Résumé de la séance
- L'affaire Grand-Mère a dominé la période des questions, les membres de l'opposition de l'Alliance canadienne, du BQ et du PC ayant insisté pour obtenir la divulgation du registre des actionnaires de 161341 Canada Inc. entre 1996 et 1999, tandis que le ministre de l'Industrie Brian Tobin déviait systématiquement en invoquant le dégagement accordé par le conseiller en éthique et l'enquête close de la GRC.
- Une controverse de procédure a éclaté au sujet du moment où une lettre d'avocat du Club de golf Grand-Mère a été déposée au Comité permanent de l'industrie : le leader parlementaire de l'Alliance canadienne, Chuck Strahl, a soulevé une question de privilège alléguant que le conseiller en éthique avait retenu la lettre pendant le contre-interrogatoire, puis l'avait communiquée aux médias avant que les parlementaires puissent l'examiner.
- L'accès des entreprises aux événements du Sommet des Amériques sur la ZLEA et aux textes de négociation a été remis en question par les députés du NPD et du BQ, qui ont demandé si des frais de commandite de 75 000 $ à 1,5 million de dollars accordaient aux grandes sociétés un accès privilégié aux dirigeants de la ZLEA, tandis que le ministre du Commerce international Pierre Pettigrew a insisté sur le fait que la société civile, notamment les syndicats et les ONG, serait également incluse.
- Le ministre de la Défense nationale Art Eggleton a traité deux dossiers de défense distincts : les protocoles de désinfection contre la fièvre aphteuse pour les troupes britanniques en entraînement à la BFC Wainwright et Suffield, et les allégations d'ingérence politique dans le programme d'hélicoptères maritimes découlant d'un jugement de la Cour d'appel fédérale.
- Les propos de la secrétaire d'État au Multiculturalisme Hedy Fry lors de sa réponse à l'occasion de la Journée internationale pour l'élimination de la discrimination raciale du 21 mars — faisant référence à des croix brûlées sur des pelouses à Prince George, en Colombie-Britannique — ont suscité une motion d'ordre immédiate du député de l'Alliance canadienne Richard Harris exigeant un retrait et des excuses.
- Le premier ministre Jean Chrétien a personnellement confirmé à la Chambre qu'on lui devait de l'argent à la suite de la vente de ses parts dans le Club de golf Grand-Mère et qu'il voulait être remboursé, tout en maintenant qu'il n'avait aucun intérêt dans le terrain de golf ni dans l'Auberge Grand-Mère au moment où il a aidé l'auberge dans ses demandes auprès de la Banque de développement du Canada.
Le ministre de l'Industrie Brian Tobin a fourni le calendrier précis et vérifiable concernant la lettre de l'avocat : le consentement juridique a été accordé à 16 h 30 à la demande du conseiller en éthique, la lettre a été télécopiée à son bureau et déposée devant le comité de l'industrie à 17 h 10 — le seul échange de la séance où un ministre a fourni des faits précis et concrets en réponse directe à une question factuelle.
Duceppe cites a specific exchange at the Standing Committee on Industry where the ethics counsellor said "Oh, yes" to a direct question about the Prime Minister's involvement in negotiations, and asks the Prime Minister to confirm it.
Plutôt que de répondre à la question précise de Stockwell Day sur les raisons pour lesquelles le premier ministre a contacté le conseiller en éthique en janvier si les actions étaient dans une fiducie sans droit de regard, Tobin a répondu uniquement par une pique personnelle sur les perspectives de leadership de Day, sans fournir aucun contenu factuel.
Questions sans réponse
- Stockwell Day (chef de l'opposition) a demandé à plusieurs reprises quels noms figuraient dans le registre des actionnaires de 161341 Canada Inc. entre 1996 et 1999 — cette question n'a jamais été répondue avec les noms réels, seulement par des affirmations selon lesquelles le nom du premier ministre n'y figurait pas après 1993.
- Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre) a demandé quelle preuve concrète le premier ministre pouvait offrir à la Chambre qu'un transfert d'actions à Akimbo avait réellement eu lieu, et a proposé de permettre le dépôt des documents réels — aucune preuve n'a été déposée et la question a été écartée par une non-réponse rhétorique.
- Stockwell Day a demandé pourquoi le premier ministre avait communiqué avec le conseiller en éthique en janvier si son portefeuille était géré à distance dans une fiducie sans droit de regard, tel qu'indiqué dans sa déclaration publique d'actifs — cette question n'a reçu aucune réponse substantielle.
- Francine Lalonde (Mercier) a demandé si l'accord proposé dans le cadre de la ZLEA sur les services exclut ou protège l'économie sociale, notamment les services de garde à 5 $ — le ministre a confirmé la position générale du Canada sur la santé et l'éducation publique, mais n'a pas répondu à la question spécifique sur l'économie sociale.
- Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg-Centre-Nord) a demandé pourquoi le Prepulsid n'avait pas été retiré dès que les premiers problèmes associés au médicament ont été signalés, étant donné que Santé Canada avait reçu des rapports de problèmes cardiaques incluant 10 décès au Canada avant d'émettre seulement un avertissement — le secrétaire parlementaire a invoqué une enquête du coroner et un recours collectif sans expliquer le calendrier décisionnel.
Pourquoi le ministre de l'Industrie refuse-t-il de divulguer les noms figurant au registre des actionnaires indiquant qui était le quatrième actionnaire du Club de golf Grand-Mère entre 1996 et 1999?
Day identifies a specific document gap — the shareholder registry names between 1996 and 1999 — and directs a clear, answerable ask at the Minister of Industry, grounded in the released lawyer's letter.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a letter was released from the Grand-Mère Golf Club's lawyers by the Prime Minister's personal ethics trainer. The Liberals claim that the letter, which of course was written and paid for by the Prime Minister's former business partners, clears him. Actually it proves nothing. The only way we will get to the bottom of this Grand-Mère affair is if all of the relevant documents are released. Why is the Minister of Industry still refusing to release the names that appear on the shareholder registry that shows who was the fourth shareholder between 1996 and 1999? Why will he not just release it?
Tobin affirme que le conseiller en éthique n'a trouvé aucun conflit, que la GRC a fermé son dossier, et qu'une vérification indépendante de la liste des actionnaires est en cours.
Tobin lists procedural steps taken (ethics counsellor, RCMP, company release) but does not directly name the shareholders or explain why the registry has not been released, deflecting with a call to move on.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been part of a demand for the ethics counsellor to investigate this matter. The ethics counsellor has done so and, as recently as yesterday, said clearly again that the Prime Minister was not in any conflict. The Leader of the Opposition was part of a demand for the RCMP to investigate this matter. The RCMP did investigate and closed the books because there was no basis for an investigation. The Leader of the Opposition asked that the company release the names of the shareholders and, by the way, independent verification is being sought today with respect to that list. That information is forthcoming. I say it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to get back to the real business of Canada.
Quels noms figurent au registre corporatif du Club de golf Grand-Mère entre 1996 et 1999, et le conseiller en éthique les divulguera-t-il?
Day sharpens his ask by clarifying he wants the corporate registry names released by the ethics counsellor, not the company, making the question more precisely targeted than the first exchange.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, to use his own phraseology, I do not want the Minister of Industry to get his shorts and his socks in a knot. I am just asking a basic question. We never asked that these names be released by the company. We asked that the ethics trainer for the Prime Minister release from the corporate registry the names of the shareholders. We still do not have them. Whose names were on there between 1996 and 1999? That is all we are asking.
Tobin attaque Day sur une poursuite judiciaire, un paiement lié à une élection partielle et un don d'un cabinet d'avocats, sans aucune référence au registre des actionnaires.
Tobin completely abandons the shareholder registry question and attacks Day's personal legal and financial record, providing zero information relevant to the ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it was not the Leader of the Opposition's shorts that he got in a knot when he got sued for $800,000 for making sarcastic, wrong and false comments about another individual. The gentleman talks about ethics, but it was his party that paid $50,000 to bring about a byelection and still has not produced the money. It is that party that accepted $70,000 from a law firm that benefited from the very suit for which the member was found guilty. The member has no room to lecture this Prime Minister on ethics, none whatsoever.
Étant donné que la déclaration publique du premier ministre indiquait que son portefeuille était géré à bout de bras dans une fiducie sans droit de regard, pourquoi a-t-il appelé son conseiller en éthique en janvier s'il n'avait aucun contrôle sur ses actions?
Day cites a specific public statement by the Prime Minister about a blind trust and poses a pointed, logically coherent question about why he would call the ethics counsellor in January if the trust was truly arm's-length.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, he is upset because he must still carry the Prime Minister's baggage on this, and that will hurt his leadership challenge. He has a leadership race to face and he is carrying some weight on his back. In his public statement on his assets that were to be reported, the Prime Minister wrote that his portfolio, and I quote: —is managed by a third party, at arm's length and in a blind trust. If the Prime Minister had no control over his shares, why did he call his ethics counsellor in January?
Oh, oh.
Tobin rejette la question et se moque des perspectives de leadership de Day, sans répondre au sujet de la fiducie sans droit de regard ni de l'appel téléphonique de janvier.
Tobin ignores the blind trust question entirely and makes a personal jab about Day's leadership, offering no substantive engagement with the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it does not matter how many times the Leader of the Opposition—Leader of the Opposition for the moment—continues to ask these kinds of questions. These kinds of questions will not save his leadership.
