Résumé de la séance
- La législation sur la sécurité aérienne a dominé les premiers échanges, le gouvernement confirmant que le projet de loi serait déposé le lendemain après ne pas l'avoir présenté comme prévu.
- La suspension du journaliste Normand Lester par la SRC a suscité de répétées questions du Bloc Québécois sur l'existence de pressions gouvernementales pour promouvoir l'unité canadienne, la ministre du Patrimoine canadien refusant d'intervenir.
- Les amendements au projet de loi C-36 sur la lutte contre le terrorisme ont été débattus, les partis d'opposition soutenant que les certificats ministériels et les restrictions imposées au commissaire à l'information constituaient une mainmise injustifiée sur le pouvoir.
- Le premier ministre a réaffirmé l'objectif du Canada de signer l'accord de Kyoto, prenant ses distances avec des propos du ministre de l'Industrie laissant entendre que le Canada pourrait ne pas respecter ses engagements.
- L'état de la flotte de transport militaire du Canada a été mis en cause, l'opposition alléguant que les appareils Hercules cloués au sol nuisaient à l'opération Apollo; le ministre de la Défense nationale a contesté cette interprétation.
- Les surplus du fonds d'assurance-emploi estimés à 8 milliards de dollars ont suscité des critiques du Bloc Québécois et du NPD, qui ont remis en question le niveau des cotisations et la suffisance du soutien aux travailleurs mis à pied dans le secteur forestier.
Le premier ministre a pris un engagement gouvernemental concret de signer l'accord de Kyoto et a précisé l'état des négociations à Bonn et à Marrakech, clarifiant que les propos antérieurs du ministre de l'Industrie ne reflétaient pas la politique officielle.
The question cites a specific two-year-old ministerial promise to add sexual orientation to hate propaganda laws within months, names a specific triggering incident (the beating in Fredericton), and references a fresh named murder victim (Aaron Webster) and the method of killing, making a clear and time-bound accountability ask.
La réponse complète du premier ministre — « Ce sera peut-être demain » — n'offrait aucune explication sur les raisons pour lesquelles le projet de loi promis sur la sécurité aérienne n'avait pas été déposé ce jour-là et ne donnait aux Canadiens aucune information substantielle.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Stockwell Day a demandé si des agents de sûreté à bord figureraient dans le projet de loi sur la sécurité aérienne — ni le premier ministre ni le ministre des Transports n'ont répondu directement à cette question.
- M. Brian Fitzpatrick a demandé si un employé de la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié avait été suspendu dans l'attente de l'enquête de la GRC — la ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration n'a ni confirmé ni infirmé ce fait.
- M. Peter MacKay a demandé quelles preuves la ministre de la Justice possédait que la divulgation en vertu des lois sur l'accès à l'information et la protection des renseignements personnels avait compromis la sécurité des Canadiens ou des alliés — la ministre n'a fourni aucune preuve à cet égard.
- Le très hon. Joe Clark a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement avait ignoré les recommandations unanimes du comité sénatorial spécial en faveur d'un comité de surveillance indépendant dans le cadre de la législation antiterroriste — la ministre de la Justice n'a pas répondu à cette recommandation.
- M. Rahim Jaffer a demandé si la ministre de l'Immigration annoncerait des mesures pour détenir les demandeurs d'asile non documentés jusqu'à la vérification de leur identité et de leurs antécédents — la ministre a rejeté la prémisse sans proposer de mesure concrète de remplacement.
Day a demandé pourquoi la législation sur la sécurité aérienne promise n'avait pas été déposée comme prévu et qui en était responsable.
The question references a specific government signal about legislation expected that day but frames it with rhetorical 'nervous nellie' language and a compound vague ask about who is responsible.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, during times of national urgency, it is the role of the federal government to send signals of confidence to its citizens. The government has not done that on any file that it has handled since September 11. The government gave a very clear indication yesterday that we would see legislation today related to airline security. Somehow during the night someone pulled the plug on that legislation. It is not here today. Who is the nervous nellie over there? Is it the Prime Minister or is it the minister in charge?
Chrétien a simplement dit que cela pourrait être demain, sans plus d'explication.
The Prime Minister's single-sentence reply that it 'might be tomorrow' is technically responsive in the narrowest sense but provides no substantive explanation or commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it might be tomorrow.
Day a demandé au premier ministre de confirmer par oui ou non si le nouveau projet de loi sur la sécurité aérienne serait déposé le lendemain.
A focused yes/no question demanding a firm commitment on whether the airline safety bill would be tabled the following day, which is a clear and specific accountability ask.
Texte source
That is very assuring to Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure us that we will have the new airline safety bill tomorrow? Yes or no?
Chrétien a répondu 'sûrement demain', fournissant un engagement minimal mais direct.
Chrétien gave a direct commitment — 'surely tomorrow' — though it lacks any detail about content or process.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, surely tomorrow.
Day a demandé au gouvernement d'expliquer la contradiction apparente entre le rejet des agents de sécurité à bord et le recours possible aux CF-18, et si le projet de loi inclurait des agents de sécurité.
The question identifies a real contradiction between statements on air marshals and CF-18s and asks whether the bill will include air marshals, but it is loaded with rhetorical framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting that on the question of air marshals, the minister has said that it is not the Canadian way to have that kind of security. However, in the same breath they have said there could be CF-18s flying around cities ready to knock down a passenger airline if there is a problem. At the same time they have said that CF-18s will not be equipped to go into Afghanistan. What is the Canadian way, when it comes to airline security? Will there be air marshals in that bill tomorrow or will there be CF-18s ready to knock down passenger airlines?
Chrétien a signalé que le leader parlementaire de Day avait déjà été informé que le projet de loi serait déposé demain, sans répondre au fond de la question.
Chrétien deflected entirely by noting that Day's House leader had already been informed of the bill's tabling date, not addressing the air marshals or CF-18 contradiction at all.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is very funny is that a few minutes ago his House leader was informed that the bill was to be tabled tomorrow.
Moore a demandé pourquoi la législation sur la sécurité du transport n'avait pas été déposée, alors que le gouvernement avait donné avis et demandé le consentement unanime de tous les partis.
Moore asks a specific procedural question about why the transport security legislation was not tabled after the government gave notice and sought unanimous consent, grounding it in an identifiable sequence of events.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, these flippant, arrogant non-answers by the Prime Minister do not instill the confidence that Canadians deserve. The transport minister gave notice to all parties in this House. The House leader from the government side asked for unanimous consent of all parties in this place to clear the slate so we could have this legislation in the House and we could address the serious issue of transport security legislation. Why is that not on the table? What happened?
Collenette a confirmé que l'avis avait été donné, dit que le projet de loi serait présenté demain sans préciser les raisons du retard, et a attaqué Moore pour avoir commenté un projet de loi qu'il n'avait pas lu.
Collenette acknowledged the notice was given, said the bill would come tomorrow 'for a number of reasons,' but did not specify those reasons and pivoted to attacking Moore for discussing bill contents he had not seen.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to speak for the House leader but I understand that he did give notice under the rules to hon. members that a bill may be coming forward today. Unfortunately for a number of reasons that bill will be introduced tomorrow. What I find ironic is the hon. member was prancing around outside the House announcing on CPAC what is in a bill. He had not even seen the bill. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? He is wrong.
Moore a accusé le ministre des Transports de mal gérer l'industrie aérienne et a demandé quand il déposerait une législation pour donner confiance aux Canadiens.
