Résumé de la séance
- La reddition de comptes concernant le GTC2 a dominé la période des questions, l'opposition pressant le ministre de la Défense nationale de confirmer l'existence d'une note secrète modifiant la chaîne de commandement et d'informer le Parlement.
- Le Bloc québécois a contesté l'approche du ministre de l'Environnement sur le Protocole de Kyoto, soutenant que l'approche sectorielle et l'exclusion du bilan passé désavantagent le Québec au profit des provinces les plus polluantes.
- Trois questions de privilège ont été soulevées : l'une alléguant que la whip en chef du gouvernement a intimidé des membres du personnel de l'opposition et des députés du NPD lors de l'élection du président du Comité des finances; une autre concernant le briefing des médias par le ministère des Affaires étrangères avant les députés sur le bois d'œuvre; et une troisième portant sur la publication d'un article par le conseiller juridique du Comité mixte permanent d'examen de la réglementation.
- La ministre de la Santé a refusé catégoriquement d'étendre l'indemnisation pour l'hépatite C à toutes les victimes du sang contaminé, tandis que la ministre du Travail a annoncé la prolongation de la date limite pour les organisations de lutte contre l'itinérance jusqu'en septembre 2004.
- La Loi sur les espèces en péril a suscité de vifs échanges sur les amendements du comité, l'indemnisation des propriétaires fonciers et la discipline de parti, le ministre de l'Environnement défendant le droit du gouvernement de passer outre les recommandations du comité.
- Le ministre de la Justice a confirmé qu'il coopérerait avec le comité de la justice sur une législation portant sur la responsabilité criminelle des entreprises dans le contexte du dixième anniversaire de la catastrophe de la mine Westray, et a confirmé que le projet de loi C-7 a reçu la sanction royale avec une entrée en vigueur reportée à avril 2003.
La ministre du Travail a pris un engagement précis et immédiat, annonçant que la date limite de financement pour les organisations venant en aide aux sans-abri serait prolongée du 31 mars 2003 à septembre 2004, répondant directement à la préoccupation soulevée dans la question.
Quotes directly from a cabinet minister in the Senate raising the possibility that JTF2 exceeded its mandate, and asks a single precise factual yes/no question about whether JTF2 went beyond its mandate between specific dates.
Invité à expliquer si le gouvernement avait abandonné la démocratie, l'ouverture et la transparence compte tenu du recours au secret du Cabinet pour bloquer des demandes d'accès à l'information, le vice-premier ministre n'a répondu que par une pique partisane sur l'Alliance et les gouvernements majoritaires, sans apporter de réponse de fond.
Questions sans réponse
- John Reynolds a demandé si le ministre de la Défense nationale avait modifié les procédures de compte rendu sur le GTC2 pour exclure le BCP et d'autres organismes civils — le ministre a confirmé le protocole existant sans confirmer ni infirmer si un changement avait eu lieu.
- Cheryl Gallant a demandé si le ministre chercherait à identifier et poursuivre la personne responsable de la fuite du document confidentiel du Cabinet concernant le GTC2 — le ministre a déclaré ne pas connaître la source sans s'engager à enquêter ou à poursuivre.
- Alexa McDonough a demandé au ministre de l'Industrie ce qu'il faisait concrètement pour défendre l'industrie sidérurgique canadienne contre le dumping étranger et si le gouvernement mettrait des mesures de sauvegarde en place avant la décision de l'administration Bush du 4 mars — le secrétaire d'État s'est borné à évoquer une prise de conscience et l'attente d'une soumission de l'industrie.
- Lynne Yelich a demandé quelle politique fédérale, quel règlement ou quelle loi déterminait qu'un délinquant sexuel étranger expulsé des États-Unis pouvait être admissible au statut de réfugié au Canada — le ministre a refusé de répondre au motif qu'il ne pouvait pas commenter des cas précis, alors que la question portait sur la politique générale.
- Joe Clark a demandé ce qui avait précisément causé le malaise considérable parmi les ministres du Cabinet, mentionné publiquement au Sénat par le leader du gouvernement au Sénat, concernant les opérations du GTC2 en Afghanistan — le ministre a supposé que cela pouvait être lié à la controverse sur les détenus sans aborder directement le malaise au sein du Cabinet.
Reynolds a demandé si le ministre de la Défense nationale a modifié les procédures d'information relatives au JTF2 pour en exclure le BCP et d'autres organismes civils, en citant la déclaration du ministre du 4 février.
Cites a specific February 4 quote from the minister and asks a single direct factual question about whether briefing procedures for JTF2 have been changed to exclude the PCO and other civilian agencies.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, joint task force 2 must be accountable to parliament, not treated as a secret army. On February 4 the minister said in the House: There is a frequent flow of information that goes to the PCO, the PMO and foreign affairs...The one exception to be made to that is the JTF2...That just comes to me. Today we learned that the Privy Council Office has been frequently briefed on joint task force operations in the past. Has the Minister of National Defence changed briefing procedures on the JTF2 to exclude the PCO and other civilian agencies?
Eggleton a décrit le protocole du JTF2 allant du commandant du JTF2 au chef d'état-major de la défense jusqu'à lui-même, affirmant que c'est la politique du gouvernement, sans confirmer ni nier un changement.
The minister describes the existing protocol in general terms but does not directly confirm or deny whether briefing procedures were changed to exclude the PCO, instead restating the chain of command without addressing the contradiction raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the protocol involving the JTF2 is different from the balance of the Canadian forces because of the nature of the work that it carries out in stealth or covert fashion and the need for security for its operations and security for its personnel. What I have previously reported in the House is exactly the procedure of that protocol which comes from the JTF2 commander to the chief of defence staff to me. If there is any diversion from government policy then I would consult the Prime Minister on the matter. That is what is in fact government policy and the JTF2 follows government policy.
Reynolds a demandé à Eggleton de confirmer l'existence d'une note secrète qu'il aurait signée pour modifier la politique d'information du JTF2 afin d'en exclure les organismes civils, soulignant la contradiction avec son refus antérieur de déposer la chaîne de commandement pour des raisons de sécurité nationale.
Cites a specific February 4 statement by the minister refusing to table the chain of command, references a leaked document reported in the media, and asks a single direct question about confirming the existence of a secret memo signed by the minister.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is what the minister says today. On February 4 the minister said also in the House that for reasons of national security he would not table the chain of command for JTF2. But apparently national security was not compromised by a self-serving leak to the media. Yesterday it was reported from a leaked document that the JTF2 chain of command has been changed by a secret memo signed by the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister confirm the existence of this document which changes the briefing policy on JTF2 to exclude civilian agencies of the government?
Eggleton a affirmé qu'il est un civil responsable devant le premier ministre, la Chambre, le parlement et les Canadiens, sans aborder la question de l'existence du document.
The minister deflects by asserting his civilian status and accountability in abstract terms, never confirming or denying the existence of the document changing JTF2 briefing policy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am a civilian. I am a civilian who is accountable for the actions of the JTF2. I am a civilian who is accountable to the Prime Minister, to the House, to parliament and to the people of Canada. I take that accountability very seriously as does the Prime Minister. The JTF2 operates within government policy and within Canadian law and will continue to do so.
Reynolds a demandé au ministre de déposer la chaîne de commandement du JTF2, citant l'inquiétude d'un expert militaire selon laquelle des ententes secrètes avec le chef d'état-major de la défense constituent un affront au parlement.
Quotes a named expert from the Royal Canadian Military Institute and makes a specific ask to table the JTF2 chain of command, though the rhetorical framing around Somalia somewhat dilutes the accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I could probably get a better answer from Warren Kinsella. It may not be as polite, but I would probably get a better answer. Military experts are alarmed by the use of JTF2 as a secret army. I quote the director of the Royal Canadian Military Institute. He said: When you have secret deals with the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister, that seems to be a smack in the face of parliament. I would think that after the whole outcry over Somalia there would be a clear-cut chain of command with clear-cut reporting. Will the minister table the JTF2 chain of command to allow the House to know how this vital element of our military is accountable to civilian authorities and to parliament?
Eggleton a refusé de déposer le document au nom du secret du Cabinet, puis a lu une lettre du député de l'Alliance pour Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca demandant au gouvernement de ne pas rendre publiques les informations sur le JTF2.
The minister avoids tabling the document by citing cabinet confidence, then deflects entirely by reading out a letter from an Alliance MP urging secrecy, answering a different question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the documentation that the hon. member refers to is a cabinet document and holds the confidence of the cabinet, as do any other policies of that kind. Let me talk about a document. It is a document that comes from a member of the House. It says “As a matter of record, I sincerely hope your department and the government do not make the identity, whereabouts and actions of the joint task force 2 and our military a matter of public knowledge other than in vague terms”. It is signed by an Alliance member, the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
Gallant a demandé si la fuite de la chaîne de commandement du JTF2 vers les médias constituait un acte criminel ou si le ministre cachait à la Chambre des informations que le parlement a le droit de voir.
