Résumé de la séance
- Les députés de l'opposition (Alliance canadienne et BQ) ont pressé le gouvernement à plusieurs reprises sur la question de savoir si le personnel de l'ancien ministre des Finances avait exercé une influence inappropriée sur le traitement par le BSIF du déficit du régime de retraite de Voyageur Colonial, en invoquant des documents obtenus en vertu de l'accès à l'information montrant que des adjoints ministériels avaient assisté à des réunions et que des passages des procès-verbaux du BSIF avaient été expurgés.
- La crise de l'ESB a dominé les échanges agricoles, les députés de l'opposition de trois partis critiquant la gestion par le gouvernement de la fermeture des frontières, l'absence du ministre de l'Agriculture lorsque des agriculteurs se sont rassemblés sur la Colline du Parlement, et l'absence de plan pour les animaux de réforme de plus de 30 mois.
- Les députés du BQ ont interrogé le ministre des Finances sur les paradis fiscaux — notamment le rôle de la Barbade comme destination des investissements directs canadiens à l'étranger —, sur la taxe d'accise sur l'essence maintenue après l'élimination du déficit, et sur le détournement des fonds de l'assurance-emploi.
- Le ministre de la Justice a confirmé l'appui du gouvernement au projet de loi C-250, qui ajouterait l'orientation sexuelle aux dispositions sur la propagande haineuse du Code criminel tout en protégeant les croyances et textes religieux.
- Le NPD a soulevé le cas de Maher Arar, notant l'absence d'un ambassadeur canadien en Syrie, le recul du gouvernement sur le financement de son avocat, et exigeant un compte rendu de ce que le premier ministre avait fait après avoir promis de faire tout son possible pour la famille Arar.
- Les préoccupations relatives à la reddition de comptes s'étendaient aux demandes de remboursement au Patrimoine canadien, où l'opposition a remis en question 28 000 $ en frais de restauration de l'ancien chef de cabinet de la ministre du Patrimoine canadien et a fait le lien avec les 180 000 $ de demandes de la ministre elle-même sans reçus à l'appui.
Le ministre de la Justice a pris un engagement concret et public selon lequel le gouvernement appuie le projet de loi C-250 tel qu'amendé, précisant qu'il ajoutera l'orientation sexuelle aux dispositions sur la propagande haineuse du Code criminel tout en protégeant les croyances et les textes religieux tels que la Bible, le Coran et la Torah.
Cites specific access to information documents showing senior political aides were briefed and attended meetings on the Voyageur pension file, and asks a precise, focused question about whether OSFI closed the file at the former finance minister's direction.
La réponse entière de Manley à une question précise sur la question de savoir si le BSIF avait clos le dossier de la retraite Voyageur à la demande de l'ancien ministre des Finances se résumait à un seul mot — « Non » — sans aucune explication sur la question de savoir si le gouvernement avait enquêté sur la question ou sur quelle base ce déni reposait.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Stephen Harper a demandé quelles pressions politiques l'ancien ministre des Finances avait exercées sur le BSIF concernant le déficit du régime de retraite de Voyageur, et pourquoi la partie des procès-verbaux du BSIF traitant de cette question avait été expurgée — le gouvernement n'a jamais répondu à l'une ou l'autre partie.
- M. Monte Solberg a demandé pourquoi le ministre des Finances avait refusé d'enquêter sur ce qui semblait être un conflit d'intérêts direct impliquant son prédécesseur dans le dossier des retraites Voyageur, notamment compte tenu du fait que la vérification du BSIF aurait été modifiée après que le personnel de l'ancien ministre eut rencontré le BSIF — aucune enquête n'a été annoncée ni expliquée.
- M. Howard Hilstrom a demandé quel était le plan du gouvernement pour l'élimination des bovins de réforme excédentaires de plus de 30 mois qui ne peuvent être vendus à un prix couvrant les frais de transport et de mise en marché — le ministre a mentionné une table ronde sur le boeuf mais n'a annoncé aucun plan concret ni aucun financement.
- M. Peter MacKay a demandé si le gouvernement était prêt à participer à une délégation non partisane à Washington avec les intervenants pour faire ouvrir la frontière aux bovins canadiens — le vice-premier ministre a décrit les efforts passés mais n'a pris aucun engagement envers une telle délégation.
- Mme Alexa McDonough a demandé précisément ce que le premier ministre avait fait pour protéger les droits de Maher Arar, compte tenu de l'absence d'un ambassadeur canadien en Syrie et du recul du gouvernement sur le paiement de son avocat — le ministre a décrit les contacts en cours avec la Syrie mais n'a énuméré aucune mesure précise prise par le premier ministre.
Harper a demandé pourquoi le BSIF a permis à l'ancien ministre des Finances de laisser les chauffeurs d'autobus de Voyageur Colonial avec un déficit de pension de 2,5 millions de dollars et des réductions allant jusqu'à 30 %, étant donné que le BSIF relevait de sa responsabilité ministérielle.
Cites a specific dollar figure ($2.5 million deficit, 30% pension cut), names the specific agency (OSFI), and asks a clear accountability question about the former finance minister's responsibility.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the former finance minister sold Voyageur Colonial bus lines. In doing so he left the employees with a $2.5 million deficit in their pension plan and up to a 30% cut in their pensions. This is a pension plan that was supposed to have been protected by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, an office for which the former finance minister was responsible at the time. Why did OSFI allow the former finance minister to shortchange his own retired bus drivers?
Manley a déclaré que le BSIF fonctionne comme un organisme indépendant dans lequel le ministre ne joue aucun rôle direct, et qu'il n'y aurait donc pas de conflit d'intérêts.
Addresses the structural independence of OSFI but does not engage with the specific allegation that the former finance minister had oversight responsibility, nor explain why OSFI allowed the shortfall.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions operates as an independent agency. His watchdog role is one in which the minister plays no direct role. Consequently, there would be no conflict.
Harper a cité des documents obtenus en vertu de l'accès à l'information montrant que des collaborateurs du ministre des Finances avaient eu des contacts directs avec le BSIF, et a demandé si le BSIF avait clos le dossier à la demande de l'ancien ministre.
Cites specific access to information documents showing senior political aides were briefed and attended meetings on the Voyageur pension file, and asks a precise, focused question about whether OSFI closed the file at the former finance minister's direction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer. That is the way it is supposed to work. However access to information documents that we have show that the former finance minister's senior staff had direct contact with OSFI. At least two senior political aides were briefed on the file. His own staff attended regular meetings to discuss the closing of the file on the Voyageur pension deficit. My question is this. Is it true, is it possible, does the government know whether OSFI closed the books on the Voyageur employees because the former finance minister wanted it to?
Manley a répondu uniquement « Non » sans aucune explication.
A single-word denial ('No') without any elaboration, context, or clarification of whether the 'no' means the government investigated and found nothing or simply does not know.
Texte source
No, Mr. Speaker.
Harper a cité des procès-verbaux du BSIF obtenus par accès à l'information dans lesquels la réponse à une question sur les pressions politiques exercées sur le BSIF avait été caviardée, et a demandé ce que le gouvernement cachait.
Cites specific access to information minutes containing a whited-out response to a question about political pressure on OSFI, making a concrete, document-grounded ask about what is being hidden.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether no means they do not know or they have investigated and know the answer. Let me give the minister some additional information. In the minutes we have obtained from access to information an OSFI official was asked point blank, “What political pressure has been put on OSFI?” The response is blank. The answer has been whited out. What is the government hiding? What political pressure did the former finance minister apply?