Moore's question is largely rhetorical and accusatory, blaming the minister for competition failures in multiple cities, with only a vague ask about when legislation will be tabled.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I was going on the transport minister's word. I will not make that mistake twice. The air industry in this country is in trouble because of the transport minister's actions. Competition is dead in Montreal, Toronto, St. John's and Halifax not because of the Midas touch but the lead touch of the transport minister. We need leadership from the transport minister. He is not introducing legislation today. There is a long weekend coming up. When is he going to show leadership, table legislation, do something to give confidence to the House and Canadians?
Collenette a mentionné les mesures de sécurité aéroportuaire déjà mises en place et expliqué que les modifications à la Loi sur l'aéronautique prévues pour l'année prochaine seraient présentées avant Noël, avec le dépôt du projet de loi demain.
Collenette listed security measures already taken at airports, referenced planned amendments to the Aeronautics Act being moved up before Christmas, and confirmed the bill would come tomorrow — partial but substantive.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member since September 11 has not looked at the substance of things that we have done. We have instituted much more rigorous security measures at our airports, security measures that work and are respected by the industry. I have said on a number of occasions publicly and in the House that there would be amendments to the Aeronautics Act that were planned for next year. We are bringing them forward before Christmas precisely to deal with some of the aspects that have come out of the tragic circumstances of September 11. The bill will be introduced tomorrow. I ask the hon. member to be patient.
Duceppe a demandé pourquoi le premier ministre, qui en 1995 affirmait que la SRC avait le mandat de promouvoir l'unité canadienne, refuse maintenant de dénoncer la censure dont est victime Normand Lester en invoquant l'indépendance de la société d'État.
Duceppe cites a specific November 12, 1995 statement by the Prime Minister and asks a pointed question about the inconsistency between past CBC intervention and current refusal to denounce the Normand Lester suspension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 1995, the Prime Minister stated that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had the mandate to promote Canadian unity, not provoke separation.
Hear, hear.
Let them clap, Mr. Speaker, and while they are at it, they should change the name, they should call it “The O Canada Broadcasting Corporation”. How can the Prime Minister who, following the referendum, did not hesitate to rein in the CBC in the name of Canadian unity now refuse to denounce the censorship of which Normand Lester is a victim by claiming that the crown corporation is independent?
Copps a déclaré que le gouvernement n'interviendrait pas dans les questions de personnel de la SRC, car cela constituerait de la censure.
Copps deflected entirely, arguing that government interference in CBC staffing would itself constitute censorship, without addressing the inconsistency with the 1995 intervention cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the Bloc Quebecois member would expect the government to make decisions regarding staffing at the CBC. If we were ever to interfere in such matters, we would be accused of censorship.
Duceppe a demandé si le refus du premier ministre de dénoncer le traitement réservé à Normand Lester par la SRC s'explique précisément parce que le livre de Lester ne correspond pas au mandat de promotion de l'unité canadienne que le gouvernement voudrait imposer à la SRC.
Duceppe invokes a named journalist (Peter Desbarats) and makes a specific causal argument about why the government refuses to denounce CBC's treatment of Normand Lester, asking the Prime Minister to confirm or deny it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister, not the aspiring prime minister. What I am asking is that they intervene, as they did following the referendum. Peter Desbarats, an important Canadian journalist, said that if Mr. Normand Lester had penned a book celebrating Canada's history, he would never have been suspended. I would add that, if Normand Lester's book had promoted Canadian unity, he would still be working. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the reason he is refusing to denounce the CBC's treatment of Normand Lester is precisely because what Mr. Lester did does not fit within the mandate of promoting Canadian unity that he would like to impose on CBC?
Copps a seulement déclaré que le gouvernement n'intervient pas dans les affaires de la SRC et n'a pas l'intention de le faire.
Copps gave a one-line non-answer restating that the government does not and will not interfere in CBC affairs, ignoring the specific argument and framing of the question entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc Quebecois wants the Government of Canada to interfere in the CBC's affairs. We do not interfere, nor will we.
Gauthier a demandé si l'attitude complaisante du gouvernement à l'égard de la décision de Radio-Canada équivaut à soutenir la suspension du journaliste Normand Lester, en la comparant à l'intervention du premier ministre au Musée de la civilisation.
Gauthier draws a pointed contrast between the government's intervention in the Museum of Civilization decision and its inaction on the Normand Lester suspension, asking whether their attitude amounts to supporting the suspension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the past, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made no bones about the fact that Radio-Canada should promote Canadian unity. Back then, it was not a serious matter. Last week, in the case of the Museum of Civilization, the Prime Minister saw to it that the decision be changed. Do the Prime Minister and his Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize that their complacent attitude regarding Radio-Canada's decision is tantamount to supporting the suspension of journalist Normand Lester?
Copps a déclaré que le gouvernement du Canada ne s'impliquera jamais dans les questions relatives à l'emploi d'un employé de Radio-Canada.
Copps gave a blanket one-sentence refusal to get involved in Radio-Canada employment issues, making no effort to address the Museum of Civilization comparison.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will never get involved in issues relating to the employment of a Radio-Canada employee.
Gauthier a demandé si le gouvernement utilise le livre de Normand Lester pour régler ses comptes avec le journaliste qui avait exposé le stratagème entre le gouvernement, Robert Guy Scully et les capsules Instants d'histoire.
Gauthier raises a conspiracy-framing question about whether the Normand Lester book is a pretext to settle scores over the Robert Guy Scully and Heritage Minutes affair, which is speculative and difficult to answer factually.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we will let those who are listening to our debates assess the quality of the answers provided. Is Normand Lester's book not a perfect opportunity for the government to settle its accounts with the journalist who exposed the scheme between the government, Robert Guy Scully and the Heritage Minutes ? Is the government not using Normand Lester's book to finally get at him?
Copps a noté que le livre de Normand Lester avait reçu le soutien du Conseil des arts du Canada selon son éditeur, laissant entendre que le gouvernement ne le ciblait pas.
Copps noted that Normand Lester's book received support from the Canada Council for the Arts according to its publisher, which is a factual point tangentially relevant to the idea that the government was targeting the book, but does not address the scheme allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to its publisher, Normand Lester's book got the support of the Canada Council for the Arts. Therefore, I am surprised that we would target Mr. Lester's book, considering that, according to his publisher, it received funding.
Blaikie a demandé si le ministre de l'Industrie parlait au nom du gouvernement lorsqu'il a laissé entendre que le Canada pourrait ne pas respecter ses engagements de Kyoto, et qui parle vraiment au nom du gouvernement sur l'accord de Kyoto.
Blaikie cites a specific ministerial statement by the Minister of Industry suggesting Canada might not keep its Kyoto commitments and asks the Prime Minister directly whether that reflects government policy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I am sure that many Canadians who want Canada to be an environmentally responsible member of the international community would be concerned that yesterday the Minister of Industry seemed to suggest that Canada is not going to keep its commitments on the Kyoto accord. I ask the Prime Minister, was the Minister of Industry speaking for the government when he made the suggestion that Canada might not keep its Kyoto commitments, or just who is speaking for the government when it comes to the Kyoto accord?
Chrétien a déclaré que le gouvernement a l'intention de signer l'accord de Kyoto, en citant les progrès réalisés à Bonn et à Marrakech et en notant que la question des exportations d'énergie propre et les consultations provinciales sont toujours en cours.
Chrétien addressed the Kyoto question with some factual context — progress at Bonn and Marrakesh, the unresolved clean energy export question, need to consult provinces — and affirmed the goal is to sign, but did not directly address what the Minister of Industry said.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has one policy that we all agree on. We want to and we hope that we will be able to sign the Kyoto agreement. The negotiations are not yet terminated. At the meeting in Bonn we made progress on some elements of it. We made more progress at the meeting in Marrakesh last week. The question of the export of clean energy has not been concluded yet. We have to consult with the provinces too, but we intend to go through the process. The goal is to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Blaikie a demandé au premier ministre de demander au ministre de l'Environnement et au ministre de l'Industrie de coordonner leur message à l'industrie pour dissiper le mythe d'une contradiction entre les engagements de Kyoto et la compétitivité.
