Résumé de la séance
- La ratification du Protocole de Kyoto a dominé les échanges d'ouverture, Stephen Harper pressant le gouvernement d'expliquer pourquoi il refusait de garantir aux provinces une protection financière contre les impacts économiques négatifs des politiques de Kyoto, tandis que le ministre David Anderson esquivait en contestant la caractérisation du plan comme étant 'made in Kyoto' plutôt que 'made in Canada.'
- Les députés du Bloc québécois ont soutenu une offensive prolongée sur le déséquilibre fiscal, faisant valoir que les dépenses fédérales ont augmenté de 21,7 % depuis 1994 comparativement à 7,3 % pour le Québec hors santé, et que les surplus projetés astronomiques confirment que le champ fiscal fédéral est trop large par rapport aux obligations fédérales.
- La fraude à la TPS a fait l'objet de plusieurs échanges, des députés de l'Alliance canadienne et du PC alléguant des pertes de plus de 1 milliard de dollars, affirmant qu'une équipe spécialisée dans la lutte contre la fraude avait été abolie en 1995, et remettant en question si une simple entrée à la case 106 sans documentation pouvait générer un chèque gouvernemental; la ministre Elinor Caplan a défendu une unité d'enquête de 1 000 personnes et des mesures de présélection.
- Le scandale du sang contaminé est revenu à l'avant-plan après que la GRC a déposé des accusations contre quatre médecins, la Croix-Rouge et une compagnie pharmaceutique américaine; Joe Clark et Judy Wasylycia-Leis ont réclamé une indemnisation au-delà de la période 1986-1990 conformément aux recommandations du rapport Krever, mais la ministre Anne McLellan a catégoriquement refusé de reconsidérer la position du gouvernement.
- Des préoccupations en matière de terrorisme et de sécurité ont émergé au sujet du benevolent international fund of Canada, identifié par les États-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne comme faisant partie d'un réseau de financement lié à al-Qaïda; la secrétaire parlementaire Aileen Carroll a indiqué que le Canada agirait une fois que l'inscription aux Nations Unies serait déclenchée, s'attirant des critiques de Stockwell Day selon qui le Canada comptait sur d'autres nations pour effectuer son travail de renseignement.
- Les questions sur la défense nationale ont porté sur l'échec à compléter l'expansion du GRT2, la capacité réduite de déployer des CF-18 comparativement à la campagne du Kosovo, et l'absence d'échéancier pour le projet d'hélicoptère maritime visant à remplacer les Sea Kings.
La ministre Anne McLellan a répondu par un 'non' sans équivoque — le gouvernement ne reconsidérerait pas la limitation de l'indemnisation du sang contaminé à la période 1986-1990 — ce qui, bien que constituant un refus, représentait une déclaration concrète et publiquement significative de la politique gouvernementale au lendemain de nouveaux chefs d'accusation criminelle déposés par la GRC.
Clark precisely references the Krever report recommendation, the 1998 government decision limiting compensation to the 1986–1990 window, and new RCMP charges reaching before 1986, asking a clear and specific yes/no accountability question.
Interrogé sur la question de savoir si le gouvernement permettrait un débat et un vote à la Chambre sur la participation canadienne à une éventuelle guerre contre l'Irak — une question directe de responsabilité constitutionnelle et démocratique — Boudria a complètement évité le fond et a renvoyé Mme Lalonde à soulever la question lors d'une réunion des leaders parlementaires.
Questions sans réponse
- Stephen Harper (échanges 1 à 3) n'a jamais obtenu de réponse à la question de savoir pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral ne s'engagerait pas à assumer les risques financiers des impacts négatifs de Kyoto sur les économies provinciales, compte tenu de la confiance déclarée du gouvernement que ces coûts seraient minimes.
- Stockwell Day (échanges 4 et 5) n'a pas obtenu d'explication claire sur la raison pour laquelle le Canada n'avait pas pris de mesures indépendantes pour fermer le benevolent international fund of Canada compte tenu de documents judiciaires accessibles au public reliant son fondateur à Oussama ben Laden, plutôt que d'attendre une inscription aux Nations Unies déclenchée par les États-Unis.
- Vic Toews (échanges 22 et 23) n'a jamais obtenu de réponse identifiant les groupes culturels auxquels la secrétaire parlementaire faisait référence lorsqu'elle a déclaré que les 'différences sociales et culturelles' constituaient une raison de ne pas hausser l'âge du consentement sexuel de 14 à 16 ans.
- Libby Davies (échange 26) n'a pas obtenu d'engagement du solliciteur général à mettre en œuvre des programmes d'échange de seringues dans les prisons fédérales comme le recommandait son propre comité en 1999, malgré une augmentation signalée de 35 % des cas de VIH-sida en quatre ans.
- Francine Lalonde (échange 38) n'a reçu aucune réponse quant à savoir si le gouvernement permettrait à la Chambre des communes de débattre et de voter sur la participation canadienne à une éventuelle opération militaire contre l'Irak, comme Tony Blair l'avait fait en Grande-Bretagne.
Harper demande pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral s'oppose à assumer l'entière responsabilité financière des impacts négatifs de ses politiques de Kyoto imposées sans le consentement des provinces.
Harper cites a specific Monday statement by the minister and poses a pointed question about why the federal government would not take financial responsibility for adverse impacts of its own Kyoto policies imposed without provincial consent.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of the Environment told the House that he could not agree to all the principles put forth by the provinces for support of Kyoto. He specifically singled out his objection to provincial demands for federal funding of any adverse impacts of Kyoto policies. Could he tell the House what he finds objectionable about the federal government taking full responsibility for actions it takes without the consent of the provinces?
Anderson soutient que l'approbation des provinces est incertaine et que Harper a lui-même introduit une condition préalable dans sa question, sans répondre à la question sur la responsabilité financière.
Anderson deflects by quibbling over the word 'consent' and suggesting the question answers itself, without addressing the specific objection to covering adverse financial impacts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has answered his own question. He talks about lack of approval of the provinces. We do not know whether there will or will not be such approval. Therefore, he has already put a condition in which is exactly the type of thing that we would like to clarify before we go in and have an agreement with them on these other points that are in dispute.
Harper demande pourquoi le gouvernement refuse d'accepter la demande provinciale que le fédéral assume les risques financiers de ses propres engagements de Kyoto.
Harper sharpens the ask — why will the government not put its money where its mouth is and bear the financial risks — but frames it with partisan rhetoric about a 'made in Kyoto adventure.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure any of us understood that. The Kyoto deal is being driven by this government over the objection of the provinces. Not surprisingly, the provinces are asking for assurances that the costs of the Prime Minister's made in Kyoto adventure will be covered by the federal government. If the government is so convinced of the benefits of Kyoto, why will it not put its money where its mouth is and agree to the provincial demand that the federal government bear the financial risks of its own commitments?
Anderson défend le plan comme étant 'fait au Canada' en s'appuyant sur cinq années de consultations, sans répondre à la question sur les garanties financières.
Anderson ignores the financial-guarantee question entirely and instead corrects Harper's characterisation of the plan as not 'made in Canada,' offering process history rather than any substantive answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the first mistake the hon. Leader of the Opposition made in his presentation and his preamble was to describe the plan for implementing and achieving the Canadian decision of minus 6% of 1990 levels as not being a made in Canada plan. Let me assure him that it is the result of five full years of discussion with the provinces and territories, with industry, with environmental groups and, shortly, it will have the benefit of a few hours and days of debate in the House. Therefore, it is very much a made in Canada plan.
Harper demande pourquoi le gouvernement refuse d'offrir des garanties financières aux provinces s'il croit vraiment que les coûts de Kyoto sont minimes.
