Résumé de la séance
- Le budget a dominé les premiers échanges, l'Alliance canadienne pressant le gouvernement d'expliquer le passage des projections sur cinq ans à deux ans dans l'énoncé économique du lendemain et soulevant la possibilité d'un déficit d'ici 2003.
- Le Bloc québécois a livré une contestation soutenue du projet de loi sur le crime organisé, soutenant que l'octroi aux policiers d'une immunité pour commettre des actes criminels — sous autorisation politique plutôt que judiciaire — menace les libertés civiles et les normes démocratiques.
- Le déménagement du Musée canadien de la guerre de Rockcliffe aux plaines LeBreton a suscité des critiques de l'Alliance canadienne, qui a soutenu que les anciens combattants et le comité consultatif du musée n'avaient pas été consultés avant l'annonce de cette décision unilatérale.
- Le NPD a soulevé une préoccupation aiguë de santé publique concernant l'eau potable, notant que 240 collectivités de Terre-Neuve font l'objet d'avis d'ébullition et que certaines ont des niveaux bactériens 10 à 20 fois supérieurs aux limites sécuritaires, réclamant au moins 1 milliard de dollars annuellement du surplus.
- Le débat sur la défense antimissile et le NORAD a produit l'échange constitutionnel le plus clair de la séance, le premier ministre confirmant que les décisions sur la participation du Canada seront prises par le gouvernement — et non par un vote contraignant aux Communes — après un débat parlementaire.
- L'affaire Haroun M'Barek, expulsé en Tunisie et condamné sur la base de preuves obtenues sous la torture, a conduit le ministre des Affaires étrangères à confirmer que le Canada a assisté aux procédures d'appel et continue de faire part de ses préoccupations au gouvernement tunisien.
Le premier ministre a pris un engagement concret et constitutionnellement significatif: le Canada tiendra un débat parlementaire sur la défense antimissile, mais la décision appartiendra au gouvernement qui détient la confiance de la Chambre, et non par un vote contraignant aux Communes.
Cites the Minister of Justice's own stated principle about separating judicial and investigative functions, provides concrete examples of judicial authorization for wiretapping and searches, and asks a precise question about why judges are excluded from authorizing illegal acts under this bill.
Au lieu de répondre à la demande précise de Joe Clark d'un engagement à publier intégralement l'examen de la Banque de développement du Canada et à le soumettre à un comité mixte, Cannis s'est contenté d'attaquer l'utilisation du mot « pantin » par Clark et de se moquer de la situation de leadership de son parti.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Stockwell Day a demandé si le ministre des Finances fournirait des projections fiscales pour 2003 compte tenu des prévisions d'un possible déficit — aucun chiffre n'a été fourni et la question a été esquivée par une contre-attaque sur la politique fiscale de l'Alliance.
- M. Joe Clark a demandé l'engagement que l'examen quinquennal de la Banque de développement du Canada serait publié intégralement avant le 13 juillet et soumis à un comité mixte de la Chambre et du Sénat — aucune des deux demandes n'a été traitée par le secrétaire parlementaire.
- Mme Alexa McDonough a demandé combien de temps le premier ministre est prêt à attendre avant de garantir une eau potable saine, demandant spécifiquement qu'au moins 1 milliard de dollars annuellement du surplus de 5 milliards soient consacrés à la crise de l'eau — aucun calendrier ni engagement financier n'a été fourni.
- M. Roy Bailey a demandé pourquoi la ministre du Patrimoine canadien n'avait pas consulté le comité consultatif du musée de la guerre avant de prendre la décision unilatérale de déménager le Musée canadien de la guerre aux plaines LeBreton — la ministre n'a pas expliqué le rôle du comité consultatif ni les raisons pour lesquelles il avait été écarté.
- M. Réal Ménard a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement préfère accorder à la police le pouvoir de s'autoriser elle-même à commettre des actes illégaux plutôt que d'exiger une autorisation judiciaire, comme c'est le cas pour les écoutes téléphoniques et les perquisitions — la ministre de la Justice a affirmé qu'une distinction existe mais ne l'a pas expliquée de manière substantielle.
Day demande pourquoi le gouvernement ne présentera que des projections de dépenses sur deux ans dans le budget de demain, plutôt que les projections habituelles sur cinq ans.
Specific and pointed claim about a change in budget projection methodology from five years to two years, with a clear single ask of why.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, instead of the usual five year spending projections, the government will only show us two years. Why?
Chrétien affirme que les projections sur deux ans ont toujours constitué le cadre habituel des budgets, contestant ainsi la prémisse de Day.
Chrétien disputes the premise and asserts two-year projections are standard, but does not explain why this budget deviates from the five-year precedent set by the Finance Minister.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is not right what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. The projections have always been based on two years because it is a fairer way to do it. Sometimes we are invited to project into the longer term for special circumstances, but in terms of budgets, we always use the framework of two years.
Day soutient que le ministre des Finances a établi un précédent de cinq ans, cite un officier du parlement sur une culture de secret, et demande si le premier ministre convient que les Canadiens seraient mieux rassurés par plus de transparence.
Raises two related points — the deviation from a five-year precedent and the culture of secrecy cited by a parliamentary officer — but combines them into a somewhat vague ask about openness.
Texte source
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the Finance Minister has set a five year precedent and now we are deviating from that. Also, it appears that we will be going two years without a full budget being tabled. I think that is unprecedented in western democracies. Now we will only get two years advance on government overspending and we have an officer of this parliament who says that the Prime Minister and his office is creating a culture of secrecy. Does the Prime Minister not think that Canadians would be more assured if their government were being more open about its books instead of more closed?
Chrétien souligne le caractère sans précédent de cinq budgets excédentaires consécutifs et réitère brièvement la justification des projections sur deux ans, sans aborder l'allégation de secret.
Chrétien touts the surplus record and briefly addresses the projection issue but ignores the parliamentary officer's secrecy allegation entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is unprecedented is a government that has a surplus budget five years in a row. We are making the projections for two years. Sometimes we have occasion to make projections for five years. We did that for the tax cuts but fortunately we reduced it to two years.
Day cite des économistes prévoyant un déficit dans trois ans et demande au premier ministre de faire en sorte que le ministre des Finances fournisse les chiffres pour l'année 2003.
Cites economists forecasting a deficit in three years and makes a specific, answerable request for the 2003 figures from the Minister of Finance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, some economists are forecasting that we will have a deficit in three years. This is not good news for Canadians. Could the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Finance to give us the figures for the year 2003?
Chrétien utilise une contre-prévision selon laquelle le programme de l'Alliance entraînerait un déficit de 25 milliards de dollars d'ici 2004 pour justifier les projections sur deux ans, sans fournir les chiffres pour 2003.
Chrétien deflects by attacking the Alliance's fiscal platform with a counter-economist reference and never provides or commits to provide the 2003 figures.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to quote economists. One of them has forecasted that, if we were to implement the Alliance's program, we would end up with a deficit of $25 billion by the year 2004. This is why it is easier to make forecasts for two years than for four or five years. In fact, the actual results have been better than what we anticipated in our recent budgets.
Kenney cite un sondage indiquant que 76 % des Canadiens affirment n'avoir remarqué aucun allègement fiscal fédéral et demande comment le premier ministre peut les convaincre qu'ils en ont bénéficié.
Cites a poll showing 76% of Canadians have not noticed any federal tax relief, giving some factual grounding, but the ask is somewhat rhetorical and compound.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what we would do differently is less wasteful spending for more tax relief. Speaking of tax relief, we released a poll today which shows that 76% of Canadians say that they have not noticed any federal tax relief. The government continues to hype its much promised tax cuts. How come three-quarters of Canadians have not seen a dime of tax relief in their own pockets and how can the Prime Minister persuade them otherwise?