Blaikie makes a substantive policy suggestion about coordinating the Environment and Industry ministers' messaging on Kyoto competitiveness but frames it as a request rather than a pointed accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell his colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry, to sit down together and come up with a program for communicating to industry that it can be competitive and friendly to the environment all at the same time, instead of sustaining the myth that somehow there is a contradiction between keeping our Kyoto commitments and a competitive industry in Canada?
Chrétien a plaisanté en disant que ce n'est pas un grand problème pour les deux ministres de communiquer puisqu'ils sont assis l'un à côté de l'autre à la Chambre.
Chrétien deflected with a quip that the two ministers are sitting next to each other in the House and can communicate easily, providing no substantive commitment or policy response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to do better than I am doing right now. They are sitting next to each other in the House of Commons so it is not a big problem for them to communicate.
Clark a demandé pourquoi les modifications au projet de loi antiterroriste empêchent explicitement le commissaire à l'information d'exercer ses fonctions normales, qualifiant cela de tentative de s'emparer du pouvoir pour limiter le contrôle parlementaire et les droits des Canadiens.
Clark identifies a specific provision in the anti-terrorism bill amendments and asks explicitly why the government does not allow the information commissioner to exercise his normal duties, grounding the question in a concrete legislative concern.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the name of security the government's amendments to the anti-terrorism bill put the civil rights of Canadians at serious and unnecessary risk. Those parts of the bill are not about Osama bin Laden. They are about shutting down the information commissioner and other officers of parliament. This is a power grab by the government to limit the power of parliament and to limit the rights of Canadians. Why explicitly does the government not allow the information commissioner to exercise his normal duties?
McLellan a cité le communiqué du commissaire à la protection de la vie privée louant les modifications comme protégeant les droits à la vie privée et maintenant la surveillance, sans répondre à la question spécifique sur le commissaire à l'information.
McLellan quoted the privacy commissioner's press release supporting the amendments, which is relevant context but does not address the specific question about the information commissioner's duties or why that officer's oversight was curtailed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member refers to officers of parliament. Let me read for the House and the right hon. member what one of those officers, the privacy commissioner, said today in a press release in relation to the amendments of yesterday: All existing privacy rights of Canadians remain fully safeguarded, the oversight role of the Privacy Commissioner remains intact, and even the issuance of certificates is closely circumscribed and subject to judicial review. He went on to say: Your action is a great victory for the privacy rights of all Canadians. You have reaffirmed on behalf of the Government of Canada that privacy is a fundamental human right--
Clark a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement a ignoré les recommandations unanimes du comité sénatorial spécial en faveur d'un comité de surveillance indépendant pour protéger les droits des Canadiens.
Clark asks a specific question about why the government ignored the unanimous recommendations of the special Senate committee for an independent oversight committee, grounding it in a concrete parliamentary process.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is not encouraging to have another watchdog of parliament muzzled. These provisions are one more example of the culture of secrecy which is the trademark of the government. The Prime Minister hides his agendas. His office interferes at APEC. He tried to conceal his phone call to the Business Development Corporation. Now the government seeks the power to extend secrecy in the name of international relations, security or defence. Why did the government ignore the unanimous recommendations of the special Senate committee for an independent oversight committee to protect the rights of Canadians?
McLellan a déclaré qu'ils ne créaient pas de nouvel agent du parlement, mais a cité l'approbation du commissaire à la protection de la vie privée et affirmé que la législation assure le plus haut degré de responsabilité politique, sans expliquer la décision concernant la recommandation du comité sénatorial.
McLellan returned again to the privacy commissioner's statement about privacy rights and asserted political accountability in the legislation, without addressing why the Senate committee's unanimous recommendation for an independent oversight committee was rejected.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me make it absolutely plain that while we are not creating a new officer of parliament, in relation to oversight I return to what the privacy commissioner said. He is an officer of parliament who in fact believes that we have continued to vindicate privacy as a fundamental human right even in times of gravest crisis. Far from being secretive in this legislation, I point out to the right hon. member that what we have done through our amendments and in the original legislation is attempt to ensure the highest degree of political accountability and--
Jaffer a demandé si la législation sur la sécurité aérienne inclurait des dispositions pour empêcher les personnes d'arriver aux aéroports canadiens sans documentation tout en demandant le statut de réfugié, citant environ 18 000 cas de ce type par année.
Jaffer cites a specific statistic — 18,000 people arriving without documentation annually — and asks a specific question about whether the airline safety legislation will include provisions to address this, though framed with rhetorical embellishment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, each year about 18,000 people arrive at this nation's airports without documentation. Somehow they get on a plane in another country and yet arrive here without papers and claim refugee status. If the government ever gets around to air safety legislation, will the minister ensure it has provisions to stop this mysterious cycle of disappearing papers?
Caplan a reconnu que le problème des arrivées sans documentation existe au Canada et dans d'autres pays et a cité l'ambassadeur Cellucci sur la nécessité de travailler à l'étranger avant que les gens ne montent à bord des avions, sans aborder ce que contiendrait la législation sur la sécurité aérienne.
Caplan acknowledged undocumented arrivals as a known problem shared by other countries and quoted Ambassador Cellucci about working overseas before people board planes, but did not address whether the air safety legislation would include relevant provisions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that people arrive in Canada who do not have proper documentation. In fact other countries have the same problem. Let me quote Ambassador Cellucci. He says that we need to work together overseas even before people get on airplanes. We are not saying that the United States and Canada should not continue to be countries that welcome immigrants, refugees or those seeking asylum. I agree with Ambassador Cellucci.
Jaffer a demandé si la ministre de l'Immigration annoncerait immédiatement des mesures pour détenir les demandeurs d'asile sans papiers jusqu'à ce que leur identité et leurs antécédents puissent être vérifiés.
Jaffer makes a specific ask — that the immigration minister announce measures to detain undocumented refugee claimants until identity and background can be verified — grounded in a security and legitimacy argument.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, then the minister should agree with the official opposition because that is exactly what we have been saying all along. Not only is the immigration minister risking national security. She is doing incredible damage to Canada's legitimate refugees. Those who abuse Canada's refugee system bring into question the legitimacy of all refugees. If the government will not include measures in air safety regulations, will the immigration minister immediately announce measures to detain undocumented refugee claimants until their identity and background can be verified?
Caplan a cité les obligations du Canada en vertu de la Convention de Genève de 1951, distingué entre le fait d'être sans papiers et celui de présenter un risque pour la sécurité, et précisé que la détention a lieu lorsque des preuves d'un risque pour la sécurité existent.
Caplan referenced Canada's obligations under the Geneva convention of 1951, distinguished between undocumented people and security risks, and said that when evidence of a security risk exists detentions do occur, partially addressing the question but not committing to new measures.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a proud signatory to the Geneva convention of 1951. We have an obligation to offer protection to those who are in genuine need. We know that some people come to Canada without documents. Some of those people are in genuine need of protection and others are not. It is wrong to acquaint undocumented people with automatically posing any kind of security risk. That is not true. That is why when we have evidence to suggest that someone poses a security risk we can and we do detain them.
Gagnon demande si la différence de traitement entre un producteur de Radio-Canada qui a participé au love-in de Montréal et Normand Lester, suspendu pour avoir écrit un livre, reflète le désir de la Société de se conformer aux souhaits du premier ministre concernant la défense de l'unité canadienne.