Poses a pointed binary question — either the leak was criminal or the minister is withholding information — which creates a clear accountability dilemma, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if it is acceptable for the Liberals to leak this kind of information to the media, surely the minister can reveal the JTF2 chain of command to parliament. Either this leak was a criminal act or the minister is hiding information from the House that we have a right to see. Which one is it?
Eggleton a nié que le gouvernement ait procédé à quelque fuite que ce soit, a qualifié le document de secret du Cabinet et a affirmé avoir essayé d'être aussi transparent que possible tout en maintenant la sécurité.
The minister denies any government leak and invokes cabinet confidence, but does not address the either/or dilemma posed by the question, offering only a partial tangential response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no leak that the government has made with respect to this matter. This particular document is a cabinet confidence document, like many other cabinet policies are, and there is nothing unusual about that. The JTF2 for the security of its people and the security of its operations in fact operates in the same way as do special forces of many other countries in the world. I have tried to be as open as possible about this organization while maintaining the necessary security for its operations and its people.
Gallant a demandé si le ministre chercherait à identifier et à poursuivre la personne responsable de la fuite du document sensible du JTF2, au motif qu'elle avait compromis la sécurité nationale.
Asks a specific and actionable question — whether the minister will seek to find and prosecute the person responsible for the leak — building on an unanswered question from the previous day.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister whether the senior source who leaked the contents of this memo had breached official secrets but the minister refused to answer the question. I ask the minister, since this leak of this sensitive document breached national security, will the minister seek to find and prosecute the person responsible for this leak?
Eggleton a dit être perturbé par les fuites, a noté que la source ne semblait pas avoir eu le document lui-même mais seulement connaissance de son existence, et l'a qualifié de secret du Cabinet.
The minister expresses disturbance about leaks and suggests the source may not have had the document itself, but does not commit to or rule out prosecution, leaving the specific ask unanswered.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am as disturbed about leaks as anybody else is in terms of information that is in cabinet confidence. I do not know what the source of that was. They do not appear to have had the document, from what I read in the media report, but seemed to be aware that a document exists. However, the document is part of cabinet confidence. It is clearly the policy under which JTF2 operates and it is one that this government is responsible for.
Duceppe a demandé si le ministre de l'Environnement réalise qu'appliquer le principe du pollueur-payeur sans tenir compte des émissions passées revient à faire payer le Québec pour la mauvaise performance des provinces canadiennes les plus polluantes.
Raises a substantive policy concern about the polluters pay principle being applied without historical context, but the ask is implicit rather than a single direct question, and the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment explained to the House the twisted logic that he is using at the expense of Quebec regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The minister says that he wants to respect the polluters pay principle, but he refuses to take the past into consideration. Does the Minister of the Environment realize that applying the polluters pay principle while ignoring the past is tantamount to making Quebec pay for the bad performance of those Canadian provinces that are the biggest polluters?
Anderson a accusé le Bloc d'avoir inversé sa position sur la ratification de Kyoto en 48 heures et a demandé à Duceppe d'expliquer le propre plan du Bloc pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre.
The minister misrepresents the Bloc's position as opposing Kyoto ratification and turns the question back on Duceppe, deflecting entirely from the substance of the polluters pay principle argument.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on Monday I was somewhat encouraged by the Bloc Québécois being in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Now, 48 hours later, we get the impression that it does not want to do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that everything has been taken care of, and nothing more needs to be done to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am not familiar with the Bloc Québécois' policy, but perhaps the hon. leader of the Bloc could tell us about its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Duceppe a cité des chiffres précis sur la croissance des émissions au Québec par rapport à la Colombie-Britannique, à l'Alberta et à la Saskatchewan de 1990 à 1999, soutenant que le ministre défend les plus grands pollueurs et fait payer le Québec malgré ses efforts.
Provides specific comparative emissions data (Quebec 1.8%, British Columbia 20%, Alberta 26%, Saskatchewan 32% from 1990–1999) to support the argument, though the question is implicit and amounts to a statement of grievance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have explained it. Between 1990 and 1999, greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec increased by only 1.8%, while in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, they shot up by 20%, 26% and 32% respectively over the same period. Now, the minister would have Quebec pay for what the others did not do. The minister wants to pretend to be implementing the Kyoto agreement while he is defending the biggest polluters. The minister wants to make Quebec pay, even though our province has already taken action in this area and effectively reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Anderson a déclaré que le gouvernement souhaite discuter des chiffres soumis aujourd'hui avec les provinces, notamment les augmentations d'émissions des années 1990, et a noté que les décisions devraient résulter de consultations fédérales-provinciales plutôt qu'être prises unilatéralement.
The minister acknowledges the figures and the need for provincial consultations but deflects responsibility by saying no decision has been made, partially engaging the substance without addressing the fairness concern.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what this government wants to do is to discuss these things, with the provinces, including the rate by which greenhouse gas emissions increased during the nineties 1990s. We want to have consultations on the figures that were submitted to us today. The issue is not that I made a decision. They are the ones who keep asking me to make decisions which, in fact, under the Canadian constitution, should stem from discussions between the provinces and the federal government.
Bigras a demandé si le ministre est conscient que son approche sectorielle plutôt que territoriale en matière de réductions des gaz à effet de serre désavantage le Québec et lui fait payer deux fois.
Identifies a specific methodological choice — sectoral versus territorial approach — and asks whether the minister is aware it disadvantages Quebec, though the ask is somewhat implicit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in order to get Quebec to pay, the Minister of the Environment is taking a sectoral approach, rather than territorial, in other words, by province. Is the minister aware that the sectoral approach puts Quebec at a disadvantage, and that by taking such an approach, the government is making Quebec pay twice rather than once?
Anderson a déclaré que ce sont précisément ces enjeux — notamment les formules basées sur la population, le taux d'émissions ou leur augmentation — qui doivent être franchement discutés avec les provinces, les territoires et les autres parties intéressées.
The minister acknowledges the methodological options including population-based and emission-rate-based formulas, and commits to discussing them with provinces, but does not directly answer whether he is aware the sectoral approach disadvantages Quebec.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the issues the Bloc mentioned a few moments ago. These are exactly the issues we must discuss with the provinces. We can use a formula based on population, for example, or based on emission rates, or their increase in the 1990s. These are the issues and details that we need to discuss frankly with the provinces, the territories and other interested parties.
Bigras a demandé pourquoi le Québec, qui a limité ses émissions de gaz à effet de serre à 1,8 %, devrait payer pour l'Alberta, qui a augmenté les siennes de 26 % tout en n'ayant pas de taxe de vente et en accumulant des milliards dans un fonds du patrimoine.
Provides specific comparative fiscal data about Alberta's zero sales tax and heritage fund alongside Quebec's 1.8% emissions growth to make a fairness argument, though the ask is framed rhetorically.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, while Alberta was increasing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%, it maintained its zero sales tax and plowed money into its heritage fund. At the same time, Quebec was restricting its greenhouse gas emissions to a mere 1.8%. Can the Minister of the Environment explain why Quebec, after all of the efforts it has made, should still have to pay for Alberta, a province that has no sales tax, that has billions of dollars stockpiled in a heritage fund, and that brags about having the lowest taxes in Canada?
Anderson a suggéré que Bigras aurait dû se présenter pour le Parti Québécois plutôt que pour le Bloc québécois, et a dit que les chiffres cités seraient discutés avec les provinces pour trouver une formule qui ne pèse pas trop lourdement sur une région.
The minister dismisses the question by suggesting Bigras should have run as a Parti Québécois MNA rather than a federal MP, which is a personal attack deflecting entirely from the substance of the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to have this sort of discussion, I am surprised that he ran for the Bloc Québécois as a federal member of parliament, rather than as a MNA for the Parti Québécois. He is giving us figures, details and points that we will discuss with the provinces in order to agree on a common position, which, I repeat, will be a good formula for all of Canada, where no one region will be too heavily burdened.
McDonough a demandé ce que le ministre de l'Industrie fait en ce moment pour défendre l'industrie sidérurgique canadienne et protéger les emplois canadiens contre le dumping étranger, notant que des représentants des travailleurs de l'acier étaient à Ottawa ce jour-là.
Identifies a specific national crisis, notes steelworker representatives in Ottawa that day, and asks a direct question about what the Minister of Industry is doing right now, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs in Canada's steel industry are in jeopardy because of an unprecedented flood of unfairly priced imports. Offshore dumping is causing a national steel crisis. Steelworker representatives are in Ottawa today to plead for decisive government action before it is too late. What is the Minister of Industry doing right now to defend the Canadian steel industry and to protect Canadian jobs against offshore dumping?