Cullen soutient que presque tous les économistes s'entendent pour dire qu'il s'agit de la plus grande réduction d'impôt de l'histoire du Canada, représentant environ 2 % du PIB, et mentionne 2,65 milliards de dollars en infrastructure.
Cullen references the largest tax cut in Canadian history approximating 2% of GDP and infrastructure investment of $2.65 billion, engaging the topic but not directly explaining why 76% of Canadians have not noticed relief.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, nearly all the economists agree that we have the largest tax cut in Canadian history that is winding its way through the economy right now. It approximates 2% of GDP. If we throw in the provincial tax cuts it gets even higher. Everyone but the member opposite agrees that this is a huge stimulative budget. In fact we have other initiatives as well in terms of infrastructure at $2.65 billion which will create economic activity in Canada and create jobs. I do not know where the member opposite is getting his information from.
Kenney cite Dale Orr de WEFA affirmant que les petites réductions d'impôt 'arriveraient probablement trop tard pour aider l'économie actuelle affaiblie' et demande pourquoi le gouvernement retarde l'allègement fiscal plutôt que de le fournir immédiatement.
Cites a named economist, Dale Orr of WEFA, with a direct quote, and asks a specific question about why the government is delaying tax relief given the economic downturn.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am getting it from Canadian taxpayers who have not noticed a dime in tax relief. Today one of the leading private sector economists in the country, Dale Orr of WEFA, said that that small tax cuts promised by the government “would probably be too late to help the current weak economy”. Surely the finance minister recognizes that given the current economic downturn we need some serious fiscal stimulus right now to protect Canadian jobs. Why will he not listen to these economists? Why is the government delaying tax relief? Why does it not provide it immediately in the economic statement tomorrow?
Cullen dévie avec une attaque partisane, puis affirme que les économistes disent presque unanimement que l'économie évitera le déficit et que la relance fiscale a besoin de temps pour se répercuter dans le système.
Cullen opens with a partisan attack, then vaguely references unanimous economist opinion and mentions CCP and EI deductions maxing out after six months, but does not address why relief is being delayed or respond to the Dale Orr quote.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the government should be getting management advice from the party across the floor when it cannot even keep its own act together. Notwithstanding that, all economists are saying that this is the largest tax stimulus in Canadian history and that we need to give it a chance to work its way into the economy. The economists have said almost unanimously that we will not be in deficit, that the economy is working very well and we need to give it a chance to work its way through the system. The member knows full well that some of the deductions in terms of CCP and EI max out after six months, so we are going to see that come—
Duceppe demande si le ministre admettra qu'il existe un risque sérieux de dérapages dans le projet de loi sur le crime organisé qui pourrait exposer des organisations démocratiques à des actes criminels autorisés par la police, et si ces actes doivent être limités au crime organisé.
Raises a specific concern about the organized crime bill potentially exposing democratic organizations to police-authorized criminal acts and asks a focused question about limiting scope to organized crime.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Justice's bill on organized crime, democratic organizations such as unions and political parties, with absolutely no connection to the underworld, could fall victim to criminal acts perpetrated by police officers and authorized by those with political authority. Will the minister admit that there is a serious risk of slip-ups with this bill and that criminal acts that can be committed by police officers must be limited to organized crime?
MacAulay décrit la loi comme essentielle et importante pour la police, affirme qu'elle n'est pas un chèque en blanc et déclare qu'il existe des limites strictes, des contrôles et une imputabilité politique directe.
MacAulay says it is not a blank cheque and that there are strict limits, controls, and direct political accountability, but does not explain what those limits are or address the specific risk to democratic organizations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a critical new law that is very important to the police across the country. In fact it is not a blank cheque. There are strict limits and controls, and it has direct political accountability.
Duceppe demande si le ministre réalise que le fait d'accorder aux policiers le droit de commettre des actes criminels au-delà des enquêtes sur le crime organisé menace la démocratie, et défie le solliciteur général d'agir dans ses propres affaires.
Makes a substantive point about the bill's scope extending beyond organized crime but frames it with rhetorical flourishes about the solicitor general meddling, making the ask somewhat unclear.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, here we have someone who says he never interferes with investigations, yet he is going to give permission for criminal acts to be committed. This is not going to be limited to organized crime. That requires an organized crime bill. Democracy is threatened if this right granted to policy officers is expanded to include just any investigation into anyone and anything. Do they realize this? Is the minister going to take this into account? Is the solicitor general, he who claims not to interfere in anything, gong to start meddling in something, for once? If so, let him meddle in his own affairs, not those of the judges.
MacAulay soutient que le gouvernement veut donner à la police les outils nécessaires pour le travail sous couverture afin de lutter contre le crime organisé, sans aborder la question de la portée.
MacAulay pivots to the necessity of undercover police work and fighting organized crime without addressing the specific concern about the bill's scope extending beyond organized crime.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what the government wants to do is give the police the tools they need to do their job. Do we not want anyone to work undercover in police services across the country? If we do not give them the ability to be able to work undercover then they cannot fight organized crime. The government is going to fight and will continue to fight organized crime.
Ménard souligne la contradiction entre le solliciteur général affirmant ne pas intervenir dans les enquêtes de la GRC et l'exigence du projet de loi d'une implication politique directe, et demande si la seule solution logique est de confier l'autorisation de ces pratiques au judiciaire.
Effectively highlights a contradiction between the solicitor general's stated non-interference in RCMP investigations and the bill's requirement for direct political accountability, and asks a focused question about whether judicial authorization is the logical solution.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last week, the solicitor general said that there would be direct political accountability for police immunity. But each time we ask the minister about an RCMP investigation—into Shawinigate, HRDC or CINAR, for instance—he tells us that he will not get involved and that that is the way it should be. Does the minister understand that the direct involvement of politicians in these investigations leaves the door wide open to significant slip-ups and that the only logical solution is to have the judiciary authorize these practices? Will he admit that this is so?
MacAulay déclare que la police doit soumettre un rapport annuel au solliciteur général et que le dépassement des limites constitue un acte criminel passible de poursuites.
MacAulay explains that police must report annually to the solicitor general and that overstepping results in criminal charges, but does not address the contradiction or explain why judicial authorization is rejected.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a tool that all the police forces across the country want and need if they want to fight organized crime. What has to happen is a report must be issued each year to the solicitor general. If they overstep their bounds then they also commit a criminal act and can be charged.
Ménard cite la déclaration même de la ministre de la Justice sur la séparation des fonctions judiciaire et d'enquête, et demande pourquoi elle préfère l'auto-autorisation policière pour des actes illégaux plutôt que l'autorisation judiciaire, comme dans le cas des écoutes et des perquisitions.
Cites the Minister of Justice's own stated principle about separating judicial and investigative functions, provides concrete examples of judicial authorization for wiretapping and searches, and asks a precise question about why judges are excluded from authorizing illegal acts under this bill.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Justice said that the Canadian tradition was to separate the judicial function from the investigative function. The minister is mistaken because, in Canada, it is the judiciary that authorizes illegal acts such as wiretapping and house searches. Will the minister explain why she prefers to give the police the power to authorize themselves to commit illegal acts, rather than give this power to a judge, as required by the universally recognized rule of law?
McLellan affirme qu'il existe une différence fondamentale entre un juge autorisant un mandat d'écoute et les décisions prises par le solliciteur général dans le contexte du crime organisé, sans toutefois élaborer sur cette différence.