The question cites a specific 1995 incident involving a CBC producer at the Montreal love-in and contrasts it with Normand Lester's suspension, making a pointed accountability ask about differential treatment, though the causal link to the Prime Minister's wishes is speculative.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, a CBC producer took part in the Montreal love-in, held in violation of Quebec's referendum laws, without any repercussions, yet Normand Lester writes a book that has nothing to do with his job and is suspended. Journalistic ethics alone are not enough to justify the difference in treatment. Does the difference not lie instead in the Corporation's desire to comply with the wishes of the Prime Minister, who complained right after the referendum that it was not defending Canadian unity sufficiently?
Copps a répondu simplement « Non » sans aucune explication.
The minister's entire answer is a single word 'No,' which provides no substantive engagement with the specific comparison or accountability question raised.
Texte source
No, Mr. Speaker.
Gagnon demande si la suspension de Normand Lester est liée au fait que ses descriptions peu flatteuses de John A. Macdonald et de Mackenzie King ne cadrent pas avec la version du Canada diffusée par Robert Guy Scully et ses capsules Historica.
The question draws a specific comparison between Normand Lester's depictions of John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King and the content of Robert Guy Scully's Heritage Minutes, implying ideological interference, though the ask remains rhetorically framed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, is the problem with Normand Lester not connected to the fact that his somewhat unflattering depictions of John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King are not consistent with the somewhat watered down version of the Canada Information Office as broadcast by Robert Guy Scully and his Heritage Minutes ?
Copps a répondu simplement « Non » sans aucune explication.
The minister's entire answer is again a single word 'No,' with no substantive engagement with the specific allegation or comparisons cited.
Texte source
No, Mr. Speaker.
Fitzpatrick demande au ministre de confirmer si la GRC a perquisitionné le bureau du commissaire de la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié à Montréal dans le cadre d'une enquête pour corruption.
The question cites reports of an RCMP investigation into corruption at the Immigration and Refugee Board and asks a specific, verifiable yes/no question about whether the Montreal office was raided.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there are reports of an RCMP investigation into corruption charges with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Could the minister confirm that as part of this investigation the office of the Immigration and Refugee Board commissioner in Montreal has been raided by the RCMP?
Caplan affirme prendre au sérieux les allégations d'actes répréhensibles et que la GRC est appelée lorsqu'il y a des allégations, mais ne confirme ni ne nie la perquisition.
Caplan confirms that allegations trigger RCMP involvement but does not confirm or deny the specific raid, instead pivoting to a general principle about letting police do their job without political interference.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. I take very seriously, as does the government, any allegations of wrongdoing. That is why when there are allegations officers of the RCMP are called in. I would suggest to the hon. member that we let the police do its job and that we let it do it without political interference.
Fitzpatrick, citant des sources de l'opposition officielle, insiste pour savoir si le bureau du commissaire de la CISR a été perquisitionné et si un employé a été suspendu dans l'attente de l'enquête de la GRC.
The question presses with a more specific follow-up, citing opposition sources who say the raid occurred, and asks whether an employee has been suspended pending the RCMP investigation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, another statement of denial from a sad minister. Sources have told the official opposition that the office of the Immigration and Refugee Board commissioner has in fact been raided. Has an employee been suspended pending the outcome of the RCMP investigation?
Caplan décrit la CISR comme un organisme quasi judiciaire indépendant dont le président a le pouvoir d'agir en cas d'actes répréhensibles, et répète qu'il faut laisser la police faire son travail sans ingérence politique.
Caplan describes the IRB as a quasi-judicial independent body and repeats the point about letting police do their job, but does not address whether an employee was suspended.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board is a quasi-judicial independent body. The chair of that board has all the authority necessary to take appropriate action whenever there are suggestions of inappropriate behaviour or in fact wrongdoing. I would repeat again that it is up to the police to do its job. We should let it do its job without political interference.
Crête demande ce qu'il faut de plus à la ministre du Développement des ressources humaines pour agir, étant donné qu'elle possède déjà un rapport unanime et qu'un surplus de 8 milliards de dollars est anticipé dans le fonds d'assurance-emploi, dans le contexte de 5 000 pertes d'emplois dans l'industrie du bois d'œuvre.
The question cites specific figures (5,000 jobs, $8 billion surplus), names affected regions, and references a unanimous report in the minister's hands, making a pointed ask about when she will act.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the recent closings announced by large paper mills will result in the loss of 5,000 jobs in the softwood lumber industry. Thousands of workers will be affected in the Abitibi, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, North Shore, Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé regions. The Minister of Human Resources Development has a unanimous report in her hands, and an $8 billion surplus is anticipated in the employment insurance fund. What more does she need to take action?
Stewart dit que le gouvernement est préoccupé, qu'il a été en contact avec Abitibi et les travailleurs, s'attend à ce que la majorité soient admissibles aux prestations d'AE et espère que le gouvernement du Québec utilisera ses dollars de la partie II pour aider les individus.
Stewart acknowledges the concern, says she has been in touch with Abitibi specifically and with workers, and notes EI eligibility, but does not address the unanimous report or the $8 billion surplus directly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with these recent announcements and recognize the difficulties they will cause for those who may be facing layoffs. I can tell the hon. member that we have been in touch with Abitibi specifically and with workers. We want to make sure they have full access to the programs that exist through employment insurance. We anticipate the majority of them will be eligible for benefits and we hope the government of Quebec will be there with their part II dollars that are transferred from this government to assist individuals at this time.
Crête demande à la ministre d'admettre que lorsque des surplus de 8 milliards de dollars s'accumulent dans le fonds d'AE pour la seule année en cours et que les bénéfices totalisent 44 milliards de dollars, soit la protection est insuffisante, soit les cotisations sont trop élevées.
The question poses a pointed logical dilemma — either protection is inadequate or contributions are too high — grounded in specific figures of $8 billion surplus for this year and $44 billion total, but is framed as an admission request rather than a single sharp ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister may play the same tape as much as she wants but a fact remains. Will the minister admit that when surpluses of $8 billion are accumulated in an insurance fund for this year alone, and profits total $44 billion, either the protection provided is inadequate, or else contributions are too high?
Stewart dit que le gouvernement n'a jamais hésité à apporter des améliorations à l'AE et souligne que les projets pilotes sur les petites semaines sont devenus cette semaine un élément national du programme.
Stewart touts the small weeks pilot becoming national as evidence of improvement but does not engage with the specific logical dilemma or figures cited by Crête.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has never hesitated to make changes and improvements to the employment insurance system. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that just this week the small weeks pilots have become a national part of the employment insurance program to the applause of Canadians across the country, including seasonal workers in the hon. member's riding.
Sorenson demande si le solliciteur général approuve le transfert de Clinton Suzack, reconnu coupable du meurtre d'un policier, dans un établissement à sécurité minimale après seulement six ans d'une peine d'emprisonnement à perpétuité, soulignant que le juge qui a prononcé la peine, l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario et le chef libéral de l'Ontario croient tous que c'était une erreur.
The question names a specific individual (Clinton Suzack), cites the nature of his conviction, the duration served (six years of a life sentence), his transfer to a minimum-security institution, and references the sentencing judge, the Ontario legislature, and the Liberal leader of Ontario as opponents of the move, ending with a clear binary ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Clinton Suzack, a convicted cop killer, after serving only six years of a life sentence, was moved to country club fed where he can golf and fish without being monitored. It is still a prison but a liberal style prison. The sentencing judge believes this was wrong. The Ontario legislature believes this was wrong. Even the Liberal leader from the province of Ontario believes this was wrong. I have a simple question for the solicitor general. Does he condone such a move? Does he believe this is right or wrong?
MacAulay dit que Suzack se trouve dans un établissement à sécurité moyenne, qu'il ne peut pas discuter des détails de l'affaire et que le Service correctionnel du Canada a utilisé des outils fondés sur la recherche pour déterminer le placement, une décision qui n'est pas prise par des politiciens.