Manley a expliqué que les renseignements caviardés dans les réponses à l'accès à l'information sont examinés par le commissaire à l'information, qui rend compte de façon indépendante au Parlement.
Explains the general access to information review process and the role of the information commissioner but does not address what the blanked-out information was or whether political pressure was applied.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, items that are blanked out in response to access to information are reviewed by the appropriate officers of the information commissioner. He reports independently to parliament. He is an officer of the House. Consequently, there is no basis on the fact that information was not disclosed to conclude what that information was.
Ritz a demandé quand le ministre de l'Agriculture accepterait les recommandations de l'industrie et annoncerait la deuxième phase ainsi que le budget pour la mettre en œuvre.
Asks a reasonably specific question about when the minister will announce phase two and its budget, grounded in the presence of farmers on Parliament Hill, but wrapped in significant partisan framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary for agriculture said that with the border open a crack the crisis is over. The agriculture minister thinks since he threw around a few dollars livestock producers are saved. Guess what, both of them are wrong and both need new jobs. Farmers are on Parliament Hill today to ask questions of their AWOL minister. When will he accept the industry's recommendations and announce phase two and the budget to implement it? When will the minister do that?
Vanclief a souligné que plus de 300 millions de dollars avaient été fournis peu après la crise, que des centaines de millions supplémentaires sont disponibles, et que l'objectif est d'utiliser ces fonds avant de déterminer les besoins supplémentaires.
Provides some figures ($300 million, hundreds of millions more available) and indicates the sequencing logic (use existing funds first), but does not answer when phase two will be announced or what its budget will be.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Canadians and all the members in the House for supporting the beef industry this summer. We know the situation that has been created in the beef industry. I also want to say and point out to the hon. member that it was only a very few weeks after the situation that the government came forward with over $300 million. There are hundreds of millions of dollars more available to producers. Let us use that up and then we will see what more money we need after that. That is the goal that I have. Unfortunately, there has to be agreements to allow that to flow. We will do that. Meanwhile we will continue to work on opening the borders more than they are open at the present time.
Ritz a accusé le ministre d'ignorer les familles agricoles et a demandé pourquoi il place son agenda politique avant les familles productrices.
Purely rhetorical — asks why the minister puts his own political agenda ahead of farm families, with no factual basis or specific ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister stays true to form. He always ignores the victims in this. He is forgetting about the farm and ranch families, the real folks out there, and the livestock producers. The primary producers are left hanging out to dry. Why does the minister always put his own political agenda ahead of these producing families?
Vanclief a cité 560 millions de dollars de dépenses fédérales-provinciales combinées depuis juin, a noté que des fonds supplémentaires attendent des signatures pour être versés, et a souligné les progrès des États-Unis et d'autres pays dans la réouverture de leurs frontières.
Provides concrete figures ($560 million combined federal-provincial spending), explains the conditions for further payments, and notes progress on border openings, though not directly responding to the political-agenda accusation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have spent $560 million between the federal government and the provincial governments since June. There are hundreds of millions of dollars available in the programs that we have for the farmers. That money can flow to the farmers in interim payments as soon as the signatures are there to allow it to flow. The United States, Mexico and other countries have recognized the food safety system that we have in Canada. These countries have begun to open their borders. The United States is expediting the process to open its border to live cattle under 30 months of age. We will continue working with all those countries.
Duceppe a demandé si le ministre des Finances préparerait son budget en secret avec le prochain premier ministre ou s'il accueillerait les commentaires du député de LaSalle—Émard dans le cadre du processus de consultation prébudgétaire.
Combines a factual premise (the finance minister acknowledged he cannot prepare a budget without knowing the next PM's views, and Liberal committee members blocked the member for LaSalle—Émard from appearing) with a question about transparency vs. secrecy in budget preparation, but the ask is compound and rhetorical in framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister of Finance acknowledged that he cannot start preparing his next budget without knowing the next Prime Minister's point of view, the Liberal members who dominate the Standing Committee on Finance objected to the member for LaSalle—Émard appearing before the committee. The minister prefers to speak to business people anyway. In his words, that is the democratic deficit. In this context, will the Minister of Finance prefer to concoct his budget in secret with the next Prime Minister, or will he be transparent and welcome his comments as part of the pre-budget consultation process?
Manley a indiqué que le Comité permanent des finances avait déjà commencé ses réunions prébudgétaires et qu'il présenterait les programmes et l'état des finances à l'automne, le ministère étant prêt à déposer un budget en hiver ou plus tôt si nécessaire.
Notes the Standing Committee on Finance has begun pre-budget work and that the minister will present programs and the state of finances in the fall, but does not address whether the member for LaSalle—Émard will be invited or the democratic-deficit concern.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, during the meetings that began this week, the Standing Committee on Finance has already started preparing for the next budget. Furthermore, later this fall, as usual, I will present the programs and the state of our finances. The Department of Finance will be ready to table a budget in the winter or earlier, if necessary.
Duceppe a demandé si le ministre des Finances consulterait le député de LaSalle—Émard pour savoir s'il est d'accord avec la stratégie d'empiètement du premier ministre actuel dans les champs de compétence du Québec.
Grounds the question in a specific recommendation (heavy federal investment in Quebec jurisdictions) and references the history of cuts by the former finance minister, but the ask about consulting the 'future boss' is rhetorically framed and compound.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the budget, the current Prime Minister is recommending that the federal government invest heavily, especially in Quebec jurisdictions. Will the Minister of Finance consult his future boss to find out whether he agrees with such an encroachment strategy, which has been made possible by the massive cuts imposed on Quebec and the provinces by the former Minister of Finance and next Prime Minister?
Dion a affirmé que le gouvernement du Canada respecte pleinement les compétences provinciales et a mis Duceppe au défi de fournir un seul exemple d'empiètement.
Dion simply asserts the Government of Canada is respectful of provincial jurisdictions and challenges the member to give a single example of encroachment, without engaging with the budget consultation question or the encroachment strategy allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very respectful of provincial jurisdictions. The hon. member would not be able to give a single example of encroachment.
Paquette a cité le fait que la Barbade est devenue la troisième destination des investissements directs canadiens à l'étranger avec plus de 23 milliards de dollars sous l'ancien ministre des Finances, et a demandé si le ministre actuel mettrait fin à ces paradis fiscaux.
Cites a specific figure ($23 billion in Canadian investments to Barbados) and a specific consequence ($2 billion in avoided bank taxes), and poses a clear either/or question about whether the minister will continue laissez-faire on tax havens.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, during the reign of the last finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the well-known tax haven of Barbados became the third ranking destination, just behind the United States and the United Kingdom, for direct Canadian investments abroad, at over $23 billion. Does the Minister of Finance plan to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and allow Canadian corporations to continue to take advantage of tax shelters, like the five major banks that have thus avoided having to pay some $2 billion in taxes, or will he put an end to the use of these tax dodges so that all taxpayers are treated fairly?
Manley a déclaré que le gouvernement a réduit le fardeau fiscal de 100 milliards de dollars sur cinq ans et que tous les Canadiens en ont bénéficié.
Manley's response about a $100 billion taxpayer burden reduction over five years is entirely unrelated to the specific question about tax havens and corporate tax avoidance through Barbados.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that we have reduced the burden on the taxpayer by $100 billion over five years. All Canadians have benefited from that decision.
Paquette a demandé si le ministre des Finances actuel compte perpétuer l'attitude de laisser-faire de son prédécesseur sur les paradis fiscaux ou s'il soutiendra la vérificatrice générale, qui a dénoncé l'érosion de l'assiette fiscale.