Si les actions étaient dans une fiducie sans droit de regard, pourquoi le premier ministre a-t-il téléphoné au conseiller en éthique en 1996 pour dire que la vente n'avait pas eu lieu, et quels noms figuraient au registre entre 1996 et 1999?
Day again presses the specific registry names question and highlights the contradiction between the blind trust claim and the 1996 phone call to the ethics counsellor, maintaining factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we still cannot get an answer and the Prime Minister will not stand up and give an answer. Why can we not get the information? He said that the shares were in a blind trust and yet he phoned the ethics trainer in 1996 to say that the sale of the shares had not gone through. We have been asking the same question. We just want a simple answer. Whose names were on that registry between 1996 and 1999? Answer the question.
Tobin cite la déclaration du conseiller en éthique selon laquelle le premier ministre n'avait aucun intérêt personnel en jeu et qu'il avait cessé d'avoir un intérêt financier dans le club de golf en novembre 1993.
Tobin quotes the ethics counsellor's finding of no conflict and states the Prime Minister ceased to have a financial interest in the golf course in November 1993, which is tangential to the registry names question but at least engages the conflict-of-interest substance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all the information required was provided yesterday in a letter that was tabled before the industry committee. Let me quote from what the ethics counsellor said yesterday, less than 24 hours ago. He said: I am satisfied that the prime minister had no personal interest at stake when he assisted the auberge in its applications before the Business Development Bank. He went on to say that the golf course ceased to have an interest in the auberge in mid-1993 and that the Prime Minister ceased to have a financial interest in the golf course in November 1993. Most people could understand that, even the Leader of the Opposition.
Quels noms figuraient au registre des actionnaires du Club de golf Grand-Mère entre 1996 et 1999?
Day repeats the same specific registry-names question for the fifth time, which is still grounded and answerable but loses points for being repetitive rather than advancing new factual ground.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple: Whose names were on the registry between 1996 and 1999? The Prime Minister is shaking his head. He wishes this would go away. The future hopeful leader is wishing it would go away. That is a lot of baggage to carry. The only question we are asking is whose names were on the registry between 1996 and 1999? That is all we are asking.
Tobin affirme que le nom du premier ministre ne figurait pas au registre après 1993 parce qu'il n'était plus actionnaire après cette date.
Tobin addresses the core claim by asserting the Prime Minister's name was not on the registry after 1993 because he was not a shareholder, which is a direct if unverified assertion responsive to the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, apparently the Leader of the Opposition is having great trouble with the simple, hard, disappointing reality that the Prime Minister's name was not on the registry after 1993 because he was not a shareholder.
Le premier ministre admet-il qu'il a été directement impliqué dans les négociations pour s'assurer d'être payé pour ses actions dans le Club de golf Grand-Mère, comme le conseiller en éthique l'a confirmé en comité la veille?
Duceppe cites a specific exchange at the Standing Committee on Industry where the ethics counsellor said "Oh, yes" to a direct question about the Prime Minister's involvement in negotiations, and asks the Prime Minister to confirm it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Industry, when I asked the ethics counsellor if the Prime Minister was involved in negotiations to obtain payment of his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course, he clearly and distinctly replied “Oh, yes”. Does the Prime Minister admit that he was directly involved in the negotiations and that he personally ensured he would get paid for his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course?
Chrétien affirme avoir consulté le conseiller en éthique au sujet de ses affaires personnelles, comme les ministres ont le droit de le faire, et que le conseiller a confirmé que tout était en ordre.
Chrétien confirms he consulted the ethics counsellor about personal affairs and received a clean certificate, but does not directly admit or deny personal involvement in negotiations to get paid for his shares, which was the specific question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is there to provide advice on ethical issues to all those who need to have trustees. All ministers, including the Prime Minister, have the right to consult the ethics counsellor. So, under the circumstances, I spoke to him about my personal affairs, as ministers must do when they have problems, and it is his duty to provide advice to us. The ethics counsellor said that everything had been done properly and that my trustee had given him all the information and had fully co-operated, and he delivered to us a certificate confirming that everything was in order.
Le premier ministre reconnaît-il, comme son conseiller en éthique en a témoigné hier, qu'il avait un intérêt financier à être payé pour ses actions dans le Club de golf Grand-Mère et qu'il était personnellement impliqué dans la négociation de ce paiement?
Duceppe quotes the ethics counsellor's specific testimony that the Prime Minister mandated his lawyer to negotiate and had an interest in getting paid, asking Chrétien to confirm having a financial interest during a period of alleged conflict.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor said that the Prime Minister was personally involved and that he had mandated his lawyer to negotiate. He added that the Prime Minister clearly had an interest in getting paid what he was owed. Does the Prime Minister recognize, as his ethics counsellor did yesterday, that he had an interest in getting paid for his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course, and that he had a financial interest, when he was involved in negotiating what is called a “financial interest”?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien confirme qu'il ne détenait plus d'actions après novembre 1993, mais que quelqu'un lui devait de l'argent et qu'il voulait être remboursé, ce qu'il présente comme tout à fait normal.
Chrétien confirms he no longer held shares after November 1993 but that money was owed to him and he wanted repayment, which partially addresses the financial-interest question while avoiding the conflict dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we did not have shares in that company since November 1993. Someone owed money to us and I wanted to get paid. Since I earn less than the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who gets $160,000 in addition to his salary as party leader and member of the House, I wanted my money back, which is perfectly normal.
Le premier ministre admettra-t-il que son intérêt personnel à être payé a été servi par le prêt de la Banque de développement du Canada à l'Auberge Grand-Mère, puisque la santé financière de l'hôtel était liée à la valeur du club de golf?
Gauthier builds on the ethics counsellor's testimony and asks a logically specific question about whether the Prime Minister's personal interest in being repaid was served by the Business Development Bank loan given the financial linkage between the hotel and the golf course.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ethics counsellor confirmed that the Prime Minister had every interest in getting paid for his shares, and the Prime Minister has just confirmed this. Is the Prime Minister going to admit that his personal interests were served by the business development bank loan to Auberge Grand-Mère, since the financial health of that hotel was tied to the value of the golf course, and this could not do otherwise than to help him find another purchaser?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien nie avoir eu un quelconque intérêt dans le club de golf ou l'hôtel et affirme que la GRC, le conseiller en éthique et le ministre de l'Industrie ont tous confirmé l'absence de conflit d'intérêts.
Chrétien denies any interest in either the golf course or hotel and repeats the RCMP and ethics counsellor findings but does not address the specific financial linkage argument between the hotel's health and the golf course's value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, money was owed to me, and I had no interest whatsoever in either the golf course or the hotel. I did, however, want the money owing me to be paid. That is completely normal. They are making accusations, but the RCMP has looked into the matter, the ethics counsellor has done the same, and the Minister of Industry has stated that I did not own shares. That should be clear to everyone. In my opinion, when people rise in the House, when everyone says there is no conflict of interest, then—
Étant donné que le premier ministre vient de confirmer qu'il avait un intérêt personnel à être payé lorsqu'il a aidé l'Auberge Grand-Mère à obtenir un prêt de la Banque de développement du Canada malgré l'avis défavorable de celle-ci, va-t-il se contredire?
Gauthier's question is more of a rhetorical summary and challenge than a new specific ask, though it does confront the Prime Minister with his own admission and invites a contradiction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we understand each other very well; that is what we have been saying from the beginning. The Prime Minister wanted to get paid. He wanted his money when he made approaches to get help for Auberge Grand-Mère, to obtain a loan despite the unfavourable opinion of the Business Development Bank of Canada. It was in his personal interests to do so, as he just confirmed. Well, then let him take the floor and tell us otherwise.
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Chrétien confirme qu'on lui devait de l'argent, puis justifie son intervention en invoquant son devoir de créer des emplois à Saint-Maurice où le chômage était de 19%, soulignant que l'entreprise emploie maintenant 50 personnes, soit 20 de plus qu'en 1996.
Chrétien confirms he was owed money and wanted repayment, then shifts to his duty to create jobs in a riding with 19% unemployment and notes the business now employs 50 people, which is tangential to the conflict question but not entirely without content.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have always said the same thing. I have said from the start that I was owed money. What I also said, and what people are forgetting, is that it was my duty to work to ensure that jobs were created in a riding where there was 19% unemployment.
This business in fact employs 50 people today, which is 20 more than in 1996. It was my duty to help create jobs in the riding of Saint-Maurice and I do not—
Étant donné que l'appel d'offres du gouvernement annonçait une réception de bienvenue commanditée pour les dirigeants, un petit-déjeuner de réseautage commandité pour s'adresser aux délégués et un déjeuner conférence avec places prioritaires, le gouvernement vend-il un accès privilégié aux dirigeants de la ZLÉA ou fait-il simplement de la fausse publicité?
McDonough quotes specific language from the government's own tender call for corporate sponsorship, identifying concrete items advertised (sponsor leaders' welcoming reception, networking breakfast, keynote luncheon with priority seating) and asks a pointed either/or question about privileged access.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister vehemently denied that the government is selling privileged access to FTAA leaders. Let us consider carefully what the government's own tender call for corporate sponsorship said. It advertised a sponsor leaders' welcoming reception. What do they get? They get a potential speaking opportunity. It advertised a sponsor networking breakfast to address delegates. It also advertised a keynote luncheon with priority seating and a closing reception, a networking opportunity. It sounds a lot like privileged access to me, or is the government just engaging in false advertising?
