Résumé de la séance
- Le thème dominant était le scandale des commandites impliquant Groupaction, plusieurs partis d'opposition ayant pressé les ministres des travaux publics et de la justice de répondre si le ministère de la Justice avait encore des contrats actifs avec Groupaction malgré le moratoire, et si une enquête publique indépendante serait déclenchée.
- Les partis d'opposition ont soulevé des préoccupations quant à l'influence politique dans le congédiement de l'éditeur du Ottawa Citizen, pressant le premier ministre de dire si lui-même ou son personnel avaient eu des rencontres privées avec des dirigeants de CanWest Global ou la famille Asper au cours des trois dernières semaines; le premier ministre a nié toute réunion privée et tout rôle dans ce congédiement.
- Le ministre de la Défense nationale a annoncé que le général Baril avait remis ce matin-là son rapport sur la mort de quatre soldats canadiens en Afghanistan au chef d'état-major de la défense, et s'est engagé à le rendre public le plus tôt possible.
- Le ministre des Affaires étrangères a reconnu ne pas avoir vérifié auprès de ses homologues américains si un reportage médiatique sur une nouvelle politique américaine concernant l'Irak était exact avant de le commenter publiquement, et a indiqué que le Canada préfère travailler par l'intermédiaire d'institutions internationales multilatérales.
- Le NPD a soulevé des préoccupations quant au refus de visas accordé à 58 des 60 délégués internationaux, principalement africains, qui souhaitaient participer au sommet populaire G6B avant le G-8 de Kananaskis; le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration n'a fourni aucune explication substantielle.
- Les questions de Joe Clark du PC sur la vente des actions du terrain de golf de Grand-Mère ont pressé le premier ministre de produire des documents précis — notamment un chèque et des informations sur la société Akimbo Development Corporation — mais ont été esquivées sans qu'aucun document ne soit produit ni promis.
Le ministre de la Défense nationale a pris un engagement précis et limité dans le temps, confirmant que le rapport du général Baril sur la mort de quatre soldats canadiens en Afghanistan avait été reçu ce matin-là et serait rendu public le plus tôt possible.
Clark cites the ethics counsellor's documents from March, identifies the specific company named as Akimbo Development Corporation, verifies its non-existence in Ontario, Quebec, and the federal corporations database, and asks three precise factual questions about the 1993 share transfer.
Au lieu de répondre à la question précise sur l'existence de la société Akimbo Development Corporation et à qui les actions du terrain de golf de Grand-Mère avaient été vendues en 1993, le premier ministre a rejeté la question comme dépassée et a contre-attaqué en demandant à Joe Clark de divulguer les donateurs à son fonds de retraite.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Stephen Harper a demandé à répétition si le premier ministre, un ministre du Cabinet ou un membre de son personnel avaient eu des réunions privées avec des dirigeants de CanWest Global ou la famille Asper au cours des trois dernières semaines; aucune réponse directe n'a jamais été donnée.
- M. John Reynolds a demandé si des appels avaient été passés depuis le ministère du premier ministre en lien avec le congédiement de l'éditeur du Ottawa Citizen; le premier ministre n'a jamais répondu par oui ou par non.
- Le très hon. Joe Clark a demandé au premier ministre de déposer le chèque indiquant la société à qui un paiement partiel avait été versé en novembre 1997 sur la dette de 1993 envers J&AC Consultants Inc., et d'expliquer comment Park Inns Canada Ltd. avait pu vendre des actions qu'elle ne possédait jamais; aucun document n'a été produit ni promis.
- M. Gerry Ritz a demandé qui siégeait au comité des communications du Cabinet qui avait pris les décisions profitables sur les contrats de commandites ayant coûté des millions de dollars aux contribuables; le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux n'a nommé personne.
- Mme Alexa McDonough a demandé pourquoi 58 des 60 délégués internationaux, principalement africains, s'étaient vu refuser des visas pour entrer au Canada et participer au sommet populaire G6B; le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration n'a fourni aucune explication et s'est contenté de dire qu'il examinerait la question.
Harper demande si le premier ministre a rencontré en privé un membre de la famille Asper au cours des trois dernières semaines, dans le contexte de préoccupations concernant l'influence politique dans le congédiement de l'éditeur de l'Ottawa Citizen.
The question is specific and time-bounded, asking whether the Prime Minister met privately with any member of the Asper family in the past three weeks, with clear context about the Deputy Prime Minister's prior evasions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Prime Minister back among us. I hope he will give us some straight answers. There is growing concern about political influence in the firing of the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen . In the last couple of days the Deputy Prime Minister refused on at least five occasions to say whether the Prime Minister or his staff had recent meetings with CanWest Global people. Will the Prime Minister tell the House if he met privately with any member of the Asper family in the past three weeks?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien dit que la dernière fois qu'il a rencontré M. Asper, c'était lors d'une réception publique devant toute la presse, et qu'Asper a ensuite dîné avec le chef de l'opposition.
Chrétien answers only about a public reception meeting and pivots to a jab about Harper dining with Asper, failing to address whether any private meetings occurred in the stated three-week window.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the last time I met with Mr. Asper it was at a reception and all the press was there. The leader of the fifth party was there. After, Mr. Asper said he did not want to stay with me and he had dinner with the Leader of the Opposition.
Harper demande si le premier ministre, un ministre du Cabinet ou un membre de son personnel a tenu des réunions privées avec des dirigeants de CanWest Global ou la famille Asper au cours des trois dernières semaines.
The question sharpens the ask by broadening it to cabinet ministers and staff, noting the government's advertising contracts and CRTC review powers over CanWest Global, and pressing for a yes-or-no on any private meetings in the past three weeks.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate the Prime Minister informing us of a meeting that took place in front of the entire press gallery. The Leader of the Opposition does not give out millions of dollars in lucrative advertising contracts. He is not part of a potential review of CRTC decisions affecting companies like CanWest Global to the tune of millions of dollars. I will ask again, did the Prime Minister, any cabinet minister or any member of his staff have any private meetings with CanWest Global officials or the Asper family during the past three weeks?
Chrétien nie avoir été au 24 Sussex le samedi en question et nie avoir déjeuné avec M. Asper ou quiconque de sa famille, en référençant l'accusation concernant le lac Harrington comme un mensonge pour lequel l'opposition n'a pas présenté d'excuses.
Chrétien directly denies a specific alleged breakfast meeting at 24 Sussex on Saturday morning and a previous Harrington Lake allegation, which is partly responsive, but does not address whether other cabinet ministers or staff had private meetings with CanWest or the Asper family.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again in the House of Commons this week there was a very specific question about a meeting on Saturday morning at 24 Sussex. I was not at 24 Sussex that day. There was no meeting. I did not have breakfast with Mr. Asper or anyone in his family. Last week opposition members made a big accusation about Harrington Lake being used. That was a lie. We gave the cheque. They have not yet apologized.
Harper évoque une liste d'abus de pouvoir allégués passés pour poser une question incomplète sur la façon dont les Canadiens peuvent être assurés que le premier ministre n'a pas abusé de son pouvoir dans l'affaire CanWest actuelle.