Sharpens the earlier question by invoking the Auditor General's specific concern about erosion of the tax base and contrasting the former finance minister's inaction with his personal companies' use of tax havens, though the ask remains binary and somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister had a lot to say about tax havens but did nothing about them. His companies, however, used them to great advantage. Does the present finance minister plan to perpetuate this laissez-faire attitude or does he plan to side with the Auditor General, who has spoken out against the erosion of the tax base, a direct result of the use of these tax havens?
Manley a noté que la question avait déjà été répondue, a mentionné des traités avec d'autres pays affectant les niveaux d'imposition, et a déclaré que des mesures avaient été introduites depuis 1993.
Manley refers vaguely to treaties and measures since 1993 without addressing the Auditor General's specific concern about tax-base erosion or explaining what is being done about Barbados-style tax havens.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have answered this question on a number of occasions here in this House. It is clear that we have treaties with other countries that affect taxation levels. This has been studied often. Since 1993 we have introduced measures aimed at reducing taxes. We also have treaties to protect the levels of taxation on Canadian companies with connections to these other countries.
MacKay a demandé, notant que 120 jours s'étaient écoulés depuis le début de la crise de l'ESB, si le gouvernement était prêt à participer à un effort non partisan pour envoyer une délégation à Washington avec des intervenants afin d'ouvrir la frontière au bétail canadien.
Grounds the question in a specific timeline (120 days since the BSE crisis began), characterizes the government's efforts as ineffective, and makes a concrete, actionable proposal (a non-partisan delegation to Washington with stakeholders).
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there should be no greater priority in the country right now for the government than addressing the BSE crisis and getting the border open. It has been 120 days since the nightmare began. The government has been ineffective and unable to get the border open. I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister if the government is willing to participate in a non-partisan effort to send a delegation to Washington with stakeholders to get the border open for Canadian cattle.
Manley a convenu que la crise de l'ESB était la priorité absolue, a précisé que ce sont les frontières des partenaires commerciaux qui sont fermées, et a déclaré que le gouvernement a engagé ses homologues à tous les niveaux et ne se reposera pas tant que la frontière ne sera pas ouverte.
Manley acknowledges the priority, clarifies that it is trading partners' borders rather than Canada's that are closed, and confirms engagement at multiple levels of government, but does not address the specific proposal of a non-partisan delegation to Washington.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that there has been no priority of greater significance to the government. Since the outbreak of BSE we have been trying to deal with the crisis that was created. Let us understand that it is not the Canadian border that is closed. The Canadian border is open. It is the borders of our partners in trade that are closed. At every level of the government, the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, myself and other counter-colleagues have dealt with our counterparts again and again. We have met with some success but more is sought. We will not rest until the border is open.
MacKay a demandé où se trouvaient le vice-premier ministre, le leader de la Chambre, le premier ministre et le ministre de l'Agriculture lorsque des agriculteurs de la vallée de l'Outaouais se sont rassemblés sur la Colline du Parlement, et pourquoi aucun représentant libéral n'était présent.
Raises a concrete accountability point about the absence of Liberal representatives when Ottawa Valley farmers gathered on Parliament Hill, and asks what the plan is and why no one showed up, but the question is multi-part and partially rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, where was the Deputy Prime Minister, where was the House leader, where was the Prime Minister and where was the agriculture minister a few hours ago when farmers from the Ottawa valley gathered on the front lawn of Parliament? They wanted to hear from their representatives. They wanted to hear from the government. What exactly is the plan? What is being done to open the border? Why were there no representatives of the Liberal Party on the steps of Parliament to answer to the people they are supposed to represent?
Vanclief a déclaré que le groupe avait été informé la veille qu'il les rencontrerait cet après-midi-là avec le caucus rural, a défendu les réalisations du Canada en matière de sécurité alimentaire, et a noté qu'il s'agissait de la première fois qu'un pays non-ESB ouvrait ses portes à un produit d'un pays touché par l'ESB.
Vanclief acknowledges a planned afternoon meeting with the group and the rural caucus, defends Canada's food safety record, and notes the historic nature of non-BSE countries opening to BSE-country product, but does not specifically explain why no representatives were present earlier.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Liberal Party was nor where we will be. We told that group yesterday that we would meet with them, the rural caucus and myself, this afternoon. We will meet with representatives later this afternoon. We have done that all along and we will continue. As far as opening the border, the hon. member should recognize what our industry has done, what our food inspection agency has done and what members on all sides of the House have done. They have pointed out to the United States, and Canadians have said, that Canadian beef is safe. It is the first time in history that any non-BSE country has opened up to a product from a BSE country. I guess they forgot that.
Blaikie a accusé le ministre de l'Agriculture d'avoir été absent tout l'été pour l'industrie bovine et a demandé quand le gouvernement allait faire quelque chose pour les agriculteurs plutôt que d'attendre que la frontière soit ouverte.
Primarily rhetorical — characterizes the minister as a 'no-show all summer' without specific evidence and asks a vague question about when the government will 'do something for farmers instead of just resting until the border is open.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the mark of a good Minister of Agriculture is that we should be able to find a certain substance on his boots, not in what he said when he gets up in the House of Commons. The fact is that the Minister of Agriculture was a no-show today and has been a no-show all summer for the people in the cattle industry. Therefore I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. When is the government going to get it and do something for farmers instead of just resting until the border is open?
Vanclief a cité 300 millions de dollars en soutien plus des centaines de millions supplémentaires disponibles en attente d'autorité légale, et a noté que le Canada, le Mexique et d'autres pays avaient partiellement ouvert leurs frontières.
Vanclief cites the $300 million figure plus additional hundreds of millions available, explains the legal authority requirement for funds to flow, and notes partial border openings, providing substantive if incomplete context.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is saying that $300 million on top of the other support that is there for Canadian farmers is a small amount of money. Certainly we know they would like more. There are hundreds of millions of dollars more that the government wants to move to Canadian farmers but we must have the legal authority to do so. I have had the signing authority since April to do that for the provinces and for the producers in the provinces. Let us use that money up. We have partially opened the borders to Canada and Mexico and some other countries. Their borders are closed and they are the ones that need to open them. We have shown them the science and they are reacting.
Blaikie a demandé au vice-premier ministre, en sa qualité de ministre des Finances, s'il est d'accord avec les conseils du premier ministre d'investir dans les villes et si l'on peut s'attendre à quelque chose du ministre actuel pour les villes.
Asks whether the Minister of Finance agrees with the Prime Minister's advice to invest in cities and whether something concrete can be expected, but the framing around the 'future prime minister' and 'boss' is indirect and the ask is not sharply defined.
Texte source
What we hear when we do not have a shovel, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with the advice that his boss, the Prime Minister, is giving to the future prime minister with respect to cities and the need to invest in cities. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Finance and successor to the former minister of finance whether he agrees with the advice that the Prime Minister is giving to the future prime minister and, if so, can we expect to see something from this current Minister of Finance for cities?
Manley a cité le programme d'infrastructure municipale débutant en 1994, l'augmentation de 3 milliards de dollars du soutien à l'infrastructure municipale dans le dernier budget, et davantage d'argent pour le logement.
Manley provides specific information — the municipal infrastructure program starting in 1994, the $3 billion increase in the last budget, and additional housing funding — demonstrating a record of city support, though not directly committing to future action.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, not only do we expect to continue to support the cities in the future but we have been supporting the cities and municipalities in the past, starting with the municipal infrastructure program in 1994, building on it year after year, up to and including the last budget which included a $3 billion increase in the amount of support for municipal infrastructure in Canada; more money for housing, more money to support cities in the necessities that they face in providing services to their people on a daily basis.