MacAulay clarifies that Suzack is in a medium security institution (correcting the question's characterization), notes that Correctional Service Canada used research-based tools, but declines to express a personal view and does not directly answer whether he believes the move was right or wrong.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the individual the hon. colleague is speaking about is in a medium security institution. Of course I cannot discuss the specifics of the case. Correctional Service Canada has evaluated his placing. Correctional Service Canada uses research based tools in order to decide where a person is based. It is not a decision made by politicians.
Sorenson demande au solliciteur général de s'assurer que justice est rendue pour le gendarme Joe MacDonald et de renvoyer Suzack dans un pénitencier à sécurité maximale.
The question names constable Joe MacDonald and makes a specific ask — return Suzack to maximum security — but is largely dominated by rhetorical framing about justice not being served and the solicitor general failing to embrace accountability.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, clearly the specifics of this case is that justice is not being served. Killers, especially those who have killed police officers, should be held accountable for their criminal actions, a concept that Correctional Service Canada is ignoring, a concept that the solicitor general has obviously failed to embrace. Will the solicitor general ensure that justice is served and that the life of constable Joe MacDonald, the Ontario police officer who was murdered in the line of duty, is properly honoured? Will he return Suzack to a maximum security penitentiary where he belongs?
MacAulay explique que les individus condamnés sont évalués et placés dans des établissements à sécurité maximale, moyenne ou minimale et font l'objet d'évaluations périodiques, précisant que c'est ce qui s'est passé dans ce cas.
MacAulay describes the general process of evaluation and periodic placement review but does not address the specific request to return Suzack to maximum security or engage with the case's particulars.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when individuals are convicted they are evaluated and placed in either maximum, medium or minimum institutions. After they are placed in an institution they are evaluated periodically and placed in the proper institution. That is what took place here.
Discepola demande quelles assurances le solliciteur général peut donner au grand chef Gabriel que la paix et l'ordre public seront maintenus à Kanesatake en tout temps, après que des coups de feu ont été tirés à la station de police mohawk.
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing the shooting at the Kanesatake Mohawk police station and Grand Chief Gabriel's request, inviting the Solicitor General to reassure rather than to be held accountable.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. During the past weekend shots were fired at the Kanesatake Mohawk police station and yesterday Grand Chief Gabriel asked the federal and provincial governments for support. What assurances could the Solicitor General of Canada give Grand Chief Gabriel that peace and public order will be maintained in Kanesatake at all times?
MacAulay dit que le gouvernement collabore étroitement avec le Québec et la communauté, prend en charge la part fédérale des coûts pour des policiers supplémentaires et appuiera toute demande raisonnable de ressources nécessaires à la sécurité publique à long terme.
MacAulay provides reasonably specific information: the government is covering the federal share of costs for additional police officers and will support reasonable requests for long-term public safety resources.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a serious look at Kanesatake. We are working very closely with the province of Quebec and the community. The community has asked us to cover costs for additional police officers in Kanesatake and I am pleased to say that we are able to cover the federal share. In addition, we will support any reasonable request for resources that are needed to provide public safety and security in the long term.
Godin demande si le premier ministre est d'accord avec le ministre des Finances sur l'utilisation de l'excédent de l'AE pour équilibrer les finances publiques, ou s'il est prêt à ordonner au ministre des Finances de supprimer la taxe sur les salaires imposée malgré un surplus de 8 milliards de dollars.
The question cites an $8 billion surplus, references the Minister of Finance's own public statement about the surplus being used to balance public finances, and asks a pointed either/or question directed at the Prime Minister, though the framing conflates two separate asks.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the Liberal government may ignore its commitment to reduce employment insurance contributions by 5 cents, even with an $8 billion surplus. In the past, the Minister of Finance clearly indicated that the surplus in the employment insurance fund was now used to balance public finances. My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the Minister of Finance or is he prepared to order his Minister of Finance to remove the payroll tax that he has been imposing for years?
Chrétien souligne que les taux de cotisation à l'AE ont été réduits chaque année depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir du gouvernement, passant de 3,07 $ à 2,25 $, et dit que le budget du ministre des Finances précisera la suite.
Chrétien provides a specific data point — the EI contribution rate fell from $3.07 to $2.25 since 1993 — and defers the specific question about the 5-cent reduction to the upcoming budget, which is a partial but relevant response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when we took office, the EI contribution rate for workers was $3.07. It has been reduced every year since. It is now $2.25 and we will see what the Minister of Finance will announce in his budget.
Robinson demande à la ministre de la Justice quand elle ajoutera enfin l'orientation sexuelle aux dispositions sur la propagande haineuse du Code criminel, citant sa promesse vieille de deux ans faite après une agression à Fredericton et le meurtre récent d'Aaron Webster, battu à mort avec un bâton de baseball.
The question cites a specific two-year-old ministerial promise to add sexual orientation to hate propaganda laws within months, names a specific triggering incident (the beating in Fredericton), and references a fresh named murder victim (Aaron Webster) and the method of killing, making a clear and time-bound accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice. Two years ago, after a young law student in Fredericton, New Brunswick was brutally beaten simply because he was gay, the minister promised to add sexual orientation to the criminal laws on hate propaganda and she said that she would do it within months. After last weekend's brutal murder of Aaron Webster, who was beaten to death by being repeatedly clubbed with a baseball bat, when will the minister finally move to ensure that she adds gays and lesbians to the protections of the hate propaganda section of the criminal code?
McLellan dit qu'elle soulèvera la question avec ses collègues provinciaux et territoriaux lors d'une réunion la semaine prochaine et qu'elle procédera s'il y a un accord général à cet effet.
McLellan says she will raise the matter with provincial and territorial colleagues at a meeting next week and will proceed if there is general agreement, but does not commit to a timeline or address why the two-year-old promise was not fulfilled.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general and I will be meeting with our provincial and territorial colleagues next week and this is a matter I will take up with them. We had the opportunity to discuss it some time ago but, after consultation with my provincial and territorial colleagues, if there is general agreement to proceed, we will do so.
MacKay demande pourquoi la ministre est prête à soumettre les pouvoirs policiers accrus de la Loi C-36 à une clause de révision quinquennale, mais refuse de soumettre ses propres certificats ministériels — qui permettent de cacher des informations aux Canadiens — aux mêmes normes.
The question references specific provisions of Bill C-36 (a five-year re-enactment clause on police powers and ministerial certificates), raises a pointed contrast about the sunset clause not applying to the minister's own information-hiding powers, but is densely rhetorical and somewhat hard to parse.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the controversial Bill C-36 received some minor watered down changes including a five year re-enactment clause on police powers, yet the sun will not set on the ability of the minister to hide information from Canadians. An injection of judicial review for ministerial certificates is eclipsed by the controversial costly process. The Government of Canada still can deny the information for broad and potentially political reasons. Why is the minister prepared to sunset increased police powers yet stubbornly refuses to subject her own information hiding to the same standards?
McLellan cite la déclaration du commissaire à la protection de la vie privée selon laquelle tous les droits existants à la vie privée des Canadiens restent pleinement protégés, le rôle de surveillance du commissaire à la protection de la vie privée reste intact et les certificats ministériels sont étroitement encadrés et soumis à un contrôle judiciaire.
McLellan quotes the privacy commissioner's assessment of the legislation rather than directly addressing the asymmetry between the sunset clause on police powers and the absence of equivalent limits on ministerial certificates.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than come back to what the privacy commissioner said in relation to the legislation. He said: All existing privacy rights of Canadians remain fully safeguarded, the oversight role of the Privacy Commissioner remains intact, and even the issuance of certificates is closely circumscribed and subject to judicial review. I would like to know what the hon. member's problem is.