The question is largely a rhetorical list of alleged past abuses—sponsorship contracts, Terry Milewski, the Business Development Bank, Conrad Black—with an implied but incomplete final ask about the current case, never fully formed into a single answerable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is still no straight answer to my question. The problem is that the Prime Minister is not credible when it comes to issues of abusing power. That is the government that has abused millions of dollars in lucrative sponsorship and advertising contracts. It is the Prime Minister who was involved in the silencing of a CBC reporter, Terry Milewski. It is the Prime Minister who called the Business Development Bank to influence its decisions. It is the Prime Minister who waged a petty war against the previous owner of the Southam chain, Mr. Black. With this history, how can Canadians be sure that the Prime Minister did not abuse his power once--
Chrétien dit que la dernière fois qu'il a déjeuné avec le propriétaire de Southam News, c'était publiquement avec Lord Conrad Black, et plaisante en disant qu'il ne réussit pas très bien à contrôler la presse.
Chrétien pivots to recounting his public lunch with Lord Conrad Black and jokes about his alleged inability to control the press, making no substantive attempt to address the accountability question being posed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the last time I had lunch with the owner of Southam News it was at 24 Sussex with Lord Conrad Black. He has sold his asset to somebody else. For those who pretend that I control the press, I have to say that I am not very successful at it. I read the press every day and some mornings I am a bit disappointed with those people but I never tell them.
Reynolds demande comment les Canadiens peuvent être assurés que le premier ministre n'a pas abusé de son pouvoir pour faire taire ses critiques, et demande précisément si des appels ont été faits depuis son ministère, oui ou non.
Reynolds raises a substantive concern about the government's dual power over media through spending and regulation and ends with a pointed yes-or-no ask about whether calls were made from the Prime Minister's department, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that these firings are “not my problem”. They are his problem. The government abuses power. The government has power over the media through its spending and regulation. Media critics of the government are fired. How can Canadians be assured that the Prime Minister did not abuse his power to silence his critics? Were calls made from his department, yes or no?
Chrétien établit des parallèles avec des changements de personnel au Citizen sous Conrad Black et le cas de la sénatrice Joan Fraser ayant perdu son poste à la Gazette, sans répondre à la question sur les appels téléphoniques.
Chrétien ignores the yes-or-no question about calls and instead draws a parallel to personnel changes under Conrad Black at the Citizen and the case of Senator Joan Fraser at the Gazette, deflecting accountability entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the operation of newspapers are changed all the time. I remember when Mr. Black took over the Citizen . Some people who were very good in administration were asked to go. That happens all the time. The same thing happened at the Gazette . Senator Joan Fraser was an editor at the Gazette and because she was not conservative enough, she lost her job but there was no cry from the opposition in those days.
Reynolds cite Gordon Gibson décrivant la dette de quatre milliards de dollars de CanWest et le pouvoir de vie et de mort du gouvernement fédéral sur ses intérêts télévisuels, et demande à nouveau si des appels ont été faits.
Reynolds cites a specific quotation from Gordon Gibson describing CanWest's debt and the federal government's power over its television interests, and presses again for a yes-or-no answer on whether calls were made, giving the question factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is still no yes or no. Let me quote from a friend of the Prime Minister's, the former leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, Gordon Gibson, who said: Let me make it very clear. I have...no criticism of the owners. I think we have a situation here where...CanWest has four billion dollars worth of debt, debt that has to be serviced or you'll go broke, where the federal government has power of life and death over the television interests of the empire, and where we have, as Jeffrey Simpson put it so beautifully this morning, an extreme vengeful and increasingly paranoid prime minister-- The Prime Minister has not given us a yes or no. Were calls made? Tell us, on Gordon Gibson, his friend, my friend, were calls made?
Chrétien dit qu'il n'a pas parlé à M. Gibson, n'a jamais rencontré M. Mills, et n'a pas demandé sa démission à qui que ce soit, attribuant la décision au propriétaire de la chaîne Southam.
Chrétien directly denies having talked with Gordon Gibson and never having met Mr. Mills, and denies asking for Mills' resignation, which is partially responsive but still does not answer the specific yes-or-no question about calls being made.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have not talked with Mr. Gibson and I never met Mr. Mills. I did not ask for his resignation from anybody at all. It is a decision that has been made by the owner of the Southam chain, just like decisions were made by the previous owner and the owners before.
Duceppe demande pourquoi le ministre de la Justice refuse de se conformer au moratoire du 10 juin sur les contrats de Groupaction imposé par le ministre des Travaux publics, alors que le ministère de la Justice continue de faire appel à Groupaction pour sa publicité.
Duceppe cites a specific June 10 moratorium imposed by the Minister of Public Works on Groupaction contracts, names a specific department—Justice—still using Groupaction, and asks a clear why-question about non-compliance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on June 10, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services imposed a moratorium on the awarding of advertising, communication and opinion survey contracts to Groupaction until the RCMP investigation is completed. While this does not lend itself to interpretation, Groupaction is still in charge of all the advertising done for the Department of Justice, and there is nothing to suggest that this will change. Could the Minister of Justice tell us why he completely refuses to comply with the moratorium imposed on the contracts to Groupaction by his colleague at public works?
Cauchon affirme que le ministère de la Justice se conforme à la directive émise par le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux.
Cauchon simply asserts that the Department of Justice is complying with the directive, without providing any explanation or facts about the specific contracts Duceppe identified, leaving the contradiction unresolved.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is complying with the directive issued by my colleague, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Duceppe demande pourquoi un fonctionnaire a déclaré la veille que le ministère de la Justice a toujours des contrats avec Groupaction non touchés par le moratoire, si ce fonctionnaire sera rappelé à l'ordre, et comment expliquer la contradiction.
Duceppe sharpens the question by citing a specific contradictory statement from a departmental official the previous day and asks whether the official will be called to order and how the discrepancy is explained.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why, yesterday, a departmental official stated that the Department of Justice still has contracts with Groupaction and that these contracts were not in any way affected by the moratorium. Will this public servant be called to order? How do we explain the discrepancy between the minister's comments and those of this official?
Cauchon répète que le ministère de la Justice, comme tous les autres ministères, se conforme à la directive du ministre des Travaux publics, sans aborder la contradiction soulevée.
Cauchon simply repeats his previous answer verbatim without addressing the contradiction between his statement and the departmental official's statement cited by Duceppe.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think I have no choice but to repeat what I said. The Department of Justice, like all the other departments, which also received it, is complying with the directive issued by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Gauthier demande si le premier ministre admettra avoir un sérieux problème éthique parce qu'il n'a pas agi pendant deux ans dans l'affaire des commandites, alors que n'importe qui d'autre aurait été alerté et aurait agi immédiatement.
Gauthier raises a substantive allegation that the Prime Minister knew about problems in the sponsorship affair for two years without acting, but frames it as a broad ethical question rather than a specific factual ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what worries political observers the most in the whole sponsorship affair is the fact that the Prime Minister knew that things were awry for two years. Will the Prime Minister admit that he has a serious ethical problem because he did not act as Prime Minister, when anyone else would have been alerted by the situation and would have acted immediately?
Goodale fait valoir que tous les Canadiens étaient au courant de la situation car elle avait été publiée sur Internet et dans le Globe and Mail, et dit que des mesures correctives ont été prises à partir de 2000, 2001 et 2002, conformément au rapport d'audit interne.
Goodale engages with the two-year timeline directly, arguing the matter was publicly known via the Internet and the Globe and Mail, and references corrective action taken in 2000, 2001, and 2002, which is partially substantive but sidesteps the inaction allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says the Prime Minister was aware of this matter for a period of over two years. In fact, all Canadians were aware of the matter because it appeared on the Internet and it was published in the Globe and Mail . It was hardly a secret. Starting in 2000, 2001 and 2002 the corrective action that was necessary was being taken as required by the internal audit report.
Gauthier demande pourquoi le gouvernement a attendu que l'opposition soulève la question à la Chambre avant de procéder à des vérifications et des enquêtes, et si ce silence n'est pas un signe de collusion bienveillante de la part du gouvernement et du ministère des Travaux publics.