Solberg a cité la propre description du BSIF de la faillite de Voyageur comme « la première faillite d'un régime de retraite sous supervision fédérale impliquant des pertes importantes » de l'histoire, et a demandé pourquoi le ministre des Finances a refusé d'enquêter sur ce qui semble être un conflit d'intérêts direct impliquant son prédécesseur.
Cites OSFI's own characterization of the Voyageur failure as 'the first failure of a federally-supervised pension plan involving significant loss' in history, establishes the human impact (hundreds of bus drivers shortchanged), and asks a clear question about why the minister refused to investigate a direct conflict of interest.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like the finance minister to think very carefully before he answers these questions. According to OSFI, the failure of the Voyageur pension plan was “the first failure of a federally-supervised pension plan involving significant loss” in history. Hundreds of bus drivers have been shortchanged by this disaster. I would say that the former finance minister obviously has some explaining to do but, for now, I want to ask this finance minister the following question. Why has he refused to investigate what appears to be a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor?
Manley a mis en doute la pertinence de la question, a rappelé l'indépendance du BSIF accordée par le Parlement, et a affirmé qu'il n'est jamais approprié pour le ministre des Finances de commenter un régime de retraite individuel.
Manley dismisses the question as insubstantial, restates OSFI's independence, and notes the minister should never comment on individual pension plans, but does not explain why he refused to investigate the apparent conflict of interest.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member has recently returned to the front bench as critic for finance and I welcome him there, but I hope that he can find more substantial questions than that to pose. OSFI is an independent entity. It deals with pension plans under authority given to it by Parliament. It is never appropriate for the finance minister to comment on any individual pension plan. The duty of OSFI is to protect the interest of pensioners and it does it independently.
Solberg a déclaré que le BSIF avait ordonné une vérification du régime de retraite de Voyageur, mais que cette vérification avait été secrètement modifiée après que des collaborateurs de l'ancien ministre des Finances eurent rencontré le BSIF, et a demandé pourquoi le ministre refuse d'enquêter sur ce conflit d'intérêts apparent.
Cites a specific and alarming fact — that OSFI ordered an audit of the pension plan but the audit was secretly altered after the former finance minister's staff met with OSFI — and asks specifically why the minister refuses to investigate the appearance of a direct conflict of interest.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the finance minister that this question goes right to the integrity of the government. It goes to the integrity of the former finance minister. It is very relevant. These are the facts. OSFI ordered an audit of the pension plan but after the former finance minister's staff met with OSFI the audit was secretly altered. Why has the finance minister refused to investigate what has the appearance of a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor? What is the problem?
Manley a qualifié les allégations de sans fondement, a affirmé que l'indépendance du BSIF est fondée dans la loi, et a invité le député à soulever ses préoccupations concernant la conduite du surintendant au comité parlementaire approprié.
Manley dismisses the allegations as groundless and says OSFI's independence is founded in legislation, but does not engage with the specific claim about the secretly altered audit, and deflects by suggesting the member raise it in parliamentary committee.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member is making groundless allegations. He is attempting to create a scandal where none exists. The fact is that the independence of OSFI is not something that is subject to the whim of a finance minister. The independence of OSFI is founded in legislation. If he has a problem with how the superintendent of financial institutions has conducted his responsibilities, then let him take it up in the appropriate parliamentary committee.
Picard demande si le ministre des Finances va supprimer la taxe d'accise de 1,5¢ sur l'essence, conçue pour éliminer le déficit, maintenant que celui-ci est disparu et que la taxe a rapporté au moins 2,8 milliards de dollars.
Cites specific figures ($250 million tax reduction for oil companies, 1.5¢ excise tax, $2.8 billion collected) and asks a clear yes/no policy question about eliminating the gasoline excise tax.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the finance minister's predecessor reduced the tax burden of oil companies by more than $250 million while, on the other hand, maintaining the 1.5¢ increase in the excise tax on gasoline, which was designed to eliminate the deficit. The fact is that since the deficit was eliminated, this tax has allowed the government to rake in at least $2.8 billion. Now that the deficit is gone, will the Minister of Finance eliminate this tax for which there is no longer any justification, or does he plan to maintain it and go along with a strategy put in place by his predecessor?
Manley souligne que la dette publique issue des déficits accumulés existe toujours et mentionne la réduction d'impôts de 100 milliards de dollars annoncée en 2000, laissant entendre que les autres taxes seraient maintenues.
Manley deflects to the public debt rationale and the $100 billion tax cut package without directly addressing whether the 1.5¢ excise tax will be eliminated.
Texte source
First, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that the public debt is made up of accumulated deficits. That still exists. Second, in 2000, we made a decision as a government to reduce the tax burden by $100 billion. This was a very significant tax cut. At the time, it was clear that the other taxes would be maintained. So, there was a tax cut. We have to accept that. We supported the decision to cut income taxes.
Picard demande si le ministre des Finances va maintenir la politique de son prédécesseur consistant à réduire le fardeau fiscal des compagnies pétrolières plutôt qu'à aider les consommateurs confrontés à des hausses répétées du prix de l'essence.
The question is largely rhetorical, framing the minister as siding with major oil companies over consumers, with only a vague ask about continuing the predecessor's policy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister chose to reduce the tax liabilities of oil companies instead of helping consumers, who are being hit with one gasoline price hike after another. Is the Minister of Finance going to maintain the policy developed by his predecessor, who was more concerned with the major oil companies than with consumers and the disadvantaged?
Manley soutient que la réduction d'impôts de 100 milliards de dollars sur cinq ans profite à tous les contribuables et constitue la plus importante réduction fiscale de l'histoire du pays.
Manley repeats the $100 billion tax cut talking point without addressing the specific charge that the policy favoured oil companies over consumers.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the hon. member does not get it. A $100 billion cut over five years applies to everyone. It benefits all taxpayers. This is the most significant tax cut in the history of this country. So, everyone benefits from this tax cut.
Williams demande pourquoi la ministre du Patrimoine canadien a approuvé 28 000 dollars de dépenses de restauration pour son adjoint exécutif Charles Boyer aux frais des contribuables.
Williams cites specific figures (Charles Boyer, $28,000 on meals, 65 dining occasions, $7,500 at one restaurant, less than two years) and asks a single clear accountability question directed at the minister.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if you thought George Radwanski was over the top on his expense account then listen to this. Charles Boyer, the former executive assistant to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, spent $28,000 on meals in less than two years. We know he dined out 65 times and spent over $7,500 at the same restaurant, and the taxpayer paid. My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why did she approve $28,000 of fine dining for her assistant at the taxpayers' expense?
Allard affirme que tous les remboursements ont été effectués conformément aux lignes directrices du Conseil du Trésor et que la ministre a demandé un nouvel examen de toutes les réclamations.
The parliamentary secretary states reimbursements complied with Treasury Board guidelines and that the minister has ordered a review, but does not explain how such spending was approved or justified.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform this House that all the reimbursements were made in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. However, for greater certainty, the minister has asked that all claims be reviewed again to ensure that they were made in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Williams demande pourquoi la ministre a permis à son adjoint de dépenser 28 000 dollars en restauration sans identifier ses convives, surtout compte tenu du propre bilan de la ministre avec 180 000 dollars de réclamations sans reçus.
