Résumé de la séance
- Le thème dominant était la controverse sur les contrats accordés à Earnscliffe Strategy Group, les députés du PCC et du NPD pressant le premier ministre et le ministre des Finances d'expliquer si les contrats attribués par le ministère des Finances contrevenaient aux règles du Conseil du Trésor et des travaux publics, et si le processus était orienté vers une seule firme.
- Les députés du BQ ont contesté les arrangements fiscaux de CSL International à la Barbade, alléguant que la société contrevenait à la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu et que le premier ministre se trouvait en conflit d'intérêts lorsqu'il a personnellement piloté le projet de loi C-28 au Parlement.
- Les députés du NPD ont soulevé des préoccupations quant au rôle d'Earnscliffe dans les décisions gouvernementales, notamment si la firme assistait à des réunions confidentielles sur les politiques, et ont contesté la contradiction entre la critique gouvernementale du soutien conservateur à la guerre en Irak et l'appui public du ministre libéral de la Défense nationale à cette même guerre.
- Les députés du BQ ont interpellé le gouvernement sur le partage des compétences en matière de soins de santé, les programmes d'aide aux travailleurs âgés, le fonds de l'unité nationale, et le cas d'une fonctionnaire sommée de démissionner de l'organisme souverainiste Le Québec, un pays.
- Les députés du PCC ont questionné le gouvernement au sujet de 4 millions de dollars prétendument détournés du fonds de pension de la GRC et ont demandé si la ministre de la Sécurité publique avait compromis l'enquête en innocentant publiquement le commissaire de la GRC.
- La ministre du Patrimoine canadien s'est engagée à un financement durable à long terme pour FACTOR et le ministre de la Santé a présenté une approche intégrée à la recherche sur le cancer par l'entremise des IRSC, tandis que le ministre des Finances a défendu le financement accordé à Rolls-Royce dans le cadre de Partenariat technologique Canada comme étant des contributions remboursables plutôt que des subventions.
Le ministre Pettigrew a pris un engagement concret et précis selon lequel le gouvernement n'imposerait pas de conditions aux provinces et que la reddition de comptes s'effectuerait envers les citoyens dans le cadre des compétences de chaque gouvernement, répondant directement à la déclaration publique du ministre québécois de la Santé Philippe Couillard et clarifiant la position du gouvernement fédéral en matière de reddition de comptes dans le domaine de la santé.
Cites a specific internal letter from David Dingwall to the Minister of Finance describing a pattern of non-compliance with Treasury Board guidelines, and asks the minister directly to account for it.
Interrogé précisément sur qui dirigeait les opérations — Earnscliffe ou le CPM — et confronté à une liste de scandales financiers, Martin a complètement ignoré la question et a dévié vers l'élimination du déficit de 42 milliards de dollars hérité des conservateurs, sans aborder aucun élément de la question posée.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Bill Blaikie a demandé directement au premier ministre si Earnscliffe était autorisée à assister aux réunions confidentielles où la politique gouvernementale est décidée; la réponse a confirmé qu'Earnscliffe n'était pas présente au cabinet, mais n'a pas abordé la question de savoir si la firme assistait à d'autres réunions confidentielles sur les politiques en dehors du cabinet.
- M. Gilles Duceppe a demandé si le premier ministre demanderait à sa société familiale CSL International de rembourser au moins 100 millions de dollars en impôts prétendument détournés des systèmes fiscaux du Québec et du Canada; aucune réponse de fond n'a été donnée à cette demande précise.
- Mme Diane Ablonczy a demandé si le premier ministre était à l'aise d'avoir enfreint les règles comptables établies par le cabinet afin de diriger des contrats vers Earnscliffe; la question a été interrompue avant d'être complétée et la réponse n'a pas abordé la conclusion précise selon laquelle les appels d'offres étaient rédigés avec un biais manifeste envers une seule firme.