Chrétien affirme que l'objectif est de montrer aux dirigeants étrangers que les gens d'affaires canadiens sont de bons citoyens qui les accueillent et de bons investisseurs dans leurs pays, présentant cela comme de bonnes relations publiques pour le commerce.
Chrétien explains the rationale for inviting Canadian business people to the FTAA summit but does not address the specific tender-call language McDonough cited or explain why priority access to leaders is being sold as a corporate sponsorship benefit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that we have invited Canadian business people who have major interests in all these countries to show them that they are good Canadian citizens, that they are well known in Canada, and that they are welcoming these leaders to Canada so that they can conclude they are good investors in their countries. I think it is good public relations in the best interest of improving trade between Canada and the 33 other nations.
Combien les entreprises ont-elles payé pour avoir accès au texte de négociation de la ZLÉA, ou leur a-t-on remis gratuitement?
McDonough makes a specific factual claim that corporations have access to the FTAA negotiating text and asks directly whether they paid for it or received it free, though the claim itself is asserted without documentary evidence.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wish the government would be as transparent with the negotiating text as it is with its corporate access program. It is plain for all to see that access to FTAA leaders is for sale. We even know the price tag. We also know that corporations have access to the negotiating text. My question is for the Prime Minister. How much did the corporations pay for the negotiating text, or was it just a freebie for them?
Pettigrew nie catégoriquement que les gens d'affaires aient accès au texte de négociation, explique que le gouvernement consulte les syndicats, les entreprises et les universités sans leur remettre le texte, et affirme que le gouvernement appuie la publication des textes dès qu'un consensus sera atteint dans les Amériques.
Pettigrew directly denies that business people have access to the negotiating text and explains the government's consultation process and its stated position in favour of making texts public, which is a partial but responsive answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is completely ludicrous to pretend that the business people have access to the negotiating text. As a responsible government leading these negotiations we obviously consult. We consult trade unions. We consult business. We consult universities. We consult people all over the place, but they do not have access to the special negotiation text. I remind the House that the government stands for making these texts public as soon as possible, but we need the consensus of the rest of the Americas to do it.
Étant donné que dans le Hansard du 23 mars 1999 le premier ministre a dit que la dette était entre les mains d'une fiducie sans droit de regard et qu'il n'y était pour rien, mais que le conseiller en éthique a déclaré hier que le premier ministre était impliqué dans des négociations pendant trois ans, le conseiller avait-il tort, a-t-il induit le comité en erreur, et quel type de fiducie sans droit de regard permet une participation active aux négociations?
Clark cites a specific Hansard date (March 23, 1999) and quotes the Prime Minister's own words about the blind trust, then directly confronts the contradiction with the ethics counsellor's committee testimony about three years of negotiations, posing a clear and answerable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in Hansard of March 23, 1999, the Prime Minister said: I sold the shares of that company in 1993. After that I had nothing to do with either the golf course or the hotel...The debt that was owed to me...was in the hands of a blind trust. I have nothing to do with it. However yesterday Mr. Wilson said that the Prime Minister was implicated in the negotiations to dispose of the shares for three long years. Was the counsellor wrong? Did he mislead the committee? What kind of blind trust allows the Prime Minister to be actively involved in negotiations?
Tobin rejette la question à l'aide d'une métaphore de pêche et invite Clark à passer à autre chose, sans s'engager de manière substantielle sur la contradiction du Hansard ni sur la question de la fiducie sans droit de regard.
Tobin completely ignores the Hansard quote, the blind trust contradiction, and the question about whether the counsellor misled the committee, instead using a fishing metaphor to dismiss the question entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the leader of the fifth party said he would engage in a little fishing on this issue. It is time for the leader of the fifth party to recognize that the river is dry. He should take his pole and go back home. There is no more fishing on this subject.
Puisque la lettre de l'avocat dit qu'un transfert d'actions a été approuvé mais non qu'il a eu lieu, et qu'Akimbo n'a jamais été inscrit comme propriétaire, quelle preuve concrète le premier ministre peut-il fournir qu'un transfert a réellement eu lieu, et acceptera-t-il de déposer les documents réels?
Clark makes a precise textual argument about the lawyer's letter — noting it says a transfer was approved but not that it occurred, and that Akimbo was never listed as an owner — and asks for concrete proof of an actual share transfer with an offer to table documents.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the carefully crafted letter of evasion tabled yesterday is most significant for what it hides. It says that a transfer of shares was approved. It carefully does not say that a transfer of shares occurred. In fact, it affirms that the so-called purchaser, Akimbo, was never listed as an owner of the shares. What concrete proof can the Prime Minister offer the House that a transfer of shares actually occurred? If he has any proof at all of an actual transfer, will he agree to table it so that Canadians can judge the actual documents themselves?
Tobin affirme que le conseiller en éthique et la GRC ont tranché la question et attaque le bilan de Clark concernant la direction de son parti, sans répondre au point sur Akimbo ni à la demande de documentation sur le transfert.
Tobin cites the ethics counsellor and RCMP conclusions but entirely ignores the specific textual argument about the letter, the Akimbo point, and the request for documentary proof of an actual share transfer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has judged this issue. The RCMP has judged this issue and Canadians are judging this leader. This is a leader who failed to see a conspiracy all around him with regard to his leadership, when what was really happening was foreign money was being brought into the Conservative Party. He could not see what was happening but imagines a conspiracy where none exists. It is time for this leader to get back to the real business of Canadians, not accusations, not smear and not false and malicious innuendoes with respect to the Prime Minister.
Qui a dit au conseiller en éthique Howard Wilson quoi dire lors de l'audition du comité et quand remettre discrètement la lettre de l'avocat au président du comité?
Grey asks who directed Wilson on what to say and when to release the lawyer's letter, which is a factual accountability question, but the framing relies heavily on colourful rhetoric ("dodging questions like a well trained seal") that weakens its specificity.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is funny; the weaker the point, the louder they yell. We have some pretty basic questions about the evasion and deception that is going on. Yesterday, Howard Wilson sat through an entire committee hearing on this subject, dodging questions like a well trained seal. It was only at the very end of that meeting that he quietly slipped the committee chairman a copy of the lawyer's letter. I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the industry minister who told Wilson what to say and when to say it.
Tobin nie que quiconque ait dit au conseiller en éthique quoi dire et défend Wilson comme un fonctionnaire distingué, puis attaque Grey au sujet de sa pension, sans aborder la question du moment de la divulgation de la lettre.
Tobin denies anyone told Wilson what to say but then attacks Grey personally over her pension, providing no information about the timing or coordination of the letter's release.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, nobody told the ethics counsellor what to say or when to say it. It is tragic that members opposite use the immunity of the House. Some say things inside the House but have no courage outside the House. Others attack civil servants, who are distinguished and doing their jobs, by abusing the immunity of the House. This is a distinguished public servant acting in an honourable fashion, more honourable than the member who said “I will never take a pension” and then soaked it up at the first opportunity.
Quand exactement le ministre de l'Industrie a-t-il reçu la lettre de l'avocat, et pourquoi n'a-t-elle été divulguée au comité qu'après qu'Howard Wilson eut terminé son témoignage sur la section portant sur le club de golf et fut passé à un autre sujet?
Grey raises a procedurally specific accountability question about when the Minister of Industry received the lawyer's letter and why it was released only after Wilson had finished testifying on the golf course section, which is a concrete and answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the industry minister tried to slip that very letter in last night by tabling it under documents, when in fact it was a ministerial statement. Mr. Wilson stonewalled questions from the opposition yesterday, but he answered Liberal softballs like a well rehearsed actor. Then he slipped the letter to the committee chairman after that entire section on the golf course was finished and they were on to another topic. When exactly did the Minister of Industry receive that letter, and why was it released only after Wilson was out of the hot seat?
Tobin fait une remarque sarcastique sur la capacité d'interrogation du chef de l'opposition et commence une phrase sur des questions juridiques qui n'est pas complétée dans le compte rendu, sans fournir d'information sur la date à laquelle il a reçu la lettre.
Tobin begins a sentence about legal matters but the answer is cut off and contains no date or explanation of when he received the letter or why its release was timed as described, amounting to near-deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first, that presumes that getting questions from the Leader of the Opposition would put someone in the hot seat. Of course that is a presumption that no one should ever make in this place. Legal—
Grey a demandé quand Tobin avait reçu la lettre de l'avocat mentionnée dans l'affaire du conseiller en éthique.
A single, sharp, factual ask about a specific piece of correspondence and its timing, directly tied to an accountability issue before the House.
Texte source
When did you get that letter?
Tobin a indiqué que le consentement juridique a été donné à 16h30 à la demande du conseiller en éthique, que la lettre a été transmise par télécopieur et déposée à 17h10 devant le comité de l'industrie.
Tobin provided exact times (4:30 p.m. for legal consent, 5:10 p.m. for tabling), identified the mechanism (fax to ethics counsellor), and named the committee where it was tabled, directly addressing the question.
