew indique que le premier ministre a soulevé la question avec le président Bush, que le ministre de l'Agriculture l'a soulevée à Washington la veille, et qu'il soulèvera la question des pommes de terre de l'Î.-P.-É. avec Bob Zoellick lundi.
Pettigrew provides concrete, specific actions: the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush, the Minister of Agriculture raised it in Washington the previous day, and Pettigrew will raise it with Bob Zoellick on Monday.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank all my colleagues from P.E.I. who have been very active on this file on behalf of potato growing constituents. The Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush. When my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, was in Washington yesterday he raised it with his colleague from the United States. I will be raising the P.E.I. potato issue with Bob Zoellick, the United States trade representative, when I meet with him on Monday. Our government is taking this issue to the highest level. Canada will not stand for protectionism by the back door.
Hanger conteste l'affirmation du ministre selon laquelle les simulateurs compensent la réduction des heures de vol des Aurora, citant des informations de la BFC Greenwood indiquant que les simulateurs ont plus de 30 ans et ne reproduisent pas le poste de pilotage d'un Aurora.
Hanger cites a specific phone call to Canadian Forces Base Greenwood revealing simulators are more than 30 years old and do not reflect an Aurora cockpit, directly challenging the minister's previous day's claim.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister supported the reduced flying hours for Aurora aircraft pilots by claiming that simulators would make up for the lost time. He was dead wrong on that assessment. A phone call this morning from Canadian Forces Base Greenwood to my office revealed that the simulators there are more than 30 years old and do not even reflect an Aurora cockpit. Moreover, simulation training is not as effective as flying. In what way does using an outdated simulator protect Canada's borders?
Eggleton affirme que l'Alliance canadienne est dépassée dans ses recherches, que le gouvernement investit dans de nouveaux équipements et simulateurs, et que le chef de l'état-major de l'air appuie pleinement la recommandation.
Eggleton dismisses the research as out of date and says the government is investing in new equipment and simulators, but does not address the specific claim about 30-year-old simulators at CFB Greenwood or refute that factual allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as usual the Canadian Alliance is out of date on its research. Yesterday it talked about a letter which is almost two years old. Today it is talking about old equipment. The government is investing in new equipment, new simulators, new sensors, new upgrading and technologically advanced equipment. Within the last hour I talked with the chief of the air staff. He fully supports the recommendation that is being made. He assures me that we will not compromise the security of Canada's coastline.
Hanger demande au ministre d'expliquer comment l'utilisation d'un simulateur constitue une patrouille frontalière de qualité, compte tenu de la réduction des heures de vol des Aurora et de l'équipement inadéquat.
The question uses a rhetorical setup about quality versus quantity but contains a pointed implicit challenge: how does simulator training constitute quality border patrol, which is a substantive if somewhat rhetorical ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the chief of the air force would probably be fired if he did not agree with the minister. The minister said that the reduced Aurora flying hours were justified because it was a case of quality versus quantity. Thanks to the Liberal government, when it comes to equipment we do not have either. Would the minister tell the House how sitting in a simulator is quality border patrol?
Eggleton affirme qu'il n'y aura aucune réduction des opérations côtières selon le chef de l'état-major de l'air, et que le gouvernement investit près de 1 milliard de dollars dans la modernisation des équipements Aurora.
Eggleton asserts there will be no reduction in coastline operations per the chief of the air staff and cites an investment of almost $1 billion in upgrading Aurora equipment, providing some substantive content though not directly explaining simulator quality.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there will not be any reduction in terms of the operations on the coastline. This comes from the chief of the air staff. It is bottom up, not top down. We in fact will maintain the kind of service that we have provided. The integrity of the service will be maintained. We are investing in new equipment. We are investing almost $1 billion in the upgrading of the Aurora equipment to act in a proper fashion in terms of our surveillance capability.
Lalonde demande si le premier ministre s'opposera fermement au bouclier antimissile américain s'il entraîne une course aux armements, en citant ses propres mots selon lesquels il 'pourrait causer toutes sortes de perturbations'.
The question cites the Prime Minister's own words from China and asks a specific conditional: will he strongly oppose the missile defence shield if it causes disruptions including a renewed international arms race, though the conditional framing softens the accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on the important issue of the U.S. missile defence shield, the Prime Minister recently said in China that “It could cause all sorts of disruptions, but that then again it could lead to a solution. We will see”. My question is for the Prime Minister, and I hope he will elaborate further than he did earlier. If it turns out that the U.S. missile defence shield causes all sorts of disruptions, to use the Prime Minister's words, including a renewed international arms race, will the Prime Minister strongly oppose this project?