Williams raises the additional specific fact that receipts or guest lists were not provided, references the minister's own $180,000 with no receipts, and asks a pointed accountability question, though it includes rhetorical framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we know they did not comply with the guidelines because it did not tell us who he took for dinner. There is problem number one. This is the minister who spent $180,000 and did not provide one receipt for the money she claimed from the government. Now her assistant is eating at the trough and we do not know who he is eating with. Why did the minister allow her assistant to treat the government and his job as an all you can eat buffet and stick the taxpayer with a $28,000 bill?
Allard déclare qu'elle doit se fier à ce que les fonctionnaires lui disent, à savoir que tous les remboursements ont été effectués conformément aux règles du Conseil du Trésor.
Allard simply repeats that she has been told reimbursements complied with Treasury Board rules and offers nothing new, essentially admitting she has no independent knowledge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, since I am told that all the reimbursements were made in accordance with Treasury Board rules, I have to rely on what officials tell me.
Tremblay demande si le ministre des Finances entend poursuivre la politique de son prédécesseur consistant à siphonner des milliards du fonds d'assurance-emploi tout en réduisant les prestations, ne laissant admissibles que 33 % des femmes et 44 % des hommes.
Tremblay cites the specific figure of $45 billion siphoned from the employment insurance fund, the statistics that only 33% of women and 44% of men are entitled to EI, and the projected $3 billion transfer this year, making a pointed accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the previous minister of finance siphoned $45 billion from the employment insurance fund, while reducing benefits, so that today, only 33% of women and 44% of men out of work are entitled to EI. Does the Minister of Finance, who is going to help himself to another $3 billion from the employment insurance fund again this year, intend to continue his predecessor's policy of systematic pillaging for much longer?
Manley affirme que le budget a de nouveau réduit les cotisations d'assurance-emploi et que les revenus seront presque égaux aux dépenses du programme à l'avenir.
Manley addresses EI premium reductions and projected balance between revenues and expenditures, which is relevant context but does not directly address the charge of systematic pillaging or the low eligibility rates cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that in this year's budget we have again reduced employment insurance premiums and will do so again next year, as announced. With these reductions, the revenues for the EI fund will be very nearly equal to the program's expenditures. That will continue with a balanced budget.
Tremblay demande si le ministre entend poursuivre une politique en vertu de laquelle l'assurance-emploi verse des prestations à moins de la moitié des hommes et des femmes cotisants qui perdent leur emploi, en faisant essentiellement une taxe déguisée sur l'emploi.
Tremblay sharpens the argument that EI now benefits less than half of contributors, effectively making it a disguised tax on employment, and asks if the minister will continue this policy, though the framing remains partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. minister that he listen to the question before he answers this time. The EI program is now providing benefits to less than half of the men and women contributors who lose their jobs, which means that, for all intents and purposes, this so-called employment insurance plan is nothing more than a disguised tax on employment. Does the minister intend to continue his predecessor's irresponsible policy?
Manley affirme seulement que les cotisations d'assurance-emploi ont été réduites chaque année depuis 1993 et que les revenus seront approximativement égaux aux dépenses pour l'année à venir.
Manley repeats the premium reduction talking point and revenue-expenditure balance claim without addressing the eligibility rate problem or the characterization of EI as a disguised tax.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add. We have reduced employment insurance premiums each year since 1993. Now, for the coming year, we can say that revenues will be approximately equal to expenditures.
Hilstrom demande quel est le plan du gouvernement pour l'élimination des quelque 400 000 animaux de réforme excédentaires de plus de 30 mois qui ne peuvent être exportés ni entièrement consommés au pays en raison de la situation liée à l'ESB.
Hilstrom provides specific numbers (800,000 cull animals annually, domestic consumption of half) and identifies a concrete unresolved problem, asking for the government's specific plan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, roughly 800,000 cows and bulls over 30 months of age are normally culled and sent to slaughter every year. We can consume about one-half of them domestically. We cannot export the other half. Disposal of these excess animals is a major unresolved problem. What is the government's plan for disposal of these excess animals?
Vanclief mentionne une table ronde sur le bœuf réunissant des représentants de l'industrie, des transformateurs et des consommateurs qui se réunit pour trouver des utilisations bénéfiques pour la viande, et exhorte à mobiliser les fonds existants pour aider les producteurs.
Vanclief references the beef round table and a general commitment to work with industry but provides no concrete plan or timeline for disposal of the excess animals.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, some time ago, even before the BSE situation, I put in place a beef round table. It has participants from the industry, from the processors and from the consumers. They have been meeting on a regular basis and have spent considerable time with provincial, federal and industry people recently, talking about the ways which we can develop to use this good meat in a beneficial way. We will be working with the industry to do that. In the meantime, again I say, let us move the money that we have there in order to assist our producers until we further assess all this and develop the programs and products in order to use this good quality meat.
Hilstrom demande pourquoi, quatre mois après le début de la crise économique liée à l'ESB, le gouvernement n'a absolument rien fait pour aider les éleveurs qui ne peuvent ni vendre ni nourrir leurs animaux de réforme et pourraient être forcés de les abattre et de les enfouir.
Hilstrom describes the immediate on-the-ground crisis of ranchers facing the fall roundup and unable to sell or feed cull animals, and asks a pointed question about four months of government inaction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, more failure by the minister. The fall roundup is starting right now. Cull animals are being separated out every day. They cannot be sold for enough to cover transportation and selling costs. Ranchers cannot afford to feed them. The government's lack of action will force the ranchers to shoot and bury them on the ranch rather than feed them. Why, four months into this economic crisis, this social crisis, has the government done absolutely nothing?
Vanclief souligne l'augmentation du volume d'abattage hebdomadaire, passé de 23 000–25 000 à 73 000 animaux, comme preuve des progrès réalisés pour trouver des marchés et des utilisations pour le bœuf canadien.
Vanclief cites the increase in weekly slaughter from 23,000–25,000 to 73,000 animals as evidence of action, which is relevant data, but does not address the specific problem of cull animals that cannot be sold or the risk of ranchers shooting and burying them.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to point to out to the hon. member, to the House and to all Canadians that because of the efforts of everybody, of governments, individual Canadians and organizations and our food chains, grocery stores and retailers in Canada, in the first two or three weeks after the one animal was found, we only slaughtered about 23,000 to 25,000 animals a week in Canada. In the last week in August we moved that up to 73,000 animals a week, which is more than we were slaughtering before the situation occurred back in May. That is the approach that we will continue to take to find markets and uses for the good Canadian beef that has been recognized by all Canadians and that is being recognized by our customers in the world.
Telegdi demande au ministre de la Justice de confirmer son soutien au projet de loi C-250 et de confirmer que l'amendement libéral protège les libertés religieuses et les textes sacrés tels que la Bible, le Coran et la Torah.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to confirm support for Bill C-250 and affirm that religious freedoms are protected, designed to allow the minister to announce a position.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Violent hate crimes targeting gays and lesbians are all too common in Canada. Today the House will vote on the inclusion of sexual orientation and hate propaganda laws along with existing grounds of race, colour, religion and ethnic origin. Will the minister confirm his support for Bill C-250 and confirm as well that particularly with the Liberal amendment passed in the House earlier this year, the bill fully protects religious freedoms and religious texts such as the Bible, the Koran or the Torah?
Cauchon confirme que le gouvernement appuie le projet de loi C-250 tel qu'amendé, précisant qu'il inclura l'orientation sexuelle dans les dispositions sur la propagande haineuse du Code criminel tout en protégeant les croyances religieuses, les opinions et les textes.