Texte source
I am going to tell you exactly if you will listen. Legal consent was given—
Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to advise the House, because in fact I checked in anticipation of this question, that legal consent was given yesterday at 4.30 p.m. at the request of the ethics counsellor. The letter was faxed to his office, and he tabled it at 5.10 p.m. before the industry committee.
Paquette a demandé si le ministre du Commerce international reconnaissait qu'en accordant un accès privilégié aux grandes multinationales par l'achat de commandites, il approfondissait la méfiance envers la mondialisation et les négociations sur la ZLÉA.
The question combines a substantive concern about privileged access through sponsorships with rhetorical framing about the exclusion of all but "the rich and famous," making the specific ask implicit rather than precise.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, distrust of globalization is growing. It is growing because just about everyone is being excluded from the discussions on the free trade area of the Americas with the exception, it appears, of the rich and famous. Does the Minister for International Trade realize that, by giving such broad and privileged access to the huge multinationals by having them buy sponsorships, he is broadening this distrust of globalization and the current negotiations?
Pettigrew a formulé une remarque partisane sur les divisions internes au Bloc, puis a affirmé que les consultations incluraient des représentants de la société civile, des syndicats et des ONG, sans aborder l'allégation de commandites.
Pettigrew opened with a partisan jab about intra-Bloc differences before briefly asserting civil society would be included, never addressing the specific allegation about multinationals buying access through sponsorships.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the members for Lac-Saint-Jean and Joliette have settled their differences and that the member for Joliette has given in to pressure by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and taken a more negative approach to free trade and the phenomenon of globalization, which surprises me on the part of the Bloc. Now, I can assure the House of one thing. The consultations on the summit of the Americas the consultations we are holding on the free trade area of the Americas and the receptions sponsored by the business community will include representatives of civil society from unions, non governmental organizations and people from the—
Paquette a demandé si le premier ministre trouvait insultant que les grandes entreprises payant entre 75 000 $ et 1,5 million $ aient accès par le forum des gens d'affaires, tandis que le premier ministre du Québec était exclu du Sommet des Amériques.
The question cites specific dollar figures ($75,000 to $1.5 million) for access costs and raises a concrete contrast between paying corporations and the excluded premier of Quebec, though the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, not many besides the Minister for International Trade really believe that consultations are being held in Canada and Quebec on the free trade area of the Americas. To get this government to listen, it costs between $75,000 and $1.5 million. Does the Prime Minister not find it insulting that the big companies that pay, that have access to the government through the businessmen's forum, can have access to the summit of the Americas, whereas the premier of Quebec is excluded and cannot make himself heard?
Pettigrew a mentionné un débat exploratoire prévu le 27 mars et sa récente comparution en comité, et a nié que le gouvernement n'écoutait que les gens d'affaires, sans aborder les montants de commandites ni l'exclusion du premier ministre du Québec.
Pettigrew cited a specific upcoming exploratory debate on March 27 and his recent committee appearance, providing some relevant context, but never addressed the specific figures cited or the exclusion of the premier of Quebec.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on March 27 we will hold an exploratory debate in this parliament on the free trade area of the Americas and on the Quebec summit. Last week, I appeared with my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the standing committee, where the member for Joliette was himself present and where we discussed all of these matters. To say we are listening only to the business people is irresponsible. We will also meet people from the unions, NGOs and, of course, we are consulting all of Canadian society for the benefit of these—
Meredith a demandé si le dépôt de la lettre — publiée de façon commode à la fin de la réunion du comité malgré sa disponibilité apparente plus tôt — avait été orchestré par le premier ministre ou le ministre de l'Industrie.
The question raises a specific timing anomaly — the ethics counsellor had the letter during the meeting, had it translated, and made copies before releasing it — and asks a pointed accountability question about whether the tabling was orchestrated by the Prime Minister or Minister of Industry.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ethics counsellor received clearance, as he put it, to release the letter from the lawyer, coincidentally right at the end of the meeting yesterday. However he had the letter in hand during the meeting. He even had time to have it translated and have copies made. How convenient that the ethics counsellor was instructed to release the letter at the end of the meeting. Was the tabling of the letter orchestrated by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Industry?
Tobin a nié catégoriquement toute orchestration, a réitéré que le consentement juridique avait été reçu à 16h30 en réponse à une demande précoce du conseiller en éthique, et a dit que la lettre avait ensuite été télécopiée et déposée.
Tobin directly denied orchestration, repeated the 4:30 p.m. consent timeline, and explained the legal consent mechanism, addressing the core question though not resolving the translation/copying timing anomaly raised.
Texte source
No, Mr. Speaker, there was no orchestration whatsoever, but if I had my druthers the letter would have been available first thing at that meeting. The blunt reality is that it takes the legal consent of the partners involved and a law firm on behalf of that group to release that letter. That consent was received, because I checked this morning, at 4.30 p.m. In response to an early request from the ethics counsellor, the letter was faxed to his office, sent across to him obviously at the committee and was tabled at the committee. There is no mystery here. It is all very straightforward.
Meredith a demandé pourquoi le ministre a tenté d'interrompre le vote sur la lettre et comment celle-ci avait pu être traduite et copiée si elle avait été reçue dans le délai indiqué par le ministre.
The question asks two specific, factual things: why Tobin attempted to interrupt the vote, and how translation and copying were possible within the stated timeframe — legitimate process questions with potential accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why there were cheap theatrics last night when the minister tried to interrupt and disrupt the voting for this letter. I would like to know how it was possible for this letter to be translated and for copies to be made if it was received in the timeframe the minister gave us.
Hear, hear.
Tobin a dit qu'il rendait l'information disponible dès que possible, a rejeté la caractérisation de « théâtre bon marché » et a plaisanté qu'il aurait porté une combinaison de plongée si c'était vraiment du théâtre — sans répondre à aucune des deux questions précises posées.
Tobin addressed neither the interrupted vote nor the translation/copying timeline, instead delivering a self-deprecating joke about wetsuit theatrics that drew applause but had no connection to the substance of either question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I was making the information available to the whole House at the earliest opportunity. I resent the statement that it was cheap theatrics. I thought the theatrics were fine. If it were cheap theatrics I would have been wearing a wetsuit, and I was not.
Lalonde a demandé si l'accord proposé de la ZLÉA sur les services exclut ou protège l'économie sociale, en citant le témoignage de l'ancien négociateur en chef du Canada pour l'AMI selon lequel le modèle de garderies à 5 $ du secteur privé sans but lucratif pourrait être éliminé par la ZLÉA.
The question cites specific testimony from Canada's former chief negotiator for the MAI at committee the day before and asks a precise, answerable question about whether the proposed FTAA services agreement excludes or protects social economy services like the $5 day care model.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are still unable to find out what is on the FTAA negotiating table, and a number of concerns are being expressed. In committee yesterday, I asked one of our witnesses, Canada's former chief negotiator for the MAI, if he thought that day care for $5, the private not for profit network funded largely by the government, could be wiped out by the FTAA. His response was “Yes, absolutely”. Will the minister tell us whether the proposed agreement under services excludes or protects the social economy, particularly in the area of—
Pettigrew a affirmé de façon générale que le gouvernement protège la marge de manœuvre des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux en matière de santé, d'éducation publique et de services sociaux, sans aborder l'économie sociale ni le modèle spécifique à but non lucratif mentionné.
Pettigrew gave a broad assurance that the government "has always protected" health, public education, and social services, but never specifically addressed the social economy and private not-for-profit network funding model cited in the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canada has always protected in the past, is protecting right now and will protect in the future, as long as our government is at the helm, the room to manoeuvre of the Government of Canada and of the provinces when it comes to health and public education, as well as social services.
Lalonde a demandé si le ministre reconnaissait que la divulgation des textes de négociation était le seul moyen de rassurer les Canadiens sur le sort des services publics dans le cadre de la ZLÉA, compte tenu du témoignage préoccupant de M. Dymond sur les partenariats privés subventionnés par le gouvernement.
The question makes a logical argument grounded in Mr. Dymond's testimony and identifies a specific remedy — releasing the negotiating texts — as the only way to provide reassurance, making it a substantive ask with clear factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this answer is worrying because in the Quebec model there are a number of areas in which the government has formed partnerships with the private sector and is providing it with subsidies. Mr. Dymond's answer is extremely worrying as well. Does the minister realize that the only way of reassuring us as to the fate in store for public services, whether delivered by the government or by the private sector, is to give us access to the negotiating texts, documents he is still keeping from us?
Pettigrew a expliqué que les textes n'appartiennent pas exclusivement au Canada mais à tout l'hémisphère, rendant toute publication unilatérale irrespectueuse envers les partenaires, puis a accusé le Bloc d'irresponsabilité, sans aborder directement la question de l'économie sociale.
Pettigrew explained why Canada cannot unilaterally release the texts (they belong to the whole hemisphere), which is a relevant factual point, but then shifted to a partisan attack on the Bloc, only partially addressing the core ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's position is very clear, and I have lost track of the number of times I have repeated it in the House. We would like to make these texts public but they are not exclusively ours. They are not the property of Canada alone. They are consolidations of positions which belong to the whole hemisphere. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, Canada is assuming its responsibilities. We are going to respect our partners. The Bloc Quebecois may very well say “We will not respect the rest of the hemisphere, and we are going to do as we please and publish texts which you do not wish us to publish”. Our government will be responsible and will treat our partners in the rest of the hemisphere with respect.