Harper makes a logical argument — if costs are small, guarantees cost nothing — and asks why Canadians are being asked for a blank cheque, but the framing remains rhetorical with compound asks.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not answered my question. He just keeps insisting he could ask better questions himself. The provinces are simply asking for a guarantee that their economies will not be unduly affected by this plan. If the government really believes its own claim that the costs of Kyoto are small, it would have no hesitation in providing financial guarantees to the provinces. If the Liberal government does not believe the costs are small, why is it asking Canadians to go on blind faith? Why is it asking Canadians for a blank cheque on Kyoto?
Anderson rejette le mot 'indûment' comme un terme vague et met Harper au défi de le définir, sans répondre à la question sur les garanties.
Anderson attacks the word 'unduly' as a 'weasel word' and challenges Harper to define it, entirely deflecting from the substance of providing financial guarantees to provinces.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the level of questioning would improve if the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his friends would let them be phrased on this side of the House. That aside, the problem that he outlined is exactly in that weasel word he used, unduly. What does unduly mean? A weasel word. If he would explain that to the satisfaction of the provinces, the territories and the federal government, perhaps we would be further ahead as to what we could accept.
Day demande pourquoi le Canada ne semble rien faire pour fermer la branche canadienne du benevolent international fund of Canada, identifiée comme faisant partie d'un réseau aidant al-Qaïda, alors que la Grande-Bretagne et les États-Unis ont déjà agi.
Day cites a specific contemporaneous event — the international shutdown of the benevolent international fund of Canada — names the organisation, notes the foreign affairs minister's office confirmed no plans to act, and asks a clear accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday an international fundraising network was shut down by Great Britain and the United States. The benevolent international fund of Canada is also named as part of this network which reportedly helps al-Qaeda to buy weapons and plan their murders. Today the office of the foreign affairs minister informed my office that it is unaware of any plans to shut down the Canadian arm of this fundraising network. Other nations take clear steps to protect their citizens and others from this particular network. Why is Canada apparently doing nothing to shut this network down?
Yes, keep your shirt on, please.
Oh, oh.
Carroll indique que le Canada a inscrit 366 organisations et explique que les États-Unis n'ont inscrit cette organisation qu'hier; une fois que l'ONU agit, la législation canadienne déclenchera automatiquement une inscription.
Carroll provides relevant context — 366 listed organisations, the US listing only happened yesterday, and the UN trigger mechanism — but the parliamentary secretary's closing remark undercuts the substance and she does not fully address why Canada has not acted independently.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canada has acted just as decisively as other nations. We have listed 366 organizations and are currently sharing that information with our international allies. The United States just listed this organization yesterday. It has submitted the name to the United Nations. When the United Nations responds, we also will quickly trigger into our legislation exactly what it has done. I would suggest that the hon. member keep his shirt on.
Day demande pourquoi le Solliciteur général ne prend pas de mesures pour protéger les Canadiens, compte tenu de documents judiciaires révélant des liens étroits entre Oussama ben Laden et le fondateur de cet organisme de bienfaisance canadien.
Day references court documents and specific details — pen pal letters and photo opportunities with Osama bin Laden — to support his claim, but his question broadens to the Solicitor General rather than remaining focused on the specific organisation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, they can joke about it but it is a very serious issue. Why do other countries have to do the intelligence work for our government? We have court documents. They are already available. They reveal a close relationship between Osama bin Laden and the founder of this Canadian so-called charity that includes pen pal letters to Osama bin Laden and fuzzy photo opportunities with Osama bin Laden. This is not a laughing matter. Charity begins at home. Why will the Solicitor General not take steps to protect Canadians?
Carroll corrige Day en précisant qu'il n'y a pas de documents judiciaires mais seulement un article de journal, et réitère que le processus de l'ONU déclenchera automatiquement une inscription canadienne.
Carroll clarifies that what exists is a newspaper article rather than court documents, explains the US-UN-Canada trigger sequence, and partially addresses the urgency, but does not explain why Canada cannot act independently.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first I was referring to the hon. member's haste rather than to the substance of the matter. We take the substance of this very seriously. We do not have court documents. We have a newspaper article. According to what we can ascertain, the fact of the matter is the Americans triggered this just yesterday, and the United Nations is immediately acting on it. When they list, this automatically triggers a Canadian listing. I do not think we can do more than that at this time.
Duceppe demande si le gouvernement fédéral admettra que son champ fiscal est beaucoup trop large par rapport à ses obligations, citant les propres paroles du premier ministre et 37 000 fonctionnaires supplémentaires depuis 1999.
Duceppe quotes the Prime Minister directly and cites the figure of 37,000 additional public servants since 1999, asking a pointed if broad question about whether the federal tax field is too broad relative to obligations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, even the Prime Minister, who denies the existence of a fiscal imbalance while his government rakes in enormous surpluses, wrongly assumes that, and I quote, “if the financial situation of the Canadian government is better, it is because in recent years management in Ottawa has been better than that in Quebec”. The reality—instead of blindly applauding, they should listen and look at the reality—is that there are 37,000 more public servants today than in 1999 because of these enormous surpluses. Will the federal government finally admit that, compared to Quebec, its tax field is much too broad in relation to its obligations?
Robillard affirme qu'il y a encore moins de fonctionnaires aujourd'hui qu'avant l'examen des programmes et que la fonction publique est de taille appropriée pour offrir des services de qualité.
Robillard counters with a claim that public servant numbers are still lower than before program review, but does not engage with the fiscal imbalance question or the 37,000-public-servant figure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at present, in the public service per se, there are still fewer public servants today than before the program review. That having been said, we are asked on a daily basis to invest more in certain areas and to provide our fellow citizens with higher quality services. It follows that we have an appropriate size public service to deliver these programs and quality services to all the people of Canada, including in Quebec.
Duceppe demande si le gouvernement fédéral admettra que ses dépenses ministérielles ont augmenté de 21,7 % depuis 1994, contre seulement 7,3 % au Québec, et qu'il perçoit plus de taxes que ses responsabilités ne le justifient.
Duceppe provides a specific comparative statistic — Quebec departmental spending up 7.3% vs. federal up 21.7% since 1994 — and asks whether the government will admit it is collecting more taxes than its responsibilities warrant.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the programs. Outside of health, departmental expenditures in Quebec have increased by 7.3% since 1994, while federal departmental expenditures increased by 21.7% over the same period. That is three times more. Exactly three times more. Will the federal government admit that, by collecting more taxes than its level of responsibility warrants, it is managing abundance while, in Quebec, there is a shortfall?
Robillard esquive en disant que le gouvernement a éliminé le déficit, réduit la dette et abaissé les impôts, et note que les électeurs ont réélu le gouvernement comme preuve de bonne gestion.
Robillard does not engage with the 21.7% vs. 7.3% figures at all, instead characterising the question as accusing the government of good management and pivoting to electoral success.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, never before have I heard such a thing: a government being accused of good management. Look at what we have done since 1993, at the fact that we have eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt and lowered taxes, and cut program spending. Then, they blame us for having managed the country's finances well. The proof is in the pudding: the people of Canada voted for us again last time, and I think they will do so again next time around.
Paquette demande si le gouvernement fédéral admettra que l'augmentation de 21,7 % de ses dépenses ministérielles démontre qu'il n'a pas fait de véritable effort de gestion, comparativement à 7,3 % au Québec.