McLellan draws a distinction between warrant-based wiretaps and decisions under the organized crime bill but does not explain why judges are excluded; she pivots to criticizing the Bloc for opposing the bill after demanding action on organized crime.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the fundamental difference between a situation where a judge authorizes a warrant for a wiretap and the kinds of decisions that will be made in the context of the solicitor general or provincial counterparts as it relates to organized crime. There is a more important issue here. We on this side have been listening to that party bleat on for months about why the government does not take action against organized crime. The government has taken action. We have given our police the necessary tools to do their jobs. I would ask them to support us.
McDonough cite 240 collectivités de Terre-Neuve sous avis d'ébullition, 76 collectivités avec des niveaux bactériens de 10 à 20 fois supérieurs aux normes sécuritaires, et la crise de l'eau à Twillingate, et demande quand le gouvernement consacrera une part de l'excédent à régler ces problèmes.
Cites specific data — 240 communities with boil orders, 76 communities with bacterial levels 10 to 20 times higher than safe levels, and the Twillingate example — grounding the question in concrete facts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, 240 communities in Newfoundland today have boil orders for their drinking water. The Newfoundland government has released a report showing that 76 communities in Newfoundland have bacterial levels 10 and 20 times higher than anything considered remotely safe. Water from the Twillingate taps has so much bacteria in it scientists say that they have lost count. Will the bottled water over at 24 Sussex have to run out before the government will be willing to spend a share of the surplus to solve the water problems?
Robillard met en avant le programme d'infrastructure municipale de 2 milliards de dollars générant 6 milliards de dollars d'investissements au total, avec priorité accordée aux infrastructures vertes pour améliorer la qualité de l'air et de l'eau.
Robillard references the $2 billion municipal infrastructure program generating $6 billion in investments with priority for green infrastructures, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific scale of Newfoundland's crisis or commit to any new action.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the government announced the municipal infrastructure program, a $2 billion program which will generate investments of $6 billion in this country, we said very clearly that priority should be given to green infrastructures, which will improve the quality of air and water for the citizens of this country. That is what the Canadian government has done. I understand that the provinces and municipalities have already submitted projects seeking to resolve this problem.
McDonough soutient qu'il faut 4 milliards de dollars par an pour la crise de l'eau mais que le gouvernement n'en a offert que 400 millions, et demande pourquoi le gouvernement ne s'engage pas à au moins un milliard de dollars annuellement étant donné l'excédent de 5 milliards.
Cites reliable estimates of $4 billion per year needed versus $400 million offered, references a $5 billion surplus, and proposes a specific figure of a billion dollars annually, making it reasonably grounded, though the final ask is cut off.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, reliable estimates are that $4 billion a year are needed to tackle the water crisis alone and the government has offered up $400 million. Newfoundlanders today simply cannot drink their water. The Prime Minister seems to think it is perfectly okay to export the water. The government is crowing about a $5 billion surplus higher than projected. If the government gets started today with a billion dollars annually it could at least begin to solve the problem. How long is the Prime Minister prepared to wait before he will guarantee that—
Robillard réitère que le programme d'infrastructure de 6 milliards de dollars aidera les municipalités à améliorer la qualité de l'air et de l'eau, sans aborder l'écart de financement ni la demande spécifique de McDonough.
Robillard repeats the same $6 billion program talking point from Exchange 10 without addressing the funding gap, the $5 billion surplus, or the specific request for a billion dollars annually.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a program of $6 billion which will help municipalities across the country to have good infrastructure and to improve the quality of the air and water for their citizens. This is a major effort from our government to help municipalities achieve those goals.
Clark affirme que la loi exige un examen quinquennal de la Banque de développement du Canada couvrant la période où MM. Beaudoin et Schroder ont mystérieusement quitté leurs fonctions, mais que la lettre du ministre de l'Industrie exclut ces départs comme affaires administratives, et demande au premier ministre de permettre l'enquête complète prévue par la loi.
Cites the law requiring a five-year review, notes the industry minister's letter specifically excluding the departures of Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder as administrative matters, and makes a clear ask to allow a full investigation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the law requires a five year review of the activities of the Business Development Bank. That includes the period in which two presidents of that bank, Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder, mysteriously left their duties. The industry minister has written me to say that the review will not investigate those mysterious departures because they are administrative matters. That breaks the spirit of the law and shows contempt for parliament. Will the Prime Minister stop the coverup and allow the full investigation intended by the law of parliament?
Cannis affirme que tout est transparent et qu'il n'y a aucun mystère, puis dévie vers une blague sur le Parti réformiste et le Parti conservateur.
Cannis dismisses the question with a one-liner about transparency and then makes a flippant remark about party membership shifts, providing no substantive response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery there. Everything is transparent. The only mystery here is who is shifting from the Reform Party to the Conservative Party.
Clark demande au premier ministre de s'engager à publier intégralement l'examen de la Banque de développement du Canada d'ici le 13 juillet, et à le soumettre à un comité mixte de la Chambre et du Sénat pour empêcher une majorité libérale de limiter les témoins.
Makes two specific, answerable asks: a commitment to publish the review in full by July 13, and a commitment to submit it to a joint committee of the House and Senate to avoid a Liberal majority limiting witnesses.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the act allows the government to delay tabling this review until July 13, conveniently after parliament has risen. Will the Prime Minister, not his puppet, give us a commitment that this review will be published in full on that date? To avoid a situation where a Liberal majority might limit the witnesses who could be called in examination of this report, will the Prime Minister undertake to have the review submitted to a joint committee of this House and of the other place?
Cannis répond uniquement par une attaque personnelle contre Clark pour avoir utilisé le mot « marionnettes » et un commentaire sur le leadership de Clark, sans répondre à aucune des deux demandes spécifiques.
Cannis ignores both specific asks entirely and responds only with a personal attack on Clark's use of the word 'puppet' and a comment about his leadership.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the hon. member, and I will use that word in addressing him, uses the word puppets. He should be ashamed because the attack is only a sign of his weakness in his argument and nothing else. He should pay very close attention to his leadership and not ours.
Solberg cite le lieutenant-général Macdonald affirmant que le refus d'appuyer la défense antimissile en principe signifiera le début de la fin du NORAD, et demande sur quelle base le gouvernement retarde sa décision de principe.
Cites Canada's own deputy commander of NORAD, Lieutenant General Macdonald, by name and title with a specific claim about the consequences of not supporting missile defence, and asks a clear question about why the government is delaying its decision in principle.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, NORAD is vital for the security and sovereignty of Canada. Several prominent individuals, including Canada's own deputy commander of NORAD, Lieutenant General Macdonald, have said that failing to support missile defence in principle will mean the beginning of the end of NORAD. On this basis what possible grounds can the government have for delaying its decision in principle?
Eggleton déclare qu'un nouvel accord NORAD de cinq ans vient d'être signé, que le NORAD a un objectif et une fonction clairs, et que les consultations sur la défense antimissile ont débuté hier.
Eggleton notes the new five-year NORAD agreement and that consultations began yesterday, which is relevant, but does not explain the grounds for delaying a decision in principle on missile defence.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have just signed a new five year agreement with the United States with respect to NORAD. NORAD does have a very strong purpose and function. It is a useful defence of North America for Canada and the United States. With respect to missile defence, as we have often said, we are into consultations. In fact, we began those consultations yesterday. NORAD still has a very clear function, a very clear purpose and is of value to Canada and the United States regardless of our decision on missile defence.