Cauchon directly confirms government support for the bill as amended, explains it adds sexual orientation to hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code, and confirms protection of religious beliefs, opinions, and texts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question. It is a very important topic in Bill C-250. I would like to tell the House that indeed we support the bill as amended. Of course when it is looked at, it is consistent with the government's position and policy. That bill will include sexual orientation in the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code while protecting at the same time religious beliefs, that is to say, opinions and texts as well.
Wayne demande si le gouvernement fera ce qui s'impose et rendra immédiatement admissibles au programme pour l'autonomie des anciens combattants les quelque 28 000 veuves d'anciens combattants pour qu'elles puissent rester à leur domicile.
Wayne identifies the specific issue of 28,000 widows denied access to the veterans independence program and asks both the current and incoming prime ministers to make widows eligible immediately, though the dual-addressee framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government is once again ignoring the seniors and insulting the veterans. On Monday the veterans affairs minister confirmed that as many as 28,000 widows would be denied access to the veterans independence program. These women were not only the wives of heroes, many were the backbone of the war effort here at home. Will either of the two prime ministers, the present one or the future one, do the right thing and give these brave Canadian widows the help and support they deserve so they can remain in their homes? Will they make them eligible immediately for the veterans independence program?
Grose déclare que le gouvernement dispose de sept programmes pour améliorer les prestations aux anciens combattants, que les contraintes budgétaires ont empêché de tout faire, et que 10 000 conjointes recevront le PAAC en vertu des nouveaux règlements à un coût de 65 millions de dollars.
Grose acknowledges budget constraints and provides the specific figure of 10,000 additional spouses receiving VIP at a cost of $65 million under new regulations, which is partially responsive but does not address the 28,000 widows still excluded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this question has been answered before in this House but nevertheless I will take a run at it. We have seven programs to increase veterans benefits. We had a budget to operate with. We did not have enough money in the budget to do everything we wanted to do. I would like to point out to the hon. member opposite that 10,000 spouses will receive the VIP under our new regulations that would not have received it under the old regulations, at a cost of $65 million.
Keddy demande comment le Premier ministre justifie les 158 000 dollars de dépenses personnelles de Denise Tremblay au Tribunal des anciens combattants (révision et appel) alors que les veuves d'anciens combattants se voient refuser moins de 100 dollars par mois.
Keddy contrasts the denial of benefits to widows with the specific figure of $158,000 in personal expenses by Denise Tremblay, identified as a Veterans Review and Appeal Board member and the Prime Minister's former constituency secretary, creating a concrete accountability contrast.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for the government to say it does not have enough money for widows is an insult. The government has a record of being unwilling to extend benefits to the widows of the veterans. Meanwhile, Denise Tremblay, a member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and the Prime Minister's former constituency secretary in Saint-Maurice, Quebec, spent more than $158,000 on personal expenses. How does the Prime Minister justify these extravagant expenses when widows are refused less than $100 a month?
Grose reconnaît que c'est une excellente question mais affirme ne pas avoir d'excellente réponse et promet de revenir vers le député dès que possible.
Grose openly admits he does not have an answer and promises to get back to the member, which while honest, provides no substantive response whatsoever.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am afraid I do not have an excellent answer, but I will get back to the member as soon as I possibly can.
McDonough demande ce que le Premier ministre a concrètement fait pour protéger les droits de Maher Arar, étant donné que la Syrie pourrait le soumettre à un procès, qu'il n'y a pas d'ambassadeur canadien en Syrie et que le gouvernement est revenu sur sa promesse de payer ses frais juridiques.
McDonough identifies four specific deficiencies (no clear charges, no transparency, no Canadian ambassador in Syria, no government support for legal counsel) and directly invokes the Prime Minister's public promise to do everything he could for the Arar family.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, indications are that Syria is about to subject Maher Arar to a trial. To add to that nightmare, there is no Canadian ambassador in Syria at the moment and the Canadian government has backtracked from its promise to pay for Mr. Arar's legal counsel. With no clear charges, no transparency, no Canadian ambassador, and no government support of legal counsel, how are the rights of this Canadian citizen to be protected? The Prime Minister promised the Arar family that he would do everything that he could. What has he done?
Graham affirme que le Canada est en contact régulier avec la Syrie, que les représentations ont amélioré la situation d'Arar comme il l'a lui-même reconnu auprès de l'ambassadeur, et que la position du Canada est que la Syrie doit le libérer et le renvoyer au Canada malgré son statut de ressortissant syrien soumis au droit syrien.
Graham states Canada has been in regular contact with Syria, that representations have aided Arar's position (citing Arar's own words to the ambassador), and that Canada's position is that Syria must release him to Canada, but does not address the specific points about the absent ambassador or the backtrack on legal counsel funding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as do other members of the House, we have been in regular contact with the government of Syria. In fact when our ambassador last visited Mr. Arar, he specifically said that our representations had aided his position, had helped him. He was very grateful for the fact that his position had improved there. Obviously this is a matter of Mr. Arar being a Syrian national as well as a Canadian national. The Syrian authorities are saying they are going to press charges against him. We have taken the position that they must release him to Canada. We seek to get his release but obviously we must deal with the Syrian authorities in dealing with a Syrian national under Syrian law. We are using all efforts we can to make sure Mr. Arar is well and we get him out--
Godin demande si le ministre de l'Environnement interviendra dans la décision du premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick d'approuver un incinérateur de déchets toxiques à Belledune, construit sans étude d'impact environnemental indépendante, compte tenu de la signature du protocole de Kyoto.
Godin identifies a specific project (toxic waste incinerator in Belledune), cites the absence of an independent environmental impact study, and asks whether the minister will intervene, referencing the Kyoto protocol as context.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier of New Brunswick approved the construction of a toxic waste incinerator in Belledune, in northeast New Brunswick. This was done without any independent environmental impact study. In the meantime, the people of northeast New Brunswick and the Gaspé are opposed to this plan if there is no independent study. My question is for the Minister of the Environment. With the signing of the Kyoto protocol, is the minister prepared to intervene in the New Brunswick Premier's decision, in order to protect the environment and the people of Chaleur Bay?
Anderson explique que l'intervention fédérale en vertu de la législation sur l'évaluation environnementale nécessite un déclencheur fédéral, qu'un tel déclencheur n'existe pas dans ce cas, et que l'affaire est donc laissée à la province du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Anderson directly explains the legal threshold for federal intervention under environmental assessment legislation (the trigger requirement), states that no such trigger exists in this case, and concludes the matter is left to the province of New Brunswick.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for the federal government to intervene under the environmental assessment legislation there has to be federal involvement, which is called a trigger, for the legislation to take effect. As I understand it, in this particular instance there is no such trigger. Therefore, it will be left to the province of New Brunswick to handle this particular instance.
Strahl demande pourquoi le surintendant adjoint Nick LePan a personnellement contacté Terrie O'Leary au bureau du ministre des Finances au sujet du problème Voyageur alors que le ministre était propriétaire de Voyageur et donc en situation de conflit d'intérêts.
Strahl cites a specific date (October 1997), names a specific official (Nick LePan, deputy superintendent of OSFI), names the minister's staff contact (Terrie O'Leary), and identifies the specific conflict-of-interest concern about the Voyageur pension plan, forming a precise accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, apparently the finance minister would not recognize questionable behaviour if it ran over him in a bus because in October 1997 the deputy superintendent of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Nick LePan, personally contacted Terrie O'Leary in the minister's office to tell her about the Voyageur problem. Why would the deputy superintendent contact the minister's office when he knew the minister was an owner of Voyageur and therefore in a conflict of interest over this pension plan?