Paquette reiterates the 21.7% vs. 7.3% spending comparison and poses a direct question about whether the federal government will admit it did not make a real management effort, grounding the question in specific figures.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, during the same period, the expenditures of the federal departments increased by 21.7%, while those of the Quebec government, with the exception of health, increased by only 7.3%. When we compare the results of the two levels of governments, we can see which one really made an effort to manage properly. Will the federal government admit that, by letting its departments' expenditures increase by 21.7%, it is obviously not, in spite of its claims to the contrary, the one that really made an effort?
Robillard cite la baisse des dépenses de programme en proportion du PIB de 17 % à 11,6 % et affirme avoir bien gouverné, sans répondre à la comparaison des dépenses ministérielles.
Robillard pivots to GDP-based spending ratios (17% to 11.6%) without directly engaging with the departmental expenditure comparison, and ends with a general claim of good government.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the level of public satisfaction with our government. Let us look at the figures. We can toss numbers around. We can always interpret figures the way we want and use the approach we want. Based on the gross domestic product, spending went from 17% at the time, in 1993, to 11.6% now, which is unprecedented. We also reduced public expenditures. More importantly, we have provided good government to the citizens of this country, and Quebeckers recognize that.
Paquette demande si le gouvernement admettra que son seul véritable effort a été de couper les transferts aux provinces et les prestations aux chômeurs tout en accumulant d'importants surplus.
Paquette's question is largely rhetorical — asserting the government made no real management effort and only cut transfers — with only a weak implicit ask about whether anyone can claim a good balance sheet in such circumstances.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see: the federal government has made no effort in terms of management. The federal machine has a life of its own and the only real effort it has made has been to cut transfers to the provinces and to cut benefits for the unemployed, while the government keeps on raking in the money. Will the government admit that, in this context, anyone can claim to have a good balance sheet and to be a good manager?
Oh, oh.
Dion rétorque en demandant au Bloc québécois d'expliquer pourquoi les taxes au Québec sont 40 % plus élevées que la moyenne provinciale et pourquoi le Québec a l'une des dettes provinciales les plus importantes.
Dion deflects entirely by redirecting to Quebec's own fiscal record — taxes 40% higher than the average and a large provincial debt — without addressing the federal management question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if we want to compare what is comparable, let us compare Quebec with the other provinces. Let the Bloc Quebecois explain why taxes in Quebec are 40% higher than the average, and why Quebec is one of the provinces with the largest debt, if not because it is run by a government that should take a good hard look at what it is doing, instead of always blaming the federal government.
McDonough demande si la position du gouvernement sur l'expansion des dispositions investisseur-État du chapitre 11 de l'ALENA est désormais sans limites, en se fondant sur une note de cabinet divulguée au Devoir.
McDonough cites a specific leaked memo to cabinet reported in Le Devoir and asks whether the government's position on expanding chapter 11 is now 'the sky is the limit,' tying the question to a reported policy reversal.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to a memo to cabinet leaked to Le Devoir , the government is changing its position on NAFTA chapter 11. That investor-state provision protects investors' rights to make money over environmental and labour standards. The government used to say that it opposed it. Now this leaked cabinet memo says that it wants to expand it. Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that when it comes to expanding chapter 11 the government's position now is the sky is the limit?
O'Brien affirme que le gouvernement ne soutient pas la simple reproduction du chapitre 11, mais souligne que la protection des 389 milliards de dollars de fonds canadiens investis à l'étranger est importante.
O'Brien partially addresses the question by reiterating that the government does not support simple replication of chapter 11, but then pivots to justifying investment protection for Canadian funds abroad, without directly addressing the alleged cabinet memo or the claimed policy shift.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I guess the leader of the NDP has not been in the House when the Minister for International Trade repeatedly made it quite clear that the government does not support simple replication of chapter 11. Having said that, with some $389 billion of Canadian funds invested overseas, obviously we want to protect such investment.
Lill demande quelles mesures la ministre du Patrimoine canadien prendra pour arrêter la braderie de l'industrie de l'édition et redonner des dents à la Loi sur Investissement Canada, citant l'approbation par Patrimoine canadien de l'entrée d'Amazon.com et la vente de Distican à Simon and Schuster.
Lill cites two specific decisions — allowing Amazon.com to enter the Canadian market and approving the sale of Distican to Simon and Schuster — and asks what steps the minister will take to stop the sell off and put teeth back into the Investment Canada Act.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, today, as we applaud the winners of the Governor General awards, our government continues to undermine our book publishing industry. This summer Canadian heritage allowed Amazon.com to enter the Canadian market. Today we learned that Distican has been sold to Simon and Schuster with Canadian heritage approval. The heritage department is responsible for the Investment Canada Act as it pertains to the cultural sector. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House what steps she will take to stop the sell off of our book publishing industry and put teeth back into the Investment Canada Act?
Copps fait l'éloge du succès de l'édition canadienne en citant trois nominations au Prix Booker et les auteurs présents, sans aborder les transactions spécifiques ni la Loi sur Investissement Canada.
Copps ignores both specific transactions and the Investment Canada Act question entirely, instead praising the success of Canadian book publishing by citing Booker Prize nominations and the authors present in the audience.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think the proof of the success of the Canadian book publishing policy is that this year for the first time we have actually had three Canadians nominated for the prestigious Booker Prize. If we look at the incredible authors who are here in the audience today, they are from diverse backgrounds and diverse parts of the country. It is probably the healthiest industry of its kind in a country of similar size. I think we should applaud book publishers and especially the authors.
Clark demande si le gouvernement est prêt à reconsidérer sa décision de 1998 de limiter l'indemnisation du sang contaminé aux victimes infectées entre 1986 et 1990, compte tenu de nouvelles accusations de la GRC remontant avant 1986.
Clark precisely references the Krever report recommendation, the 1998 government decision limiting compensation to the 1986–1990 window, and new RCMP charges reaching before 1986, asking a clear and specific yes/no accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Krever report recommended that all hepatitis C victims be compensated. In 1998 the government rejected that advice and limited compensation to those who were infected between 1986 and 1990. The RCMP has now laid charges against four doctors, the Red Cross and an American pharmaceutical company in the tainted blood scandal. Those charges reach back before 1986. Is the government prepared to reconsider its decision to limit compensation and will it now help all the victims of the tainted blood scandal?
McLellan répond directement que non, le gouvernement ne reconsidérera pas sa position, et dit qu'il serait particulièrement inapproprié de commenter davantage car des accusations ont été portées et les affaires seront traitées devant les tribunaux.
McLellan gives a direct 'no' answer and explains the rationale — charges have been laid and the matter is before the courts — which substantively addresses the question even if the answer is unwelcome.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no, we are not going to reconsider our position. It would be singularly inappropriate for anyone to comment at this point. Charges have been laid. These matters will be dealt with before the courts. Obviously we need to await the outcome of that litigation.
Clark demande pourquoi le ministre des Finances n'a pas accepté de comparaître devant le comité sénatorial des banques, alors que c'est lui qui lui a confié la tâche d'examiner les règles sur les fusions bancaires.
Clark raises a specific accountability issue — the minister not appearing before the Senate banking committee after asking it to review bank merger rules — but frames it with a rhetorical compound insult about 'fouling up Canadian security.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, she will await the outcome but her answer is no. Earlier this fall the Minister of Finance asked both the House of Commons finance committee and the banking committee of the other place to review the current rules on bank mergers. Obviously, to do their work effectively, the committees need to hear from the minister who sent them their task. So far the minister has not agreed to come before the committee in the other place. Is that because the government has no position on bank mergers or is the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the minister for fouling up Canadian security just too busy to attend committees of the House of Commons and the Senate?