McCallum a déclaré que le gouvernement est en consultation constante avec toutes les parties prenantes de l'industrie sidérurgique, est pleinement conscient du risque de détournement lié aux actions américaines, et répondra rapidement dès réception d'une soumission de l'industrie.
McCallum acknowledges consultations with stakeholders and awareness of the diversion threat from U.S. actions, but provides no specific measures being taken, only a promise to respond quickly upon receiving an industry submission.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has been in constant consultation with all stakeholders in the steel industry. We are acutely aware of the problems facing the industry owing to certain actions taken in the United States and the possibility of diversion. As soon as we receive a submission from the industry, we will respond very quickly.
McDonough a demandé si le ministre s'engagerait à mettre en place des mesures de protection contre le détournement de l'acier étranger vers le Canada avant la décision de l'administration Bush du 4 mars sur les droits de douane sur l'acier.
Specifies a hard deadline — the March 4 Bush administration decision — and makes a concrete ask for safeguards against diversion of offshore steel into Canada, with factual context about years of industry advocacy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the steel industry has been begging for action for a couple of years and the Canadian steel industry is getting hammered while the government talks about awareness. On March 4 the Bush administration will decide whether to hit steel products originating in Canada with extra duties, further damaging steel jobs in the industry. We need the government to stand up to the threat of offshore steel being diverted from U.S. ports of entry and dumped into Canada. Will the minister commit today to put those necessary safeguards in place?
McCallum a réitéré que le gouvernement est pleinement conscient de la situation et en contact constant avec les parties prenantes, et a déclaré qu'il ne peut pas présenter de soumission avant d'en recevoir une de l'industrie, ce qui n'avait pas encore eu lieu.
McCallum repeats that the government is highly aware and in constant touch with stakeholders, and conditions any action on receiving an industry submission, which does not commit to the specific safeguards requested.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I just explained, the government is highly aware of the situation and is in constant touch with the stakeholders in the steel industry. It is very hard for us to make any submission ourselves before we receive the submission from the industry which we have not yet received.
Clark a demandé si le JTF2 a dépassé son mandat lors d'une action pendant son déploiement en Afghanistan entre le 5 décembre 2001 et le 30 janvier 2002, citant la suggestion du leader du gouvernement au Sénat selon laquelle il y avait une question à ce sujet.
Quotes directly from a cabinet minister in the Senate raising the possibility that JTF2 exceeded its mandate, and asks a single precise factual yes/no question about whether JTF2 went beyond its mandate between specific dates.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the leader of the government in the Senate raised the possibility that JTF2 exceeded its mandate in Afghanistan. That minister of the government said: Where it became critical for a (defence) minister to inform the Prime Minister...is that there seemed to be some question about whether the incident in question went beyond the mandate of (JTF2). Between December 5, 2001, and January 30, 2002, has JTF2 gone beyond its mandate in any action during its deployment in Afghanistan?
Eggleton a simplement répondu « Non ».
Eggleton answers directly with a clear 'No,' which is the most direct possible response to the yes/no question asked, though the brevity provides no supporting detail or explanation.
Texte source
No, Mr. Speaker.
Clark a demandé ce qui avait causé « un malaise considérable chez un certain nombre de ministres » concernant le JTF2 en Afghanistan, comme l'avait décrit le leader du gouvernement au Sénat, et pourquoi le parlement et les Canadiens n'étaient pas informés de ce qui s'était passé.
Quotes the Senate government leader directly on 'considerable unease among a number of ministers' and asks specifically what caused that unease and why parliament and Canadians are not told the story.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote again the minister's colleague, the leader of the government in the Senate. She told the Senate yesterday “there was a considerable amount of unease among a number of ministers who learned for the first time” what had happened with JTF2 in Afghanistan. What exactly caused that considerable amount of unease referred to in public, in the Senate by his cabinet colleague? What went wrong that upset the cabinet and why are parliament and Canadians not told the story?
Eggleton a jugé la question déraisonnable, a nié que le JTF2 ait fait quoi que ce soit en dehors de la politique du gouvernement, et a supposé que le leader au Sénat faisait peut-être référence à la controverse générale sur le traitement des détenus, qu'il a dit avoir été résolue par les commentaires du président Bush.
Eggleton dismisses the question as unreasonable, denies any breach of government policy, and suggests the Senate leader may have been referring to the detainee controversy — a speculative deflection that does not explain what caused ministerial unease.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member is getting far beyond what is reasonable here. There is nothing that the JTF2 has done that is outside government policy. Perhaps the hon. leader of the Senate was referring to the general controversy on detainees and the American treatment of detainees, which I think has been put to rest with the comments of President Bush that in fact they will all be treated in accordance with humane treatment as provided for in the Geneva conventions.
Pallister a demandé quelles preuves le gouvernement possède pour affirmer que l'Irak représente moins de menace aujourd'hui qu'en 1998, notant que le Canada avait alors participé à des actions militaires pour faire respecter les résolutions de l'ONU sur les inspections d'armements.
References Canada's 1998 military action and asks what evidence shows Iraq is less of a threat today, providing a factual anchor, but the question is broad and lends itself to a general policy response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canadian foreign policy must be built on Canadian interests and it is not in Canada's interests to allow Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction. Three years ago Canada participated in military action to enforce the United Nations security council resolution which demanded Iraq to comply with weapons inspections, but Iraq has not. Today the government seems to be backtracking on our commitment to work with our allies to eliminate this threat. What evidence does the government have that Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 1998?
Graham a déclaré que le gouvernement continue de travailler dans le cadre du système des Nations Unies et du régime de sanctions pour les faire respecter, les renforcer et empêcher Saddam Hussein d'acquérir des armes de destruction massive tout en évitant de punir des civils innocents.
Graham confirms the government continues to work within the United Nations system and the sanctions regime to prevent Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, partially engaging the substance but not addressing the specific evidence question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government is extremely concerned with the position of Iraq. As I said in the House on repeated occasions to the hon. member, we continue to do exactly what we did, as he referred to in the past, and that is work within the United Nations system and the sanctions regime of the UN to enforce them, to strengthen them and to apply them to the government of Iraq, and to avoid punishing innocent civilians. That is what we continue to do and we will continue to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not acquired by Saddam Hussein and used to disturb the peace of the world.
Pallister a cité la déclaration du premier ministre de 1998 avertissant des atrocités de Saddam Hussein et des études indiquant que l'Irak a élargi sa production d'armes biologiques et chimiques, demandant pourquoi la réponse du gouvernement est plus faible si la menace est plus forte.
Cites the Prime Minister's own 1998 statement about Saddam Hussein and references studies by academics, journalists, and intelligence agencies on expanded biological and chemical weapons production, asking why the government's response is weaker despite a stronger threat.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government seems to see a greater threat in its own backbenchers than it does in Saddam Hussein. In 1998 the Prime Minister said “inaction will encourage Saddam Hussein to commit other atrocities, to prolong his reign of terror over his own people, his neighbours and the entire world”. Since then every study by academics, journalists and intelligence agencies has said that Iraq has expanded its production of biological and chemical weapons. The threat posed by Iraq is stronger than it was three years ago. Why is the government's response weaker?
Graham a rejeté les prémisses de la question, a déclaré que le gouvernement continue de surveiller la situation et de travailler par le biais du système de l'ONU, et s'est moqué des querelles internes de l'Alliance.
Graham rejects the premise, claims the response is not weaker, and deflects with a partisan jab about the Alliance's internal disputes rather than addressing the specific evidence about expanded weapons production.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the question. As I said, the government's response is not weaker. We are continuing to monitor this. We are continuing to work through the UN system. We will continue to ensure not only that we have the support of the world community in what we do, but the support of our backbenchers while his backbenchers continue the internecine dispute which they are presently in.
Gauthier demande comment le ministre peut affirmer que les négociations sont ouvertes alors qu'il a déjà fixé des paramètres — rejetant le passé et favorisant une approche sectorielle — qui désavantagent le Québec.
Cites specific statements made in the House earlier in the week and identifies a concrete contradiction between the minister's stated parameters (sectoral over territorial, no past credit) and his claimed openness, with a clear accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in connection with implementing the Kyoto protocol, the Minister of the Environment said in the House at the beginning of the week that he would not take the past into account, that he clearly favoured a sectoral, rather than a territorial approach. He has just said that he wants to see costs shared so that no one region has to pay more than another. How can he tell the House today that everything is open, that he is going to talk with the provincial ministers, when he himself has very clearly set the parameters for those talks, none of which are to Quebec's advantage?
Anderson précise qu'il a dit que le passé doit être pris en compte mais avec des limites, donnant en exemple que les décisions de Robert Bourassa n'avaient peut-être rien à voir avec les gaz à effet de serre.