MacKay demande quelles preuves la ministre a que la divulgation en vertu des lois sur l'accès à l'information et la protection des renseignements personnels a compromis la sécurité des Canadiens ou de leurs alliés, laissant entendre que les certificats ministériels visent davantage la protection politique que la protection des Canadiens.
The question asks for specific evidence that disclosure under access and privacy acts has compromised the security of Canadians or allies, which is a legitimate and answerable evidentiary ask, though it is embedded in considerable rhetorical framing about political protection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that another parliamentary watchdog has been brought to heel just like the ethics counsellor. Canadians should be alarmed as ministerial certificates will allow the cabinet to clamp down on all forms of government disclosure. Institutional and individual accountability will suffer and this further concentration of executive powers signals even more flouting of transparency and openness. What evidence does the minister have that the disclosure under access and privacy acts have compromised the security of Canadians or our allies? Is this not more about political protection than protection of Canadians?
McLellan dit qu'elle trouve la question incroyable étant donné que MacKay a voté en faveur du projet de loi en comité la veille au soir.
McLellan does not address the evidentiary question at all, instead responding with the ad hominem observation that MacKay himself voted in favour of the legislation at committee the previous evening.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's question quite incredible in light of the fact that I do believe the hon. member, last evening at committee, voted in favour of the legislation.
Pallister demande si la véritable raison pour laquelle le Canada ne peut pas lancer l'Opération Apollo est que les deux tiers des aéronefs Hercules du Canada sont cloués au sol et ne peuvent pas voler.
The question cites a specific claim that two-thirds of Canada's Hercules transport aircraft are grounded and references the minister's statement to secretary Donald Rumsfeld, making a pointed causal link between grounded aircraft and the inability to deploy for Operation Apollo, though it is partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Unbelievably, Mr. Speaker, fully two-thirds of Canada's Hercules transport aircraft are not aircraft at all because they cannot fly. They are grounded. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence told secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington that our troops will be sent “when they are ready”. Well they are ready but their aircraft are not and the government over there is to blame. Is not the real reason we cannot get Operation Apollo off the ground is that we cannot get our transport aircraft off the ground?
Eggleton dit que ce n'est pas le cas, que la coalition travaille à définir les détails du déploiement de 1 000 personnes en Afghanistan et que le Canada a déjà des aéronefs et des navires qui contribuent à l'Opération Apollo.
Eggleton denies the premise, says other assets (ships and aircraft) are already contributing to Operation Apollo, but does not directly address the claim about the number of grounded Hercules aircraft.
Texte source
That is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. The coalition is attempting to work out the details of the operation for the 1,000 person deployment that will go to Afghanistan for humanitarian aid purposes. We do have aircraft over there that are really quite useful. We have ships over there, so Operation Apollo is in full swing. Canadians are making a contribution to the coalition effort in the fight against terrorism.
Pallister soutient que le refus du gouvernement de remplacer les vieux avions de transport militaires est embarrassant pour les troupes canadiennes et la réputation du Canada, citant les trois tentatives nécessaires pour atteindre le Timor oriental avec un seul avion et la description par le colonel Michael Ward de la capacité de transport aérien au Kosovo comme « proche de la catastrophe ».
The question cites specific episodes (three tries to reach East Timor with one plane, colonel Michael Ward's characterization of airlift in Kosovo as 'near catastrophe') but is largely a rhetorical indictment rather than a single answerable question, and does not conclude with a clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, aircraft and ships are fine if aircraft can fly, but the fact of the matter is ours cannot and the government does not seem to get it. Our air transport fleet is so frail that it took us three tries to reach East Timor with just one plane. It is no secret that the commander of the Canadian task force in Kosovo, colonel Michael Ward, called our airlift portion “near catastrophe”. The fact is the government has not got it yet. The failure to replace Canada's military aging transport aircraft is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to Canadian troops. It is embarrassing to Canada's reputation around the world. It has shown Canada as the weak sister in the coalition against terrorism.
Eggleton dit que les Hercules ne seraient de toute façon pas utilisés pour transporter les 1 000 militaires, que les Airbus sont utilisés pour le transport stratégique et que le Canada a toujours été en mesure d'envoyer ses troupes outre-mer où elles ont apporté une contribution solide.
Eggleton makes the relevant factual point that Hercules aircraft would not be used for the 1,000-troop deployment in any event and that airbuses are used for strategic lift, which partially addresses the underlying concern, though he does not engage with the specific East Timor or Kosovo incidents cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we would not use Hercules aircraft to take over the 1,000 men troops in any event. The hon. member fully misunderstands what the Hercules are used for and what strategic lift is about. We do have airbuses that take our troops over. We need larger aircraft which we have always been able to get before. We have always been able to get our troops over. Our troops have always made a very solid contribution. We should be proud of them, not running them down in the way the opposition does.
Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral n'a-t-il toujours pas versé les 500 000 $ promis le 13 octobre 2000 pour le centre de ski acrobatique de Lac Beauport, plus d'un an après l'annonce?
Cites a specific October 13, 2000 announcement, names the freestyle skiing centre of Lac Beauport, specifies the $500,000 figure, notes the Quebec government has already contributed, and asks a single clear question about why Ottawa has not paid one year later.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on October 13, 2000, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport announced with great fanfare that $1 million would be invested over a five year period to develop national training centres, including $500,000 for the freestyle skiing centre of Lac Beauport. The Quebec government has already made its contribution. However, despite the commitments of the secretary of state, Ottawa has yet to make its contribution and it is unduly delaying the completion of the Lac Beauport project. I am asking the Minister of National Revenue what the government is waiting to make its contribution, which still has not been paid one year after the announcement?
Le ministre affirme que le dossier est examiné par Développement économique Canada et le ministère responsable du sport amateur, et qu'une réponse sera donnée à la fin de l'examen.
The minister says the issue is under review by Canada Economic Development and the amateur sport department but does not address why the committed $500,000 has not been paid, pivoting instead to praise of federal investment in Quebec's economy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the Quebec government is making announcements without necessarily having thoroughly examined the issues, leaving it to the Canadian government to later properly assess the situation. The issue is being examined by both Canada Economic Development and the department responsible for amateur sport. We are reviewing the issue in the global context of Quebec's economic development. In recent years, we have invested massively to put Quebec in a sound position as regards the new economy, research and development, and job creation. We will have an answer as soon as the review of this issue is completed.
Soulignant que l'annonce a été faite juste avant la campagne électorale, le député demande à nouveau ce que le gouvernement attend pour verser l'argent promis pour Lac Beauport.
Adds a pointed observation that the announcement was made just before an election campaign, but the ask is essentially a repeat of Exchange 31 and leans more on partisan framing this time.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us talk indeed about the circumstances. Oddly enough, the announcement and the promises were made by the secretary of state just before the election campaign. Athletes from Lac Beauport and the Quebec City region are still waiting for the promised money. What is the government waiting to come up with that money?
Le ministre riposte en citant l'annonce préélectorale du gouvernement québécois pour Petite-Rivière-Saint-François et affirme que les études n'étaient pas complètes, promettant d'agir en temps opportun.
The minister deflects entirely by recounting a story about the Quebec government's pre-election announcement for the Petite-Rivière-Saint-François ski centre and incomplete studies, never addressing the Lac Beauport commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us do a bit of history here. If my memory serves me right, before a provincial election campaign, the Quebec government announced that more than $10 million would be earmarked for the Petite-Rivière-Saint-François ski centre. As usual, that commitment was conditional on the participation of the Canadian government. When we looked at the issue, we realized that not half of the studies had been conducted properly. We worked seriously and took action at the appropriate time. This is what we will do in this case.