Manley dit qu'il a déjà comparu devant le comité des finances de la Chambre des communes il y a deux semaines et qu'il a indiqué au président du comité sénatorial qu'il serait heureux de se rendre disponible au moment opportun.
Manley directly addresses the specific allegation by noting he appeared before the House of Commons committee two weeks ago and has indicated willingness to appear before the Senate committee at an appropriate time.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have already been to the committee of the House of Commons. I was there just two weeks ago. I have asked the committees, both in the House and the Senate, for their advice. I presume they do not need my advice to give me their advice. In any event, I have indicated to the chairman of the committee that I would be happy to make myself available to the Senate committee at an appropriate time. In the meantime, in helping fill out the scope of the public interest considerations related to possible mergers of financial institutions, I think that is a committee well qualified to give us advice without any further input from me.
Penson demande pourquoi le gouvernement est resté les bras croisés pendant que des criminels exploitaient la fraude à la TPS, citant l'avertissement précoce de la Nouvelle-Zélande et la connaissance par le gouvernement de plus de 10 millions de dollars de fraude dès 1995 avant la refonte de la législation sur la TPS en 1996.
Penson cites New Zealand's warning to Canadian officials, the government's awareness of over $10 million in GST fraud by 1995, and the failure to add safeguards in the 1996 GST legislation revamp, asking a clear accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, New Zealand warned Canadian officials about the potential for GST fraud at the very beginning, yet the barn door was left open. By 1995 the Liberal government knew it had lost over $10 million to GST fraud, yet it failed to include safeguards when it revamped the GST legislation in 1996. My question to the minister is quite simple: Why did the government sit idly by while criminals and con artists helped themselves to millions of dollars of taxpayers money?
Caplan rejette la prémisse en disant que les avertissements ont été pris en compte et cite 13 poursuites réussies, 14 poursuites supplémentaires devant les tribunaux et 20 autres en cours d'enquête.
Caplan directly contests Penson's premise by saying warnings were heeded, and provides specific figures — 13 successful prosecutions, 14 before the courts, and 20 under investigation — but does not address the 1996 legislative failure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong when he says that we did not heed the warnings. In fact, we did. We have taken very significant action that has resulted in 13 successful prosecutions, 14 additional prosecutions that are before the court today and 20 more that are under investigation.
Penson demande quand le gouvernement fera quelque chose de concret pour arrêter le flux d'argent gratuit vers des criminels et des escrocs, soutenant que la fraude à la TPS aurait pu coûter plus d'un milliard de dollars aux Canadiens et que les échappatoires n'ont pas été comblées.
Penson asserts fraud may have cost over $1 billion and criticises the government for talking about auditing and investigating rather than closing loopholes, but the question becomes rhetorical and the ask — 'do something concrete' — is vague.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is simply no excuse for this. The government was warned repeatedly about the dangers of GST fraud, yet it failed to plug those loopholes. Even today the Liberals talk about auditing, investigating and prosecuting instead of closing the loopholes that led to these scams in the first place. What we are talking about is fraud that may have cost Canadians over $1 billion. That buys a lot of Sea Kings and a lot of hospital beds. When will the government do something concrete to stop the flow of free money to criminals and con artists?
Caplan affirme que le gouvernement traite de crédits d'impôt à l'importation plutôt que d'échappatoires, et mentionne un filtrage préalable pour les demandes de remboursement de TPS et une équipe d'enquête de 1 000 personnes.
Caplan reframes the issue as involving income tax credits rather than loopholes and mentions upfront screening and a 1,000-person investigation team, but does not address the core claim about loopholes remaining open or the $1 billion figure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about loopholes, we are talking about income tax credits, which are a very important instrument for business to remain competitive internationally. If this member and his party are calling for an end to import tax credits, he will hear loud and clear from some of his own constituents. What I can tell the hon. member is that we are talking about fraud. We have upfront screening in place right now for those who apply for GST rebates. We also have a very effective 1,000 person investigation team doing a good job ensuring that where we find fraud we prosecute.
Gauthier demande si le gouvernement fédéral peut nier que, sans mesures correctives, plus de 71 milliards de dollars s'accumuleront d'ici 2007-08, confirmant que son champ fiscal est trop large par rapport à ses obligations.
Cites a specific projection ($71 billion accumulated by 2007-08) and makes an implicit claim about fiscal imbalance, but the ask is more of an assertion than a single clear answerable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all the studies indicate that the federal government surplus is going to reach as yet unattained heights in the years to come. By 2007-08, for example, barring corrective action, over $71 billion will have been accumulated. Can the federal government deny that, without any particular effort, those in charge of the Government of Canada in five years will find they have astronomical sums available to them? This indeed confirms that, unfortunately, its tax field is too broad for its obligations.
Manley rappelle les réductions fiscales fédérales de 100 milliards de dollars annoncées en 2000 et soutient qu'il est injuste de supposer qu'il n'y aura pas d'autres allègements fiscaux ou augmentations des dépenses.
Manley references the $100 billion tax reduction announcement from 2000 but does not address the specific surplus projection cited, instead offering a hypothetical about future spending.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, in the year 2000 we announced federal tax reductions totalling $100 billion. It is unfair to suggest that there will be no other tax breaks or increases in federal government spending on federal programs or transfer payments to the provinces.
Gauthier exige que le gouvernement admette l'existence d'un déséquilibre fiscal entre Ottawa et les provinces, affirmant que les contribuables sont las de voir leur argent mal géré au fédéral pendant que les provinces peinent à financer leurs services.
The question is largely rhetorical, calling on the government to 'admit' fiscal imbalance and framing taxpayers as victims of sloppy management, with no specific data or single answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through its Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, ought to admit that there is indeed a fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the governments of all the Canadian provinces. The taxpayers are tired of having half their tax dollars being sloppily managed by the federal government, while the provinces are being forced to pinch every penny and are having a tough time funding the services they are required to provide. Is this so hard to understand?
Manley réplique avec deux faits : la dette provinciale représente la moitié de la dette fédérale et il y a eu 25 déficits fédéraux au cours des 30 dernières années, laissant entendre que l'argument du déséquilibre fiscal est incohérent.
Dion offers two concrete counter-facts—provincial debt load is half the federal debt load, and there were 25 federal deficits over 30 years—which tangentially engage the fiscal imbalance claim but do not directly answer whether the government acknowledges a fiscal imbalance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand. There are two facts: first of all, the provincial debt load is half the federal debt load. Second, over the past 30 years there have been 25 federal deficits. Was there always a fiscal imbalance when these deficits took place? I do not think the hon. member will admit that there was.
Strahl demande pourquoi le gouvernement a aboli l'équipe spécialisée dans la fraude à la TPS en 1995, faisant valoir que l'agence n'a récupéré que 10 millions de dollars sur un milliard estimé.
Strahl cites a specific figure ($1 billion still outstanding vs. $10 million found) and points to a specific 1995 government action—shutting down the dedicated GST fraud squad—with a clear single question about why that was done.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue says that there is adequate screening in place to detect a GST fraud. That is simply not the case. The agency may have found $10 million but there is $1 billion still out there. I will tell the House why that is. It is, at least in part, because in 1995 the government shut down the fraud squad that was dedicated to detecting this fraud in the GST system. Why, in 1995, did it shut down the one team that was doing the work?
Caplan nie la prémisse en citant une direction des enquêtes de 1 000 personnes et un nombre de poursuites deux fois plus élevé qu'en 1995, sans aborder la question précise de l'élimination de l'équipe antifraud.
Caplan flatly denies the premise ('Wrong again') and offers a counter-statistic (1,000-person investigation directorate, double the prosecutions since 1995) but does not address the specific claim about the fraud squad being shut down in 1995.