Solberg rappelle la déclaration du premier ministre de la veille selon laquelle les députés pourront débattre de la défense antimissile avant toute décision, et demande si les députés auront le dernier mot par un vote à la Chambre des communes.
References the Prime Minister's own statement from the previous day and asks a precise, yes-or-no accountable question about whether MPs will have the final decision through a vote in the House of Commons.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told the commons that MPs will be able to debate the missile defence issue before any decision is taken regarding Canada's involvement. My question for the Prime Minister is, will MPs have the final decision on that issue through a vote here in the House of Commons?
Chrétien affirme que de telles décisions sont prises par le gouvernement qui a la confiance de la Chambre, qu'un débat aura lieu et que les membres pourront voter la non-confiance s'ils sont en désaccord avec la décision finale.
Chrétien directly explains the constitutional convention that decisions are made by the government holding the confidence of the House and that a confidence vote is the mechanism available, which substantively addresses the question, though he dismisses a direct binding vote.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, decisions like that are made by the government which has the confidence of the House of Commons. It is the way we operate. We will have a debate and opinions will be expressed. There will be one moment when they can vote non-confidence in the government if we have not made the decision they want. What is surprising is that they do not know the facts. They have not studied the problem and they are already committed. I think it is better to have hearings and discussions and then to decide after that what the allies should do.
Duceppe a demandé si la ministre reconnaîtrait que son projet de loi sur le crime organisé va bien au-delà du crime organisé et menace la démocratie elle-même en permettant aux dirigeants politiques d'intervenir dans les enquêtes policières.
Duceppe raises a substantive concern that the organized crime bill allows political leaders to intervene in police investigations and threatens democracy, but the ask is more rhetorical than precisely grounded in specific clauses.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that our party had long fought for legislation against organized crime, and that is true. All the while, from the other side of the House, they said it was not necessary. We fought for legislation against organized crime, not a law that allowed political leaders to intervene in police investigations. Will the minister realize that her bill goes far beyond organized crime and threatens democracy itself?
McLellan a rappelé que le Bloc avait déjà demandé d'invoquer la disposition de dérogation et a souligné que le projet de loi avait été élaboré après de larges consultations avec les provinces, les corps policiers et d'autres intervenants.
McLellan deflects by attacking the Bloc's past position on the notwithstanding clause and citing consultation processes, without addressing the specific claim that the bill permits political intervention in police investigations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing. That is the party that asked the government to consider invoking the notwithstanding clause to deal with organized crime in the province of Quebec. What my colleague, the solicitor general, and I have done is introduce legislation after consulting with the provinces, including Quebec, with police forces, with other stakeholders and after listening to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on which the Bloc had members. I would hope that the Bloc gets behind this legislation to protect—
Duceppe a demandé si la ministre admettrait qu'une disposition du projet de loi est ridicule au point de donner à la police la permission de commettre un crime après qu'un crime a été commis.
Duceppe raises a specific and substantive point — that a provision of the bill gives police permission to commit a crime after a crime is committed — but embeds it in charged rhetorical framing including the barn-burning reference.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister's words are the height of hypocrisy.
Oh, oh.
They objected to such legislation for I do not know how long and, now, they want a mechanism to enable them to intervene, as they did in the past by torching the barns, for example. Will the minister admit that one of the provisions of this bill is ridiculous to the point of giving the police permission to commit a crime after a crime is committed? Is that acceptable? It is in the bill. It is time she woke up.
Chrétien a répondu en accusant le Bloc d'hypocrisie pour être revenus percevoir des pensions fédérales après avoir affirmé ne se faire élire qu'une seule fois, sans faire aucune référence aux dispositions du projet de loi.
Chrétien entirely ignores the question about the bill's provisions and instead attacks the Bloc's pension record, a pure deflection with no connection to the organized crime legislation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one can readily talk of hypocrisy with this party, which told Quebecers it would be elected only once and then leave. But they have all come back to get their pension from the wicked federal government.
Bailey a demandé pourquoi la ministre n'avait pas consulté le comité consultatif du musée de guerre et les organisations d'anciens combattants avant de décider unilatéralement de déplacer le musée de guerre du site promis à Rockcliffe vers les Plaines LeBreton.
Bailey identifies a specific prior commitment (35 acres next to the aviation museum and the new military cemetery at Rockcliffe), names a specific consultative body (the war museum advisory committee), and asks a clear accountability question about a unilateral decision.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at the press conference yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage disappointed thousands of our war vets from across Canada who believed that the new war museum, as promised, would be built on the 35 acres of land next to the aviation museum and the new military cemetery at Rockcliffe. Why did the minister not consult the war museum advisory committee and the many veterans' organizations before making a unilateral decision to move the war museum to LeBreton Flats?
Copps a cité une lettre de Barney Danson qualifiant le nouveau site d'absolument fabuleux et regrettant qu'il n'ait pas été disponible lors de l'annonce initiale.
Copps does not address why the advisory committee was not consulted or why the site changed; instead she cites a single letter from Barney Danson expressing support for the new site, which does not answer the consultation question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, probably one of the most distinguished members of the veteran community, a gentleman by the name of Barney Danson, has worked very hard to see the war museum relocated. I received a letter from Barney who wrote to me from Ireland. He was unfortunately unable to attend yesterday. Do members know what he said in his letter? He said that he thought it was an absolutely fabulous site and that he was only too sorry that it had not been available when we made our initial announcement. He is thrilled that it will be at a place close to parliament for all of Canada to rejoice in.
Bailey a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement avait brisé sa promesse de 1998 de construire le musée de guerre à Rockcliffe pour 70 millions de dollars, et dépense maintenant le double pour le déplacer vers un site plus petit, sans consulter les anciens combattants et leurs organisations.
Bailey cites a specific 1998 government announcement, a specific dollar figure ($70 million), a specific new cost (twice as much), and the fundraising efforts of veterans, making a sharp accountability question about broken commitments.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the vets and the Friends of the Canadian War Museum have raised millions of dollars. They did this after the government's announcement in 1998, just three years ago, that the war museum would be built in Rockcliffe at a cost of $70 million. Now the government is spending twice as much and moving the museum to a smaller site. Why does the government continue to treat vets and their organizations as second class citizens by not consulting them?
Copps a déclaré que les Amis du Musée canadien de la guerre étaient présents et extrêmement satisfaits de l'annonce, et qu'un investissement supplémentaire de 20 millions de dollars assure le meilleur site au Canada pour les anciens combattants aux Plaines LeBreton.
Copps claims the Friends of the Canadian War Museum were present and pleased with the announcement and cites an additional $20 million investment, but does not explain why the site changed or address the claim about a smaller site, and ends with a partisan attack on Cheryl Gallant.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, not only were the Friends of the Canadian War Museum extremely pleased with yesterday's announcement, they were present yesterday to thank the government. What we have been able to do by an additional investment of $20 million is make sure that with the rebirth of LeBreton Flats, we have the absolute best site in the whole of Canada to celebrate the contribution made by Canada's war vets. It is a damned shame that the Reform Party does not agree with its critic, Cheryl Gallant.
Dalphond-Guiral a demandé si le ministre des Affaires étrangères admettrait que la déportation de Haroun M'Barek était une erreur tragique, étant donné qu'il a été condamné sur la base d'un témoignage obtenu sous la torture et ultérieurement rétracté, et si le ministre interviendrait pour qu'il reçoive des soins médicaux et puisse voir son avocat.