The minister partially addresses the 'past' parameter by clarifying his position but does not engage with the sectoral vs. territorial framing or explain how his stated parameters are not prejudicial to Quebec.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exaggerating. I clearly said that the past must be taken into account, but there are limits. The decisions made by Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa may not have had anything to do with greenhouse gases. So, we are going to take the past into consideration, but there comes a point when the past has very little to do with what is going on now.
Gauthier demande si le ministre a délibérément choisi des paramètres défavorables au Québec — qui a réduit ses émissions de CO2 — pour protéger sa propre région, qui les a augmentées de 20 %.
Grounds the question in a factual comparison — Quebec reduced emissions while British Columbia increased by 20% — and poses a pointed accountability question about whether the minister is protecting his own region.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once a province, such as Quebec, has introduced two plans to limit greenhouse gases, reducing its rate of emission of CO 2 into the atmosphere, while other provinces, including the one from which the minister hails, have increased their emissions by 20%, is one not entitled to wonder whether the minister has not deliberately chosen parameters that are not in Quebec's interests in order to protect his own region?
Anderson assure que le crédit pour les actions précoces est discuté aux niveaux international et national et qu'un crédit approprié sera accordé.
Anderson addresses the substance of credit for early action and commits to appropriate credit both domestically and internationally, which is responsive, though without specific detail on how Quebec's record would be recognized.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that both at the international level and at the domestic level we spend a lot of time discussing credit for early action, which is exactly what he has put forward here. I can assure him that there will be appropriate credit given for early action both domestically and on the international plain.
Mills demande au ministre de fournir son estimation des coûts d'application de la loi sur les espèces en péril pour les propriétaires fonciers et les compensations prévues.
Raises a specific and dual ask — estimated cost of enforcing the species at risk bill for property owners and planned compensation — with factual grounding in the bill's effects.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the species at risk bill transfers most of the costs of protecting endangered species on to the backs of farmers and other landowners. Some property values will drop, use of land will be restricted and even forbidden in some cases and extra compliance costs will be imposed. Will the Minister of the Environment please provide the House with what he estimates the cost will be of enforcing the species at risk bill for property owners and what sort of compensation does he plan to provide them?
Anderson mentionne les 45 millions de dollars par année fournis par le ministre des Finances, promet une ventilation complète en temps voulu et affirme que le projet de loi est conçu pour être favorable au Canada rural.
Anderson mentions the $45 million a year figure but declines to provide the full cost breakdown requested, promising it 'in due course,' and deflects the compensation question with a general claim about the bill being 'rural Canada friendly.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, before the committee examining the bill, of which the hon. member is a member, we went into some detail on the $45 million a year which the Minister of Finance generously made available for species at risk activity. This was done two years ago. It is ramping up. We are getting there now. I will give a full breakdown to the hon. member in due course, if he wishes, as we see how this legislation works when it comes into being. On his preamble, I can assure him that the very basis of our bill is to ensure we have the most rural Canada friendly bill that we can possibly put forth.
Mills demande pourquoi le ministre ne peut pas accepter que la compensation soit essentielle, alors que le Sierra Club et l'association minière s'accordent là-dessus, en citant leur position commune au comité de l'environnement.
Cites a specific jointly held position by both industry and environmental representatives — including the Sierra Club and mining association — that compensation is essential, creating a focused accountability challenge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, had the minister paid any attention at all to the environment committee, he would know that protecting endangered species requires the co-operation of property owners. For example, both industry and environmental representatives begged the minister to recognize that “provision for compensation helps to balance the effect of effort to protect species at risk”. If the Sierra Club and the mining association can agree that compensation is essential, why can the minister not?
Anderson loue la coopération avec les utilisateurs ruraux des terres mais suggère que l'association minière veut une compensation illimitée qu'elle ne devrait pas recevoir, sans aborder le consensus commun sur la nécessité de la compensation.
Anderson praises co-operation with rural workers but then deflects by suggesting the mining association wants 'unlimited compensation' for things they should not do, never engaging with the cited consensus that compensation is essential.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me yet again the opportunity of pointing out how much I value co-operation with people who work on the land, trappers, farmers, ranchers, and with people who work in the woods or fishermen. These are the people who are at the forefront of the battle to protect endangered species and they are the people we want co-operating with the governments, federal and provincial. With respect to the mining association, I am sure that it would like to have unlimited compensation for many things that we think it should not do. We do not think that when it operates on crown land that it has given the right to eliminate endangered species. We think that is something that should not be in--
Bourgeois demande si le ministre des Affaires étrangères a fait des représentations auprès du gouvernement du Nigeria pour empêcher la sentence de lapidation contre Safiya Husseini en vertu de la charia en vigueur à Sokoto.
Identifies a specific individual case (Safiya Husseini), a specific Nigerian state (Sokoto), and a specific legal context (charia), and asks a concrete question about whether representations have been made to the Nigerian government.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in Nigeria, a young woman, Safiya Husseini, stands accused of having sexual relations outside of marriage. According to the charia, the Islamic law enforced in the Nigerian state of Sokoto, the sentence for such an offence is stoning. This situation is totally unacceptable. With such a barbaric act about to take place, has the Minister of Foreign Affairs made representations to the government of Nigeria to prevent such an atrocity?
Paradis déclare que le Canada est très préoccupé, s'oppose à la peine de mort et continue d'exercer des pressions sur tous les pays via l'ONU, soulignant que le Nigeria est signataire de traités sur les droits de la personne.
Paradis confirms Canada is concerned and is exercising pressure via the UN and citing Nigeria's human rights treaty obligations, which is responsive in general terms, but does not confirm whether direct representations to Nigeria's government have been made as specifically asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is very concerned about these sentences of death by stoning. The Canadian government's position on the death penalty is well known. We continue to exercise pressure on all countries, via the UN, for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. This is totally contrary to the human rights treaty of which Nigeria is a signatory. We are therefore going to continue to put pressure on the Nigerian government in order to make it see reason.
Bourgeois demande au gouvernement de s'engager à convoquer le Haut-commissaire du Nigeria au Canada et à intervenir auprès des partenaires du Commonwealth du Nigeria pour s'opposer à l'exécution de Safiya Husseini.
Makes two specific requests — summoning the Nigerian High Commissioner and intervening with Nigeria's Commonwealth partners — which are concrete and actionable, though framed somewhat as demands rather than a question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government must do everything in its power to save this young woman. What we are calling upon the government to do is to make a commitment to summon the Nigerian High Commissioner to Canada in order to make our formal objections to this execution known to him, as well as to intervene with Nigeria's Commonwealth partners in order to enlist their support.
Paradis dit que le Canada continuera d'exercer des pressions pour assurer l'application des conventions internationales et note que certains membres du gouvernement fédéral nigérian se sont prononcés contre ce type de sentence.
Paradis commits only to continuing general pressure and notes some Nigerian federal officials have spoken out, but does not address either of the two specific requests made.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we will continue to bring pressure to bear in order to ensure the application of these international conventions of which Nigeria is a signatory. We are, however, pleased that certain members of the Nigerian federal government have spoken out against this type of sentence. We shall continue with our pressure.
Yelich demande comment le ministre peut expliquer qu'un délinquant sexuel violent expulsé des États-Unis pour des condamnations pour agression sexuelle et trafic de drogue ait obtenu le statut de réfugié au Canada alors qu'il était en garde à vue de la Police de Toronto.
Describes a specific case with factual details (US deportation for sexual assault and drug trafficking, refugee status granted in Toronto Police custody) and asks how the minister can explain allowing criminal sex offenders to claim refugee status, though the rhetorical framing somewhat undercuts specificity.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a violent sex offender with a lengthy criminal record was deported from the United States. He was granted refugee status after slipping into Canada. This individual was deported from the United States for convictions that included sexual assault and drug trafficking, yet he received refugee status while in Toronto Police custody. Refugee status should be for people fleeing persecution not sex offenders fleeing prosecution. How can the minister explain to Canadians that he has allowed criminal sex offenders to claim refugee status?
Coderre dit qu'il ne peut pas commenter des cas spécifiques en raison de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels et qu'il prend note de la question.
Coderre declines to comment citing the Privacy Act and simply says he is 'taking note,' providing no substantive engagement with either the case or the policy question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, because of the Privacy Act, I cannot comment on specific cases but I am taking note of it.
Yelich demande quelle politique fédérale, quel règlement ou quelle loi a déterminé qu'un délinquant sexuel étranger expulsé des États-Unis devrait être admissible au statut de réfugié au Canada.
Explicitly moves beyond the specific case to ask a policy-level question — what federal policy, regulation, or law made a foreign sex offender deported from the United States eligible for refugee status — which is a clear and answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to examine the specifics of this case to find out what went wrong with refugee policy in Canada. What federal policy, what regulation, what law determined that a foreign sex offender deported from the United States should have been eligible for refugee status in Canada?
Coderre refuse de commenter spécifiquement, loue le processus du comité permanent créé par son prédécesseur et demande à la députée de lui soumettre sa proposition.