Texte source
Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. We have an investigation directorate of 1,000 persons and the result is that we are doing double the number of prosecutions today than we were in 1995.
Strahl demande à nouveau pourquoi le gouvernement a aboli l'équipe antifraud de la TPS en 1995, affirmant que le système actuel permet facilement de frauder le gouvernement de millions avec une simple boîte postale anonyme et un traitement de texte.
Strahl repeats the 1995 fraud squad axing claim and adds a colourful description of how easy the fraud is, but the dual question and rhetorical framing dilute the accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government is satisfied with collecting about one cent on the dollar but we are not. The GST fraud squad was axed in 1995 so now the system works like this: all people need is a numbered company, an anonymous post office box and a word processor to get millions of dollars from the government. Why did the government shut down the GST fraud squad that was at least able to pick up when someone was ripping off the government? Why is it picking on the legitimate business owners instead of picking up on the fraud artist?
Caplan juge la comparaison insultante, rejette les chiffres de Strahl comme non fondés et affirme que les agents travaillent avec diligence et que des criminels sont poursuivis avec succès.
Caplan attacks the member's characterisation as 'insulting,' dismisses his numbers as unsubstantiated, and references criminals in jail, without addressing why the GST fraud squad was shut down or how the current system detects fraud.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is insulting to compare legitimate business people to people who are being successfully prosecuted for criminal activity like fraud. Second, the member opposite is throwing around all kinds of unsubstantiated numbers. I would say to him that the numbers he is using are not based on any fact. Our people are very aware of these issues and we are working very diligently to ensure that we collect as much as we possibly can from the criminals who in fact are sitting in jail. He should ask those in jail if they think we are doing a good job.
Loubier demande si le gouvernement peut nier que sa principale préoccupation est de trouver de nouveaux domaines où dépenser son surplus plutôt que de restituer cet argent aux provinces, qui offrent de vrais services aux citoyens.
The question is largely rhetorical, characterising the federal surplus as 'enormous' and 'effortless' without citing specific data, and the ask—should the surplus go to the provinces?—is a broad policy position rather than a specific answerable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the enormous federal surplus has ballooned effortlessly and it is so sizeable that the federal government's only worry is to figure out where to spend it in order to justify itself. Can the government deny that its main concern is finding new areas in which to spend its surplus, and that it should give this excess money—which it keeps taking from the pockets of taxpayers—to the provinces, who are the ones who provide real services to the public?
Dion soutient que le Cabinet a toujours plus de projets dignes d'intérêt que d'argent pour les financer et met Loubier au défi de nommer un programme fédéral qu'il voudrait abolir, affirmant qu'aucune dépense fédérale n'est frivole.
Dion deflects by describing the difficulty of prioritising spending and challenges Loubier to name a program he would cut, which does not address the specific question about transferring surplus funds to provinces.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, over the years, there have been a great many investment projects for Canadians that have come before cabinet. And I can assure the member that it breaks our hearts every time we realize that we do not have the money to implement them all. There is nothing frivolous about the Government of Canada's spending, and if the member thinks there is, I would ask him to name one program that he would like to see cut by the federal government.
Loubier demande si le gouvernement peut nier qu'il empiète sur des champs de compétence provinciale—affaires urbaines, formation, médicaments, soins à domicile, soutien à la petite enfance—parce qu'il ne sait plus quoi faire de son surplus.
Loubier lists specific policy areas—urban affairs, training, pharmacare, home care, early childhood support—as examples of provincial jurisdiction, giving the question some factual grounding, though the overall ask remains rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what we want is for the federal government to mind its own business and respect the provinces. The fact of the matter is that the upcoming initiatives fall under provincial jurisdiction, a few examples being urban affairs, training, pharmacare, home care, early childhood support. Can the government deny that it is interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction because it no longer knows what to do with the surplus taken from the pockets of taxpayers?
Dion nie les allégations comme fausses et soutient qu'aucun gouvernement d'un État moderne ne considérerait le logement urbain, le transport en commun, la qualité de vie en ville et l'immigration comme hors de sa compétence, promettant de travailler avec les provinces.
Dion denies the premise and argues that urban housing, transit, and immigration are legitimate federal concerns, referencing a Liberal caucus report, but does not address the specific listed areas or the surplus transfer question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member asked if we can deny erroneous statements. Of course we can deny them, they are false. Is the member aware of any single government of a modern state in the world that would say that urban housing does not concern them; that urban transit is none of their business; that quality of life in cities or immigration or how newcomers are welcomed into big cities is not their concern? Obviously this concerns us, and we will work together with the provinces, as mentioned dozens of times in the excellent report just released by the Liberal caucus.
Toews demande au ministre de préciser quelles cultures au Canada s'opposeraient à l'élévation de l'âge du consentement sexuel de 14 à 16 ans, à la suite de la déclaration du secrétaire parlementaire du 5 novembre invoquant des 'différences sociales et culturelles.'
Toews cites a specific date (November 5, 2002), the exact speaker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice), and the precise quote about 'social and cultural differences,' then asks a single, sharply focused question about which cultures would object to raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 2002, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said in this House, with respect to the age of sexual consent, “There are many social and cultural differences that have to be reflected in the law”. Yesterday the minister inaccurately suggested this had not been said in the House. I repeat, what cultures in Canada would voice concern about raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age?
Cauchon dit ne pas comprendre pourquoi le député revient sur la déclaration du secrétaire parlementaire, qualifie la protection des enfants de sujet grave et indique qu'il n'y a pas de consensus pour relever l'âge du consentement.
Cauchon acknowledges the parliamentary secretary's statement, says the matter is serious, and mentions ongoing discussion about raising the age of consent with no consensus, but never answers which cultures were being referenced.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member keeps going back to what was said. That was a statement made by the parliamentary secretary. I believe it is a very serious matter, the question of protecting our children in this country. We have been discussing the question of raising the age of consent. There is no consensus. What we would like to achieve is to offer much better protection for our children. Maybe we can achieve that through other means, or other offences within the Criminal Code.
Toews demande au ministre de nommer le groupe culturel précis qui s'opposerait à l'élévation de l'âge du consentement, affirmant que, à moins que les pédophiles ne constituent maintenant une culture, le gouvernement se cache derrière une 'calomnie culturelle' pour justifier son inaction.
Toews sharpens the question by reducing it to a binary—either a named cultural group objects or only pedophiles do—which is a pointed accountability ask, though the rhetorical framing lowers the score somewhat.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, unless pedophiles are a culture now in Canada, why will the minister not give an answer to that question? He continues to hide behind this cultural slander to do nothing on the issue. Why will the minister not specify what cultural group would voice objection to this, other than pedophiles?
Cauchon affirme que le gouvernement agit pour protéger les enfants, mentionne des modifications passées au Code criminel et annonce que de nouvelles mesures législatives sur la pornographie juvénile seront déposées avant Noël.
Cauchon pivots entirely to past Criminal Code amendments and the forthcoming child pornography legislation, never addressing which cultural group the parliamentary secretary had in mind.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House when it comes to talking about the protection of our children, we talk about action. We took some action in the past in order to amend the Criminal Code. As the House will soon see, before Christmas we will table new legislation with regard to the question of child pornography and protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. This is good action. This will make a difference in our society.
Reed demande quelles mesures ont été prises pour créer le fonds d'investissement pour l'Afrique, en faisant référence à l'annonce du premier ministre d'un fonds d'investissement de 100 millions de dollars pour mettre fin à la marginalisation de l'Afrique.