Gauthier asks a pointed accountability question about why the government waited until the opposition raised the issue in the House before conducting audits and investigations, and asks whether this silence is a sign of benevolent collusion, which is specific but partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once and for all, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services can talk all he wants about measures now being taken. The government has known about the problem for two years now; for two years, it did nothing, or almost nothing, with the exception of a few corrective measures. What we want to know is why did the government wait until we raised the issue here in the House before going ahead with audits and investigations? Is this silence not a sign of benevolent collusion on the part of the government and the Department of Public Works and Government Services?
Goodale dit que dès que l'audit interne a été disponible à l'automne 2000, les fonctionnaires ont commencé à élaborer un plan d'action, que les recommandations ont été mises en œuvre tout au long de 2001, et qu'au printemps 2002, l'équipe d'audit interne est revenue vérifier que les mesures correctives avaient bien été prises.
Goodale provides a timeline—internal audit available fall 2000, action plan developed through 2001, internal audit team returning in spring 2002—which directly addresses the inaction allegation with some factual detail, though without fully refuting the collusion charge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as soon as the internal audit became available in the fall of the year 2000, the appropriate officials began work on an action plan to respond in detail to the audit's recommendations. Those recommendations were responded to through the course of the year 2001, and in the spring of 2002 the internal audit team returned to these files to check to make sure that the appropriate corrective measures had in fact been taken.
McDonough demande pourquoi 58 des 60 délégués internationaux, principalement africains, se sont vu refuser des visas pour entrer au Canada et participer au sommet populaire G6B en marge du G-8 à Kananaskis.
McDonough raises a specific and verifiable claim—58 out of 60 international delegates, mostly African, denied visas to participate in the G6B people's summit—which is highly specific, though the question was cut off before it was fully completed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Kananaskis is coming and the Prime Minister has aroused expectations that the G-8 will offer solutions to the marginalization of Africa in the age of globalization--
Hear, hear.
--despite the lack of meaningful input from the African people themselves. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the government can be so pleased about the lack of meaningful input from the African people themselves. The people's summit, the G6B, also gets underway this weekend. Tragically, African delegates will be scarce. It turns out that the government does not want them here in Canada. Could the Prime Minister explain why 58 out of 60 international delegates, mostly African, have been denied visas to enter Canada and participate--
Coderre assure qu'il existe une procédure régulière, qu'il examinera la question, que les procédures doivent être respectées, et que cela n'est pas lié à un pays en particulier.
Coderre offers only a vague commitment to look into the matter and references due process without addressing the specific figure of 58 out of 60 delegates denied visas or explaining why.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that we have due process. I am going to take a look, but we have some procedures to respect. It is nothing regarding any country in particular, but I am going to take a good look at it.
McDonough demande quelle défense possible le gouvernement pourrait offrir pour son approche paternaliste et exclusive du développement africain, étant donné que la société civile africaine, les syndicats, les ONG et les universitaires n'ont pratiquement pas eu l'occasion de façonner le nouveau plan de développement africain.
McDonough's follow-up is largely rhetorical, characterizing the government's approach as pathetic, top down, and paternalistic, and asking only for a general defence of that paternalism without a specific answerable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, sadly, the denial of these visas is further proof of the pathetic, top down, paternalistic approach to African development by Canada and by the G-8. It is despicable that African civil society, labour groups, NGOs and academics have had virtually no opportunity to shape the new African development plan. The predictable result is a plan that excludes the very communities and countries that are most desperately in need. What possible defence could the government offer for this paternalism and exclusion?
Chrétien dit qu'il a accordé quatre fois plus de temps aux dirigeants syndicaux venus d'Afrique à titre d'invités du CTC, que ceux-ci ont félicité le Canada pour l'initiative, et qu'Africa sera le principal sujet du sommet de Kananaskis.
Chrétien provides some substantive information, saying he gave four times more time to union leaders from Africa who were guests of the CLC, that they congratulated Canada, and that Africa will be the main item at the Kananaskis summit, which is partially responsive though it does not address the visa denial issue.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I gave four times more time to the union leaders who came from Africa. They were the guests of the CLC in Canada. They congratulated Canada for this initiative and they congratulated me because I was in a position to tell them that we have decided that Africa is to be the main item of the summit at Kananaskis next week and nothing will deter the meeting from the objective to put Africa back on the map of the world where it should be. This initiative of Canadians was applauded by the leaders of all the--
Clark demande si la société personnelle du premier ministre a vendu ses actions dans le terrain de golf Grand-Mère en 1993, à qui exactement elles ont été vendues, et dans quelle province l'acheteur—identifié dans les documents du conseiller en éthique comme l'Akimbo Development Corporation mais introuvable dans les registres corporatifs de l'Ontario, du Québec et du fédéral—est constitué.
Clark cites the ethics counsellor's documents from March, identifies the specific company named as Akimbo Development Corporation, verifies its non-existence in Ontario, Quebec, and the federal corporations database, and asks three precise factual questions about the 1993 share transfer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last March the ethics counsellor tabled documents showing that in 1993 the Prime Minister's personal company transferred the shares it held in the Grand-Mère golf course to a company identified explicitly as the Akimbo Development Corporation, yet there is no Akimbo Development Corporation registered in Ontario, in Quebec, or in the federal corporations database. On the record, the company named in the Prime Minister's napkin agreement does not exist. Did the Prime Minister's company sell those shares in 1993? To whom exactly were those shares sold and in what jurisdiction is the purchaser incorporated?
Chrétien dit que ses adversaires manquent de questions, affirme avoir agi exactement selon les conseils du conseiller en éthique, et détourne l'attention en demandant à Clark de nommer les contributeurs à son fonds de retraite.
Chrétien dismisses the question as evidence of running out of material, claims he acted under the ethics counsellor's advice without addressing any of the three specific factual questions asked, and deflects by asking about Clark's retirement fund.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think they are really running out of questions. They are back to 1993 when I acted exactly under the advice of the ethics counsellor. Perhaps I can take the occasion to ask the leader of the fifth party if he will give the names of all the people who will contribute to his own retirement fund that is being set up at this time.
Clark demande comment Park Inns Canada Ltd. a pu vendre en 1999 à Louis Michaud des actions qu'elle ne possédait jamais, étant donné que selon les documents du conseiller en éthique, Akimbo n'a jamais revendu ces actions, et demande au premier ministre de produire tout mandat ou acte de vente pour clarifier cette contradiction.
Clark cites specific documents from the ethics counsellor showing no resale by Akimbo, then a 1999 sale to Louis Michaud by a third party, Park Inns Canada Ltd., and asks how Park Inns Canada could sell shares it never owned, with a specific request to produce any mandate or record of sale.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that his shares were sold to Akimbo Development Corporation. According to the documents produced by the ethics counsellor, Akimbo never resold these shares to anyone else. However, in 1999, these same shares were sold to Louis Michaud by a third party, Park Inns Canada Ltd. How is it that Park Inns Canada was able to sell shares it never owned? If there is a mandate or a record of sale to clear up this loose end, will the Prime Minister produce it?
Chrétien répète qu'il a vendu les actions qu'il détenait dans le terrain de golf avant de devenir premier ministre du Canada et dit qu'il a suivi à la lettre les conseils du conseiller en éthique.
Chrétien simply repeats that he sold the shares he owned in the golf course before becoming Prime Minister and says he followed the ethics counsellor's advice to the letter, without addressing the specific factual discrepancy about Park Inns Canada raised by Clark.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I said very clearly, I sold the shares I owned in the golf course before becoming Prime Minister of Canada, and I have nothing further to add. I followed the advice given to me by the ethics counsellor to the letter.