- Mme Suzanne Tremblay a demandé au premier ministre d'expliquer les mesures concrètes qu'il avait mises en place pour faciliter la transition des travailleurs de plus de 55 ans qui perdent leur emploi, en citant une promesse faite lors des élections fédérales de 2000; le ministre a répondu avec des statistiques générales sur la création d'emplois plutôt qu'en abordant la promesse précise.
- M. Odina Desrochers a demandé au président du Conseil du Trésor de déposer les listes existantes des événements ayant reçu des fonds du fonds de l'unité nationale, trois semaines après que le cabinet eut affirmé pouvoir fournir l'information dans les 48 heures; seule une déclaration générale sur la collecte de données en cours a été offerte en réponse.
Harper demande pourquoi le premier ministre a prétendu ne pas être au courant alors que des notes de travaux publics montrent qu'il a enfreint les règles de passation de contrats pour avantager Earnscliffe.
Cites specific memos from public works and references a prior public claim of ignorance, but the ask ('why did the Prime Minister mislead') is accusatory and compound rather than a single answerable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had 24 hours to study the documents referred to yesterday. These memos from public works show the Prime Minister repeatedly breaking contracting rules, all set up to benefit his allies at Earnscliffe. Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians with claims of ignorance and innocence, when he knew exactly how the system worked and he worked it?
Martin soutient que les documents ne révèlent aucune irrégularité, expliquant que le premier contrat avait été hérité du gouvernement conservateur précédent et que les contrats suivants ont suivi un processus concurrentiel géré par travaux publics.
Martin provides a chronological defence of the contracts, engaging the substance, but does not address the specific allegation that he misled Canadians or explain the rule-breaking claims in the memos.
Texte source
Actually, Mr. Speaker, the documents show nothing of the kind. What in fact happened was that the first contract was a contract that the government inherited when we took office. It was a contract that had been awarded to the previous Conservative government and we simply continued with it. Following that, there were two extensions because public works was going through a new procedure. It said that instead of having open bids, they would be extended. Then, at the end of 1994, there was a competitive bid which was won. That competitive bid was adjudicated and administered by public works.
Harper conteste l'affirmation de Martin selon laquelle les contrats ont fait l'objet d'un appel d'offres ouvert, citant que les notes de Guité et Kinsella ont été rédigées après que Martin aurait mis fin à ses pratiques irrégulières.
Harper sharpens the exchange by citing the timing of the Guité and Kinsella memos relative to Martin's claimed end of rule-breaking practices and directly challenges Martin's open-tender claim, making it a fairly specific and answerable yes/no question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister said yesterday and today, the memos from Guité and Kinsella were written after the Prime Minister said he ended his rule breaking practices. They show that the contracts were not subject to the kind of open tender that he claims. Does the Prime Minister still deny the facts laid out in these memos?
Martin affirme que le contrat a fait l'objet d'un appel d'offres ouvert et a été administré et adjugé par le ministère des Travaux publics, et non par le ministère des Finances.
Martin reaffirms the open-tender claim and notes public works administered the contract, but does not address the specific chronological point about the memos being written after the claimed end of rule-breaking.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I affirm the facts as they in fact were. The fact is that the contract was bid on in an open tender. It was administered and adjudicated by the Department of Public Works, not the Department of Finance.
Harper lit un document indiquant qu'une seule soumission a été reçue pour un contrat d'Earnscliffe et que d'autres firmes estimaient que l'appel d'offres était biaisé en faveur de cette firme, puis demande pourquoi le successeur de Martin aux Finances a immédiatement annulé ces contrats en 2002.
Harper reads directly from a document quoting that only one bid was submitted and that other firms believed the scope showed bias to one firm, then asks a pointed follow-up about why Martin's successor cancelled the contracts in 2002.