This is a government-backbench softball: Reed references the Prime Minister's $100 million investment fund announcement and asks what steps have been taken, a setup question for a ministerial announcement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation. The new economic plan for African development is to be based on the principle of responsible partnership among African nations and between Africa and the international community. The Prime Minister has announced a $100 million investment fund to end Africa's marginalization. Since Africa receives only 1% of global investments, what steps have been taken so far in the creation of the Africa investment fund?
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for International Cooperation jointly announced the first step in creating the Africa investment fund. This fund is expected to be operational and financing projects in Africa within the next year. It will help Africans seek out new capital, take advantage of business opportunities, earn income, invest and create jobs. The Africa investment fund is a concrete example of Canada's clear commitment to help Africa enter the global economy.
Jennings annonce que les ministres du Commerce international et de la Coopération internationale ont conjointement annoncé aujourd'hui la première étape, le fonds devant être opérationnel et financer des projets en Afrique d'ici un an.
Jennings provides substantive information—the Ministers of International Trade and International Cooperation jointly announced the first step today, the fund is expected to be operational within a year, and its purposes are described—making this a reasonably informative answer.
Wasylycia-Leis demande si la ministre de la Santé mettra fin au déni du gouvernement, respectera les recommandations Krever et garantira une indemnisation complète et équitable à toutes les victimes de la tragédie du sang contaminé, à la suite des accusations de négligence criminelle portées ce jour-là par la GRC.
Wasylycia-Leis grounds the question in the RCMP criminal negligence charges laid that same day, references the Krever recommendations by name, and asks a specific policy question about extending compensation to all victims beyond the 1986-90 period.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like the health minister to think carefully about her response to the charges of criminal negligence laid today by the RCMP in the tainted blood tragedy which saw thousands of lives lost and destroyed. It is now clear that the negligence of the federal government extended beyond the 1986-90 period for which the government has compensated victims. Will the health minister today end the government's stubborn denial of its responsibilities, comply with the Krever recommendations and ensure full and fair compensation for all victims of the tainted blood tragedy?
McLellan met en garde contre le fait de préjuger des résultats du procès et indique que le gouvernement a engagé environ 525 millions de dollars pour aider les victimes de l'hépatite C post-1990 et pré-1986, sans aborder les recommandations Krever.
McLellan warns against prejudging trial outcomes and references approximately $525 million committed for pre-1986 and post-1990 hep C victims, partially engaging the compensation issue but not addressing compliance with the Krever recommendations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I find it very troubling and disturbing that a member of the House would presume to prejudge the outcome of any trial. In fact, charges were laid today but it would be singularly inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of the trials that will take place. As the hon. member should be aware, the government has in fact taken action in relation to hep C victims who are post-1990 and pre-1986. The government has committed approximately $525 million to assist with the care of those people.
Davies demande au solliciteur général de s'engager aujourd'hui à mettre en place des programmes d'échange de seringues et d'autres mesures sanitaires de base recommandées par son propre comité en 1999, citant un rapport montrant une hausse de plus de 35 % des cas de VIH-sida dans les prisons en quatre ans.
Davies cites a specific report ('Too Little, Too Late?'), a specific statistic (cases increased over 35% in four years), a specific prior recommendation (from CSC's own committee in 1999), and makes a concrete ask: commit today to implement needle exchanges.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, today's report “Too Little, Too Late?” is a damning indictment of CSC's failure to deal with the HIV-AIDS crisis in Canada's prisons. Cases have increased over 35% in four years and still prisoners are denied access to basic HIV prevention measures. CSC has a legal responsibility here. I ask the Solicitor General, will he commit today to implement needle exchanges and other basic health measures as recommended by his own committee in 1999? Any further delay would be reprehensible and cowardly. Will he implement those recommendations and needle exchanges?
Easter dit avoir visité un établissement de soins de santé du SCC vendredi dernier, reconnaît la gravité du problème et affirme que la prévention et le traitement se sont améliorés, sans s'engager sur les échanges de seringues ni les recommandations de 1999.
Easter says he toured a CSC facility the previous Friday, acknowledges the problem is serious, and says prevention and treatment have improved, but makes no commitment on needle exchanges or the 1999 committee recommendations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to tour a facility last Friday and in the health care section see what kind of work they are doing at CSC in terms of the problem the hon. member raised. Yes indeed it is a serious problem. We have improved our prevention and our treatment. We are using a number of measures to ensure that the health matters of inmates are handled in the best possible way.
Casey demande si Revenu Canada enverrait un chèque de 30 000 dollars à une entreprise ayant soumis un formulaire de déclaration de TPS avec une demande frauduleuse de crédit de taxe sur les intrants de 30 000 dollars à la case 106, sans reçus, documents ni pièces justificatives.
Casey poses a highly specific hypothetical—a company claims a $30,000 fraudulent input tax credit in box 106 with no receipts or documents—and asks a single, concrete, directly answerable question about whether Revenue Canada would issue the cheque.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. If a company registered for the GST, sent in the GST reporting form which included a fraudulent input tax credit entry in box 106 for $30,000 with no amount collected, no receipts, no documents, no paperwork to back up the claim, would Revenue Canada send that person a cheque for $30,000?
Caplan affirme que le préfiltrage mis en place au cours de la dernière année 'identifierait probablement' une telle demande pour vérification, et fait référence à l'unité d'enquête de 1 000 personnes.
Caplan says pre-screening introduced over the past year would 'likely' flag such a claim for audit and references the 1,000-person investigations unit, but the qualified 'likely' does not give a definitive answer and does not address the core system vulnerability.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, likely the pre-screening that we have had in place over the past year by our agency would result in an application like that being identified for audit. I want to say as well to the member opposite that we have a very extensive investigations unit of 1,000 people who are experienced in these matters. It is because of their work that we are so successful with prosecutions.
Casey demande quand la ministre mettra en place un processus de documentation offrant au moins un minimum de reddition de comptes pour les demandes de crédits de taxe sur les intrants de la TPS, affirmant que le formulaire actuel n'est en pratique qu'un bon de commande pour un chèque gouvernemental.
Casey presses with a concrete policy ask—implement a documentation process for GST claims—and characterises the current form as merely 'an order form for a government cheque,' giving the question some specificity, though it repeats the prior exchange's theme.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is why there are millions and millions of dollars worth of abuse. The form is really just an order form for a government cheque. People could just pencil in the amount they want and wait; $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, no paperwork involved, no documentation required, and a cheque will be in the mail. When will the minister implement a documentation process that will even allow a minimum of accountability on these claims for government money?
Caplan affirme que le député a tort, citant 5 000 vérificateurs (hausse de 20 %), une unité d'enquête en hausse de 25 % et un préfiltrage de toutes les demandes des inscrits introduit il y a un an, décrivant les pratiques du Canada comme parmi les meilleures au monde.
Caplan lists specific numbers—5,000 auditors, 20% increase over two years, 25% increase in the investigations unit, pre-screening of all registrant claims—but does not address whether a documentation requirement will be implemented.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong and he was not listening. We have in place today 5,000 auditors. We began as of two years ago to increase those by some 20%. We also have an investigations unit who are experts in these fields. Two years ago we began and continue to increase that by 25%. A year ago we put in place a pre-screening of all registrant claims. Our best practices are among the best in the world.
Cadman demande pourquoi la GRC et l'équipe spéciale contre le vol d'automobiles ignoraient l'ordre d'expulsion vieux de deux ans contre Laszlo Adorjan, arrêté pour avoir prétendument dirigé le plus grand réseau de vol de voitures de l'histoire de la Colombie-Britannique et recherché par Interpol pour vol à main armée et soupçon de meurtre.