Dalphond-Guiral cites specific facts — the Foreign Affairs spokesperson's statement, testimony given under torture by the key witness who later retracted, and asks two distinct actionable questions about an admission of error and consular intervention.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs stated that Haroun M'Barek had a fair trial in Tunisia. But we now know that he was found guilty on the basis of testimony given under torture by the key witness, who later retracted himself. Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that the decision to deport Mr. M'Barek was a tragic mistake and will he intervene with Tunisian authorities to ensure that Mr. M'Barek gets the medical attention that his condition requires and is allowed to see his lawyer?
Caplan a déclaré qu'elle ne discute pas de cas individuels, mais a confirmé que des démarches avaient été faites par les Affaires étrangères, que l'individu avait bénéficié de toutes les procédures de détermination du statut de réfugié et des garanties procédurales au Canada, et a exprimé des regrets face aux difficultés imprévues.
Caplan confirms representations have been made by Foreign Affairs and offers some context on due process in Canada but does not address the specific claim about testimony under torture or confirm any admission of a tragic mistake.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, while it is not my policy to discuss individual cases, I can tell the member that representations have been made in this case by Foreign Affairs. The individuals did receive full refugee determination procedures and due process in Canada. It is always important in every case for individuals to give full information to the department so that a full determination can be made. It is always unfortunate when a situation occurs where an individual does run into difficulty that was unanticipated.
Dalphond-Guiral a souligné que les procédures judiciaires de M'Barek s'étaient terminées le 9 mars lors de sa condamnation, que son dossier est introuvable pour son appel, et a demandé si le ministre admettrait que le Canada a une obligation morale de l'aider étant donné que la déportation par le Canada est à l'origine de sa situation.
Dalphond-Guiral directly corrects the minister's previous answer with a specific date (March 9 sentencing) and a concrete problem (missing file preventing appeal), and presses a clear moral obligation question tied to Canada's direct role in the deportation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that Canadian officials from consular affairs are trying to observe the legal proceedings involving Mr. M'Barek. But the legal proceedings ended on March 9, when Mr. M'Barek was sentenced. Mr. M'Barek now wants to appeal, but his file cannot be found. Will the minister admit that Canada has a moral obligation to help this man, since his deportation by Canadian authorities is what led to the tragic situation in which he now finds himself?
Manley a confirmé que le Canada a assisté aux procédures d'appel, continue d'exprimer ses préoccupations au gouvernement de la Tunisie et fera tout son possible pour aider M'Barek, tout en précisant que celui-ci n'est pas citoyen canadien.
Manley confirms Canada attended the appeal proceedings and is continuing to express concerns to the government of Tunisia, which partially addresses the question, though he does not respond to the missing file claim or explicitly acknowledge a moral obligation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we attended the appeal proceedings. We are continuing to express our concerns to the government of Tunisia and we will try to help Mr. M'Barek as much as we can. Let us not forget that he is not a Canadian citizen. Still, we are trying to help him.
Schmidt a demandé à quoi sert la mise sur pied par le gouvernement d'un comité consultatif pour le musée de guerre si on l'ignore complètement avant de prendre la décision de déplacer le musée aux Plaines LeBreton.
Schmidt asks a legitimate process question about the purpose of an advisory committee that was ignored, but the framing is somewhat rhetorical and he does not name the committee or specify what advice was given and disregarded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage suggested that it was perfectly all right and that veterans were certainly supportive of the new location. I would like to challenge the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and ask her, what is the point of the government setting up an advisory committee and then turning around and ignoring it completely before making a move like this? I think it is an insult to the veterans who were asked to provide advice to the hon. minister.
Oh, oh.
Copps a cité un article du Globe and Mail citant la députée de l'Alliance Cheryl Gallant comme étant favorable à la construction du nouveau musée pour les anciens combattants, suggérant des divisions internes au sein du Parti de l'Alliance.
Copps does not address the advisory committee question at all, instead quoting a Globe and Mail article about Alliance MP Cheryl Gallant's support for the museum, which is a deflection to internal Alliance disagreement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I know there are a number of positions right now in the Alliance Party, but I would like to refer the hon. member to Metro Dateline and Shawn McCarthy in the Globe and Mail of yesterday, when he said “MP Cheryl Gallant, the Canadian Alliance cultural—”
Mr. Speaker, in the Globe and Mail the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was quoted as saying that she supports the construction of the new museum for the veterans. I suspect that the critic and her members should get their stories straight.
Schmidt a tenté de préciser que sa préoccupation porte sur le processus décisionnel — notamment le fait que la ministre a ignoré un comité consultatif — et non sur l'opposition à la construction d'un nouveau musée de guerre.
Schmidt clarifies that the debate is about process — the ignoring of an advisory committee — rather than opposition to the museum itself, but the question is interrupted and remains vague without naming the committee or its advice.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage fails to recognize that we all support the construction of a new national war museum. That is exactly the point. It is the process that is at debate here. We have a Prime Minister who suggests that whatever he says goes. His backbenchers also have to do whatever he tells them to do. Now we have an advisory committee that the minister goes ahead and ignores—
Oh, oh.
Copps a exprimé son enthousiasme pour l'annonce, a cité Cliff Chadderton comme s'attendant à une annonce qui lui plairait, et a dévié en faisant référence aux divisions au sein du Parti réformiste.
Copps does not address the advisory committee process question and instead quotes Cliff Chadderton's anticipated pleasure with the announcement, then pivots to attacking splits in the Reform Party.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled that we were able to make an announcement yesterday which will do, I think, pride to the service that has been provided by all veterans in the first, the second, the great and the Korean wars. I would like to comment on a statement made by Cliff Chadderton, chairman of the 37 member national veterans council, when he said that he expected an announcement that would please him. I think it pleased Mr. Chadderton. I know it pleased the members of parliament. I am not sure about the splits in the Reform Party but you will have to figure those out yourselves.
Assadourian a souligné que Nortel Networks dans sa circonscription a signé un contrat de 275 millions de dollars américains avec China Unicom et a demandé ce que le gouvernement du Canada fait pour aider des entreprises comme Nortel à obtenir des opportunités commerciales et d'investissement en Chine.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that simply invites the Secretary of State to promote a Nortel contract and government trade policy, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific. Nortel Networks corporation in my riding of Brampton Centre has signed a $275 million U.S. contract with China Unicom to supply equipment for a wireless network in China. What is the Government of Canada doing to assist companies like Nortel to secure trade and investment opportunities in China?
Pagtakhan a déclaré que le gouvernement salue l'accord, qu'il représente davantage d'emplois pour les Canadiens et une meilleure place pour l'innovation canadienne sur le marché chinois, et qu'il renforce le partenariat global entre le Canada et la Chine comme dividende de l'équipe Canada.
Pagtakhan provides some substantive content — noting the deal means more jobs for Canadians, advances Canadian innovation in the Chinese marketplace, builds on the Canada-China partnership, and credits team Canada — making this a reasonably informative ministerial answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada applauds this business deal on the part of Nortel. The hon. member for Brampton Centre can take pride in it. This kind of business deal means more jobs for Canadians and a more secure place for Canadian innovation and technology in the Chinese marketplace. As well, it builds on the broad partnership between Canada and China and thereby more people, more people linkages and a more open society. This is evidence of the dividends coming from team Canada, led by the Prime Minister.
Nystrom a demandé pourquoi le premier ministre n'a pas utilisé une partie des 15 milliards de dollars de surplus appliqués à la dette nationale pour réindexer les transferts aux provinces et aux municipalités afin de lutter contre la pauvreté et investir dans le déficit humain.