Texte source
I will read it for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It said: --only one bid was submitted which was by Earnscliffe Strategy Group. Unofficial comments were received by...my organization, that the scope was unclear and bias to one firm, so why waste time and money on a bid that they had no chance of winning. That is what it says here. If these contracting schemes with Earnscliffe were so legitimate, why did the Prime Minister's successor at finance immediately cancel them when he assumed office in 2002?
Goodale répète la chronologie des quatre contrats, soutenant que le premier a été émis par le gouvernement conservateur et que le quatrième a été remporté de manière concurrentielle, mais ne traite pas de l'annulation en 2002 ni du libellé cité sur le biais.
Goodale revisits the chronological defence of the four contracts but does not address the quoted language about bias or explain why the successor cancelled the contracts in 2002.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again, let us review the chronology of what happened. The first contract referred to here was in fact issued by the Conservative government. It was clearly within the limits and the rules permissible at that time. That was in September 1993. Then, in July and September 1994 there were extensions of that previously existing contract because the new contracting process by public works was not yet in place. It was put in place in the fall of 1994. A competitive process was held, and that is when the Earnscliffe firm won on a competitive basis.
MacKay énumère plusieurs scandales financiers et demande comment le premier ministre pouvait ignorer la façon dont ses amis d'Earnscliffe ont obtenu leurs contrats, en demandant qui dirige la baraque, Earnscliffe ou le CPM.
The question strings together several unrelated scandals with dollar figures primarily for rhetorical effect and ends with a vague compound ask about who is running the show, making it more of a partisan attack than a specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's problems with numbers are well documented. He failed to catch the $1 billion boondoggle at HRDC, missed the boat over $1 billion on the gun registry, does not have a clue about the $250 million wasted in a sponsorship scandal, and failed to differentiate between $130,000 and $161 million given to his shipping empire. Apparently the Prime Minister is bad at math and has a poor memory. Now he claims he does not know how his buddies got these contracts. Canadians deserve to know, who is running the show, Earnscliffe or the PMO?
Martin défend son bilan comme ministre des Finances en soulignant qu'il a éliminé un déficit de 42 milliards de dollars et que le Canada est le seul pays du G8 à afficher un excédent.
Martin deflects entirely to his record on deficit reduction and debt-to-GDP ratio, not addressing the Earnscliffe contracts or any of the specific figures cited by MacKay.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in terms of a finance minister, myself at that time, who had some problem with numbers, let us go through some numbers. We inherited a $42 billion deficit from that party and a debt to GDP ratio that was going through the roof. What is the net result? Today we are the only G-8 country not in deficit. We are the only one in surplus. I understand those numbers.
MacKay cite une note de Warren Kinsella à Chuck Guité exprimant des préoccupations quant à l'attribution irrégulière de contrats, affirmant que le ministère des Finances sous le premier ministre actuel a accordé quatre contrats en violation des règles du ministère des Travaux publics.
MacKay references a specific note from Warren Kinsella to Chuck Guité and cites four contracts awarded in violation of Department of Public Works rules, grounding the question in documentary evidence, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Here is a figure, Mr. Speaker, $161 million to CSL. In a note to Chuck Guité, Warren Kinsella expresses his concerns about the improper awarding of contracts to the minister's friends at Earnscliffe. The note in question shows that the Department of Finance, headed by the current Prime Minister, had awarded four contracts in violation of Department of Public Works rules. And the Prime Minister knew nothing?
Goodale soutient que le contrat n'était pas truqué, citant l'exigence que le consultant principal ait au moins cinq ans d'expérience en médias comme preuve de la légitimité des critères.
Goodale responds only to the allegation that the contract was wired by citing a specific qualification criterion in the contract, but does not address the Kinsella note, the four contracts, or the violation of Department of Public Works rules.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes the allegation that somehow the contract was wired. When the criteria is in the contract, for example, that the lead consultant should have a minimum of five years of media experience and that sort of qualifying ability, that hardly appears to be a wired contract.