Le premier ministre demandera-t-il à son ministre de l'Industrie de cesser de mêler le secteur des hautes technologies à la course à la direction libérale, sachant que ses fonctionnaires auraient rédigé des communiqués de presse pour ce secteur?
Makes a specific allegation that the industry minister's officials wrote press releases for high tech players soliciting support for his broadband project, but the ask conflates that allegation with the Liberal leadership campaign, muddying accountability.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the industry minister is pushing so hard for his billion dollar broadband project that he is making people in the high tech sector very uncomfortable. High tech players are questioning the minister's tactics, which include having his officials write press releases for them soliciting support for the minister's pet project. Will the Prime Minister tell his industry minister to stop putting the high tech sector in the middle of this Liberal leadership campaign?
Le premier ministre cite le bilan du gouvernement en matière de connexion des écoles, universités et bibliothèques et affirme que l'opposition ne s'intéresse pas au développement à long terme du Canada.
The Prime Minister does not address the allegation about officials writing press releases and instead talks broadly about connectivity achievements and accuses the opposition of lacking interest in long term development.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, high tech and new technology have been extremely important for the government. We have managed to be the first big country to have all the schools, universities and libraries connected. We want to carry on because we want to be competitive. I know the opposition party has no interest in the long term development of Canada.
Compte tenu de sondages montrant que les milieux d'affaires et les Canadiens ordinaires s'opposent aux propositions de dépenses du ministre de l'Industrie, le premier ministre appliquera-t-il la même norme et retiendra-t-il son ministre?
Cites a Compass poll on business leaders' views and a Léger poll on Canadians preferring tax cuts, and draws a parallel to the Prime Minister's own intervention warning leadership hopefuls, making a reasonably specific ask — but the framing is largely rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously not connecting with the Canadian people. Last week a Compass poll said that business leaders found the minister's innovation spending proposals very unpopular. A Léger poll reported just yesterday that ordinary Canadians prefer tax cuts to government spending. Yesterday the Prime Minister intervened in his party's campaign warning leadership hopefuls to back off their campaigns because it was hurting the economics of the Liberal Party. Will he apply the same standard and rein in his industry minister because he is hurting the economy of the country?
Le premier ministre se moque des résultats de sondage et de la situation de leadership du Parti de l'Alliance sans répondre à la question.
The Prime Minister completely ignores the question and uses his entire answer to mock the Alliance Party's leadership situation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if I were from the Alliance I would never refer to any polls. We are praying that they have good leadership. Every morning we pray that they will keep the same leader.
La ministre de la Justice peut-elle informer la Chambre des mesures prises dans le cadre de la stratégie nationale sur la criminalité et de la façon dont elle aide les collectivités à Toronto et partout au Canada?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to inform the House about crime strategy measures, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, people in my riding of Etobicoke--Lakeshore and across Canada are concerned about crime in their communities. Could the Minister of Justice inform the House of the measures that she has taken with the national crime strategy and how that strategy is helping communities in Toronto and across Canada?
La ministre a annoncé un financement supplémentaire de 2,7 millions de dollars pour 65 nouveaux projets communautaires de prévention du crime en Ontario, soulignant que les collectivités locales identifient les causes profondes et élaborent des plans en partenariat avec les gouvernements.
The minister provides a specific figure — $2.7 million for 65 new grassroots community based crime prevention projects in Ontario — and explains the community-driven model of the initiative.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it was with great pleasure that I visited the riding of the hon. member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore on November 8. I had the opportunity to announce additional funding of $2.7 million for 65 new grassroots community based crime prevention projects in the province of Ontario. Let me say that the great strength of our crime prevention initiative is that it is local communities who identify the root causes of crime, identify their resources to fight those root causes and put together plans that we in the federal government working in partnership with local agencies like those in the hon. member's riding and the provinces--
Pourquoi le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales refuse-t-il d'écouter ses compatriotes québécois qui exigent unanimement le transfert de points d'impôt?
References a prior exchange and raises the specific issue of tax point transfers demanded unanimously by Quebecers, but the framing is largely rhetorical and the ask is general.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on the question of tax point transfers, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs once again missed a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that the federal government can be open and flexible. In hiding behind the equalization increase, the minister tried to dodge the real issue. Why does he refuse to listen to his fellow Quebecers, who are unanimously demanding the transfer of tax points?
Le ministre affirme que les points d'impôt du Québec valent 19 cents par dollar de l'ensemble des points d'impôt et soutient que ce ne serait pas dans l'intérêt des Québécois, ajoutant que le gouvernement québécois a reculé sur l'idée d'un référendum.
The minister provides a specific figure — Quebec tax points are worth 19 cents on each dollar of combined tax points — and argues the proposal is not in Quebecers' best interest, but does not fully engage the accountability dimension of why the government refuses.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Quebec tax points are worth 19 cents on each dollar of the combined tax points in Canada. It would not be in the best interest of Quebecers to go this route. In any case, the Quebec government sheepishly backed down from its idea of holding a referendum on the issue. Quite understandably: it is obviously an absurd proposal.
Pourquoi le ministre ne s'engage-t-il pas à suivre l'exemple de ses prédécesseurs libéraux qui ont transféré des points d'impôt, plutôt que de freiner les efforts de ses alliés fédéralistes au Québec?
Asks why the minister does not commit to follow Liberal predecessors who transferred tax points, but wraps it in a provocative insinuation about the minister preferring PQ re-election, making the ask largely rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder if the minister would not rather see the Parti Quebecois re-elected than have to deal with a federalist government in Quebec pushing for decentralization. Instead of hampering the efforts of his allies in Quebec, why does he not make a commitment to follow in the footsteps of his Liberal predecessors, who were not afraid to transfer tax points?
Le ministre affirme que le député est mal informé et laisse entendre qu'un premier ministre fédéraliste sera bientôt à Québec, sans aborder la question des points d'impôt.
The minister dismisses the question as based on misinformation and alludes to an upcoming federalist premier in Quebec City without addressing the substance of the tax point commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the question; no doubt the member is misinformed about what is happening in Quebec. It is very likely that we will be discussing these things in the near future with a premier in Quebec City who believes in Canada.
Le ministre de l'Environnement respectera-t-il les règlements québécois interdisant l'importation de matières résiduelles afin d'éviter que des régions comme les Cantons-de-l'Est ne deviennent des dépotoirs, étant donné que la Loi canadienne sur la protection de l'environnement permettra ces importations à partir de 2003?
Identifies a specific conflict between Quebec's regulations banning importation of waste material and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act coming into force in 2003, and asks a clear question about whether the minister will respect Quebec's regulations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has enacted regulations banning the importation of waste material. As for the Canadian government, starting in 2003, its Environmental Protection Act will allow waste material to be brought into regions such as the Eastern Townships. Is the Minister of the Environment going to respect Quebec's environmental protection regulations so as to prevent areas like the Eastern Townships from turning into dumping grounds for our neighbours to the South?
Le ministre assure le député que la législation canadienne sera conforme à la nouvelle législation québécoise et ne prévoit aucun conflit entre les deux.
The minister directly assures that Canadian legislation will be in line with Quebec's new legislation and sees no problem with differences, which substantively addresses the concern, though without citing specific provisions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian legislation will be in line with the new legislation in the province of Quebec. I can see no problem with differences between the federal and the provincial legislation.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Sumas is an American company that applied for a natural gas fired power plant in the state of Washington. This is very close to Abbotsford, B.C. On February 16 this year the application was denied. However, the company filed a revised application on June 29. Many British Columbians are still concerned about the potential effects on air quality by the plant. Could the minister tell the House the position of the Sumas 2 power plant?
Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Environment was heavily involved from the very beginning in the application of the SE2 proposal. It was in fact the science work done by Environment Canada which led the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to reject the first application and the revised application. Now there is a second application. I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to oppose that because it increases air quality problems in the Fraser Valley, just as we will continue to oppose other sources of air quality detriment in the valley.
Le gouvernement est-il prêt à rembourser les taxes et frais fédéraux payés par les passagers qui détiennent maintenant des billets sans valeur de Canada 3000 pour des services jamais reçus?
Clearly identifies that passengers paid federal taxes and fees for services never rendered when Canada 3000 ceased operations, and asks a single specific question about whether the government will reimburse those federal taxes and fees.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when Canada 3000 ceased operations, thousands of Canadians were left with no hope of recouping the money they paid for now worthless tickets. Included in the price of these tickets was a number of federal taxes and fees. These individuals paid taxes for services they never received. I ask the transport minister, is the government prepared to reimburse the federal taxes and fees for those passengers who are now holding worthless Canada 3000 tickets?
Le ministre affirme que de nombreux passagers ont été protégés par les voyagistes et les sociétés de cartes de crédit, et reconnaît qu'il est malheureux que certains soient lésés, mais n'aborde pas le remboursement des taxes et frais fédéraux.
The minister discusses credit card protections and tour operator arrangements but never directly addresses the specific question of reimbursing the federal taxes and fees embedded in the worthless tickets.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it was rather regrettable that Canada 3000 went bankrupt. It did leave a lot of people stranded. Because of the way tickets are purchased under the auspices of tour operators in certain provinces a large number, probably a vast majority, of those people were protected on other carriers. Certainly credit card companies have honoured their obligations. There are not as many people who are out of pocket, but it is rather unfortunate there will be some.
Quand le ministre de la Santé introduira-t-il une norme nationale pour la réutilisation des instruments médicaux à usage unique, étant donné que la Société canadienne des maladies infectieuses et d'autres avertissent d'un vrai danger quotidien pour le public et que le gouvernement connaît ce problème depuis 1994?
Cites the Canadian Infectious Disease Society's call for national standards, alleges the government has known about the problem since 1994, and asks a single clear question about when the health minister will introduce a national standard for the reuse of disposable medical devices.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to gamble with Canadian lives by obstinately refusing to set a national standard for the reuse of disposable medical devices. The Canadian Infectious Disease Society has just joined the others in calling for national standards. In fact it has said “We believe there is a real danger to the public going on each and every day in Canada”. Since 1994 the Minister of Health, or others in his government, has known about this problem yet has done nothing. When will the health minister stop rolling the dice and introduce a national standard for the reuse of disposable medical devices?
Le ministre affirme que la question relève clairement de la compétence provinciale, que Santé Canada a mené des études et partagé les résultats avec les ministres provinciaux en septembre, et qu'il insistera pour que les provinces établissent des normes appropriées.
The minister invokes provincial jurisdiction, notes Health Canada studies and a September meeting with provincial ministers, and says he will insist provinces put standards in place — partially addressing the issue but not committing to a federal standard.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that is squarely within provincial jurisdiction. They are responsible for making sure these devices are used appropriately. Health Canada has carried out studies to determine the facts. We put those facts in front of the provincial ministers as recently as September when I met them in St. John's for our annual meeting. We told them we expect them to put standards in place that are appropriate. We will insist that they do so, that the provinces do their jobs, as we are doing ours, to protect the health of Canadians.
Le ministre de l'Environnement réalise-t-il que des milliers de personnes sont touchées par les deux reports d'Ottawa du projet hydroélectrique sur la rivière Toulnustouc, qui créerait 900 emplois en construction et 255 emplois permanents?
Identifies a specific Hydro-Québec project on the Toulnustouc River with 526 megawatt capacity, cites employment figures of 900 construction jobs and 255 permanent jobs, and raises the specific concern of two postponements by Ottawa — though the question is cut off before fully stated.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Québec plans to build a dam and a hydro-electric power station with an estimated capacity of 526 megawatts on the Toulnustouc River on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. The project should create about 900 jobs at the height of construction, and 255 permanent jobs during the years of operation. But Ottawa has twice postponed the go-ahead for this project. Does the Minister of the Environment realize that thousands of people are affected by these delays? Does the minister—
Le ministre affirme avoir conclu que le projet n'était pas susceptible d'avoir un impact négatif important sur l'environnement et avoir renvoyé le dossier au ministre des Pêches et des Océans pour qu'il prenne les mesures nécessaires.
The minister directly answers by stating he concluded the project was not likely to have a significant negative impact on the environment and returned the file to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for necessary action, which addresses the status of the delay.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I concluded that the project was not likely to have a significant negative impact on the environment. I therefore returned the file to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible for taking the necessary action.
Quand le ministre insistera-t-il pour que les États-Unis commencent à parler plutôt que le Canada dans le dossier du bois d'œuvre, contrairement aux engagements pris par les États-Unis aux négociations de l'OMC la semaine dernière?
Notes five months of one-sided provincial-U.S. consultations, references commitments made by the U.S. at the WTO talks last week on countervail and anti-dumping, and asks when the minister will insist the U.S. start talking — reasonably specific but the ask is somewhat vague.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, over the last five months the provinces have been meeting with the U.S. department of commerce on the softwood lumber dispute. The provinces have done all the talking and the U.S. has done all the listening. Our bargaining position is completely unequal, contrary to commitments made by the U.S. at the WTO talks last week on countervail and anti-dumping. When will the minister insist that it is time for the U.S. to start talking, rather than Canada doing all the talking?
Le ministre dit être satisfait que la Colombie-Britannique se soit retirée de la table et que la proposition du Québec ait été bien accueillie par les Américains, et promet de continuer à travailler en équipe canadienne.
The minister discusses B.C. pushing back from the table and Quebec's proposition being well received, and mentions upcoming travel to British Columbia, but does not address the specific ask about insisting the U.S. start talking rather than only listening.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I followed very closely the discussions that were held in Washington last week. I was very pleased when the British Columbia government decided to push back from the table where international trade was co-ordinating. I was very pleased that the following day the Quebec government's proposition was very well received by the Americans. Progress is being made. I will be very happy in the next three days to be in British Columbia. We will continue to work as a Canadian team vis-à-vis the Americans.
Étant donné que la procureure générale a amendé le projet de loi C-36 pour y inclure des rapports annuels, le ministre des Affaires étrangères appliquera-t-il le même amendement au projet de loi C-35?
Makes a specific reference to the attorney general's amendment to Bill C-36 adding annual reports and asks why the same amendment should not be applied to Bill C-35 — a reasonably pointed procedural accountability question, though somewhat cute in framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry are sitting together so they can communicate well. I wonder if he could say the same thing for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the attorney general who also sit together. Last night the attorney general amended Bill C-36 to include annual reports. Would she lean over and explain to the Minister of Foreign Affairs why annual reports are good and why he should apply the same amendment to Bill C-35?
Le ministre affirme que les amendements au projet de loi C-36 ont été très utiles pour assurer l'adoption parlementaire et aident dans la campagne contre le terrorisme, sans aborder l'ajout de rapports annuels au projet de loi C-35.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs praises the amendment to Bill C-36 but completely fails to address why he will not apply the same annual report amendment to Bill C-35.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first I want to say what a pleasure it is to sit beside the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The amendments that she proposed to Bill C-36 were not only very helpful in securing parliamentary passage of her legislation but also help us in our campaign against terrorism which we are trying to pursue with our allies and with our coalition partners around the world.
Le Président a attiré l'attention de la Chambre sur des visiteurs dans les tribunes et les députés ont répondu par des acclamations.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.