Nystrom cites reputable studies showing the rich-poor gap and references a specific $15 billion surplus applied to the national debt, but the question is compound and rhetorical in framing despite having identifiable policy asks.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The widening gap between the rich and the poor has been one of the biggest failures of the Liberal government in the last eight or nine years. Every reputable study in the country shows that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Why did the Prime Minister not use some of the $15 billion surplus he applied to the national debt toward reindexing transfers to the provinces and municipalities as a way to fight poverty? Why did he not invest in the human deficit instead of paying down the national debt?
Cullen a défendu l'approche équilibrée du gouvernement consistant à rembourser la dette, réduire les impôts et investir dans des programmes sociaux et économiques, en faisant valoir que le remboursement de la dette offre une plus grande flexibilité à l'avenir.
Cullen defends the government's balanced approach of paying down debt, cutting taxes, and investing in programs but does not address the specific question about reindexing transfers to provinces and municipalities or the human deficit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, this party and this government believe in a balanced approach. Paying down debt is a good thing because it gives us greater flexibility moving forward. We are able to redeploy resources into social and economic programs, cutting taxes more and a whole host of things. We are doing everything to the very best of our ability. We are cutting taxes. We are paying down debt. We are investing in important social and economic programs. We will continue this balanced approach.
Godin a demandé au premier ministre de préciser quelle part des 15 milliards de dollars de surplus sera consacrée spécifiquement à réduire l'écart entre les riches et les pauvres.
Godin references a specific $15 billion surplus confirmed by the Prime Minister and asks a pointed, measurable question about how much will specifically go toward narrowing the gap between rich and poor.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if this is a balanced approach, they could have fooled me. Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed, before the Minister of Finance, that the government will have a $15 billion surplus. But Canadians face a huge deficit, a growing gap between the rich and the poor. It is a serious problem. Will the Prime Minister tell us how much of the $15 billion will go specifically towards narrowing this gap?
Chrétien a déclaré que le gouvernement transfère depuis plusieurs années des montants importants aux familles les plus pauvres du Canada par l'entremise de milliards de dollars en crédits d'impôt pour enfants, ce qui, selon lui, a réduit l'écart entre les riches et les pauvres.
Chrétien references billions of dollars in child tax credits for poor families as narrowing the rich-poor gap but does not provide the specific dollar amount from the $15 billion surplus directed toward this goal.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member should recognize that the government has, for several years, been transferring significant amounts to Canada's poorest families through billions of dollars in child tax credits, for poor families, an unprecedented move. This has narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada.
Hearn a demandé quel message l'approbation gouvernementale de la vente des Canadiens de Montréal à un entrepreneur américain envoie aux jeunes Canadiens et aux Canadiens en général.
Hearn's question is largely rhetorical and performative, ending with a joke about selling the Minister of Industry; while it raises a legitimate concern about the sale of the Montreal Canadiens it lacks specificity about what policy response is sought.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for culture and heritage. The Minister of Industry has given government approval to sell the fabled Montreal Canadiens to a United States entrepreneur. Despite assurances to keep the team in Canada for a short period, it is still a sale of one of Canada's most prized possessions. What message does this send to Canadian youth and Canadians generally? What could be more Canadian than les Canadiens de Montréal? Why can we not just sell the Minister of Industry instead?
Copps a déploré l'élimination de la dernière équipe canadienne des séries éliminatoires de la LNH et a soutenu que l'investissement dans le hockey jeunesse doit commencer dans les arénas locaux plutôt qu'au niveau de la LNH.
Copps does not address the sale of the Montreal Canadiens or explain what heritage policy applies, instead making general remarks about hockey and local rinks, which is tangential to the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for any hon. member who has been watching the NHL I think probably one of the saddest moments was when the final Canadian team was knocked out last week. We have exported an incredible asset, Canada's hockey. However, in terms of investment in our youth, we have to start at the local hockey rinks. We have to start in Corner Brook. We have to start in St. John's. We have to start in Gander. That is where they build the dreams. They do not build them once they reach the NHL.
Hearn a cité une décision de la Cour de l'Ontario rendue par le juge Romain Pitt selon laquelle une famille de Toronto ne représentait aucune menace pour la société canadienne et que sa déportation résultait d'une erreur administrative liée au double paiement des frais de demande sans remboursement, et a demandé à la ministre d'intervenir pour le bien des enfants.
Hearn cites a specific court ruling by Justice Romain Pitt, notes two Canadian-born children, identifies an administrative foul up including double payment of fees without refund, and asks for ministerial action — though the question is cut off before the full ask is stated.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the immigration department is hiding something even more un-Canadian than selling the Habs. Immigration Canada is preparing to deport a Toronto couple with four children, two of whom were born in Canada, to an uncertain future. This is despite the fact that an Ontario court judge, Romain Pitt, stated that this family was no threat to Canadian society and that this was as a result of an administrative foul up. The judge went on to state that the application fees were paid twice and they still had not received a refund. For the sake of the children, will the minister—
Caplan a refusé de discuter de cas individuels, mais s'est engagée à ce que personne ne soit déporté pour une erreur administrative de 50 dollars pendant qu'elle est ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration, tout en précisant que les demandeurs d'asile déboutés et les personnes en séjour irrégulier ayant bénéficié de garanties procédurales sont effectivement déportés.
Caplan gives a firm commitment that no one gets deported over a $50 administrative error while she is minister, which partially addresses the case, but she explicitly declines to speak to individual cases and pivots to a general defence of deportation policy for failed refugee claimants.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, while I do not speak to individual cases I do read the newspaper and I can assure the member and all members of the House that no one gets deported over a $50 administrative error, not while I am Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However people who are failed refugee claimants and have had full due process, people who come to Canada and overstay visitors visas, have had due process and are queue jumpers do get deported but only after due process in Canada.
Mayfield a cité la décision du juge Ted Malone en Saskatchewan selon laquelle le gouvernement fédéral ne peut pas poursuivre l'Église anglicane pour partager les coûts des poursuites liées aux pensionnats, et a demandé au gouvernement de régler ces poursuites maintenant pour aider les anciens élèves et économiser des milliards aux contribuables.
Mayfield cites a specific court ruling by Justice Ted Malone in Saskatchewan with a specific finding, and asks a clear policy question about settling residential school lawsuits now, grounding it in the accountability of saving taxpayers billions versus paying lawyers forever.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has lost an important test case involving residential schools. Yesterday in Saskatchewan, Justice Ted Malone ruled that the federal government could not go after the Anglican Church to help pay the costs of lawsuits brought against it by former residential school students. Will the government settle these lawsuits now and not only help former students who have suffered years of hardship but also save Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars by settling these lawsuits now rather than later? It has the choice of paying the victims now or paying the lawyers forever.
Gray a reconnu que la décision judiciaire est une décision de première instance fondée sur ses propres faits et a déclaré que le gouvernement s'efforce de parvenir à des règlements équitables pour les victimes, les Églises et les contribuables canadiens.
Gray acknowledges the court decision, notes it is one trial-level decision on its own facts, and says the government is working toward fair settlements — which engages the question but provides no specifics on timeline, scope, or what settlements look like.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the court case in question is one decision at the trial level. It stands on its own facts, but I say to the hon. member that we are moving to work out settlements in a way that will be fair, above all, to the victims, to the churches, and to Canadian taxpayers. I look forward to having my hon. friend's support for these continuing efforts.
Mayfield a réitéré que le tribunal de la Saskatchewan a statué que c'est le gouvernement, et non les Églises, qui est responsable des élèves des pensionnats, et a de nouveau demandé au gouvernement de régler ces poursuites maintenant pour économiser l'argent des contribuables et aider les anciens élèves à commencer à guérir.