Duceppe allègue que CSL International a utilisé le projet de loi C-28, personnellement parrainé par le premier ministre, pour éviter les impôts tout en prenant ses décisions à Montréal plutôt qu'à la Barbade, et demande au premier ministre de faire rembourser 100 millions de dollars d'impôts prétendument détournés illégalement.
Duceppe cites Bill C-28, CSL International, and a specific claim that $100 million was illegally diverted from the Quebec and Canadian tax systems, offering a reasonably specific factual basis, though the ask about paying back taxes is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, while ordinary people are paying income tax, CSL International, a branch of the Prime Minister's family business, is avoiding the tax man. Thanks to Bill C-28, personally ushered through Parliament by the Prime Minister, this is legal, provided all decisions are made in Barbados. It is just a sham, however; all decisions are made in Montreal. Will the Prime Minister, who was in flagrant conflict of interest, at least have the decency to ask his family business to pay back the $100 million it has illegally diverted from the Quebec and Canadian tax systems?
Goodale affirme que Duceppe confond deux entreprises différentes et deux règles d'entreprise différentes, les qualifiant de choses tout à fait distinctes, mais sans fournir de précisions.
Goodale dismisses the question by saying Duceppe is confusing two different companies and two different corporate rules, providing no substantive engagement with the Bill C-28 allegation or the $100 million figure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is going back to a variety of questions that he asked in the House a number of months ago, confusing two different companies and two different corporate rules. They are quite separate things and the one does not effect or involve the other, and they should not be mixed.
Duceppe soutient que la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu exige qu'une succursale étrangère soit administrée à l'étranger pour bénéficier d'une exemption fiscale, allègue que CSL International à la Barbade n'est qu'une façade avec des ordres venant de Montréal, et exige que le premier ministre fasse rembourser au moins 100 millions de dollars d'impôts évités.
Duceppe precisely cites the Income Tax Act requirement that a foreign branch be administered abroad to be exempt, alleges CSL International in Barbados is a front with orders coming from Montreal, and asks for retroactive payment of at least $100 million in avoided taxes.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion here. It is very precise. They would like to make things as confused as they feel. The Income Tax Act calls for a foreign branch of a Canadian company to be administered abroad in order to be exempt from Canadian taxes. In actual fact, CSL International in Barbados is just a front; the orders come from Montreal. Will the Prime Minister now have the courage to ask his family business to pay retroactively the taxes it avoided paying Quebec and Canada, to the tune of at least $100 million? That is what tax evasion is—
Goodale affirme que le projet de loi C-28 n'a absolument rien à voir avec CSL et renvoie à un article du National Post du 13 février rédigé par un éminent avocat canadien pour contester les allégations concernant les règles fiscales de la Barbade.
Goodale makes two points — that Bill C-28 has nothing to do with CSL and that tax rules applicable in Barbados are disputed — and references a National Post article, but does not address the core allegation about Montreal decision-making or the $100 million figure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. gentleman is referring to the impact of Bill C-28, from a previous Parliament, which has absolutely nothing to do with CSL. Second, the hon. gentleman makes reference to the tax rules applicable in Barbados. Different people have different views on the tax rules applicable in Barbados. I would refer him to an article that appeared in the February 13 edition of the National Post , written by a distinguished Canadian lawyer in a firm in which the senior partner is the hon. Lucien Bouchard.
Paquette allègue que le premier ministre était en conflit d'intérêts lors de l'adoption du projet de loi C-28, que son entreprise familiale a contrevenu à la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, et demande si le premier ministre est conscient que d'autres entreprises ont suivi son exemple, entraînant le départ de 23,9 milliards de dollars du Canada vers la Barbade en 2002 seulement.
Paquette raises the specific figure of $23.9 billion leaving Canada for Barbados in 2002 alone and alleges other companies followed the Prime Minister's example, grounding the question in a concrete data point, though it conflates several allegations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we knew the Prime Minister was in conflict of interest in passing Bill C-28, which, despite what the Minister of Finance has said, was tailor made for international shipping companies like the PM's. We now know that his family business was in contravention of the Income Tax Act. As a result, the Quebec and Canadian tax systems did not get $100 million in taxes. Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of other companies have followed his example, and as a result $23.9 billion left Canada for Barbados in the year 2002 alone, thereby escaping taxes in Canada and Quebec.