Coderre again declines to comment specifically, then pivots to praising his predecessor's committee process and asks the member to submit her proposition, without addressing the policy question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again I will not comment specifically. However, my predecessor created a tremendous process that I fully support, which is through the standing committee. We look through all the regulations. The hon. member is part of that. She should give me her proposition.
LeBlanc demande à la présidente du Conseil du Trésor d'expliquer l'impact de la nouvelle politique de prestation de services de rechange sur les Canadiens et les minorités linguistiques.
A government-backbench softball asking the President of the Treasury Board to explain a policy she herself just announced, with no critical accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, today the President of the Treasury Board announced a new policy to create alternative service delivery arrangements. Could she explain to the House what kind of impact this new policy will have on Canadians, and on linguistic minorities in particular?
Robillard explique que les ministères doivent consulter les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire et déposer une étude d'impact au Conseil du Trésor avant d'adopter une méthode de prestation de services de rechange, assurant la continuité des services bilingues.
Robillard provides substantive details about the new policy, including the requirement for departments to consult official language minority communities and file an impact study with the Treasury Board before adopting alternative service delivery.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this new policy will encourage innovation in service delivery, while maintaining quality and public interest criteria. Guiding principles have also been added to strengthen the government's commitment to the Official Languages Act. Prior to adopting an alternative method of service delivery, all departments will be required to consult with official language minority communities and file an impact study with the Treasury Board. This will ensure that we continue to provide services in English and in French to our minority communities.
Comartin demande au vice-premier ministre de s'engager à laisser les amendements du comité de l'environnement au projet de loi sur les espèces en péril tels quels et à les soumettre au vote de la Chambre, en citant 60 000 signataires de pétitions et de nombreuses consultations des parties prenantes.
References specific factual context — nine months of environment committee work, dozens of groups, and 60,000 Canadians signing petitions — but the ask about whether the Deputy Prime Minister will 'commit to allow those amendments to stand' is partly rhetorical and conflates procedural and political questions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the finance committee we saw the type of contempt that we get from the government as far as the democratic process. Even worse is the contempt it has shown for the work the environment committee has done over the last nine months on the species at risk act, the contempt it has shown for the input of dozens of environmental groups, business organizations and stakeholders, and the contempt it has shown for 60,000 Canadians who signed petitions supporting those amendments. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit today to allow those amendments to stand and let the House vote on them as is?
Anderson soutient que la Chambre et le Sénat, et non les comités ou les pétitions, sont les organes décisionnels de la démocratie au Canada.
Anderson lectures on constitutional law and the role of the House and Senate versus committees and petitions, but does not address the specific ask about allowing the committee amendments to stand for a House vote.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I had always understood, given my knowledge of constitutional law, that it was the House and the Senate that were the deciding body for democracy in Canada. It was not committees, not 60,000 people who signed a petition and not pressure groups. It is the House and the Senate, of course with Her Majesty's or her representative's signature. That is how we make laws. I suggest that the hon. member goes back and looks at the books.
Comartin demande si le ministre s'engagera à permettre aux membres du Parti libéral qui souhaitent voter en faveur des amendements adoptés par le comité de le faire sans être punis par le gouvernement.
Asks a specific procedural-political question about whether Liberal members who support committee amendments will be free to vote for them without being punished by the government, which is a concrete and answerable accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if he really believes that, will he commit today to allow Liberal Party members who want to vote in favour of those amendments passed by the committee to stand without being punished by the government if they do so?
Anderson dit que le gouvernement remplit son devoir conformément à ses promesses du livre rouge et du discours du Trône et que la présentation de la loi sur les espèces en péril est la politique du gouvernement.
Anderson pivots entirely to defending the government's mandate from red book and throne speech promises, never addressing whether Liberal members will face consequences for supporting the committee amendments.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, not too long ago we had an election in the country, another example of the democratic process. This party went on record to put forward a species at risk act and told the public what would be there. We are fulfilling our duty as a government from our red book promises to our throne speech promises. That is what we are doing. It is this government's policy that we are bringing forward and that is why his suggestion is ridiculous.
Strahl cite des documents obtenus par accès à l'information montrant que des projets de Partenariat technologique Canada pour Bombardier (96 millions de dollars), Ballard Power Systems (30 millions de dollars) et CAE Électronique ont été annoncés des mois avant l'approbation du Cabinet, et demande quand le Cabinet a réellement approuvé ces projets.
Cites specific access to information documents with precise figures ($96 million for Bombardier, $30 million for Ballard Power Systems, CAE Electronics), specific announcement dates, and specific cabinet approval dates, asking a precise factual question about when cabinet actually approved the projects.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession access to information documents revealing three Technology Partnerships Canada projects that were announced before they were approved by cabinet. It was announced that Bombardier would get $96 million in October 1996 yet cabinet approval was not received until March 1997. It was announced that Ballard Power Systems would receive $30 million in November 1996 but that cabinet did not approve that until March of the following year. The same thing goes for CAE Electronics. Could the minister tell the House just when the cabinet did approve these projects?
Rock affirme que l'approbation du Cabinet était en place avant l'annonce de ces investissements et cite deux examens du vérificateur général ayant conclu à l'exercice de la diligence raisonnable.
Rock directly contradicts the premise by claiming cabinet approval was in place before announcements and cites auditor general reviews finding due diligence, but provides no specific approval dates as asked and essentially restates his position from the previous day.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I made it clear yesterday that in each one of these projects cabinet approval was in place before any of these investments were announced. I also made clear yesterday that on two occasions in the last few years the auditor general has looked into Technology Partnerships Canada and, on each occasions, found that we had used due diligence before making investments and fulfilled our responsibilities as a government. This program is good for Canada, good for innovation and it creates jobs. It has been a success and will continue.
Strahl demande quelles directives existaient pour prévenir les conflits d'intérêts au sein du conseil consultatif de Partenariat technologique Canada, notant que six des quatorze membres du conseil sont associés à des entreprises ayant reçu près d'un demi-milliard de dollars de fonds du PTC.
Presents specific data — 14 board members, 6 with companies receiving grants, nearly half a billion dollars out of $947 million total — and asks a precise question about what conflict of interest guidelines were in place for the advisory board.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has to look into it because the minister will not table the annual reports. The Technology Partnerships Canada advisory board was formed in September 1996 and had 14 members. Now it appears as though six of the board members are with companies that have received grants from TPC. In fact, the companies associated with these six board members have received just shy of half a billion dollars in TPC funds. That is nearly half of the $947 million that was doled out under this program. Could the industry minister tell us exactly what guidelines were in place to make sure that there was no conflict of interest on the advisory board?
Rock cite les conclusions du vérificateur général sur la diligence raisonnable et défend le programme comme bénéfique pour la création d'emplois et la croissance économique.
Rock quotes the auditor general on due diligence and pivots to describing the program's purpose and success without addressing what specific conflict of interest guidelines existed for advisory board members.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than to quote the auditor general who found that we had exercised due diligence before making investment decisions, and to stress to the House that program is intended to provide pre-competitive research and development funding to allow opportunities to be pursued in the country which would otherwise be lost, creating jobs, economic growth and prosperity. It is a program of which we are very proud.
Williams demande au vice-premier ministre si le gouvernement a renoncé à la démocratie, à l'ouverture et à la transparence, en citant des rapports de dépenses bloqués et des informations salariales vieilles de 12 ans dissimulées derrière des revendications de confidentialité du Cabinet.
References specific examples (blocked expense reports, 12-year-old salary information blocked by cabinet secrecy) but closes with a compound and largely rhetorical ask about whether the government has 'given up on democracy, openness and transparency' or has 'something to hide.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the minister of defence claimed cabinet secrecy and the document is already in the Globe and Mail . Last week the government was blocking the release of expense reports under the Access to Information Act when they should be made public. In the Post today it is blocking 12 year old salary information by claiming cabinet secrecy. The Langevin Block is getting more like the Kremlin every day. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the government given up on democracy, openness and transparency, or does it really have something to hide?
Manley fait une boutade politique sur le fait que le gouvernement a remporté trois gouvernements majoritaires de suite et se demande si l'Alliance voudrait renoncer à la démocratie.
Manley's response is a pure political quip about winning three majority governments, with no connection whatsoever to the access to information questions raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we sit here enjoying our third majority government in a row. One wonders whether the Alliance might want to give up on democracy.
Williams demande si le premier ministre dissimule quelque chose dans ses notes de frais, citant le changement d'interprétation de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information fondé sur une décision judiciaire de 1997 appliquée quatre ans plus tard, coïncidant avec le scandale de shawinigate.