Mayfield presses the specific point from the Saskatchewan ruling that responsibility lies with the government not the churches, reinforces urgency with reference to thousands of former students struggling to survive, and repeats a clear ask to settle now.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has always been the legal guardian of every residential school student. It has frequently ignored this responsibility and continues to ignore its responsibility while dithering in the courts. Thousands of former students are struggling just to survive. The Saskatchewan court has ruled that it is the government, not the churches, that has responsibility. It is a responsibility it cannot cast off. Will the government settle these lawsuits now, save Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars and help former students begin the process of healing?
Gray a déclaré que la décision de la Saskatchewan ne s'applique pas à l'ensemble du spectre des cas et n'est qu'une décision de première instance, a nié que le gouvernement temporise, et a affirmé qu'il travaille activement avec les Églises en vue de règlements.
Gray disputes the premise of the question by characterizing the Saskatchewan ruling as not applying across the whole spectrum of cases, accuses Mayfield of using unsuitable premises and politicizing the issue, and offers only the vague assurance that the government is working actively with the churches.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has finally slipped into the Alliance trap of having unsuitable premises. The case in question is not one that applies across the whole spectrum of cases. It is only one case at the trial division, but we are working to move toward settlements. We are not dithering. We are working actively with the churches. My hon. friend should work with me in expediting the issue instead of trying to politicize the issue.
Comment le ministre peut-il se prétendre chef de file mondial sur les technologies de reproduction alors qu'il a laissé les recommandations de la commission Baird en suspens pendant sept ans et qu'il vient de déposer un projet de loi qui reporte toute décision d'encore un an?
The question cites a specific event (Geneva), a specific body (Baird commission), a specific delay (seven years), and a specific claim (draft bill delaying decisions another year), with an implicit but identifiable accountability ask about the contradiction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Geneva, the Minister of Health put forward the idea of drafting an international convention to ban reproductive technologies such as human cloning. How can the minister claim to be a world leader with respect to reproductive technologies, when we know that he allowed the recommendations of the Baird commission to languish for seven years before recently introducing a draft bill, which will put off any decision in this regard for yet another year?
Le ministre par intérim a indiqué que le ministre de la Santé travaille avec ses homologues mondiaux pour élaborer une convention interdisant le clonage, pratique que le gouvernement appuie.
The answer acknowledges the minister's Geneva initiative and restates government support for banning cloning, but does not address the seven-year delay or the contradiction at the heart of the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said that because of the importance of cloning, not only to Canada but to the rest of the world, he would be working with his colleagues across the globe to prepare and look at developing a convention among governments prohibiting this practice, one which we support as a government and I am sure all members of the House support.
Étant donné le large consensus au Canada en faveur de l'interdiction du clonage humain, pourquoi le gouvernement ne présente-t-il pas rapidement un projet de loi à cet effet plutôt que de mener une autre année de consultations?
The question notes a broad consensus in Canada and makes a clear ask (introduce a bill to ban human cloning quickly), but frames it with some rhetorical framing about pointless consultations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that there is a broad consensus in Canada that human cloning should be banned, and another year of consultations is perfectly pointless. If the government seriously wishes to ban human cloning, why does it not move quickly to introduce a bill with that in mind?
Le ministre a soutenu que la question n'est pas partisane et nécessite une large consultation auprès des Canadiens à tous les paliers avant de procéder à une loi.
The answer defends the consultation process and appeals to the importance of the issue, but does not address why a bill targeting only the ban cannot be introduced quickly given the stated consensus.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious because of the importance of the issue that it is not a political or partisan issue but one that needs a lot of study and thought by Canadians in general. The objective of the draft piece of legislation and the proposal is to get input from all Canadians at the provincial level, at the municipal level, and at the first nation level. We would then go ahead with a consensus in the country on something as important as cloning of human beings.
Compte tenu d'un rapport cinglant sur la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et d'une réprimande du vérificateur général en 1998, pourquoi la présidente de la Commission part-elle en Indonésie pour un voyage coûteux plutôt que de travailler sur un plan d'action?
The question cites a specific recent report, references a 1998 auditor general finding, and asks a concrete and specific question about why the chief commissioner is travelling to Indonesia instead of addressing the plan of action.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a scathing report on the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been released, indicating that the commission is nearing collapse due to bitter infighting and turmoil. It is not the first time that the commission has come under indictment. In 1998 the auditor general rapped the commission for what it called a slew of problems. The chief commissioner says she has a plan of action to address the concerns. Could the minister tell the House why the chief commissioner is off to Indonesia on another of her well-known expensive junkets rather than working on a plan of action in Canada?
La ministre a salué la Commission pour avoir commandé l'étude sur le milieu de travail, précisé qu'elle examine les recommandations de l'ancien juge Gérard La Forest et indiqué qu'elle travaillera avec Mme Falardeau-Ramsay.
The minister engages the topic of the report and mentions the La Forest committee recommendations, but does not address the specific question about the chief commissioner's travel to Indonesia.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Canadian Human Rights Commission for recognizing that it has a problem internal to the commission and to its management. I certainly commend it for initiating the workplace study, the report of which we became aware late last week. Let me reassure everyone in the House that we take the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission very seriously. I am reviewing the recommendations of former Justice Gérard La Forest and his committee. They made recommendations for structural change. We are looking seriously at those and I will be working with Madam Falardeau-Ramsay and others to ensure—
Compte tenu des conclusions du rapport indiquant que la direction de la Commission devrait se concentrer sur la promotion des droits de la personne au Canada plutôt que sur des voyages à l'étranger, la ministre demandera-t-elle immédiatement à la présidente de rentrer au pays?
The question cites a specific finding from the report about leadership concentrating on promoting human rights at home, notes the suspension of a senior lawyer, and makes a concrete ask (advise the chief commissioner to return).
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one of the findings of the recent report said that the commission leadership should concentrate on promoting human rights in Canada rather than on taking trips abroad. The only action thus far was the suspension of a senior lawyer who stated that the commission had lost its moral authority to act on cases. Will the minister immediately advise the chief commissioner to come home, stay at home and address this report's scathing indictment?
La ministre a dit avoir pleinement confiance que la haute direction de la Commission répondra aux préoccupations relevées dans l'étude sur le milieu de travail et s'est engagée à travailler avec la Commission pour qu'elle soit fonctionnelle et efficace.
The minister expresses confidence in senior management and pledges to work with the commission but does not address whether she will advise the chief commissioner to return from abroad or the suspension of the senior lawyer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that the senior management of the Canadian Human Rights Commission will address the serious concerns identified in the workplace study released last week. Let me again reassure the House that I will be working with the human rights commission to ensure that we have a functioning, effective and efficient commission that can concentrate on protecting the rights of all Canadians.
Le ministre de la Défense nationale pourrait-il expliquer comment le programme Officership 2020 aidera les officiers des Forces canadiennes à relever les défis complexes en matière de sécurité mondiale prévus d'ici 2020?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that frames a policy context and asks the minister to describe the Officership 2020 program with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the global security situation is expected to be even more complex by the year 2020. Pockets of political instability are multiplying and disputes over human rights, arms control and economic reforms involve many nations and international bodies. If Canada is to function well in this unstable environment the full range of military, political, diplomatic and economic expertise and resources will be needed, including a strong officer corps. Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House how the Officership 2020 program will assist the officers of the Canadian forces to meet these challenges?
Le ministre a décrit Officership 2020 comme un plan directeur pour le leadership et le développement professionnel, soulignant un programme d'amélioration personnelle portant le remboursement des frais de scolarité de 5 000 $ à 20 000 $ et 19 millions de dollars supplémentaires pour les études supérieures.