Manley qualifie la question d'hypothétique puisque les États-Unis ont seulement dit qu'ils discuteraient de la question avec leurs alliés, la Russie et la Chine, et qu'il n'existe pas encore de plan précis.
Manley dismisses the question as hypothetical because no specific plan exists yet, without engaging with Canada's position or the Prime Minister's own quoted words on potential disruptions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question, because so far the United States has said that it would discuss the issue with its allies and also with the Russians and the Chinese. This is only normal. However, there is no specific plan at this point. So, it may be that the hon. member is speculating on something that may never occur.
Le Président a attiré l'attention de la Chambre sur des visiteurs à la tribune, et les députés ont répondu par des marques d'approbation.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.
La ministre de la Coopération internationale Maria Minna et le ministre des Finances Paul Martin ont soulevé une question de privilège pour réfuter la description faite par le député de Medicine Hat de leur présence à un événement communautaire comme étant un dîner avec des terroristes, et pour exiger des excuses, faisant valoir que la déclaration les avait salis, eux et l'ensemble de la communauté tamoule.
- Lib Maria Minna
- Lib Paul Martin
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, during question period the member for Medicine Hat referred to both myself and the Minister of Finance and said that we had attended a terrorist dinner or function and that we support terrorists. We attended a community event. When he says things like that, he is painting members of the Tamil community as a whole as terrorists. I attended a community event that was made up of respectable Canadian citizens. I did not attend or have dinner with a group of terrorists. I take this as an offence and I ask for an apology. I do not support terrorism and neither does my colleague. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how there can be a valid difference of opinion as to the nature of the meeting given the fact that the minister and I were there and the hon. member was not. That is not the issue. The other part of the issue is that it is alleged that we support terrorism and fundraising activities for terrorism. That is clearly not the fact. It not only besmirches us, it besmirches the entire Tamil community, but it is our own privileges that we are raising this.
M. Monte Solberg (Alliance canadienne) a clarifié ses remarques faites plus tôt pendant la période des questions, affirmant qu'il n'avait pas suggéré que le ministre des Finances et la ministre de l'ACDI avaient sciemment appuyé un groupe terroriste, mais soutenant qu'en tant que membres du cabinet ils auraient dû savoir que FACT est une façade pour une organisation terroriste, selon le ministère de l'Immigration, le SCRS et d'autres organisations gouvernementales, et qu'ils devraient renoncer à ce groupe.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Monte Solberg
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I simply have to bring some clarity to this situation. During question period I certainly did not suggest in any way that the Minister of Finance and the minister for CIDA knowingly supported this group. What I am alleging is simply that the department of immigration, CSIS and other government organizations have pointed to the fact that FACT is a front for a terrorist organization. I argue that both ministers should have known that as they are cabinet members and that they should renounce that group that they in fact unknowingly supported.
M. Werner Schmidt (Alliance canadienne) a demandé au Président de clarifier pourquoi sa déclaration aux termes de l'article 31 du Règlement avait été refusée, soutenant qu'elle ne constituait pas une attaque personnelle mais reprenait les propres mots du conseiller en éthique au sujet du premier ministre; séparément, M. Howard Hilstrom (Alliance canadienne) a demandé au ministre de l'Agriculture de retirer l'affirmation faite pendant la période des questions selon laquelle l'Alliance canadienne n'avait pas posé de questions ni participé aux débats sur l'agriculture à la Chambre.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Werner Schmidt
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Howard Hilstrom
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please clarify the reasons why you would not allow my S. O. 31 statement. I would respectfully submit that I did not in any way intend it to be a personal attack on any member in the House but rather to take the very words that the ethics counsellor himself used about the Prime Minister, saying that he was no ordinary MP. It was within that context that these particular words were put together. I did provide you, Mr. Speaker, with the text of what I was about to submit to the House. I would ask if you would please clarify what it is about that statement that you considered to be a personal attack on a member of the House.
Mr. Speaker, in question period today in answer to my question in regard to agriculture, the agriculture minister saw fit to cast aspersions on the Canadian Alliance and me with the idea of our not having asked any questions or participated in any activity in agriculture in the House. That is not true. We have had over eight questions and dozens of statements and speeches. I believe the agriculture minister should retract that.