Cadman names a specific individual (Laszlo Adorjan), references a two-year-old deportation order, cites Interpol involvement for armed robbery and suspicion of murder, and asks a specific question about why the RCMP and auto theft task force were unaware of the deportation order.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, two years after being ordered deported as a failed refugee claimant, Laszlo Adorjan has been arrested for allegedly running the biggest auto theft ring in B.C. history. Interpol wants him for armed robbery and suspicion of murder. Police watched him for months, but did not even know about the deportation order. The government is so inept at removing internationally wanted criminals from Canada that it does not even know it has them when it finds them. Why did the RCMP and the auto theft task force not know about the deportation order against this guy?
Easter dit qu'il ne peut ni confirmer ni nier ce que la GRC et le SCRS savent dans cette affaire et qu'il serait inapproprié d'aborder les questions de politique opérationnelle dans un cas particulier.
Easter says he cannot confirm or deny what the RCMP and CSIS know and declines to comment on operational matters, providing no substantive response to the specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm or deny what CSIS and the RCMP know on this matter. I cannot get into the operational policy matters in this particular case. That would be wrong for me to do.
Cadman demande comment il a fallu près de deux ans aux autorités pour conclure que le mariage d'Adorjan—où il avait payé une femme 500 dollars, dont la belle-sœur habitant à deux portes ignorait l'existence, et dont l'épouse elle-même disait l'avoir 'croisé par hasard'—était un mariage de convenance.
Cadman provides specific details—$500 payment, abandoned refugee claim, arrest warrant, the spouse's contradictory statements, and the sister-in-law's ignorance two doors away—and asks a specific question about why it took nearly two years to determine the marriage was bogus.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in 2000 Adorjan secretly married a woman after paying her $500 to sponsor him. In doing so, he abandoned his refugee claim and was ordered deported. An arrest warrant was issued. Last week his so-called spouse said she did not know when they met. In her words she just bumped into him one day. Her sister-in-law, living two doors away, knew nothing of the marriage, yet it took until earlier this year for officials to determine that the marriage was bogus. Could the minister explain just how it possibly can take the best part of two years to come to such an obvious conclusion that the marriage was a marriage of convenience?
Easter affirme que le gouvernement croit en la diligence raisonnable de la loi, soutient que la GRC et le SCRS coopèrent avec des agences internationales et refuse de commenter les aspects individuels du dossier.
Easter invokes 'due diligence of the law,' says the RCMP and CSIS cooperate with international agencies, and declines to comment on individual case aspects, giving no explanation for the two-year delay.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be into some kind of case work. We believe on this side that there is due diligence of the law and people should have a right to the due diligence of the law. I can tell the member that the RCMP and CSIS cooperate with other agencies around the world. I know they are doing their job. I cannot comment on the individual aspects of any case.
Le ministre des Finances respectera-t-il le consensus québécois et assurera-t-il qu'il ne donnera pas suite au projet de création d'une commission canadienne des valeurs mobilières, que la députée qualifie de violation des compétences exclusives du Québec?
References the MacKay report and Quebec National Assembly consensus with a clear yes/no ask, but frames it with loaded language like 'doomed project' and 'violate the exclusive jurisdictions.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the MacKay report tabled yesterday again raises the spectre of creating a Canadian securities commission. In Quebec, the National Assembly and the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec are opposed to the creation of a central agency. Will the Minister of Finance respect the Quebec consensus and assure us that he will not go ahead with the doomed project of establishing a Canadian securities commission, which would violate the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?
Manley souligne que MacKay est un bon travail et que, selon les modèles proposés, la participation des provinces serait volontaire, sans aucune contrainte.
Engages the report and explains that provincial participation would be voluntary under MacKay's model, but does not directly commit to respecting Quebec's opposition or address the jurisdictional argument.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that Mr. MacKay, who is a lawyer from Saskatchewan, did a very good job. We have received his report, which is now available. Mr. MacKay indicated that if one of the models that he proposed were adopted, it would up to the provinces whether or not they participated. There is no question of forcing the provinces to do anything. If they want to continue to have a limited market in their province, it is up to them.
Le ministre réalise-t-il que la menace de ce projet nuit aux travaux d'harmonisation déjà amorcés par les experts en valeurs mobilières et est donc préjudiciable aux petits actionnaires?
The question links the 'doomed project' to harm to harmonization work and small shareholders, but relies more on assertion than evidence and the ask is implicit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that the threat of this doomed project adversely affects the harmonization work that securities experts have already begun and is therefore detrimental to small shareholders?
Manley affirme ne pas croire que c'est le cas, soulignant que le travail de MacKay a été bien accueilli par plusieurs provinces et espérant que toutes y participeront.
Manley disagrees with the premise and expresses hope for provincial participation but provides no facts or data to substantiate his disagreement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that is the case. I think that the work done by Mr. MacKay was requested by interested groups and was well received by several provinces. I hope that all the provinces will participate in finding ways to improve securities regulation in Canada.
Pourquoi le gouvernement n'a-t-il pas tenu sa promesse de doubler les effectifs du GRS 2 alors qu'un conflit potentiel en Irak se profile et que les États-Unis demandent ces forces?
Cites a specific government promise to double JTF2, acknowledges the department's own admission of non-fulfillment, and raises a US request for JTF2 in Iraq, making it reasonably grounded, though laced with rhetorical framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the United States is requesting our JTF2 forces be sent over to Iraq, as they were in Afghanistan. The government announced last year it would double JTF2. Unfortunately, even the department admits this is just another unfulfilled promise. A potential conflict in Iraq is looming large and the government is clearly unprepared to handle it. Why has the government failed to complete the expansion of Canada's top counterterrorism force?
O'Reilly affirme qu'il est prématuré de parler d'une demande américaine puisque les États-Unis n'ont pas encore officiellement demandé la participation du Canada.
O'Reilly sidesteps the question about the unfulfilled JTF2 expansion entirely, pivoting only to the claim that any US request would be premature to discuss.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, any request by the United States for us to take part in any operation would be very premature to talk about because the United States has not asked us yet.
Comment le gouvernement peut-il prétendre que les choses s'améliorent alors que le Canada a fourni 18 CF-18 et effectué 678 sorties de combat au Kosovo, mais ne pourrait envoyer que deux avions aujourd'hui?
Cites specific figures — 18 CF-18s and 678 combat sorties in Kosovo versus two war planes today — giving it factual grounding, though the rhetorical 'force/farce' framing weakens accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. The Liberal record of neglect and mismanagement continues. In the Kosovo air campaign, Canada contributed 18 CF-18s and flew a total of 678 combat sorties. Today Canada would only be able to send two war planes and our army could not even last six months. Canada used to be a force, now it is simply a farce. How can the government pretend that things are improving when three years ago we sent 18 planes and now we are down to only two?
O'Reilly affirme que le député est mal informé, que les CF-18 sont en cours de remise à niveau, et que le Canada répond toujours professionnellement aux appels d'action internationale.
O'Reilly dismisses the statistics by saying the member is poorly informed and that CF-18s are being refitted, but does not address the specific numerical contrast Anders raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again the member is very poorly informed. Our CF-18s are being refitted. They are very capable aircraft. Any time that the government is asked to respond to international terrorism or to war, whether it is Kosovo, Bosnia or anywhere, we respond with professional people and do a job that the world thanks us for.
Que fait la ministre du Patrimoine canadien pour préserver et valoriser les communautés culturelles au Canada à une époque de mondialisation croissante?
A government-backbench softball with no specific ask, no data, and no accountability dimension — simply inviting the minister to highlight her file.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Internationally, Canada has been leading a movement to preserve and enhance national cultures at a time of increasing globalization. What is the Minister of Canadian Heritage doing to preserve and enhance cultural communities in our own country?