Hill demande combien d'enquêtes de la GRC seront nécessaires avant que le flux d'argent des contribuables vers Groupaction par le ministère de la Justice ne s'arrête, étant donné que le ministre des Travaux publics a déjà conseillé au gouvernement de ne plus contracter avec Groupaction.
Hill references the public works minister's own advice against further Groupaction contracts and notes the Justice department is still paying Groupaction, asking how many RCMP investigations it will take to stop the flow, which is pointed but partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the public works minister has said that Groupaction's contracts were bad enough that he had advised the government not to take any more contracts from it. The problem is that the justice department has not stopped shovelling money to Groupaction. How many RCMP investigations will it take before that flow of taxpayers' money will stop?
Cauchon répète que son ministère se conforme aux demandes du ministre des Travaux publics.
Cauchon again simply asserts compliance with the public works minister's directive without providing any detail about the specific Justice department contracts or when the payments would stop.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself. My department is complying with the requests made by my colleague, the minister of public works.
Hill demande pourquoi le ministre des Travaux publics est resté silencieux pendant neuf ans alors que les abus de l'argent des contribuables pour la publicité politique se poursuivaient jour après jour, citant une déclaration passée du ministre réclamant une réduction draconienne de ces abus flagrants.
Hill quotes a past statement by the public works minister calling for a drastic reduction in blatant abuse of taxpayers' money for political advertising, and asks why the minister sat quietly for nine years while these abuses went on, which is partially specific but mostly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, why not before now? Let me go back and quote the minister of public works. He said the following in a previous portfolio: I will call for a drastic reduction in the blatant abuse of taxpayers' money for political advertising at public expense. For the last nine years why did this minister sit quietly when these abuses were going on day after day?
Goodale dit que le premier ministre lui a demandé de gérer la situation dans ce portefeuille, et que sa tâche est de découvrir les erreurs, de s'assurer qu'elles sont clarifiées, de corriger les erreurs administratives et de renvoyer à la police les questions soulevant des problèmes juridiques.
Goodale outlines the mandate he has been given—to discover errors, ventilate them, correct administrative mistakes, and refer legal matters to the police—which provides some substantive information about the government's response but does not engage with the personal accountability question about his prior statement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me to deal with a situation that has arisen in this portfolio. I am performing that function on behalf of the Prime Minister and the government. The task is to discover those cases where errors have been made to make sure they are clearly ventilated, to correct the administrative mistakes and to refer any matters that raise legal issues to the police. That responsibility is being discharged.
Le ministère de la Justice a-t-il encore un contrat en vigueur (antérieur au moratoire) avec Groupaction?
Duceppe asks a precise, binary factual question — does the Department of Justice currently hold a pre-moratorium contract with Groupaction — narrowing the scope to a single answerable yes/no.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice tells us that he is complying with the directive issued by his colleague, the public works minister, who mentioned a moratorium on future projects. And the ongoing projects will be reviewed on a case by case basis. I therefore ask the Minister of Justice whether his department still has a contract with Groupaction, not a new contract, but one which was signed before the request for a moratorium. Does Groupaction still have a contract with his department?
Le ministre a seulement indiqué que le ministère de la Justice respecte la directive du ministre des travaux publics, sans confirmer ni nier l'existence d'un contrat.
Cauchon deflects by restating compliance with the directive rather than answering whether a contract exists, which is exactly what was asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the public works minister issued a directive, and the Department of Justice—like all other departments, I imagine—, is complying with that directive in every respect.
Existe-t-il, en ce moment aujourd'hui, un contrat entre le ministère de la Justice et Groupaction? Oui ou non?
Duceppe sharpens the question to an explicit yes/no demand — is there a contract between the Department of Justice and Groupaction today — referencing the case-by-case review framework and the precedent of National Defence terminating its contracts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is clear. There is a moratorium on new contracts. Contracts which were already in place—and there were some in the Department of Justice—, were to be reviewed on a case by case basis. In the case of the Department of National Defence, they were terminated. Were the justice department's contracts with Groupaction which were already in place terminated? Is there right now, today, a contract between the Department of Justice and Groupaction? The question is clear. I do not want to know whether or not they are going to comply with directives. Is there a contract today? Yes or no?
Oh, oh.
Le ministre a confirmé le respect de la directive et déclaré qu'il n'y a aucun travail en cours avec le groupe mentionné au ministère de la Justice.
Cauchon eventually states there is no work pending with the group at the Department of Justice, which substantively answers the question, though he buries it after another compliance non-answer and after interruptions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first, the Department of Justice is complying with the directive issued.
It looks to me like they do not want to hear the answer. The Department of Justice is complying with the directive issued by the minister of public works. Second, there is no work pending with the group mentioned at the Department of Justice.
Qui siégeait au comité des communications du Cabinet qui a pris ces décisions profitables à ses membres et coûtant des millions aux contribuables, et pourquoi les renseignements promis n'ont-ils pas encore été fournis?
Ritz cites two specific prior commitments (committee of the whole appearances) and the failure to deliver promised information, then asks who sat on the cabinet communications committee — a factual accountability question, though it mixes in rhetorical framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting patiently for the minister of public works to provide us with some specific information. He promised to provide that same information during committee of the whole two weeks ago and again a week ago after a question of privilege. Nothing has come forward yet and we are wondering how long we have to wait. His claims of being transparent and accountable really ring hollow. I would like to ask the minister at this time, who sat on the cabinet communications committee that made these self-serving decisions that cost taxpayers millions of dollars?
Goodale a indiqué que les questions soulevées en comité plénier avaient toutes reçu une réponse écrite remise au Bureau plus tôt ce jour-là.
Goodale directly addresses the failure-to-deliver complaint by stating the written answers were delivered to the Table earlier that day, though he does not answer who sat on the cabinet communications committee.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. gentleman that the questions raised by him and a number of other members of the committee of the whole during my appearance on the estimates were all answered in writing earlier today.
Le ministre annoncera-t-il aujourd'hui une enquête publique indépendante pour aller au fond de cette affaire Groupaction?
Ritz asks a clear question — will the minister announce a public independent inquiry — but opens with partisan humour that dilutes the accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that sounds just great but he must have sent them through Groupaction because I have not seen the reports yet. They got stalled in the photocopier, I guess. If the minister is now in this new era of joining with us to get to the bottom of this, will he also announce today a public independent inquiry to really dig to the bottom of this fiasco?
Goodale a décrit les processus de reddition de comptes existants — examen ministériel, vérification de la vérificatrice générale, renvois aux autorités policières et révision du cadre de gouvernance par le Conseil du Trésor — sans s'engager à tenir une enquête publique indépendante.
Goodale provides a substantive rundown of existing accountability mechanisms (departmental review, auditor general audit, police referrals, treasury board governance review) without agreeing to a public independent inquiry, partially addressing the ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, further to the previous question, of course the appropriate process is for me to respond to all members of the committee of the whole, not just one. Therefore, the answers were delivered to the Table. Having to do with the ongoing work, as the hon. gentleman knows there is a very thorough departmental review that is being conducted by Public Works and Government Services Canada. There is the fresh audit that will be undertaken by the auditor general on a government-wide basis. Wherever matters raise legal issues they are automatically referred to police authorities, and it has been amply demonstrated that this responsibility is being discharged. As well, the treasury board is re-examining all the governance framework to make sure for the future that all of these matters are properly handled and problems do not recur.