Kenney a demandé, en citant la baisse du dollar canadien, l'inflation atteignant le plafond de la fourchette de la Banque du Canada et la marge limitée pour de nouvelles baisses de taux, quand le ministre des Finances présenterait un budget de printemps avec une relance budgétaire, une réduction à long terme de la dette et des mesures pour rendre l'économie plus compétitive.
The question cites same-day dollar movement, inflation reaching the top of the Bank of Canada's band, and U.S. interest rate cuts to build a concrete case, but the ask — "bring in a spring budget with fiscal stimulus" — is somewhat compound and policy-prescriptive rather than a tight accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar has dropped by half a cent again today and inflation has moved up to the top of the band allowed by the Bank of Canada. This means the bank's ability to match yesterday's U.S. interest rate cuts is very limited. Economists are saying that all the burden is being placed on the shoulders of the governor of the bank to shore up our dollar and our economy. When will the finance minister finally begin to do his part by bringing in a spring budget with fiscal stimulus, that is a long term plan to pay down our debt and make our economy more competitive?
Martin a déclaré qu'une mise à jour économique serait présentée au printemps, appuyée par la grande majorité des avis économiques, et a affirmé que le Canada avait mis en place la plus grande quantité de relance budgétaire de tous les pays industrialisés.
Martin confirmed an economic update was coming in the spring and asserted Canada had brought in the greatest fiscal stimulus of any industrial country, but did not engage with the specific concerns about the dollar, inflation, or the Bank of Canada's constrained room to cut rates.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have said that we will bring in an economic update in the spring. Overwhelmingly the vast majority of economic opinion in the country says that is what is required. The hon. member ought to know, and I will say it again for the nth time, that Canada has brought in the greatest amount of fiscal stimulus of any industrial country.
Kenney a cité des données de l'OCDE sur les impôts sur les sociétés les plus élevés et la deuxième dette la plus élevée de l'OCDE, a soutenu que les réductions fiscales Bush aggraveraient la position concurrentielle du Canada, et a demandé pourquoi le ministre des Finances ne présenterait pas un vrai budget avec une vraie relance budgétaire.
Kenney cites OECD rankings for corporate income taxes and debt levels, and references the Bush tax cuts as context, but the question devolves into rhetorical challenge ("keep his head in the sand") and a compound prescriptive ask rather than a single sharp accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister can repeat that fantasy as often as he likes, but the reality is that we continue to have the highest income taxes in the G-7; the highest corporate income taxes in the OECD, says the OECD; and the second highest level of debt in the OECD, says the OECD. After the Bush tax cuts go through we will be losing, not gaining, ground with the Americans in terms of competitiveness. With the 63 cent dollar today and with inflation creeping up, how could the finance minister continue to keep his head in the sand? Why does he not bring in a real budget with real fiscal stimulus that saves our dollar and our economy?
Martin a contesté chaque affirmation factuelle, soutenant que le fardeau fiscal et les impôts sur les sociétés du Canada ne sont pas les plus élevés, que les impôts sur les gains en capital sont inférieurs, et que le Canada affiche la plus grande réduction de la dette et la meilleure création d'emplois de tout pays industrialisé, tout en reconnaissant la volatilité mondiale.
Martin contested each of Kenney's factual claims (tax burden, corporate taxes, capital gains, debt reduction, job creation) but without citing specific figures or sources, making it a point-by-point rebuttal that is assertive but not substantively grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, why does the finance critic for the Alliance not simply wake up and take a look at the facts? He is wrong on every instance. Our tax burden is not the highest. Our corporate taxes are lower. Our capital gains taxes are lower. We have the largest debt reduction of any industrial country. We have created more jobs over the last four years than any industrial country. The fact is that Canada in those areas is doing very well. Yes, there is global volatility and yes, we are concerned, but Canada is better prepared to weather that storm than any other industrial country.
Bagnell a demandé à la secrétaire d'État au Multiculturalisme d'expliquer pourquoi il est toujours aussi important de célébrer le 21 mars, la Journée internationale pour l'élimination du racisme.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Secretary of State to elaborate on the importance of March 21, the international day for the elimination of racism — a pure opportunity for a ministerial statement with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, every year for the last 40 years we have been celebrating March 21. We take the cultural mosaic in Canada for granted. Could the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism elaborate for the House why it is as important as ever to continue to celebrate March 21, international day for the elimination of racism?
Fry a noté que le 21 mars commémore le massacre de Sharpeville de 1960, a mentionné la discrimination persistante au Kosovo, en Macédoine et en Irlande du Nord, et a cité des croix brûlées à Prince George, en Colombie-Britannique, comme preuve que le racisme reste une préoccupation nationale.
Fry provided substantive historical context (the Sharpeville massacre), current international examples (Kosovo, Macedonia, Northern Ireland), and a domestic example (cross burnings in Prince George, British Columbia), giving genuinely informative content.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. March 21 remembers the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa in 1960 when innocent people were killed protesting apartheid. We only have to look around the world today at Kosovo, at Macedonia and at Northern Ireland to know that people are still discriminated against in the world because of their race, their religion and their culture. We do not have to go too far. We could just go to Prince George, British Columbia, where crosses are being burned on lawns as we speak. It is very important we recognize that race, religion and culture in this country are part of our strengths and that we must keep every day to ensure that we will—
Lill a demandé si le gouvernement envisageait d'instaurer de nouveaux critères culturels dans la Loi sur la concurrence pour examiner les fusions dans les industries culturelles comme l'acquisition proposée de Chapters par Indigo, alors que des éditeurs avaient besoin de renflouements d'urgence et réduisaient leur catalogue.
The question references recent news about publisher bailouts, title cuts, and the proposed Chapters-Indigo merger, and makes a specific policy ask — new cultural criteria within the Competition Act — though it is somewhat broad in scope.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Monopoly booksellers have gained a stranglehold on the book industry in Canada. Yesterday we learned that more publishers were in need of emergency bailouts, were cutting titles, dumping new authors and nervously awaiting what the proposed takeover of Chapters by Indigo will mean to their fragile existence. Will the government consider instituting a new set of rigorous cultural criteria within the Competition Act to review cultural industry mergers such as this one, criteria that will provide strong public safeguards for our writers, publishers and booksellers?
Tobin a dit que le gouvernement se préoccupe de la vitalité des industries culturelles et de la promotion des auteurs canadiens, mais a renvoyé toute réponse de fond sur la demande politique précise en invoquant l'examen en cours du Bureau de la concurrence.
Tobin expressed concern for Canadian cultural industries and authors, but pivoted to the Competition Bureau process as a reason not to comment, declining to address the specific ask about new cultural criteria within the Competition Act.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is concerned that we maintain vibrant and dynamic cultural industries within the country, and in particular an environment that nurtures the tremendous work of Canadian authors and writers across the country. The specific question to which the hon. member refers is now before the Competition Bureau, and as is appropriate the bureau is doing its work. It would be inappropriate for me at this juncture to try to foreshadow an outcome prior to the process being completed.
Wasylycia-Leis, en citant l'avertissement de Santé Canada du 31 mai faisant état de 44 signalements de problèmes cardiaques et de 10 décès associés au Prepulsid, a demandé pourquoi le médicament n'a été retiré que le 7 août 2000, plutôt que dès l'apparition des premiers problèmes.
The question cites specific dates (March 19, 2000; May 31; August 7, 2000), a specific drug (Prepulsid), and specific data (44 reports, 10 deaths), asking a precise and accountable question about Health Canada's delay in pulling the drug.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the death of Vanessa Young is deeply disturbing, made even more tragic by the fact that it may have been prevented. Vanessa died on March 19, 2000, of complications associated with Prepulsid. On May 31, Health Canada issued a warning citing 44 reports of heart problems associated with the drug, including 10 deaths in Canada. It took Health Canada until August 7, 2000, to stop the sale of Prepulsid. How could this have happened? How many needless deaths occurred? Why was Prepulsid not pulled the minute problems associated with it first came to light?
Charbonneau a déclaré qu'une enquête du coroner avait été lancée et qu'un recours collectif avait été déposé, invoquant ces raisons pour ne pas faire de commentaires détaillés, et a noté que des avertissements avaient été émis aux professionnels de la santé en 1999 et 2000 sans aborder la question du délai.
The parliamentary secretary cited a coroner's inquest and a class action suit as reasons not to comment in detail, then mentioned warnings issued in 1999 and 2000, but never addressed the specific question of why Prepulsid was not pulled when problems first came to light.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a coroner's inquest has been launched regarding the death to which the hon. member is referring. We must wait for the results of that inquest before dealing with all the details relating to this issue. I should also point out that a class action suit has been filed regarding this issue. This is another reason not to make detailed comments before the House. However, I will say that many warnings were issued to health care professionals in 1999 and 2000 regarding this—
Wayne, citant un arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale et le démenti antérieur du ministre à sa citation directe, a demandé si Eggleton admettrait qu'il avait tort, déposerait la décision judiciaire et conviendrait avec le tribunal qu'il pourrait y avoir eu ingérence politique.