Manley affirme que la pratique normale consiste à informer le bureau du ministre des problèmes survenant avec un fonds, tandis que le ministre lui-même ne devrait pas être impliqué dans l'évaluation du fonds ou la détermination des mesures correctives, qui relèvent du surintendant des institutions financières.
Manley describes normal practice of informing the minister's office about arising issues and states the minister should not involve himself in evaluation of the fund, which is tangentially relevant but does not address why LePan specifically contacted the minister's office given the minister's ownership stake in Voyageur.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the normal practice what happens is that the minister's office is informed where there is an issue that is arising with respect to a fund. Obviously it is not in the minister's purview to involve himself in the evaluation of a fund or in the steps that should be required by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in order to rectify any problems that exist in a fund. If there are other questions, they may wish to raise them with OSFI directly.
Strahl demande pourquoi le personnel ministériel et le Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières travaillaient ensemble en coulisses sur le dossier Voyageur, citant la présence de Karl Littler aux réunions et la rédaction par le BSIF de documents de communication pour des députés sélectionnés à la demande du personnel du ministre, au lieu de protéger les retraités.
Strahl names specific individuals (Karl Littler as the minister's Ontario campaign organizer), identifies specific actions (OSFI writing communication packages to selected MPs at the minister's staff's request), and frames a pointed question about why ministerial staff and OSFI were working together instead of protecting pensioners.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is more than just a casual contact between offices. The former minister's tire tracks are all over this file. Karl Littler, the minister's Ontario campaign organizer, attended meetings on this issue. The deputy superintendent contacted the minister's office directly and spoke to the minister's staff. OSFI went so far as to write communication packages to selected members of Parliament over there at their request. They are supposed to be there to protect the pensioners, not the minister's reputation. Why is the ministerial staff and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions working the back rooms instead of working to protect the working guy's pension plan?
Manley affirme que le Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières est indépendant en ce qui concerne l'évaluation des fonds et les mesures correctives, et rejette les allégations de l'opposition comme étant 'beaucoup de bruit pour rien.'
Manley asserts OSFI's independence and dismisses the allegations as 'all sound and fury, signifying nothing' without addressing any of the specific named individuals or actions cited by Strahl.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is independent with respect to the evaluation and the functioning of the fund, as well as with respect to any action, corrective or otherwise, that needs to be taken with respect to the fund. I think that the hon. member has done nothing, nor has his colleague, except to try to cast aspersions based on nothing, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Le ministre des Finances tiendra-t-il compte de l'avertissement du ministre québécois Benoît Pelletier sur le déséquilibre fiscal, ou suivra-t-il la voie de l'ancien ministre des Finances qui nie son existence?
The question cites a specific Quebec minister's warning about fiscal imbalance and asks a reasonably clear policy question, but the framing is heavily rhetorical with the 'father of fiscal imbalance' label.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the current Prime Minister of Canada revealed his successor's game plan by suggesting that Ottawa get even more heavily involved in social housing, early childhood and education, all of which fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec. Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, feels that such action by the federal government would just be one more illustration of fiscal imbalance. Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he intends to heed this warning by the Quebec minister, or will he instead follow the path laid out by the father of fiscal imbalance, the former finance minister and future prime minister, who claims there is no such thing as fiscal imbalance?
Dion a indiqué que le Québec a été l'une des premières provinces à signer l'accord sur le logement abordable et a affirmé que le gouvernement respecte les compétences provinciales.
Dion pivots to the affordable housing agreement and general federation talking points, never addressing the fiscal imbalance concern raised by Benoît Pelletier.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that, in connection with affordable housing, Quebec was one of the first provinces to sign the agreement. That was under the previous government. In all areas to which he has referred, we have managed to play our role while fully respecting provincial jurisdiction. This is one of the strengths of our great federation, which will remain united.
Le ministre des Finances suivra-t-il la voie de son prédécesseur et envahira-t-il le palier municipal, ou respectera-t-il cette compétence comme étant exclusivement celle du Québec et des provinces?
The question sharpens the ask — will the minister bow to his predecessor's approach and invade the municipal level — but remains largely rhetorical in framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that those comments were made by Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, a Liberal. I am merely reporting them. Will the Minister of Finance bow to the opinion of his predecessor, the father of fiscal imbalance, and invade the municipal level, or will he instead respect this area of jurisdiction as being solely that of Quebec and the provinces?
Dion a suggéré que le ministre québécois des affaires intergouvernementales veillerait au respect des compétences et que la coopération avec Ottawa est un signe favorable pour les prochaines élections.
Dion does not address the municipal jurisdiction question at all, instead pivoting to a vague statement about cooperation and a coming federal election.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is certain that Quebec's present intergovernmental affairs minister will ensure that his areas of jurisdiction are respected, and that he will cooperate with the Government of Canada, because we are all working to build the same country—quite a change from the situation in the past. This is a favourable sign for the coming federal election.
Étant donné que Voyageur Colonial a lésé le fonds de pension de ses employés de 2,4 millions de dollars tandis que le député de LaSalle—Émard a reçu un surplus de pension de 82,5 millions de dollars de Canada Steamship Lines, quand ces employés seront-ils indemnisés?
The question cites specific figures ($2.4 million pension shortfall, $82.5 million CSL surplus) and identifies the Voyageur Colonial employees as the affected party, with a clear ask about compensation, though the rhetorical framing somewhat dilutes it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard is on a bumpy road to 24 Sussex. Voyageur Colonial bus lines, in which he had a 50% share, shortchanged its employees' pension fund by $2.4 million. Meanwhile, the member across the way received a windfall of a pension surplus from Canada Steamship Lines for $82.5 million. You can call me a “Greyhound” if you like, Mr. Speaker, but I want to know, when will these people be compensated for their fair share of what is owed them?
Manley a déclaré que les pensions réglementées par le fédéral relèvent du Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières, un organisme indépendant, et qu'il s'est conduit de façon appropriée pour protéger l'intégrité du fonds.
Manley identifies OSFI as the responsible independent body and states it conducted itself appropriately, but does not address the specific $2.4 million shortfall or compensation for employees.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the hon. member is showing so much interest in pensions. I thought she had put that behind her. The integrity of federally regulated pensions are the responsibility of an independent federal agent in the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. In this case, OSFI conducted itself in the appropriate fashion to do its utmost in order to protect the integrity of that fund.
Étant donné que le BSIF aurait permis au personnel du ministre de participer à des réunions et aurait modifié un audit officiel, le gouvernement annoncera-t-il de nouvelles enquêtes pour aider les chauffeurs d'autobus de Voyageur?
Grey raises a specific allegation — that OSFI allowed ministerial staff into meetings and tinkered with an official audit — and asks for new investigations, giving the question some factual grounding, but the framing is rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. These bus drivers deserve a pension and the government just laughs them off. Here is a little riddle. Let us try this one on. When is an audit not quite an audit? When it is altered by OSFI of course, Mr. Speaker. It had no business letting minister's staff in on these meetings and then tinkering with an official audit. But it is just another Liberal scandal. Hardly anyone notices it is happening. Voyageur's bus drivers and employees got nothing more than a ticket to ride. When will the government stand up and announce new investigations and get to the bottom of this and help these drivers?
Manley a répété que le BSIF fonctionne de manière indépendante et mène ses enquêtes sur la base des renseignements qui lui sont accessibles.
Manley simply restates that OSFI operates independently without addressing the specific allegation that its audit was altered or that ministerial staff were improperly involved.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, OSFI operates on an independent basis. It has done so and will continue to do so. It is independent from the government and it conducts its investigations based on information which is readily available and accessible to them.