Étant donné que le rapport de vérification interne d'août 2000 relevait ce qui s'apparente à de la double facturation, pourquoi a-t-il déclenché un plan de communication plutôt qu'une action corrective immédiate du premier ministre?
Picard cites the specific August 2000 public works internal audit report and identifies a concrete allegation (double billing / work invoiced under production budget rather than the sponsorship administration contract) before asking why it triggered a communication plan rather than action.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to the August 2000 public works internal audit report, work was invoiced under the production budget whereas it was part of the sponsorship administration contract for which communications firms were receiving a 12% commission. This is, in plain language, double billing. How is it that a report stating in black and white that the government is being robbed can trigger the creation of a communication plan rather than incite the Prime Minister to roll up his sleeves and see that an end is put to this?
Goodale a indiqué que la vérification interne a mené à un plan d'action — et non à un plan de communication — pour mettre en œuvre les recommandations, avec des corrections progressives en 2001 et une vérification de suivi au printemps 2002.
Goodale corrects the framing by stating it produced an action plan not a communications plan and describes the follow-up, but does not directly address why the companies were not immediately called to account for the alleged double billing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, the internal audit led to an action plan, not a communications plan, an action plan by the department to deal with every one of the auditor's recommendations, to address those recommendations and to implement the corrective action. That action was taken progressively through the year 2001 and our audit team returned to these particular files in the spring of this year to confirm that the corrections were in fact underway.
Pourquoi n'a-t-on pas tenu de réunions avec les firmes fautives dans les jours suivant le rapport de vérification interne de Travaux publics pour exiger le remboursement des sommes surfacturées?
Picard asks a precise factual question grounded in the audit timeline — why were no meetings held with offending companies to demand reimbursement in the days following the internal audit report.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister explain that, in the days following the public works internal audit report, there was no meeting held with the offending companies to demand reimbursement of the sums they had overcharged the government?
Goodale a invoqué le mandat permanent du premier ministre d'exposer les erreurs, de récupérer les trop-payés et de référer les activités illégales à la police, sans préciser ce qui s'est passé après le rapport de vérification de 2000.
Goodale responds with a general statement of the Prime Minister's principles (expose errors, recover overpayments, refer illegal activity to police) without addressing whether meetings were or were not held with the companies after the audit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very, very clear, long before any changes were made with respect to the cabinet, that, first, administrative errors would be exposed and corrected, that wherever there were any overpayments full efforts would be made to recover those repayments, and that if there were illegal activity that would be referred to police. That is the mandate I have been given by the Prime Minister and that is what has happened.
Avant de commenter l'article de presse sur une prétendue nouvelle politique américaine à l'égard de l'Irak, le ministre des Affaires étrangères a-t-il appelé l'un de ses homologues américains pour vérifier si l'histoire était vraie?
Day asks a specific procedural question — did the minister call U.S. counterparts before commenting on the media story — which is a concrete factual ask with clear accountability value, though it is set up with characterizing rhetoric about Saddam Hussein.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a dictator who vigorously represses the rights and freedoms of his own people. He obstructs UN inspectors who want to determine if there is the manufacture or the storing of weapons of mass destruction within his territory. Also, he is implicated in harbouring terrorists and supporting terrorism. A day ago, before the Minister of Foreign Affairs launched his anti-U.S. tirade about an unsubstantiated media report related to an alleged new policy on Iraq, did the Minister of Foreign Affairs call any of his U.S. counterparts to verify whether the media story was true or not?
Graham a répondu non, qu'il n'avait pas appelé ses homologues américains, expliquant qu'il avait été invité à commenter une information médiatique et l'avait fait en réaffirmant la préférence du Canada pour les institutions multilatérales plutôt que pour l'action unilatérale.
Graham directly and candidly answers "no, I did not" and explains his reasoning, then elaborates on Canadian policy preference for multilateral institutions — a notably direct and substantive response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, no, I did not. I was asked to comment on a media story and I commented on it. I pointed out to the media when they asked me about that media story that in our view in Canada we prefer to work through multilateral international institutions which will enable us to guarantee the peace and security of the world, and that we must be very careful that we do not start unilateral actions which in fact will destabilize, because they may be copied by other regimes that may choose to use the same actions against us, which could be very dangerous.
Existe-t-il une nouvelle politique canadienne concernant une éventuelle participation aux côtés des alliés, dont les États-Unis, à une intervention en Irak?
Day asks whether there is a new Canadian policy on participation with allies including the United States on possible intervention in Iraq — a substantive policy question — though it is somewhat obscured by rhetorical framing about the minister's conduct.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would be far more comforted to know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would not risk starting some action without first confirming whether a media report was true. I find it astonishing that he did not do that. Is there a new Canadian policy related to Canadian participation with its allies, including the United States, on possible intervention in Iraq if all the evidence is there that there is a clear and constant danger? Is there a new policy on that?
Graham a déclaré que le gouvernement ajuste toujours ses politiques lorsque les intérêts canadiens sont menacés, sans confirmer ni nier l'existence d'une nouvelle politique sur l'Irak.
Graham deflects by turning Day's consistency-in-sourcing point back on him, then provides only a vague statement that the government adjusts policies when Canadian interests are threatened, without specifying whether there is or is not a new Iraq policy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I find this a totally astonishing proposition by my friend opposite since he is constantly asking me questions every day in the House based on totally unfounded media stories. I find this unusual. If this is the proposition to which we all will adhere I would like him to go back when he rephrases his questions and I will adhere to the same standard. That said, I made it clear and the Prime Minister made it clear that the government will always adjust its policies when Canadian interests are threatened. We will do this in this circumstance. We will always do it and we will always act in the first interest of Canadians.
Comment le gouvernement du Canada entend-il répondre à la crise humanitaire en Afrique australe?
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to announce Canadian aid to southern Africa — no accountability dimension, purely a setup for a ministerial announcement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 60 million people in the southern African region are suffering from political upheaval and what has been described as the worst regional drought since 1992. Could the Minister for International Cooperation inform the House how the Government of Canada intends to address this urgent situation?
Whelan a annoncé que le Canada, par l'entremise de l'Agence canadienne de développement international, a promis 34,2 millions de dollars pour fournir de la nourriture, des médicaments et d'autres formes d'aide à l'Afrique australe.
Whelan provides a substantive answer with a specific figure ($34.2 million through the Canadian International Development Agency) and describes the nature of the assistance (food, medicine, and other assistance), which is genuinely informative.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain is quite correct. We are deeply concerned about the worsening conditions in southern Africa. Due to the urgent nature of this humanitarian crisis, Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency, has pledged $34.2 million to provide much needed food, medicine and other assistance to the region. This contribution will allow us to build on our history of providing assistance to countries in southern Africa and to help those in need.
La ministre assurera-t-elle aux Canadiens que le gouvernement ne commercialisera pas davantage les ondes canadiennes ni ne les américanisera pour récompenser CanWest de ses dons et de son soutien politique?
Lill cites specific facts (over $250,000 in Liberal donations, the firing of the Ottawa Citizen publisher) and a specific regulatory concern (cuts to Canadian content, increased advertising) before asking a clear policy question, though the framing is heavily partisan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we know CanWest Global has done at least two big favours for the government. It has donated more $250,000 to the Liberal Party and this week it fired the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen for being openly critical of the Prime Minister. We also know that CanWest is lobbying for changes to the broadcast regulations in the form of cuts to Canadian content and increased advertising to improve its corporate bottom line. Will the minister assure Canadians that the government will not further commercialize and Americanize our airwaves as a way of paying back CanWest for services rendered?