Identifies a specific factual claim — that the government changed its interpretation of the Access to Information Act based on a 1997 court decision but only acted four years later, during the shawinigate scandal — and asks whether the Prime Minister is hiding something in his expense accounts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a debate on that one. The government arbitrarily changed its interpretation of the Access to Information Act to hide the expense accounts of ministers and their political staff based on the flimsiest excuse: based on a court decision in 1997, four years late but right in the middle of the shawinigate scandal. Is the Prime Minister hiding something in his expense accounts?
Cauchon déclare que l'interprétation est fondée sur l'affaire DAGG de la Cour suprême du Canada et qu'une approche équilibrée est nécessaire entre l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.
Cauchon names the specific DAGG case of the Supreme Court of Canada as the basis for the interpretation and invokes the need to balance access to information with privacy, which is partially responsive to the legal interpretation question but does not address whether the Prime Minister is hiding something.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is talking about is the interpretation of the Access to Information Act. The interpretation is based on the DAGG case of the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course we need a balanced approach regarding the Access to Information Act, as well as the privacy issue. When we look at what we are doing, we are meeting the exact criteria of the DAGG case of the Supreme Court of Canada .
Quelles fonctions Robert Charest a-t-il exercées pour la Société immobilière du Canada, étant donné que la GRC a maintenant ouvert une enquête?
Cites a specific RCMP investigation and names Robert Charest, asking a clear factual question about duties performed, though it carries some rhetorical framing about the Deputy Prime Minister's prior dismissal.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that our questions concerning Robert Charest were ridiculous. However, we just learned that the RCMP has launched an investigation into the matter. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what duties were performed by Robert Charest for the Canada Lands Company?
Manley a seulement indiqué que le contrat de Charest avait été résilié par la société, sans préciser les fonctions qu'il exerçait.
Manley does not answer what duties Robert Charest performed; he deflects entirely to the fact that the contract was terminated, which sidesteps the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the real question is; what action was taken regarding Mr. Charest? The answer is clear; his contract was terminated by the corporation.
Comment la Société immobilière du Canada a-t-elle pu vendre un terrain évalué à 9 millions de dollars pour seulement 4 millions de dollars, si ce n'est parce que l'acheteur, M. Lépine, était un ami proche du Parti libéral du Canada?
Cites specific figures — a $4 million sale price versus a $9 million municipal assessment and $15 million market value — and names the buyer Mr. Lépine, making it a factually grounded question, though the partisan conclusion about Liberal Party connections weakens it slightly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, still on the issue of the Canada Lands Company, the media reported in January that, in 1999, the corporation sold a property belonging to the Department of National Defence which was located at the intersection of Atwater and Sherbrooke streets in Montreal. That property was sold for $4 million, while the municipal assessment was $9 million and the market value somewhere around $15 million. How could a lot valued at $9 million be sold for $4 million, if not because the buyer, Mr. Lépine, was a close friend of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Manley a dit qu'il n'est pas toujours possible de trouver un acheteur prêt à payer la valeur évaluée et qu'il faut accepter l'offre disponible, sans aborder l'écart de prix spécifique.
Manley offers only a vague general comment that properties cannot always be sold at assessed value, without addressing the specific $4 million versus $9 million discrepancy or the allegation regarding Mr. Lépine.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we can certainly sell lots at the best available price. It is impossible to always find someone who is prepared to pay exactly the assessed value, particularly on the municipal assessment.
So, I do not know if there is other information, but it is necessary to get an offer that is accepted.
Quand le gouvernement soutiendra-t-il les exportateurs avec un programme efficace pour couvrir les exigences tarifaires pendant que le différend sur le bois d'œuvre se poursuit?
References the minister of trade's prior public statement about requiring a written proposal and raises the specific policy ask of backstopping exporters with an affective program, but the question is compound and the wording imprecise.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister of trade said that softwood talks were not on unless the U.S. came with a written proposal. Now it has come without a proposal and he is making excuses for them. Meanwhile, continuing U.S. harassment is taking a toll on Canadian forest companies. Covering tariff requirements until we can repeal them is essential. When will the government fight this continuing harassment by backstopping exporters with an affective program?
O'Brien a indiqué que des discussions au niveau des sous-ministres ont eu lieu à Ottawa avec des progrès réalisés, et que le Canada réengagera probablement les Américains la semaine prochaine, sans aborder le programme de soutien.
O'Brien provides some relevant context about deputy-level talks and the prospect of re-engaging with Americans next week, but does not address the specific ask about backstopping exporters with a program.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the highest level of talks among officials took place here in Ottawa at the deputy level. The deputy minister has indicated that there was progress made. He now wants to reflect on and continue the team Canada approach, consult widely, as he has been doing, with the minister, with the provinces and with industry. More than likely we will re-engage with the Americans next week. Progress has been made but there is no doubt that we are not at a solution yet.
Le ministre dira-t-il aux États-Unis un non catégorique à leur demande d'accès illimité aux grumes canadiennes sans offrir un accès illimité aux marchés américains du bois d'œuvre?
Asks a specific, direct yes/no policy question — will the minister tell the U.S. an unequivocal no to unrestricted raw log access without reciprocal lumber market access — grounded in an identified U.S. demand.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is at least the third time I have asked that question and not received an answer. U.S. trade officials are asking for unrestricted market access to Canadian raw logs but they are not willing to offer unrestricted access to U.S. lumber markets. Will the minister tell the U.S. an unequivocal no?
O'Brien a déclaré que l'accès garanti au marché est une condition sine qua non pour le gouvernement et qu'aucun accord ne sera conclu sans cela, confirmant ainsi la position ferme du Canada.
O'Brien effectively answers that guaranteed market access is a sine qua non for a deal, which constitutes a substantive if indirect 'no' to the U.S. position, though he does not use the word 'unequivocal no' explicitly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is finally tuning into this issue. The minister has said repeatedly in the House and in the media, and it was made crystal clear yesterday that unless we have guaranteed market access we will not reach a deal. That is a sine qua non for the government. It has been said repeatedly. I do not know why the member has not got the message yet.
La ministre de la Coopération internationale pourrait-elle informer la Chambre des efforts continus du Canada pour aider les femmes afghanes?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on Canada's efforts to assist Afghan women, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, given the ongoing humanitarian and education needs in Afghanistan, could the Minister for International Cooperation please update the House of Commons on Canada's continued efforts to assist Afghan women?
Whelan a mentionné l'engagement de 100 millions de dollars du Canada pour la reconstruction et l'aide humanitaire en Afghanistan, une contribution de 25 000 dollars au programme de formation en leadership et gouvernance des femmes afghanes à l'Université de York, et une prochaine visite de femmes leaders afghanes à Ottawa.
Whelan provides specific figures — $100 million pledged, $25,000 to the Afghan women's leadership and governance training program at the University of York — and mentions concrete activities, making it a substantively informative answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canada has pledged $100 million toward the reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan. While we continue to investigate ways to provide program support to Dr. Sima Samar, the minister of women's affairs in Afghanistan, we are also contributing here at home. We are providing $25,000 to the Afghan women's leadership and governance training program to be implemented by the University of York. It is a project that will enhance leadership skills among women of Afghan origin in Canada and link them with Canadian women parliamentarians when they visit Ottawa on Monday.
La ministre corrigera-t-elle l'erreur de son prédécesseur et indemnisera-t-elle toutes les victimes de l'hépatite C contractée par du sang contaminé?
Cites a specific 1997 parliamentary vote, quotes the former health minister's words, and asks a clear yes/no accountability question about compensating all hepatitis C victims of tainted blood.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the federal government ordered the backbenchers to vote against compensating all Canadians who had contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood. For four years the former health minister stubbornly refused to change his mind. He said that the country could not afford it. He said “It will be the end of publicly financed health care”. Will the minister right the wrong of her predecessor and compensate every victim of hep C through tainted blood?
McLellan a dit non, que la politique du gouvernement a été et demeure claire.
McLellan gives a direct 'no' and states the government policy is clear, which technically answers the yes/no question, but provides no substantive explanation or engagement with the factual framing of the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, no we will not. The policy of the government has been clear and is clear.
Pourquoi le vice-premier ministre ne signe-t-il pas immédiatement les protocoles d'entente soumis par le gouvernement du Québec pour les routes 175, 185, 30, 35 et 50, compte tenu de l'engagement du ministre de la Justice?
Names five specific highways (175, 185, 30, 35 and 50) and references a specific commitment made by the Minister of Justice, making a targeted demand to sign the memoranda of agreement, though it is framed partly as a demand rather than a question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Justice said that the commitments made by his colleagues to improve Quebec's highways would be respected. Since the Minister of Justice has given his word, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not sign the memoranda of agreement submitted by the government of Quebec for highways 175, 185, 30, 35 and 50 immediately? He should stop evading the question and sign.
Collenette a dit qu'il existe un programme d'infrastructure, mais que le Québec n'est pas d'accord avec l'entente actuelle, et qu'il rencontrera son homologue québécois M. Ménard jeudi dans l'espoir de progresser.