Copps souligne que le Réseau international sur la politique culturelle, fondé par le Canada, tiendra une importante réunion en Croatie l'année prochaine, en liant la diversité culturelle internationale et nationale.
Copps references the International Network on Cultural Policy and an upcoming meeting in Croatia, providing some real informational content though not deeply substantive.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Cambridge for his particular interest in this issue. I would like to underscore that the International Network on Cultural Policy founded by Canada will be hosting a very important meeting next year in Croatia. I know the member, with his unique interest in the Croatian community in Canada, will also make sure that the message on cultural diversity includes Canadian diversity and not simply international diversity.
Est-ce la position du gouvernement que la Garde côtière n'a pas de mandat en matière de sécurité maritime, comme l'indique un document d'information préparé plus tôt cette année pour le ministre?
Cites a specific briefing document prepared for the minister stating that the Coast Guard does not have a mandate for maritime security, and asks a precise yes/no policy question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a briefing document prepared earlier this year for the minister responsible for the Coast Guard advised: The Coast Guard does not have a mandate for maritime security and the events of September 11 have not altered this. Is it the position of the government that the Coast Guard lacks a mandate for maritime security?
Thibault affirme que la position du gouvernement est que la Garde côtière travaille avec Transports, la Défense nationale, la GRC, l'ADRC et d'autres organismes à un niveau très approprié de sécurité nationale.
Thibault does not confirm or deny the briefing document's statement and instead asserts that the Coast Guard works cooperatively with other agencies on national security, without addressing the mandate question directly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is the position of the government that the Coast Guard works for the Department of Transport, with National Defence, the RCMP, the CCRA, and all other government agencies, on a very appropriate level of national security.
Comment la Garde côtière peut-elle contribuer à la sécurité maritime alors qu'elle n'a pas de carburant pour ses navires et pas d'uniformes pour ses équipages, les empêchant de prendre la mer?
Raises specific operational claims — no fuel for ships and no uniforms for crews — as concrete evidence that the Coast Guard cannot fulfill a maritime security role, though verification sourcing is absent.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a mandate to me. A mandate means resources to do the job. The Coast Guard has less resources today than it did when the memo was written. Today there is no fuel for its ships and no uniforms for the crews. How can the Coast Guard contribute to maritime security when its ships and crews cannot put to sea?
Thibault affirme que la Garde côtière dispose de tout le carburant nécessaire et peut prendre la mer si besoin, que la réduction des déplacements inutiles est une mesure budgétaire responsable, et que la responsabilité principale de la sécurité maritime incombe au ministre des Transports.
Thibault directly disputes the factual claims, asserting the Coast Guard is fully fuelled and capable of going to sea, and clarifies that curtailing unnecessary movements is a budget measure, but does not address the uniforms claim.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again he continues in his comedy of errors. The Coast Guard is fully fuelled. It is capable of going to sea if needed. In an effort to save expenses, to be responsible with our budget, we have asked that it curtail unnecessary movements. The primary responsibility for maritime security is with the Minister of Transport. We support it, as well as the RCMP, the military and all other agencies.
Étant donné que les États-Unis ont officiellement demandé au Canada de contribuer à l'effort de guerre en Irak, le ministre ne croit-il pas — comme Tony Blair l'a décidé en Grande-Bretagne — qu'une question aussi grave qu'une guerre mérite un débat et un vote à la Chambre?
References Colin Powell's diplomatic representations and a US official request as grounding facts and draws a pointed comparison to Tony Blair's decision, but the question is cut off before fully articulating the ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, American pressure on Canada to join a coalition to attack Iraq is mounting. After the diplomatic representations by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell last week, the United States has now officially asked Canada to contribute to the war effort. While the government feels that the ratification of Kyoto is a matter worth debating and voting on in the House, and we agree, does the minister not believe, as does Tony Blair who just made a decision to that effect in Great Britain, that a matter as serious as a war—
Boudria indique que les leaders parlementaires se réunissent chaque semaine pour proposer des thèmes de débat et invite le leader parlementaire du parti de la députée à soulever l'Irak lors de ces réunions.
Boudria completely sidesteps the substance about Iraq and a potential war vote, pivoting entirely to procedural advice about raising topics at House leaders' meetings.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are having regular meetings, on a weekly basis, of House leaders, at which time various themes for debate are suggested, among other things. I sincerely urge the hon. member to discuss this issue with the House leader for her party. In my opinion, he is doing a fine job and could represent these views at the House leaders' meeting about having this as a theme for debate, if the wish is there.
Des fonds fédéraux pourraient-ils être rendus disponibles dans le cadre du Fonds canadien sur l'infrastructure stratégique pour accélérer l'élargissement à quatre voies de l'autoroute 69 dans le nord de l'Ontario?
A government-backbench softball that identifies a specific project (four lanes on Highway 69) but is plainly designed to invite the minister to announce federal funding, not to hold government to account.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and the minister responsible for infrastructure. As the minister knows, my constituents in the communities of northern Ontario are pressing for the completion of the four lanes on Highway 69. It is a matter of health and safety for travellers and of economic development for the region. Could the minister tell the House whether federal funds could be made available under the Canada strategic infrastructure fund to accelerate the four lanes on Highway 69?
Rock affirme qu'un financement fédéral nécessiterait que l'Ontario désigne le projet comme priorité, accepte un calendrier accéléré et s'engage à fournir des fonds de contrepartie, mais que le gouvernement ontarien n'a pas encore signalé ses priorités dans le cadre du Fonds sur l'infrastructure stratégique.
Rock gives a substantive conditional answer, specifying that Ontario would need to identify it as a priority, agree to an accelerated timetable, and commit matching funds — and notes no such signal has been received.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in order for such a thing to happen we would need to have the Ontario government identify such a project as a priority for that government, agree to an accelerated timetable and commit the matching funds to make it happen. We have not heard that it is a priority for the Government of Ontario. In fact, we have not heard yet from the Ontario government at all with respect to its priorities under the strategic infrastructure fund.
Étant donné que le site Web du projet d'hélicoptère maritime fixait une date limite d'octobre 2002 pour les nouvelles soumissions, mais que le ministre de la Défense affirme maintenant qu'il n'y a pas de calendrier, quand une nouvelle date limite sera-t-elle fixée?
Cites the maritime helicopter project website's stated October 2002 deadline, contrasts it with the defence minister's statement in the Hill Times that there is no timeline, and asks a specific question about when a new deadline will be set.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the maritime helicopter project website claims that the deadline for accepting new bids to replace our Sea Kings was to be October 2002, but in this week's Hill Times , however, the defence minister states that his department has no timeline whatsoever. Will the minister tell the House what he is going to do to get that contract back on track? When will the new deadline for the bids be set? We have the safety of men and women in our Sea Kings at stake.
O'Reilly indique qu'environ 80 millions de dollars ont été investis dans des améliorations majeures des Sea King, qu'ils volent actuellement en toute sécurité, et que rien ne vole dans les forces armées qui ne soit pas sécuritaire.
O'Reilly does not address the contradictory timelines or set any new deadline, instead pivoting to the $80 million invested in Sea King upgrades and an assertion that nothing in the military flies unless it is safe.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has invested approximately $80 million in major upgrades to enhance our Sea Kings, and they presently fly very safely and are doing a good job for our country. I remind members that nothing flies in the military that is not safe. That is the commitment we make to our men and women of the forces: that their safety comes first.
Le Président a souligné la présence d'invités à la tribune, et les députés ont exprimé leur approbation.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.