Goodale affirme à nouveau que le projet de loi C-28 n'a, n'avait et n'aura aucun lien ni aucune incidence sur CSL, en citant le libellé de la loi et les témoignages devant un comité permanent.
Goodale simply repeats the assertion that Bill C-28 does not have and will not have any connection to CSL, without addressing the $23.9 billion figure or the broader tax avoidance allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. gentleman is confusing the impact of Bill C-28. It is clear in the very language of the legislation and it was clear when the evidence was heard before the standing committee of this House that Bill C-28 does not have, did not have, and will not have any connection or impact at all on CSL.
Paquette demande comment les Canadiens peuvent croire la promesse du premier ministre d'une politique différente compte tenu des allégations selon lesquelles il aurait adapté le projet de loi C-28 pour son entreprise familiale, reçu 160 millions de dollars en contrats cachés et adapté des contrats en faveur d'Earnscliffe.
Paquette strings together several allegations about Bill C-28, $160 million in hidden contracts, and Earnscliffe, but the question devolves into a rhetorical challenge about the Prime Minister's credibility rather than a specific answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, how can we believe the Prime Minister when he says that his kind of politics will be different, when we realize he custom tailored legislation to benefit his family business, that his company received $160 million in hidden contracts, and that he also custom tailored contracts in favour of Earnscliffe, a company owned by his buddies?
Goodale affirme que chaque projet de loi lié aux sociétés étrangères et à la fiscalité étrangère présenté par le then finance minister visait à colmater les brèches et à établir une fiscalité équitable, allant exactement dans le sens contraire de ce qu'alléguait l'opposition.
Goodale makes a general claim that all legislation presented by the then finance minister related to offshore taxation was aimed at closing loopholes, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the specific compound allegations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, every piece of legislation put before the House that related in any way to offshore companies and offshore taxation presented by the then finance minister was aimed at closing the loopholes and establishing tax on a fair basis, going exactly in the opposite direction to that alleged by the opposition.
Blaikie demande directement au premier ministre si Earnscliffe est autorisée à participer à des réunions confidentielles où la politique gouvernementale est décidée.
Blaikie asks a specific, binary, and answerable question about whether Earnscliffe is sitting in on confidential meetings where government policy is being decided, making it one of the sharper questions of the day.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP is as concerned about the influence of corporate lobbyists as we are as to how they are hired and what the details of the contracts are. In this respect, it has come to our attention that Earnscliffe is sitting in on confidential meetings in which government policy is being decided. I want to ask the Prime Minister, is this true? Could he tell the House whether Earnscliffe is allowed to sit in on confidential meetings where government policy is decided or not?
Goodale affirme que la politique gouvernementale est déterminée au sein du cabinet et par le cabinet, avec le premier ministre à la présidence, et qu'il n'y a pas de consultants privés dans la salle.
Goodale directly answers that government policy is determined in cabinet and by cabinet with the Prime Minister in the chair and that there are no private consultants in the room, which is responsive but limited to cabinet meetings and does not address broader policy-setting contexts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, government policy is determined in cabinet and by cabinet, with the Prime Minister in the chair. There are no private consultants in the room.
Blaikie demande au premier ministre quel est le rôle d'Earnscliffe dans son gouvernement et comment les Canadiens peuvent avoir confiance dans les décisions en matière de soins de santé alors qu'Earnscliffe, qui compte MDS comme client dans le secteur des soins de santé à but lucratif, entretient des liens étroits avec le premier ministre.