The minister provides specific details including the personal enhancement program, the increase in reimbursement from $5,000 to $20,000, and the additional $19 million for post-graduate work, offering substantive information.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Officership 2020 is a new blueprint for leadership and professional development for the Canadian forces. In fact our aim is to help make the Canadian forces into a learning organization. To that end we are putting a number of new programs in place: for example, a personal enhancement program that will increase the amount of reimbursement for educational courses from $5,000 up to $20,000, not just for officers but for all ranks of the Canadian forces. An additional $19 million is going into post-graduate work as well. All together we are helping to prepare our officers for the 21st century.
Pourquoi le ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration expulse-t-il la famille Sklarzyk, composée de six personnes et originaire de Pologne, alors que la raison apparente est un paiement insuffisant de 50 $?
The question grounds itself in specific facts about a named family (Sklarzyk), a specific administrative error ($50 underpayment), and asks a clear and direct accountability question about why the family is being deported.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration seems intent on deporting a family of six back to Poland. Mr. Sklarzyk filled out all the correct paperwork in his family's bid for refugee status and even paid what he thought was the full fee for entering Canada. In fact he actually underpaid his fee by $50. Two months ago the department of immigration notified them that they were being deported. I would like to ask the minister of immigration why Mr. Sklarzyk and his family are being deported.
La ministre a indiqué qu'elle ne peut pas discuter du dossier sans un formulaire de consentement et une autorisation au titre de la loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, et a nié que quiconque soit expulsé à cause d'une erreur administrative de 50 $.
The minister invokes privacy legislation as a reason she cannot fully answer, deflects with a general claim that no one is deported for a $50 administrative error, and pivots to supporting due process and removal of failed claimants.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to give full details of the case if the member would give me a consent form and a release under privacy legislation. Until he does that I cannot answer his question as fully as I would like. I can tell him this: No one is deported from Canada because of a $50 administrative error. I am pleased however to hear that he and his party support due process. I also hope that they support our ability to be able to remove those people who are failed refugee claimants, those who have no reasonable right to stay in Canada and have had due process.
Étant donné que la famille Sklarzyk est arrivée en 1994, a deux enfants nés au Canada, aucun antécédent criminel et une petite entreprise, n'est-ce pas le genre de famille que le Canada souhaite garder?
The question adds specific facts (arrival in 1994, two Canadian-born children, no criminal record, small company started), but shifts to a rhetorical ask about whether this family represents the kind of people Canada wants.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, these people came from Poland in 1994 initially on a refugee claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Two of their four children are Canadian born. There is no record of any illegal activity. Mr. Sklarzyk has even started a small company in Canada. I find it impossible to believe that the minister is less intent on deporting criminals than innocent families. Is the Sklarzyk family not the kind of people we want to bring into Canada?
La ministre a invoqué le projet de loi C-11 comme permettant le renvoi plus rapide des criminels et a offert d'examiner les cas individuels faisant l'objet de représentations, se disant prête à écouter si quelqu'un devrait avoir une autre chance.
The minister references Bill C-11 to address criminal removals but does not engage with the specific facts of the Sklarzyk case, instead offering a general offer to review individual representations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that Bill C-11 in fact expedites and allows us to remove criminals, those who have committed serious crimes in Canada and those who are inadmissible to Canada because of criminal activity, even faster. I will say to the member opposite that if he or any member of the House wants to make representation on an individual case where there is concern, I am always happy to share all the facts of the case and review that case to ensure that no one is improperly removed from this country. If they should be given another opportunity, I am certainly prepared to hear that.
Compte tenu d'une lettre du 9 mai du ministre québécois des Transports soulignant que le gouvernement fédéral a annoncé plus de 3 milliards de dollars pour les infrastructures routières du Québec sans mentionner la route 50, combien le ministre est-il prêt à y investir?
The question cites a specific letter from the Quebec Minister of Transport dated May 9, references a $3 billion campaign commitment, and asks a concrete question about funding for Highway 50.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on May 9, the Quebec Minister of Transport wrote to his federal counterpart as follows: During the last election campaign, your government announced investments in excess of $3 billion for Quebec highway infrastructures. There was not even a mention of completing Highway 50. Can the minister make a commitment on Highway 50 and can he tell us how much money he is prepared to put into it, given the importance this project holds for the people of the Outaouais?
Le ministre a cité 100 millions de dollars investis dans la route 50 au cours des 30 dernières années et un projet actuel de 11 millions de dollars pour son prolongement, affirmant que le gouvernement fédéral fait sa part.
The minister cites $100 million over 30 years and an $11 million extension project, which is relevant context, but does not address whether Highway 50 will receive funding from the $3 billion commitment referenced in the letter.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, over the past 30 years, we have invested $100 million in Highway 50 in Quebec. There is now an $11 million project for the extension of this highway. It is obvious that the federal government is really doing its part in constructing this country's highways.
Le solliciteur général pourrait-il indiquer à la Chambre quels résultats les Canadiens peuvent attendre de la GRC compte tenu des outils et des augmentations budgétaires accordés pour lutter contre le blanchiment d'argent?
This is a government-backbench softball that recites government achievements and asks an open-ended question about what results Canadians can expect, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last year the federal government provided a host of tools to the RCMP to fight money laundering. It gave it a significant budget increase. It gave it tools. We also adopted money laundering legislation. Could the solicitor general tell us what results Canadians can expect from the RCMP, our national police force, with what it has been given?
Le ministre a souligné qu'au moment même où il parlait, la GRC tenait une conférence de presse à Montréal sur une opération majeure visant à démanteler trois organisations criminelles internationales spécialisées dans le trafic de drogues et le blanchiment d'argent.
The minister provides a timely and specific answer referencing an ongoing RCMP news conference in Montreal about dismantling three international criminal organizations specializing in drug trafficking and money laundering.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as we speak the RCMP is holding another news conference in Montreal to highlight the conclusions of a major police operation aimed at dismantling illegal activities of three international criminal organizations specializing in drug trafficking and money laundering. This again highlights that when we give police forces the tools to do the job they do the job.
Le Président a attiré l'attention de la Chambre sur la présence de visiteurs à la tribune et les députés ont exprimé leur approbation.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.
Mme Cheryl Gallant (Alliance canadienne) a invoqué un rappel au Règlement pour corriger ce qu'elle a qualifié d'affirmation inexacte de la ministre du Patrimoine canadien, qui avait utilisé son nom deux fois à la Chambre et laissé entendre que l'Alliance canadienne avait des points de vue divergents au sein de son caucus sur le Musée des anciens combattants, précisant que le caucus était en accord.
- Canadian Alliance Ms. Cheryl Gallant
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, not only did the Minister of Canadian Heritage use my name twice in the House, she incorrectly stated facts. She made inference that the Canadian Alliance had conflicting views within the caucus on the point of the War Veterans Museum. I wish to say to that we do agree.
M. Stan Dromisky (Lib.) a demandé et obtenu le consentement unanime pour retirer le projet de loi C-300, une loi modifiant le Code criminel concernant le port de décorations de guerre, de l'ordre de priorité. Don Boudria s'est également levé pour désigner le jeudi 17 mai comme jour désigné.
- Lib Mr. Stan Dromisky
- Some hon. members
- Lib Don Boudria
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent of the House to have Bill C-300, an act to amend the criminal code, wearing of war decorations, standing in my name on the order of precedence withdrawn and the order discharged.
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to designate Thursday, May 17, an allotted day.