Wayne cited a specific Federal Court of Appeal judgment, referred to her direct quotation from it the previous Thursday, noted the minister's denial and a blocked tabling attempt, and asked a tripartite but focused set of accountability questions about the minister's response to the court ruling.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I quoted directly from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment relating to the maritime helicopter program. At that time the Minister of National Defence stated that what I read was “not true”. An attempt to table the decision was then blocked by a government member. Is the minister now prepared to admit that he was wrong? Will he table the court decision himself? Will he finally agree with the court that there could have been political interference?
Eggleton a maintenu que la députée avait tort, précisant que la formulation relative à la « politisation manifeste » provenait de la citation des appelants et non de la conclusion des juges, et que les juges avaient rejeté la cause.
Eggleton engaged directly with the substance, distinguishing between what the court said versus what the appellants argued, and noting the case was dismissed — a substantively responsive answer, though he did not address the tabling request.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to have it all wrong. She said that the court called this patent politicization within the Department of National Defence, that the three judges said it. That is not true at all. Certainly the citation by the people who took the case to court was to that effect, but the judges did not find that at all. They dismissed the case.
Wayne a cité le paragraphe 16 de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale soulevant la possibilité que « les procédures d'approvisionnement aient souffert d'une politisation manifeste au sein du ministère de la Défense nationale » et a demandé au ministre de s'engager à demander au juge-avocat général de faire enquête.
Wayne cited paragraph 16 of the court decision verbatim and made a single, specific, actionable ask — that the minister commit to asking the judge advocate general to investigate — grounding it directly in the court document.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the court's decision is clear. Paragraph 16 of the decision is very clear. The court raised the prospect that “the procurement procedures suffered from patent politicization within the Department of National Defence”. The minister has a duty and an obligation to ask the judge advocate general to investigate the matter. Will he commit to doing it today?
Eggleton a déclaré que Wayne omettait des parties du document, a affirmé que les juges avaient clairement rejeté la cause et conclu qu'elle n'avait pas été prouvée, sans aborder la demande d'implication du juge-avocat général.
Eggleton disputed the characterization of the paragraph and reiterated the judges dismissed the case, but did not address the specific ask about referring the matter to the judge advocate general for investigation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member conveniently leaves out certain parts. I have the document here too. That is not what it says at all. In effect, what these judges did quite clearly was dismiss the case. They said a case had not been made. There was an allegation. The case was not made. That is the end of it.
Hanger a demandé quelles mesures extraordinaires le ministre avait prises pour protéger le bétail canadien contre la contamination par la fièvre aphteuse par des soldats de l'armée britannique exposés à la maladie lors du nettoyage d'animaux morts au Royaume-Uni et maintenant en entraînement à la BFC Wainwright et Suffield.
The question is grounded in a specific, timely risk scenario — British troops from foot-and-mouth affected areas training at CFB Wainwright and Suffield — and asks a precise question about extraordinary measures taken to protect Canadian livestock.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, British army troops now training at CFB Wainwright and Suffield came from the same agricultural heartland in the United Kingdom now ravaged by foot and mouth disease. These military units tasked with the clean up of dead animals in the United Kingdom have been exposed to this disease in extreme ways. Their clothing, equipment, food supplies, and even the soldiers themselves could very well be contaminated. What extraordinary measures has the minister taken to protect Canada's livestock from contamination?
Eggleton a déclaré que les forces canadiennes et le ministère de la Défense nationale collaboraient étroitement avec l'Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments, et a décrit une procédure de débarquement exigeant que les passagers soient propres et désinfectés, y compris leurs chaussures, affirmant que tout le possible était fait.
Eggleton confirmed close cooperation with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and described a disembarkation procedure including cleaning and disinfecting footwear, providing relevant substantive information, though without quantifying the scope of the measures or addressing equipment and food supplies specifically.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence have been working very closely and very co-operatively with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to make sure everything is done to prevent this disease from coming into the country. Everything we could possibly do is being done. Upon disembarkation from any aircraft passengers must be clean and disinfected including their footwear. A procedure is carried out. There is a complete procedure involved to make sure that we do everything possible to prevent that disease from coming into the country.
Hanger a indiqué que le bureau du ministre avait été contacté le 16 mars et semblait peu au courant de la menace de la fièvre aphteuse, et a demandé quelles mesures étaient prises concernant des troupes pouvant arriver d'Angleterre.
The question cites a specific date of ministerial contact (March 16), identifies a concrete threat vector (troops arriving from England), and asks what steps are being taken, though it is cut off before completing the ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this disease is actually destroying an agricultural industry in the United Kingdom. There is a threat to any country when products, equipment or personnel leave England that could very well spread the disease quickly. The minister's office was contacted on March 16 and seemed to know very little about what was happening to this end. There is a potential arrival of troops coming from England in the next few weeks, or they may be on their way now. I am asking the minister what steps—
Eggleton a déclaré qu'une procédure de désinfection rigoureuse est en place pour tout aéronef en provenance du Royaume-Uni ou d'ailleurs, et que l'interdiction d'entrée d'aéronefs ou de personnes est également envisageable si nécessaire.
Eggleton confirms a disinfection procedure is in place and mentions the option of preventing aircraft or personnel from entering, which partially addresses the concern but provides no specific details about the troop arrival mentioned.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member does not understand about it. I have made it very clear that there is a procedure in place. We are ensuring disinfection is carried out thoroughly to make sure we do everything possible to prevent the disease from coming into the country. If we have to prevent aircraft or people from coming here to make sure of that, we will do that as well. We are making sure that there is a thorough disinfection of any aircraft coming from the U.K. or anywhere else.
Bigras a demandé quelle est la position du Canada sur l'intégration de l'environnement aux négociations de la ZLEA, étant donné que les pays d'Amérique latine s'y opposent, que les États-Unis l'appuient et que le Canada est resté silencieux.
The question identifies a specific negotiating context (FTAA), notes a concrete divide between Latin American countries and the United States on linking trade and the environment, and asks for Canada's stated position, though it could be sharper.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it was the government's intention to negotiate related agreements on the environment with its partners in the free trade area of the Americas. However, Latin American countries are opposed to linking trade and the environment, while the United States supports the idea. As for Canada, it remains silent. If the environment is a government priority, could the minister inform us of Canada's position and tell us what he intends to do regarding the environment in the FTAA negotiations?
Pettigrew a expliqué que les pays de l'hémisphère sud voient le lien entre l'environnement et le commerce comme du protectionnisme, tandis que le Canada souhaite permettre à ces pays d'améliorer leur accès économique tout en progressant sur l'environnement et les normes du travail.
Pettigrew explains the positions of southern hemisphere countries and Canada's desire for both economic development and environmental progress, but does not state a clear Canadian position on whether to formally link environment to the FTAA agreement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that several countries from the southern hemisphere feel that including the environment in a free trade agreement is an indirect way of engaging in protectionism, of keeping southern countries behind and of imposing on them a way of doing things that slows down their economic development. We feel that, through trade, we must allow these countries to improve their access to the global economy, thus strengthening their own economic development. However, we must also make progress regarding the environment as well as labour standards. We want.
Bellehumeur a demandé si le Canada entend appuyer l'approche préconisée par le président mexicain Vicente Fox, qui estime que la légalisation est le seul moyen de mener une guerre efficace contre le crime organisé lié au trafic de drogues illicites, éventuellement au Sommet des Amériques.
The question references a specific upcoming event (Summit of the Americas), cites a named foreign leader's position (Vicente Fox), and asks a concrete yes-or-no policy question, but the premise about Uruguay raising the issue is speculative.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is believed that at the Summit of the Americas Uruguay may raise the issue of drug legalization. In fact, Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, feels that legalization is the only way to lead an effective international war against organized crime, as it relates to the trade of illicit drugs. Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether Canada intends to support the approach advocated by the Mexican president?
McLellan a déclaré que le gouvernement n'a pas l'intention de légaliser la possession de marijuana et a décrit l'approche du Canada comme intégrée, traitant la question des drogues à la fois comme un problème d'application de la loi et de traitement de la santé, sur les plans national et international.
McLellan answers that there are no plans to legalize the possession of marijuana but does not address the specific question of whether Canada would support Mexico's president's approach to drug legalization in the international context of the Summit of the Americas.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that at this time the government has no plans to legalize the possession of marijuana. The hon. member knows that the whole issue around drug enforcement is a complex one. It is a health issue. It is a legal issue. It is an international law issue. It is a law enforcement issue. I wish there were simple and easy answers to this question. Canada's approach again reflects the balance that is required. It is an integrated approach, working both internationally and domestically, treating it not only as an issue of law enforcement but as an issue of health treatment.
Benoit a cité un document interne montrant que les effectifs militaires sont bien en deçà de l'engagement gouvernemental de 60 000 membres et a demandé combien de membres sont actuellement sur la liste active et quels seront les besoins en personnel militaire du Canada au cours des cinq prochaines années.
The question cites specific numbers (90,000 in 1993, government commitment of 60,000), references an internal document showing a shortfall, and asks two precise questions: current active-list numbers and five-year personnel needs.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were elected in 1993 the Canadian forces consisted of 90,000 members. An internal document states that the military now faces a significant shortfall below the government commitment of 60,000 and still dropping. Will the minister tell the House today, first, how many members there are in the Canadian forces on the active list? Second, what will Canada's military needs be in terms of personnel over the next five years?
Eggleton a confirmé que le livre blanc sur la défense de 1994 prévoit 60 000 soldats des forces régulières, a reconnu une pénurie due à l'attrition et a déclaré que le gouvernement entend maintenir ce niveau grâce à une campagne de recrutement.