Copps a répondu seulement « Absolument », sans fournir aucun renseignement substantiel ni contexte de politique.
Copps answers with a single word — "Absolutely" — which is a non-substantive response that provides no factual content, policy commitment detail, or explanation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, absolutely.
Compte tenu d'un rapport indiquant que les toxines mortelles provenant des centrales au charbon devraient augmenter de 50 %, le gouvernement s'engagera-t-il à un moratoire sur les centrales au charbon au Canada et exigera-t-il la même chose des États-Unis?
Comartin cites a specific report released the previous day by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation and its finding of a projected 50% increase in toxins from coal-fired plants, then makes a clear ask for a moratorium commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, southwestern Ontario is currently under a smog watch, an occurrence that happens all too often. A report released yesterday by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation highlights the source of the smog. It found that the alarming amounts of deadly toxins being released by coal-fired power plants in North America is on the rise and is expected to increase by a full 50%. To date the federal government has remained silent on the use of coal-fired power plants in Ontario and elsewhere. Could we have a commitment from the government to move for a moratorium in Canada and demand that the U.S. do the same?
Anderson a cité un objectif de réduction des émissions de 39 kilotonnes convenu avec le Québec, l'Ontario et les Américains, a déclaré qu'Ontario Power Generation devrait aller plus loin, mais n'a pas directement répondu à la demande de moratoire.
Anderson disputes the claim that the government was silent, states a specific reduction target of 39 kilotons agreed to by Quebec, Ontario, the federal government, and the Americans, and indicates the Ontario Power Generation program is insufficient — but does not address the moratorium request and the answer is cut off.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has not been silent but perhaps the hon. member has not taken the trouble to listen. Let me repeat again for him today that we do not believe the program of Ontario power generation will lead to adequate reductions in emissions of pollutants from their coal-fired plants in Ontario. We believe they will have to go further. The target we have is 39 kilotons. It is a target agreed to by Quebec, Ontario, ourselves and the Americans. We believe it is important to continue the program of reducing emissions of these smog causing chemicals because not only do they--
Le premier ministre déposera-t-il le chèque indiquant la société à laquelle un paiement partiel a été versé en novembre 1997 sur la dette de 1993 due à J&AC Consultants Inc., telle que mentionnée dans la lettre de Deborah Weinstein du 26 mars 2001 au conseiller en éthique?
MacKay cites a specific document (letter to the ethics counsellor dated March 26, 2001, from Deborah Weinstein), a specific transaction (partial payment in November 1997 on 1993 debt to J&AC Consultants Inc.), and asks a single concrete action — will the Prime Minister table the cheque.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the ethics counsellor dated March 26, 2001, Deborah Weinstein, the Prime Minister's personal lawyer, stated that a partial payment was made in November 1997 on the 1993 debt owed to the Prime Minister's company, J&AC Consultants Inc., for the alleged sale of the golf course shares. Could the Prime Minister table the cheque which would show the company that the payment was made to in November 1997? Would he table that cheque?
Rock a déclaré que toutes ces questions avaient été traitées en détail il y a un an et qu'il était temps pour le député et son parti de passer aux vraies affaires de la nation.
Rock dismisses the question entirely by saying all matters were addressed a year ago and it is time to move on, providing zero factual response to the specific request to table the cheque.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all these matters were gone into in great detail a year ago in the House and complete responses were provided by the Prime Minister and by his office. The world has moved on. The House has moved on. It is time for the member and his party to move on to the real business of the nation.
Étant donné que les principales conclusions de l'enquête américaine sont maintenant publiques, le ministre publiera-t-il le rapport de l'enquête canadienne ou au moins communiquera-t-il les informations reçues du général Dumais ou du secrétaire Rumsfeld?
Wayne grounds her question in the specific fact that the New York Times has published key facts from the final American investigation report, asks for the Canadian investigation report to be made public, and identifies named individuals (General Dumais, Secretary Rumsfeld) — a well-targeted accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the New York Times published the key facts from the final report of the American investigation into the killing of four of our Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Given that the details are now in the public domain, will the minister make public the report of the Canadian investigation and, if not, will the minister at least provide the House with whatever information he has received from either General Dumais or Secretary Rumsfeld? All Canadians, not just the U.S. and Americans, need to know the facts about this horrible situation.
McCallum a indiqué que le général Baril a déposé son rapport auprès du chef d'état-major de la défense à 8 h ce matin-là, qu'il le recevrait dans les heures suivantes et qu'il a demandé au ministère de le rendre public le plus tôt possible.
McCallum provides specific, timely information — General Baril deposited the report with the chief of defence staff at 8 o'clock that morning, he will receive it within hours, and he has instructed the department to release it at the earliest possible time — directly engaging the request for disclosure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at 8 o'clock this morning General Baril deposited his report with our chief of defence staff. I will receive it within hours. I have instructed our department to move heaven and earth to release this report to the Canadian people at the earliest possible time. My primary responsibility is to the families of those killed and to the Canadian people to get this information out at the earliest possible moment.
Étant donné que les entreprises d'Ottawa attendent toujours une indemnisation pour le G-20 sept mois plus tard et que celles de Québec ont dû s'adresser aux tribunaux, le solliciteur général s'engagera-t-il clairement à indemniser la ville d'Ottawa pour les pertes subies lors du G-8?
Thompson cites two specific precedents (G-20 compensation still unpaid seven months later, Quebec City businesses taking the government to court), references the solicitor general's previous commitment in the House, and makes a direct ask for a clear compensation promise to the city of Ottawa.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the solicitor general if he could give his word that the city of Ottawa and its businesses will be compensated for damages incurred by protesters at the G-8 summit. He responded that he has and that he will continue to honour all responsibilities. The fact of the matter is that Ottawa hosted the G-20 seven months ago and local businesses are still waiting for compensation, while in Quebec City many have had to take the government to court for compensation. Will the solicitor general just say straight out to the people of Ottawa that he will compensate the city for losses suffered?
Myers a fait l'éloge du travail de sécurité de la GRC lors du G-8 sans aborder la question de l'indemnisation des entreprises d'Ottawa ou de la ville.
Myers does not address compensation for Ottawa at all, instead pivoting entirely to praising the RCMP's security performance at the G-8, which is unrelated to the question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one thing I do know is that the RCMP is in charge of security. We can be very grateful for its ability to do the kind of work that is necessary. We should be congratulating the RCMP for making sure the protesters, the media, the delegates, the residents and everyone else involved will be safely and securely taken care of. The RCMP is doing the best job that it can and we on the government side will ensure that it continues to do that good work.
Le solliciteur général promettra-t-il aux résidents d'Ottawa que le gouvernement fédéral paiera leurs factures découlant du Sommet du G-8?
Thompson strips the question to its bare, direct form — will the federal government pay Ottawa's bills — making it a clear yes/no accountability question, though it is a follow-up restatement rather than a new factual contribution.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP's performance is at a very high level. The government's level is lower than it can possibly be. I will ask my question once again. Will the solicitor general promise the residents of Ottawa that the federal government will pay their bills?
Myers a déclaré que le gouvernement indemnisera là où ses responsabilités l'exigent, sans confirmer que les pertes d'Ottawa liées au G-8 relèvent de cet engagement.
Myers offers a vague assurance that the government will "compensate wherever necessary for our responsibilities" without confirming that Ottawa's G-8 losses fall within those responsibilities or giving any specifics, amounting to a near-deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general and the government have always said that we will compensate wherever necessary for our responsibilities. We will continue to do that. The hon. member opposite and that party should understand that we will do what is required when it is demanded. We always support the RCMP. We always support safety and security. Security is always priority number one for the government .