Collenette acknowledges the impasse with Quebec, notes a specific meeting planned for Thursday with his counterpart Mr. Ménard, but does not explain why the memoranda have not been signed or commit to signing them.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have an infrastructure program, and unfortunately the government of Quebec does not agree with the current agreement. On Thursday I am going to meet with Mr. Ménard, my counterpart in Quebec, and perhaps there will be some progress on this issue.
Pourquoi le ministre a-t-il vidé de leur substance les amendements du comité de l'environnement au projet de loi sur les espèces en péril, ignorant un consensus entre écologistes et industrie, et pourquoi a-t-il fallu huit ans pour produire un si mauvais projet de loi?
Raises two distinct issues — the finance committee chair election and the species at risk bill amendments — and the question is largely rhetorical and compound, though it references a consensus among environmentalists and industry and an eight-year wait for the bill.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has no respect for parliament nor parliamentary committees. Yesterday the government whip hijacked the election of the finance committee chair. Now the environment minister is gutting the environment committee's amendments to the species at risk bill. The minister never had the provinces or landowners on side prior to tabling Bill C-5 and has now gutted provisions that they support. Worse still, he shamelessly ignored a consensus that was reached in advance by environmentalists and industry. Why is it we had to wait eight years for such a poor bill, and why is the minister showing such arrogance for the committee process?
Anderson a soutenu que les lobbyistes, qu'ils soient écologistes ou industriels, ne dirigent pas le pays, et que si les comités sont précieux, la Chambre conserve le pouvoir décisionnel ultime pour aligner les décisions des comités sur celles de la Chambre.
Anderson addresses the committee process question in principle, arguing that elected members — not lobbyists — make ultimate decisions and that the House can correct committee decisions, but does not address the specific allegations about gutting amendments or the consensus claim.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that lobbyists, whether they are environmentalists or they are from industry, are not the people who run this country, nor should they be. It should be people elected by the people of Canada, namely the people in this Chamber. That is the critical factor which the hon. member does not understand. He should also understand that committees of the House are enormously valuable to us but ultimate decision making is made by the members. If a committee for any reason does not reflect the views of the House, it is appropriate that the House take measures to make sure that the decisions are brought in accord with the House.
Pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il décidé de faire entrer en vigueur la législation sur la justice pénale pour les jeunes en avril 2003 plutôt qu'avant?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to explain the rationale for the April 2003 coming-into-force date for the youth criminal justice act, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the act in respect of criminal justice for young persons received royal assent. This act is a key component of the measures which allow the government to deliver on its commitment to renew the justice system for young people in order to make it fairer and more effective. It is my understanding that the government wants to have the legislation take effect in April 2003. Will the minister tell the House what lay behind such a decision?
Cauchon a expliqué que toutes les provinces et tous les territoires ont convenu lors d'une réunion fédérale-provinciale-territoriale de reporter l'entrée en vigueur à avril 2003 afin qu'ils puissent faire les préparatifs nécessaires.
Cauchon provides substantive context — a federal-provincial-territorial meeting, broad consensus among all provinces and territories for more preparation time, and the specific April 2003 date — making it an informative answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for her excellent question. Bill C-7 did indeed receive royal assent yesterday. It is normal for a certain period of time to go by before legislation takes effect. I would simply like to say that the bill was the subject of many discussions, particularly last week at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting. Because of the broad consensus for more time, which has been repeatedly expressed for quite a while now, all the provinces and territories have agreed with me to postpone the coming into force of this legislation until April 2003, so that they can make the necessary preparations and go ahead with an excellent bill.
Étant donné qu'il reste 900 millions de dollars dans le fonds d'indemnisation de l'hépatite C et que les soins de santé financés par l'État n'ont pas pris fin, la ministre s'engagera-t-elle à étendre l'indemnisation à toutes les victimes de l'hépatite C par du sang contaminé?
Cites the specific figure of $900 million remaining in the hepatitis C compensation fund to directly rebut the former minister's stated rationale, making a sharp and factually grounded follow-up ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is $900 million left in the hepatitis C compensation fund. The former minister was clearly mistaken. It is not the end of public health care and there is plenty of money for all of the victims. Why will the minister not commit to extend compensation to the hepatitis C victims of tainted blood?
McLellan a seulement dit que la politique du gouvernement est claire et sera mise en œuvre, sans aborder le chiffre de 900 millions de dollars ni offrir de justification.
McLellan repeats only that the government policy is clear and will be implemented, providing no engagement with the $900 million figure or any substantive reasoning.
Texte source
Because, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is clear, it continues to be clear, and we will implement that policy.
La ministre s'engagera-t-elle à repousser la date limite du 31 mars 2003 afin que les organismes d'aide aux sans-abri puissent recevoir et utiliser la totalité de leurs fonds?
Identifies a specific administrative problem — organizations unable to spend funding within the March 31, 2003 deadline due to late announcements — and makes a clear, single ask to move the deadline forward.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the homeless has a problem. She has taken so long in announcing funding that certain organizations will not be able to spend the funding received within the time limit set. If they are not able to meet the deadline, these funds are likely to end up back in the government's consolidated fund. Can the minister make a commitment to move the March 31, 2003, deadline forward so that these organizations involved in helping the homeless may receive and use their full amounts of funding?
Bradshaw a annoncé que la date limite a été prolongée jusqu'en septembre 2004, répondant directement à la préoccupation soulevée.
Bradshaw directly announces an extension of the deadline to September 2004, fully and specifically answering the question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a number of organizations have shared with me their concerns about the date. I would like to announce today that I have addressed this, in conjunction with the staff of my department, and the deadline will now be September 2004.
Le ministre de la Justice s'engagera-t-il à travailler avec le comité de la justice pour que la législation traitant de la responsabilité criminelle dans des situations de type Westray soit en place pour le dixième anniversaire de la catastrophe de Westray?
References the tenth anniversary of the Westray coal mine disaster and a specific private member's bill by the member for Churchill referred to the justice committee, and asks for a commitment on legislation by year's end, though the question is cut off before completion.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Pretty soon 10 years will have passed since the Westray coal mine disaster, which many regard not only as a tragedy but a criminal event. Yet 10 years down the road we still have no legislation dealing with criminal responsibility in these kinds of situations. The Minister of Justice will be aware that yesterday the subject matter of a private member's bill by the member for Churchill was referred to the justice committee. I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will commit now to working with the committee to make sure that by the expiry of this year in which we have the tenth anniversary of that disaster we have legislation dealing with the--
Cauchon a dit qu'il est au courant de la question, qu'il travaillera avec le comité et qu'il souhaite entendre les parties prenantes, sans s'engager sur un calendrier précis.
Cauchon commits to working with the committee and consulting stakeholders, which partially addresses the ask, but does not commit to a specific timeline or confirm legislation will be ready within the anniversary year.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I know of the matter and of course I will be working with the committee. I want to hear from stakeholders, from people all across the country, in order to see what we are going to have to do. Therefore, I do understand that the matter is under study and I will fully co-operate with the committee.
M. Reynolds (Alliance canadienne) a soulevé une question de privilège, alléguant que la whip en chef du gouvernement avait intimidé des membres du personnel de l'opposition et des députés lors de l'élection du président du Comité permanent des finances; il a été appuyé par M. Nystrom (NPD) et M. Brison (PC/DR), qui ont décrit des incidents similaires. Le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre a demandé du temps pour examiner les allégations, tandis que la whip en chef, Mme Catterall, a catégoriquement nié la citation qui lui était attribuée par le leader de l'opposition et a également demandé du temps pour préparer une réponse.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. John Reynolds
- Some hon. members
- NDP Lorne Nystrom
- PC/DR Mr. Scott Brison
- Lib Ralph Goodale
- Lib Ms. Marlene Catterall
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the chief government whip with contempt of the House for intimidation and harassment of our members through a staff member of the official opposition whip. While it troubles me to bring this issue forward, I feel I must do so in order to protect the right of members and their staff to work in an environment free from the threat of intimidation.
Oh, oh.