Eggleton confirms the 60,000 regular force target from the 1994 defence white paper and acknowledges a shortage due to attrition with a recruitment campaign underway, but does not provide the current active-list number or any five-year personnel projection as asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the defence white paper of 1994 calls for 60,000 regular force troops, plus a number of other civilians and a number of others in the reserve force. We intend to continue to work toward that level and try to maintain that level. We have a shortage now because of attrition. We are in fact going on a recruitment campaign to make up those numbers.
Benoit a cité une étude prévoyant que les forces militaires du Canada accuseraient un manque de 17 000 membres d'ici fin 2002, et a demandé si la perte critique de personnel est due à la faiblesse du ministre ou à un plan délibéré du gouvernement pour détruire l'armée.
The question references a recent study projecting a shortfall of 17,000 by end of 2002, but devolves into partisan attack asking whether the critical loss is due to the minister's weakness or a deliberate plan to destroy the military.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer conflicts with a recent study which said that in fact Canada's military is now 4,000 short, but it will be a startling 17,000 members short by the end of 2002 if the current trend continues. The minister will go down in history as the man responsible for killing Canada's military through funding cuts, through delayed equipment replacement, and now through a critical shortage of personnel. Is the reason for this critical loss in personnel the weakness of the minister, or is it a deliberate plan on the part of the government to destroy Canada's military?
Eggleton a rejeté les chiffres comme erronés et comme des extrapolations extrêmes, et a réaffirmé l'engagement du gouvernement à maintenir les Forces canadiennes en mesure de contribuer à la paix et à la sécurité internationales conformément à la politique de défense du livre blanc.
Eggleton dismisses the numbers as wrong without providing correct figures, pivots to a general commitment to the Canadian forces and the white paper defence policy, and does not address the study or the projected shortfall.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his numbers all wrong, as he usually does. He is extrapolating very extreme cases where there is no intention of the government to see that happen at all. The government has made a very clear commitment that we want to make sure we keep the Canadian forces in a position where they are able to contribute to international peace and security and to carry out the will of the government and the people of this country in their desire to create peace and security in the world. We will continue to do that. We will continue to follow the white paper defence policy of parliament.
Malhi a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement du Canada a changé sa politique pour rétablir des relations formelles avec l'Inde et ce que l'annonce signifie pour les relations Canada-Inde.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the government to explain its own policy announcement, providing no accountability challenge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada had decided to restore formal relations with India. Why has the Government of Canada changed its policy and announced a re-engagement with India? What does the announcement mean for Canada-India relations?
Pagtakhan a expliqué que le réengagement reconnaît un meilleur climat pour le dialogue, a annoncé des visites ministérielles complètes, le rétablissement complet de la programmation de l'ACDI et le soutien aux échanges culturels, tout en affirmant que le Canada continuera d'appeler l'Inde à renoncer à son programme d'armes nucléaires.
Pagtakhan provides substantive content: cites the improved climate for dialogue, lists specific re-engagement measures including full ministerial visits, full restoration of CIDA programming, and support for cultural exchanges, while noting Canada will continue to call upon India to renounce its nuclear weapons program.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Canada's re-engagement with India recognizes the fact that a better climate now exists which allows us to pursue an effective dialogue for all aspects of our relationship. Canada is committed to pursuing the broadest political, cultural and economic relationship with India. We will continue to call upon India to renounce its nuclear weapons program. Moreover, re-engagement through full ministerial visits and full restoration of CIDA programming, as well as support for cultural exchanges, will enrich our political relationship.
Schmidt a décrit trois années consécutives de difficultés pour les producteurs de fruits de la Colombie-Britannique en raison de la grêle, du stress thermique et de l'effondrement du marché d'exportation, a noté que le CSRN n'aide que quelques-uns et que le PPID n'aide pas du tout, et a demandé quelle action d'urgence spéciale le ministre est prêt à prendre.
The question specifies three consecutive years of setbacks, identifies the specific region (B.C. fruit growers), names two specific programs (NISA and AIDA) and their limitations, and asks what the minister will do to address the emergency, making it reasonably specific and grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. For three consecutive years B.C. fruit growers have suffered setbacks on the basis of hail, heat stress and the collapse of their export market in the last year. NISA helps a few. AIDA does not help them at all. The minister of agriculture knows that B.C. fruit growers are in an emergency situation which requires special action. What is the minister prepared to do to deal with the emergency situation?
Vanclief a déclaré qu'avec l'assurance-récolte, le CSRN et le Programme canadien du revenu agricole, la Colombie-Britannique recevra sa part des 500 millions de dollars et y ajoutera sa contribution provinciale de 40 % pour aider les producteurs selon les souhaits du gouvernement provincial.
Vanclief mentions crop insurance, NISA, the Canadian farm income program, and the $500 million allocation with B.C.'s 40% provincial contribution, but does not address the specific claim that AIDA does not help these growers or explain what special emergency action will be taken.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, with the support of crop insurance, NISA and the Canadian farm income program last week, the province of British Columbia will get its portion of the $500 million. It will add its 40% to that in order to assist producers according to the way the provincial government wishes to direct those funds. That will certainly be there to help the producers to which the hon. member refers.
Les députés ont reconnu une présence à la tribune par des marques d'approbation ; aucune question n'a été posée et aucune réponse n'a été donnée.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.
Trois rappels au Règlement ont été soulevés : M. Peter Goldring (Edmonton-Centre-Est, Alliance canadienne) s'est excusé d'une récente infraction au Règlement ; M. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) a protesté contre le fait que les médias ont été informés d'un changement majeur de politique étrangère concernant l'Inde avant les députés, et a indiqué qu'il était prêt à présenter une motion à cet égard ; M. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Alliance canadienne) a exigé que la secrétaire d'État au Multiculturalisme et à la Condition féminine retire et s'excuse de propos qu'il lui attribue liant la Colombie-Britannique et Prince George au racisme et à des croix brûlées. Le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre, Don Boudria, a déclaré qu'il s'efforcerait de faire revenir la secrétaire d'État à la Chambre pour répondre après la fin d'un événement public sur le racisme.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Peter Goldring
- PC Mr. Bill Casey
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Richard Harris
- Lib Don Boudria
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I believe my moment of atonement has arrived. I am referring to my recent standing order transgression for which I apologize not only to you, Mr. Speaker, but also to the House and to the nation whose interests I serve. While certainly I meant no disrespect in my action, all infractions of order do have consequences. In the House, even minor infractions are potentially serious in their longer term effects. Parliament's rules are to be respected because they are written by all, for all. I hereby submit my person to the penance of the Chair, and ask for leniency and appeal for clemency under the circumstances. I certainly do not stand here to challenge, nor do I seek changes to, the rules. My hope is to be forgiven by the Chair, before the witnesses in the House, and in front of my colleagues. The essence of the House is honour. I would never intentionally dishonour the House or its procedures.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced in London, England a fundamental change in foreign policy for Canada. In question period today the parliamentary secretary confirmed it to members of the House of Commons. No advance notice was given to members of parliament and no notification was given to the foreign affairs committee. It continues to be the ongoing practice to notify the media before notifying members of parliament. I take objection to this and, if you, Mr. Speaker, find a bona fide breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to discontinue this practice.
Mr. Speaker, during question period the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, a person well-known for her intolerance of anyone who does not agree with her point of view, made a vicious comment by saying that if people want to know about racism and hatred they should go to British Columbia. She further went on to say they are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak. Prince George is where I have lived for more than 40 years. My colleague, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, represents the good, decent, honest people of that city. It is revolting that the minister would cast such vicious and mean-spirited aspersions on the people of Prince George, British Columbia. I ask that the minister be called on to withdraw the statement and to apologize to the House, to the people of Prince George and, indeed, to all Canadians for such a vicious comment.
Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state of course has spoken extensively on issues of racism.
Yes, she has.
Yes, she has probably been a victim of intolerance. She has spoken about the issue at length. I will endeavour to reach her later this afternoon. As we speak, she is making an announcement about racism before a group of Canadians of various ethnic origins. As soon as that is completed, I will attempt to have her return to the House to respond to what the hon. member has raised.
Mme Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) a soulevé un rappel au Règlement en demandant le consentement unanime pour déposer un document de la Cour d'appel fédérale afin de vérifier l'exactitude des citations qu'elle avait utilisées pendant la période des questions concernant le remplacement de l'EH-101 ; le consentement n'a pas été accordé en raison de l'opposition de certains députés.
- PC Mrs. Elsie Wayne
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again today I referred to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision with regard to the replacement of the EH-101, and the minister referred to it as well. Therefore I would ask for the right to table the document to show that the quotes I gave in the House during question period were accurate and correct.
Agreed.
No.
M. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Alliance canadienne) a soulevé une question de privilège accusant le conseiller en éthique d'outrage au Parlement pour avoir retenu une lettre relative au dossier Grand-Mère pendant qu'il était interrogé par le Comité permanent de l'industrie, ne la déposant qu'à la toute fin de la réunion après que les principaux intervenants étaient partis, puis en la diffusant aux médias avant que les députés aient pu l'examiner. La présidente du Comité permanent de l'industrie, Mme Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib), a répondu que le conseiller en éthique l'avait informée vers 17 h 12 qu'il venait de recevoir la lettre — qui provenait de l'avocat du club de golf de Grand-Mère et non de la Direction des corporations — et que les membres du comité auraient pu poser des questions à ce sujet pendant les quinze minutes restantes de la réunion, mais ne l'ont pas fait.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Chuck Strahl
- Lib Ms. Susan Whelan
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is in regard to another case where the media was given preferential treatment of information intended for parliamentarians. I would also argue that the timing of the release of the information resulted in impeding the work of members of parliament. My question of privilege charges the ethics counsellor with contempt of parliament for releasing information in a way that impeded members of the industry committee and of the House. The Minister of Industry tabled the same information in the House after the media had an opportunity to examine it. This contempt occurred yesterday. While I recognize that the Speaker is reluctant to intervene in a committee matter, the circumstances in this case are extraordinary and have a direct link to the proceedings of the House. Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 70, defines a proceeding in parliament: Since two of Parliament's constituent elements, the House of Commons and the Senate, were established for the enactment of laws, those events necessarily incidental to the enactment of laws are part of the “proceedings in Parliament”. However, Parliament has also always been a forum to receive petitions, and the Crown's satisfying the grievances of members before granting supply eventually led to straightforward requests for information. Therefore, the events necessarily incidental to petitions, questions, and notices of motions in Parliament in the seventeenth century and today are all events which are part of “proceedings in Parliament”. Mr. Maingot went on to say: Privilege of Parliament is founded on necessity, and is those rights that are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.” Necessity then should be a basis for any claim that an event was part of a “proceeding in Parliament,” i.e., what is claimed to be part of a “proceeding in Parliament” and thus protected should be necessarily incidental to a “proceeding in Parliament.” On page 72 of a 1939 report from the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act, it states: —a proceeding in Parliament covers both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such a question. The House has been seeking for two years, through the daily question period, evidence regarding the Prime Minister's stake in 161341 Canada Inc. The Minister of Industry promised members of the House that the information was coming. The appearance of the ethics counsellor at the Standing Committee on Industry yesterday was used as a follow up to the questions in the House and to the promise given by the industry minister. The Leader of the Opposition asked the ethics counsellor: Will the Corporations Directorate be communicating to the minister, and to you, the name of any fourth shareholder, whether it's Jonas Prince, whether it's the Prime Minister himself, whether it's some other person? Will they actually be communicating that to you so that the House can determine if the Prime Minister had a conflict of interest or not? To which the ethics counsellor replied: I expect that the Corporations Directorate will be responding to my letter. I'm not sure exactly when that will take place. But what my intention is, as I indicated to you in my interim reply, once I have that in hand, I will be responding directly to you and I am quite confident that will remove any lingering uncertainties. Mr. Speaker, in the dying minutes of that committee meeting, after the ethics counsellor was finished as a witness—and you will find this in the last line of the minutes of the committee meeting—he tabled with the chairman the letter he claimed he would give to the Leader of the Opposition directly when he had it in hand. The ethics counsellor then marched over to the media, released the letter to the media and conducted interviews regarding the same letter. That information should have been tabled as soon as he had it and it should have been part of the proceedings of that meeting. He had promised the Leader of the Opposition earlier that the moment he had it he would give it to the Leader of the Opposition but he withheld that information. It was contemptuous when he had that, not to have delivered what was asked of him. It was useless for the committee to release it at the very end when the questioning was over. It was as if he attempted to meet the criteria on some purely technical basis on the notion that the letter should have been tabled with members before the media. However I would argue that what the ethics counsellor did was essentially give the media the first opportunity to scrutinize the letter and to do an interview with him. This was an indirect act that impeded the committee. The entire time the questioning was going on he withheld that critical information about what was in the letter which dealt with the question that the Leader of the Opposition had put to him. Erskine May describes contempt as: —any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. When the Minister of Industry tabled the letter in the House later, he too was guilty of contempt when he promised he would deliver it the moment he had it. On March 20, the Speaker ruled that: With respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House takes precedence.... To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone...I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House. I would argue that an act that has the same results as what you pointed out in your ruling is also contempt. This is what the authorities on parliamentary procedure would have us believe. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you examine the committee minutes. The committee was divided into two parts: a question and comment period about the ethics counsellor and his role as the ethics counsellor, and a meeting concerning the Lobbyists Registration Act. Mr. Speaker, as you go through those minutes you will find there is nothing about the letter that he tabled at the end of the meeting. There are no comments and no questions because we did not know the letter existed, even though he obviously had it in the pocket of his jacket. Mr. Speaker, if you read the papers this morning you will see much discussion on the details of that letter but once again the media came before parliamentarians. The House did not see the letter until much later that same day. The ethics counsellor may not report to directly to parliament but he has now put himself in a situation where parliament must deal with him directly. The ethics counsellor must be held accountable for his actions. He knew full well that he had the letter in his pocket. He denied that information to the Leader of the Opposition when he was asked directly when that information would be available. He denied he had it. He said he would make it available as soon as it was in his possession. It was in the pocket of his jacket the entire time. He denied information to members of parliament that was germane to the subject matter and critical for us to do our job. He is in contempt of parliament. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find a prima facie case against him and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Industry I wish to clarify exactly what took place at committee yesterday afternoon. The meeting continued on after the first round of questions. During the second round there were questions about the Lobbyist Registration Act. During that time period, at approximately 5.12 p.m., Mr. Wilson notified me that he had just received a letter in both English and French. I thought, mistakenly, and the blues will show, that it was from Industry Canada. I suggested that Mr. Wilson should speak to it in between the questioning of witnesses by the member for Burlington and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. During that time period Mr. Wilson explained that he did not want to be excessively dramatic. He had just been given clearance to give the committee a letter. It was an original in French, with translations from Pierre Paquette, the lawyer that represents the golf club, who has written to Industry Canada. He apologized that it was not available earlier but there it was. He hoped that the representatives would get it to their party leaders. The committee then continued for approximately 15 minutes during which time no one raised the question of the letter. If we go back, the earlier comment was with regard to the corporations directorate. This is a different letter from the lawyer for the corporation.
M. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NPD) a déclaré que le moment choisi par le conseiller en éthique pour divulguer la lettre sur le dossier Grand-Mère soulevait des préoccupations quant à savoir si le conseiller agissait en faveur d'un camp, et a demandé que le conseiller en éthique fournisse des explications à la Chambre. M. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC), qui était présent au comité, a confirmé que la lettre avait été divulguée juste avant son tour de questions et que la plupart des principaux intervenants sur le dossier Grand-Mère étaient déjà partis, ajoutant que les membres n'auraient probablement pas été autorisés à interroger le témoin sur la lettre compte tenu des paramètres établis par la présidente.
- NDP Mr. Bill Blaikie
- PC Mr. Peter MacKay
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee meeting. I am not sure whether the official opposition House leader was either, but I just wanted to say on the matter that it does seem to me a bit odd that this letter should have been released at the time that it was to the committee. I have heard conflicting reports as to whether or not the ethics counsellor may or may not have had the letter on his person all the time that he was there, or whether he received it some time later in the meeting, as the chairman of the committee contends and as I heard from someone else. It does not really matter whether or not he actually had it on him when he was answering the Leader of the Opposition or whether he received it later, although if he had it on him it sort of compounds the problem. Given the preoccupation of the House with this issue, and it is not always a preoccupation that those of us in my party have been able to share because we have decided to devote our few questions to other issues, I have listened carefully to what has gone on between various opposition members and the government on this. I have to say that this is the first time, given the behaviour of the ethics counsellor yesterday in the committee with respect to the release of the letter, I have had an inkling or a feeling that perhaps the ethics counsellor was more than just a guy caught in a very difficult situation, trapped by the limits of his mandate, by the limits of whom he appoints, whom he reports to, who appointed him, and by the limits of the current conflict of interest guidelines the Prime Minister and others operate within. Until yesterday it never occurred to me that the ethics counsellor might actually be acting in a way that was favourable to one side or the other of the argument. However, I have to say I think the ethics counsellor owes the House an explanation at this point. I am still not prepared to say that he was taking sides, but it sure looks like it when he released that letter at the point in time in the life of that committee meeting when he did. I would think that an explanation should be forthcoming from the ethics counsellor and, if there is not an appropriate explanation, it may well be that he was acting in contempt of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the point that has been raised by the hon. House leader for the official opposition. I have also listened to the input of other members. I was present at the committee. As the chair of the committee has indicated, it was just before I was to commence my line of questioning that I noticed Mr. Wilson conferring with someone I presumed to be a staff person, and then pre-empting the committee by the statement. I can verify that it was along the lines, as the chair of the committee said, that he did not mean to be dramatic or overly dramatic, and then he proceeded to divulge the contents or the gist of the letter. It is important to note that as indicated previously there were two distinct points in time in which members of the committee were permitted to ask questions on a certain subject matter, namely the Grand-Mère file. That was limited by the chair of the committee and it was directly related to the Shawinigan-Grand-Mère file to which this letter pertained. Most of the main questioners on the particular subject matter had left by the time the letter was divulged. If they were present or if members of the committee generally wanted to question the witness at that time about the letter, I strongly suggest that we would not have been permitted to in any event, given the parameters that were placed on the committee by the chair. The timing is highly suspect.