Pourquoi le gouvernement applique-t-il deux poids deux mesures en récupérant rapidement les intérêts des chômeurs mais pas ceux de Media IDA Vision?
The question quotes the minister's own words from the previous day and raises a specific factual inconsistency about interest recovery from Media IDA Vision versus treatment of unemployed and taxpayers, though it frames the ask in somewhat rhetorical "double standard" terms.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in connection with Media IDA Vision's reimbursement of interest, the minister of public works and government services said “there have been no such discussions to my knowledge.” Yet, when money is owed to it by the unemployed or by taxpayers, the government is very quick to initiate recovery procedures, as well as to charge interest and impose penalty charges. Can the minister explain to us why, once again, the government has a double standard, two different policies depending on whether the money owing is in the hands of the cronies of the Liberal regime or in the hands of the unemployed?
Le ministre nie tout double standard et affirme que le gouvernement examine les bases juridiques pour récupérer les trop-payés, y compris les intérêts éventuels, de Media IDA Vision.
The minister denies the double standard and references the Prime Minister's commitment to recover overpayments, and notes examination of the legal basis for interest recovery, but does not directly explain why interest was not pursued for two years.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard whatsoever. I think the hon. gentleman is misconstruing earlier remarks. The Prime Minister has said that wherever there were overpayments, the government would seek to recover those overpayments. On the matter of the interest charges, I have said that we are examining the legal basis upon which any payments, if they were in fact overpayments, could be recovered by the Crown.
N'est-il pas immoral que le gouvernement s'empresse de récupérer des fonds auprès des plus démunis tout en négligeant pendant deux ans de récupérer les intérêts gagnés par Media IDA Vision sur l'argent des contribuables?
The question is more rhetorical than specific, framing the issue as "immoral" and conflating several accusations without a single clear answerable ask, though it does reference the specific two-year delay in recovering interest from Media IDA Vision.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel it is immoral for the government to be rushing to get money back from the most disadvantaged, while it is not only rushing to meet with the companies that are buddies of the regime in an attempt to cover up their wrongdoing, but it has even neglected for two years to recover the interest earned by Media IDA Vision on the taxpayers' money? This is immoral.
Le ministre affirme que les trop-payés ne sont pas appropriés et que le gouvernement examine les bases juridiques pour récupérer les fonds au profit de la Couronne.
The minister gives a generic statement about overpayments being inappropriate and repeats the earlier answer about examining legal bases for recovery, without addressing the specific accusation of immorality or the two-year delay.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, overpayments in any circumstances are obviously not appropriate. Where they happen is a matter of contractual error or administrative procedures that have gone awry. They are obviously that much more serious. We are examining the legal basis for which we might be able to pursue recovery in the interests of the crown.
Le ministre s'engagera-t-il à procéder immédiatement à une révision de la défense avec la participation du parlement et du public, plutôt que de faire passer les intérêts du Parti libéral avant les besoins des militaires?
The question raises legitimate defence readiness concerns (Sea Kings, equipment shortfalls) but the ask — for an "immediate defence review with input from parliament and from the public" — is a compound policy demand wrapped in partisan rhetoric about "luxury jets" and "Liberal Party issues."
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the House is recessed for the summer and the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers are flying around on the new luxury jets, our military will still be stuck with 40 year old Sea Kings. They will still be hitching rides with the Americans. They will still be making do with unsuitable equipment and too few soldiers. Will the minister break with the tradition of past defence ministers, start putting the military ahead of Liberal Party issues and commit to an immediate defence review with input from parliament and from the public right across the country?
Le ministre affirme que la révision de la défense se déroulera très rapidement, que les Sea Kings sont sécuritaires et que le gouvernement s'engage à acheter le bon hélicoptère au bon prix dès que possible.
The minister addresses the defence review and the Sea Kings directly, offering a commitment that the review will happen "very quickly and expeditiously" and asserting Sea King safety, but gives no timeline or detail on parliamentary or public input.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the defence review will take place very quickly and expeditiously. As for the helicopters, we have been assured that the Sea Kings are safe. It is in the culture of the military that they never put their people into harm's way in helicopters. At the same time, the government is committed to purchasing the right helicopter at the right price as soon as possible.
Quand la révision de la défense sera-t-elle amorcée, et comprendra-t-elle la pleine participation du parlement et du public canadien à travers le pays?
The follow-up sharpens the ask by pressing specifically on when the review will be initiated and whether there will be full input from parliament and the Canadian public, making it more focused than the opening question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, members of our military know all too well about the Sea Kings and the story there. Canadians across the country know the reality of what is going on with our Sea Kings. The minister did not answer the question as to when the review will be initiated. Will there be full input from parliament and from the Canadian public across the country? Only with that will we have a review that will be meaningful and helpful to the military.
Le ministre affirme que la révision sera entreprise rapidement et avec des consultations, et annonce son intention de monter dans un Sea King après la fin de la session parlementaire pour démontrer sa confiance en leur sécurité.
The minister commits to undertaking the review "expeditiously and with consultations" but gives no timeline or specifics on parliamentary or public input, and pivots to a personal anecdote about flying in a Sea King.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the review will be undertaken expeditiously and with consultations. As for the safety of the Sea Kings, it is my first priority after parliament ends to go up in one so as to demonstrate my confidence in their safety.
Que peut-on faire pour s'assurer que les besoins immédiats en soins de santé de Ji-Won Park ne soient pas compromis lorsque son visa de visiteur expire le 27 juin?
The question is specific, names the individual (Ji-Won Park), cites the exact visa expiry date (June 27), and asks a clear and answerable question about what can be done to protect her health care given her immigration status.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Ji-Won Park, the 22 year old Korean exchange student who was brutally attacked while jogging in Vancouver's Stanley Park last month, remains in a coma with a massive brain injury. Ms. Park's visitor's visa will expire next week on June 27. Could the minister tell the House what can be done to ensure that Ms. Park's immediate health care needs are not compromised by her immigration status?
Le ministre assure la Chambre qu'aucune mesure de renvoi ne sera prise contre Mme Park le 27 juin et que toutes les options seront examinées avant toute décision, exprimant sa sympathie à la famille Park.
The minister directly addresses the specific case, acknowledges the extraordinary circumstances, and makes a clear commitment that there will be no removal action against Ms. Park on June 27, fully answering the question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, usually I do not comment on specific cases because of the Privacy Act but due to the extraordinary circumstances and especially because of the tragedy, I would say that compassion is in order. I want to assure British Columbians, the Canadian people and especially the Park family that we need to look at all the options before making any decision. I can assure my colleagues that there will be no removal action against Ms. Park on June 27. Ms. Park and her family have all of our sympathy for their situation.
Étant donné que les documents budgétaires montrent que plus de 675 millions de dollars ont déjà été coupés des filets de sécurité agricoles de l'année dernière, toute nouvelle annonce agricole fera-t-elle plus que simplement rétablir ces compressions?
The question cites specific budget documents and a figure of over $675 million in cuts to safety nets, and asks a pointed and answerable yes/no question about whether the upcoming announcement will do more than restore those cuts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Prime Minister will attempt to give Canadians the impression that he cares about farm families. The truth is far different. Canadians need to see through this Liberal shell game. The budget documents for this year show that he has already cut over $675 million from last year's safety nets. Will any announcement on agricultural funding do anything more than restore the $675 million cut from last year's agricultural budget?
Le ministre demande au député d'attendre l'annonce de demain et promet vaguement que le gouvernement soutiendra l'agriculture « encore plus qu'auparavant ».