Talk to Mr. Kinsella. He's threatening your guys. I am talking about here. The question of privilege is resulting from an incident involving yesterday's election of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. The first vote for the chair of the committee was nullified because of a counting error by the committee clerk. Before the second vote was taken, the chief government whip approached our whip's staffer and uttered the following “We phoned R.J. and told him who we wanted. If one of your guys doesn't vote for Sue there will be consequences”. This sort of goonish misconduct displayed by the chief government whip cannot be tolerated in any venue, let alone the Parliament of Canada. Page 84 of Marleau and Montpetit states: Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference. On September 19, 1973, Otto Jelinek, the member for High Park--Humber Valley, rose on a question of privilege claiming that an employee of the CBC, in telephone conversations with the member, had advised Mr. Jelinek to stop asking questions about television coverage of the Olympic games during question period or else it would be alleged that the member had a contract with CTV and it was a conflict of interest. Mr. Jelinek claimed it was an attempt to intimidate him. As the member did not know the name of the caller no specific charge could be made and therefore there was no prima facie question of privilege. While there was no prima facie case of privilege, Speaker Lamoureux had, and I quote him: ...no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation. While the chief government whip may feel free to threaten and co-opt government members in such a way, I will not accept her threatening opposition members or their staff in such a way. This staffer works on behalf of the official opposition whip and performs valuable functions that could affect the votable status of opposition members. This intimidation occurred while our staffer was attempting to perform a parliamentary function on behalf of the opposition whip. Parliament must send a clear message to all members by using its powers to condemn such conduct and call it contempt like it is. Mr. Speaker, should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add a word in support of the suggestion before the House today. I too was involved in the finance committee yesterday. At one stage before the committee meeting started, when there were going to be two candidates for the chairmanship of that committee, the member for Etobicoke North and the member for London West, I was called out by one of the staff of the chief government whip to see the chief government whip, at which time she asked me how I was voting. I told her I would be supporting the member for Etobicoke North. She told me that was not the government's choice, that the government's choice was the member for London West. I implied I had made up my mind to support the member for Etobicoke North. She said to me at that time “if that happens and if he wins the chairmanship, I may have to remove him from the finance committee”. I think that is a heavy handed approach to be used by a government whip. Also, during a recess at committee one of the parliamentary secretaries was at the committee and the parliamentary secretary spoke to the chief government whip, came in from speaking to the chief government whip and was talking to some Liberal members from the government side of the House. Two of those Liberal members, or two of those government members, said to me that the parliamentary secretary had the whip say to her or imply to her that if she did not vote the right way, she needed to worry about her parliamentary secretaryship.This is what I heard from two government members of the finance committee. There was also a great deal of confusion at the committee. I am led to believe that committees should be masters of their own destiny. That certainly was not the case. The chief government whip was also a member of the committee at that time, the only time she has ever been a member of the finance committee. I think for these reasons and others, and I could go on at length, I support the suggestion put forth today in the House by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this point. Yesterday at the same finance committee meeting the chief government whip asked me to join her outside, at which point she informed me that I should be voting for the hon. member for London West, at which point I informed her that she was not my whip and that I was supporting the member for Etobicoke North. Clearly for the whip of the government to be trying to run roughshod over the rights of opposition members of parliament is offensive and steps all over the basic notion of the independence of committees as a cornerstone of the parliamentary system.
Mr. Speaker, the government became aware a few minutes ago just before the end of question period that the Leader of the Opposition intended to raise this point. It is a point upon which we will want to reflect, having just heard what various members of the opposition have said, but let me just say that we would like to take some time to consider what has been said here. In listening very carefully, I heard a number of allegations. I heard the transmission of hearsay evidence. I heard reflection upon the proceedings in the committee, but I did not hear a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, what I would like is an opportunity to examine all of the allegations that have been made and ask that you would return to this matter at a later time after we have had a chance to reflect upon it.
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, I regret very much that the leader of the official opposition chose not to inform me personally and directly that he would be raising this issue.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the criticisms and I would appreciate the same respect. I regret that the leader of the official opposition chose not to inform me directly and personally of the point he would be raising and of the points he would be making in raising it. I respect totally the role of the House and of each member of parliament, and your role, Mr. Speaker, and certainly that of any of the House officers, who have very difficult responsibilities in the House. Out of respect I would like to give a response to the issues that have been raised, if that is your decision. Not knowing ahead of time what would be raised, not having had the opportunity or chance to speak to any of the members who have raised these issues, I really would appreciate the opportunity to prepare and respond at a later date. I would like to, however, categorically deny the quote attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition.
M. Duncan (Alliance canadienne) a soulevé une question de privilège, soutenant que le ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Commerce international avait informé des responsables de l'industrie et des médias sur le différend du bois d'œuvre le 19 février avant d'informer les députés, contournant ainsi le Parlement. Le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre a indiqué qu'il entendait parler de la question pour la première fois et a demandé du temps pour faire des vérifications.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. John Duncan
- Lib Ralph Goodale
- Lib Mr. Geoff Regan
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade departmental briefing that took place on February 19 at 5 p.m. with industry officials and separately with the media concerning discussions about the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. As a member of parliament I was excluded from the meeting and told the briefing of members of parliament would have to wait until February 20. In order to discharge my responsibilities as an opposition member of parliament and our party's critic for international trade I must be made aware of information concerning issues such as the softwood lumber dispute in a timely manner. The dispute has been the subject of an emergency debate in parliament as well as the topic of numerous discussions in committees of both houses of parliament. Yesterday's briefing was the subject of numerous questions in question period. Surely the questions should be responded to in parliament prior to being made available to the media. Any resolution to the debate will undoubtedly lead to an agreement subject to parliamentary scrutiny and possibly some form of parliamentary approval. The department deliberately did an end run around parliament by briefing members of the media prior to members of parliament. I will quote the response of former Speaker Parent to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley on October 29, 1997, concerning a government news release announcing the membership of the nominating committee for the proposed Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. He said: This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. Speaker Parent said members should be briefed on any progress toward settlement of disputes that may need parliamentary ratification prior to being released to the media. Anything less is contempt of parliament. This is part of a continuing pattern coming from the government. The media gets favourable treatment compared to members of parliament from all parties. Mr. Speaker, should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, as with the previous question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition, this is the first I have heard of it. I would be happy to inquire into the matter to see what the flow of events was and take into account the remarks made by the member for Vancouver Island North. I hope you might invite further comments on the subject at a later stage, perhaps tomorrow or the day after, so the item could be properly pursued.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member raised a question of privilege concerning an article written by the legal counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Mr. Speaker, you indicated at the time that it was your first inclination that the committee should deal with the issue and then perhaps come back to the House if need be. I urge upon you that view, Mr. Speaker. It makes sense to me. It would be the appropriate approach. Having had an opportunity to review the article it seems to me the counsel was not so much defending the government or one side or the other but was defending the committee itself. On the other hand, perhaps the counsel did not have the authority of the committee to do that. I submit that for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.
M. Cummins (Alliance canadienne) a répondu aux questions posées par le Président la veille concernant sa question de privilège sur le comité d'examen de la réglementation et le Règlement sur les permis de pêche communautaires des Autochtones, soutenant que le conseiller juridique du comité, M. Bernier, n'avait pas simplement corrigé des erreurs dans le dossier public, mais avait adopté une position contraire à l'argument de l'opposition selon lequel le comité avait engagé des délais inexcusables en donnant suite à sa conclusion de 1997 que le règlement était illégal. Aucune réponse du gouvernement n'a été fournie dans cet échange.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. John Cummins
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will reply to your questions from yesterday. My argument and that of other opposition members on the committee was that the scrutiny of regulations committee had made a finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal. I argued that the committee and the department of fisheries had engaged in inexcusable delays in acting on the finding and that after five years the only remaining issue to be decided was the date of the tabling of the disallowance report. Of late the committee has been taking about twice as long as in the past to table its disallowance reports. It was argued in committee that the honour of the crown is at stake when fishermen are prosecuted under admittedly illegal regulations and when the committee dithers not about the illegality of the regulations but about when they should be revoked. Mr. Bernier has taken a contrary position. He says the committee is highly effective in carrying out its responsibilities. He says its handling of the aboriginal communal fishing licences regulations has been in order. That of course is the position of the government majority on the committee. Mr. Bernier claims to be merely setting the record straight or correcting errors in the public record. If Mr. Bernier were correct I would not only not have a question of privilege. I and other members of the opposition would have no issue with either the committee's handling of its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal or the timing of the tabling of the disallowance report. Mr. Bernier's claim that the committee is working effectively and efficiently with regard to the fishing regulations goes to the very heart of the argument before the committee and in a February 11 Hill Times story entitled “Opposition parties say regulatory feet-dragging hurting fishing industry”. Mr. Speaker, you asked if Mr. Bernier was merely correcting errors in the public record as contained in the regulatory foot dragging story, a story which chronicles government foot dragging and blocking of action in the scrutiny of regulations committee to prevent tabling of a disallowance report on the illegal fishing regulations. The answer is an emphatic no. Mr. Bernier does not correct errors. I will be specific. Mr. Bernier wrote that the committee did not first look at the issue in January 1997. He said it did not do so until November 1997. The fact is, the committee's general counsel was directed to review the fishing regulations on January 3, 1997. The general counsel's legal analysis that the regulations were illegal was dated March 20, 1997. What did occur in November 1997 was that the committee adopted the position that the regulations were illegal and decided to advise the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of its finding. Mr. Bernier then goes on to other dates where he disagrees with my position in committee and the regulatory foot dragging--