Le secrétaire d'État à l'Amérique latine et à l'Afrique et à la Francophonie peut-il faire rapport sur les résultats de la conférence ministérielle de la Francophonie sur la société de l'information tenue au Maroc les 4 et 5 septembre?
This is a government-backbench softball inviting the secretary of state to report on a conference he attended, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa and the Francophonie attended the Francophonie ministerial conference on the information society, which was held in Morocco on September 4 and 5. Will the secretary of state report to the House on the results of this conference?
Paradis a indiqué que la conférence a préparé le terrain pour le Sommet mondial sur la société de l'information à Genève en décembre, qu'il a fait la promotion des initiatives canadiennes en technologies de l'information et a annoncé un appui pour les jeunes Canadiens et Africains francophones.
Paradis provides substantive content: the purpose of the Francophonie ministerial conference, Canada's promotion of its information technology initiatives, and the announcement of support for young French-speaking Canadians and Africans at the upcoming Geneva summit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the new member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on his great interest in Francophonie issues. The purpose of the ministerial conference was to lay the groundwork for the World Summit on Information Society that will take place in Geneva in December. Naturally, I took the opportunity to promote Canadian information technology initiatives and to demonstrate Canada's leadership in that field. I also took the opportunity to announce that we will be helping young French-speaking Canadians and Africans participate in that summit.
Étant donné que le Congrès du travail du Canada a reçu 2,1 millions de dollars en aide étrangère, environ le même montant que le Fonds chrétien pour les enfants du Canada, UNICEF Canada, Oxfam et la Fondation Aga Khan réunis, la ministre s'engagera-t-elle à utiliser les dollars d'aide étrangère pour lutter contre la pauvreté?
The question cites a specific figure ($2.1 million to the Canadian Labour Congress) and compares it to named NGOs, giving it factual grounding, but the 'Liberal friends and cronies' framing is heavily partisan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to foreign aid centres around giving money to friends and supporters. The Canadian Labour Congress received $2.1 million in foreign aid, roughly the same amount as the Christian Children's Fund of Canada, UNICEF Canada, Oxfam and Aga Khan Foundation. These genuine NGOs, unlike the Canadian Labour Congress, have solid track records for helping the poor. Will the minister tell Canadians today that foreign aid dollars will be used to fight poverty and not be given away to Liberal friends and cronies?
Whelan a mentionné le document de politique de l'ACDI sur le renforcement de l'efficacité de l'aide et a déclaré que tous les partenaires suivent un processus très rigoureux pour recevoir des fonds et aider les pauvres.
Whelan references CIDA's policy statement on strengthening aid effectiveness and describes a scrupulous process for partners, but does not address the specific $2.1 million figure or explain why the Canadian Labour Congress received that amount.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not read CIDA's policy statement on strengthening aid effectiveness. The document shows how Canada is concentrating its aid efforts and has taken the aid program in a new direction. Our partners are essential, as the hon. member must know. In delivering Canada's aid they go through a very scrupulous process to receive money and to be partners, and we work with all of them to ensure we affect and help the poor.
Pourquoi le gouvernement continue-t-il de dilapider les dollars limités d'aide étrangère de l'ACDI, destinés à atteindre les objectifs du millénaire de l'ONU, au profit d'amis libéraux plutôt qu'aux ONG qui luttent contre la pauvreté?
The question is largely rhetorical, repeating the 'Liberal friends' framing without new facts, though it references UN millennium goals as a policy anchor.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, CIDA has a limited amount of money to meet the UN millennium goals. Squandering hard earned Canadian taxpayer dollars to support friends of the Liberals is just plain wrong. Foreign aid should go to NGOs that will alleviate poverty and promote economic growth. Yet the Liberals continue to aid their friends instead of helping those who really need it. Why?
Whelan a déclaré que le communiqué de presse d'Obhrai ne reflète qu'une petite partie des contributions de l'ACDI, soulignant par exemple que le Canada verse 10 fois ce montant à la Croix-Rouge internationale.
Whelan pushes back with a specific counter-datum — that CIDA gives 10 times the figure in Obhrai's press release to the international Red Cross — which partially addresses the proportionality concern, though she does not directly explain the Canadian Labour Congress allocation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would want the House to know that the press release that he sent out reflects only a small portion of the contributions that CIDA makes to a number of organizations. For example, we give 10 times the figure that is in the hon. member's press release to the international Red Cross organization. We would like to have all the facts on the table when we are talking about Canada's foreign aid program.
Le ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire réalise-t-il que, sans ratification du protocole de Cartagena sur la biosécurité avant le 22 novembre, le Canada ne pourra pas participer à la première réunion de mise en œuvre à Kuala Lumpur et envoie le message que le commerce prime sur la santé publique?
The question cites the specific Cartagena protocol on biosafety, its ratification deadline of November 22, and the first implementation meeting in Kuala Lumpur on February 23–27, 2004, making it highly specific with a clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Cartagena protocol on biosafety has come into force without Canada, which means that Canada is not part of the international consensus on GMO control. If it wants to take part in the first implementation meeting scheduled for February 23 to 27, 2004, in Kuala Lumpur, Canada must ratify the protocol by November 22. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food realize that unless it ratifies the Cartagena protocol, Canada will not be able to defend its interests on the international scene and is sending the message that trade is more important than the protection of public health?
Anderson a déclaré qu'aucune décision sur la ratification n'a encore été prise en raison de consultations en cours avec les intervenants, notamment dans le secteur agricole, mais que le gouvernement appuie les objectifs du protocole et espère qu'une décision sera prise sous peu.
Anderson acknowledges no decision has been taken and that consultations with stakeholders, particularly in the agricultural sector, are ongoing, and expresses hope a decision can be taken in short order — a partial but honest answer that does not address the public health versus trade framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken on ratification because we are still engaged in consultation with stakeholders, particularly stakeholders in the agricultural sector. That said, the Government of Canada and certainly most of the stakeholders support the objectives of the protocol and we hope a decision can be taken in short order.
Étant donné qu'une grande enquête nationale a révélé que la dépression touche autant de Canadiens que le diabète et les maladies cardiaques et que les maladies mentales coûtent 5 milliards de dollars au système de santé et 13 milliards à l'économie, quelles mesures le gouvernement prend-il?
This is a government-backbench softball citing a survey's findings to invite the minister to describe government action, with no real accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. A landmark national survey found that depression affects as many Canadians as diabetes and heart disease. Mental illness costs our health care system $5 billion and our economy $13 billion a year. What steps is the government taking to address the alarming findings of this study?
McLellan a déclaré que Santé Canada a participé à un projet de collecte de données produisant le premier aperçu statistique des maladies mentales au Canada, que le gouvernement travaille à mettre en œuvre les recommandations, et que les IRSC ont financé plus de 60 millions de dollars en recherche sur la santé mentale, les neurosciences et la dépendance.
McLellan provides substantive detail: Health Canada's participation in the fact-finding project producing the first statistical overview of mental illness in Canada, work with other departments to implement recommendations, and over $60 million in CIHR funding for mental health, neurosciences and addiction research.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important issue, one that should concern all levels of government and non-governmental organizations that work with those who are mentally ill. Indeed, Health Canada participated in a fact finding project which resulted in the first ever statistical overview of mental illness in Canada. We are now working with other government departments to ensure that its recommendations are implemented. In addition, the CIHR has funded over $60 million worth of research in relation to mental health, neurosciences and addiction across our country. This is a very important issue and one which we need to work on together.
Le Président a souligné la présence d'invités à la tribune et les députés ont répondu par des marques d'approbation.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.