The minister entirely dodges the specific question about the $675 million figure, offering only a vague promise that the government will "continue to support agriculture and even more so than we have in the past."
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has the patience to wait until an announcement by the Prime Minister and myself tomorrow, he will see that the government will continue to support agriculture and even more so than we have in the past.
Les nouveaux fonds agricoles seront-ils directement ciblés vers les producteurs de grains et d'oléagineux dépendants des exportations pour compenser les dommages commerciaux causés par la hausse des subventions étrangères?
The question identifies a specific category of producers (grain, oilseed and other export dependent producers) and asks a direct, answerable question about whether new funding will be targeted to them for trade injury compensation, though it opens with partisan framing about the "flip a coin" remark.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has joked that he will flip a coin to decide if he will help farmers fight against foreign subsidies. This flippant remark shows his true colours. He simply does not care. Canadians deserve better. Grain, oilseed and other export dependent producers are hardest hit by rising foreign subsidies. Compensation should be targeted to these farm families. The Prime Minister has refused to tell farmers and has refused to tell the provinces if he will direct funding to offset trade injury. Will new agricultural funding be directly targeted to export dependent producers for trade injury compensation?
Le premier ministre dit avoir parlé au président américain de l'augmentation inacceptable de 80 % des subventions agricoles américaines et affirme que le gouvernement travaillait pour les agriculteurs pendant que l'opposition « lançait de la boue ».
The Prime Minister entirely ignores the specific question about targeting funding to export-dependent producers for trade injury compensation, instead recounting his conversations with the U.S. president and attacking the opposition.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, while the opposition was not talking about agriculture, on many occasions I talked with the president of the United States and told him that it was completely unacceptable to increase by 80% the subsidy to farmers. It is unfair for the good producers of Canada and the other nations of the world. While the opposition was throwing dirt, we were doing the job for the farmers in this country.
La ministre réalise-t-elle que l'absence de véritable législation anti-briseurs de grève prolonge le conflit chez Vidéotron, et modifiera-t-elle le Code canadien du travail pour interdire l'utilisation de travailleurs de remplacement?
The question identifies a specific ongoing labour dispute at Vidéotron, references shortcomings in the Canada Labour Code, and asks whether the minister will amend the Code to address anti-strikebreaking, though the framing is heavily rhetorical and accusatory.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the labour dispute which began at Vidéotron on May 8 has reached a complete stalemate. Worse yet, the employer is not hesitating to take advantage of shortcomings in the Canada Labour Code to use replacement workers, also known as scabs, a situation which threatens to cause tensions and aggravate the situation. Does the minister realize that the lack of any real anti-strikebreaking legislation is what is chiefly responsible for prolonging labour disputes, particularly in the case of Vidéotron, and that by refusing to amend the Canada Labour Code, she is condoning and encouraging the use of strikebreakers during disputes?
La ministre commence à lire les dispositions actuelles du Code canadien du travail concernant les travailleurs de remplacement, notant que leur utilisation n'est pas interdite mais qu'il est interdit de les utiliser pour miner la capacité représentative d'un syndicat, avant d'être interrompue.
The minister begins reciting existing Canada Labour Code provisions on replacement workers rather than answering whether she will amend the Code, and the answer is cut off before any position is stated.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will read the process established by employees and employers regarding replacement workers, because it is important that all members in the House be familiar with it. The Canada Labour Code does not prohibit the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage. However, it does prohibit the use of replacement workers to undermine a union's representative capacity. If a union believes that the use of replacement labour is illegal, it can file a complaint with—
Pourquoi trois projets de haute technologie en Alberta ont-ils été financés à hauteur de 1,4 million de dollars par Diversification de l'économie de l'Ouest, et quels avantages cela apportera-t-il aux Canadiens de l'Ouest?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking a minister to explain a funding announcement already made, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, recently Western Economic Diversification announced $1.4 million in funding to three high technology projects in Alberta. Could the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification please explain why these projects were funded and what benefits they will provide to western Canadians?
Le secrétaire d'État explique que 1,4 million de dollars ont été annoncés à l'Université de Calgary pour trois projets sans but lucratif, dont des fonds pour Inno-Centre Alberta pour le mentorat et les services de soutien aux entreprises, et 400 000 $ à l'Université de Calgary pour augmenter les emplois basés sur le savoir et accélérer la commercialisation de produits innovants à travers l'Ouest canadien.
The minister provides specific details about the $1.4 million announcement, naming the recipients (Inno-Centre Alberta and the University of Calgary development offices), the amounts ($400,000 to the University of Calgary), and the purposes of the funding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity yesterday at the University of Calgary to announce the payment of $1.4 million for three non-profit projects which will help deliver the innovation strategy of the Government of Canada and western Canada. One goes to Inno-Centre Alberta, which will develop its program of mentoring and build business support services to assist the development of high tech companies. The other $400,000 will go to the development offices of the University of Calgary, Alberta, which will help increase knowledge based jobs in companies and the acceleration of the commercialization of innovative products and services across western Canada. It will also help diversify the local economy.
Le ministre de la Justice a-t-il cessé les paiements à Groupaction, et son inaction est-elle due à son rôle de ministre politique pour le Québec et au fait que Groupaction est un important donateur du Parti libéral?
The question is largely a partisan attack asserting that the Minister of Justice has not stopped payments to Groupaction because he is the political minister for Quebec and does not want to lose a Liberal Party donor, with no specific answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice has not immediately stopped shelling out taxpayers' money to Groupaction, perhaps it is because he is also the political minister for Quebec and does not want to lose this major Liberal Party donor.
Le ministre affirme que le ministère de la Justice se conforme pleinement à la directive de son collègue, et estime que les déclarations de l'opposition représentent un bas niveau en politique.
The minister does not address the specific allegation about Groupaction payments continuing, instead saying the Department of Justice is complying with his colleague's directive and expressing personal indignation at the attack.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the Department of Justice is complying fully with the directive issued by my colleague. When I hear the statements made regarding this issue, I think it would be difficult to go lower than this in politics.
La réunion de ce matin entre des fonctionnaires fédéraux et des représentants régionaux a-t-elle abouti à une solution pour le service de traversier entre Trois-Pistoles et Les Escoumins, et le ministre autorisera-t-il la réparation complète des quais pour assurer le maintien des services?
The question references a specific meeting that took place that morning, names the specific ferry route (Trois-Pistoles to Les Escoumins), and asks two clear and answerable questions: whether the meeting produced a solution and whether the minister will authorize full repair of the wharves.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this morning, federal officials met with regional representatives, who want a solution to the interruption of the ferry services between Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins caused by the negligence of the Department of Transport. Can the Minister of Transport tell us if this meeting resulted in a solution to salvage the 2002 summer season, and will he authorize the complete repair of the wharves to ensure that ferry services are maintained? Will the minister finally behave like a responsible owner?
Le secrétaire parlementaire affirme que la sécurité est la priorité du ministère, que des options sont à l'étude et que les négociations se poursuivent à court terme, et qu'il est confiant qu'une solution adéquate sera trouvée, tout en soulignant que deux autres traversiers sont en service dans la région.
The parliamentary secretary does not confirm whether the morning meeting produced a solution, offers only vague language about "options being examined" and "negotiations continuing," and does not commit to authorizing full repair of the wharves as specifically asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, safety is a priority of the department. A number of options are currently being examined, and negotiations are continuing in the very short term. We hope to reach a compromise that will meet users' needs. In the meantime, two other ferries are in operation between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon, and between Forestville and Rimouski. I am very confident that an adequate solution will be found.