Blaikie raises a specific concern about Earnscliffe's client MDS and its relationship to government health care decisions, but the question broadens into a general challenge about the influence of corporate lobbyists, making the specific ask somewhat diffuse.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is not just about cabinet meetings. Again, I ask this question of the Prime Minister because it is about the nature of his government. It goes to the heart of what the influence of corporate lobbyists is in his government. I ask the Prime Minister, what is the role of Earnscliffe in his government? Can he tell us, for instance, given that one of its clients is MDS, a for profit health care company, how we can have confidence in the government's decision with respect to health care when Earnscliffe, who has a client in the for profit health care industry, is right at the table and has such a close relationship with the Prime Minister?
Martin affirme que la politique gouvernementale est déterminée au cabinet, reconnaît que des consultants externes peuvent conseiller en matière de communications, affirme n'avoir fait l'objet d'aucun lobbying de la part d'une firme, et cite Roy Romanow comme conseiller externe en matière de soins de santé.
Martin acknowledges outside consultants advise on communications, denies being lobbied by any firm, and mentions Roy Romanow as an outside health care adviser, engaging the topic but not directly addressing the MDS-Earnscliffe conflict of interest concern.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has just said, government policy is determined in cabinet and by cabinet. There are outside consultants who may well advise on matters of communication and that kind of thing. There has been no lobbying by any firm of me as far as I am concerned. I will say to the hon. member that there are outsiders who have certainly given us advice in terms of health care, to begin with, the hon. Roy Romanow.
Solberg allègue que le scandale Earnscliffe équivaut à un délit d'initié, affirme qu'une note de travaux publics confirme que les contrats étaient truqués en faveur des amis du premier ministre, et demande pourquoi le premier ministre continue d'induire les Canadiens en erreur.
Solberg uses the Martha Stewart comparison and insider trading metaphor primarily for rhetorical effect; the ask about why the Prime Minister continues to mislead Canadians is unanswerable in its framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Earnscliffe scandal is nothing more than the government's version of insider trading. The Prime Minister is nothing more than Martha Stewart in a blue suit. The fix was in to guarantee that contracts went to the PM's friends at Earnscliffe. A public works memo confirms that. Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead Canadians about his role in this scandal?
Owen affirme que les documents et les opinions qui y sont exprimées devraient être examinés par le comité des comptes publics et l'enquête judiciaire à venir, plutôt que d'être soulevés à la Chambre sans avoir été communiqués au comité.
Owen does not address the substance of the allegation but deflects by suggesting the documents should be taken to the public accounts committee and the forthcoming judicial inquiry, which is procedurally relevant but avoids the question entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have had various documents brought forward to our attention in this House. The place where these documents should be taken, so that the opinions expressed in them can be tested against other opinions, is the public accounts committee and the judicial inquiry that will be forthcoming soon. Instead of raising in the House, and unshared with the public accounts committee, a memo which expresses a particular opinion, it should be put to the public accounts committee and to the author of that document. That is where these questions should be construed.
Solberg demande au ministre de confirmer si sa position est que le comité des comptes publics devrait enquêter sur le scandale Earnscliffe, dans lequel le premier ministre est directement impliqué.
Solberg scores a procedural point by asking the minister to confirm whether he is calling for the public accounts committee to investigate the Earnscliffe scandal, holding Owen to his own words, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that I heard the minister correctly. He is saying now that he wants the public accounts committee to investigate the Earnscliffe scandal as well, the one that the Prime Minister is directly involved in. Is that the minister's position?
Oh, oh.
Goodale revient à la chronologie des quatre contrats — un antérieur au gouvernement, deux prolongations et un concurrentiel — sans aborder la question de savoir si le comité des comptes publics devrait enquêter sur l'affaire Earnscliffe.
Goodale ignores the procedural point and returns to the chronology of the four contracts, which is substantively relevant to the broader debate but does not address Solberg's specific question about the public accounts committee.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker--
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman continues down a very confusing path. What the documents indicate, what the Prime Minister has said, and what others have said, not just today, but over a long period of time, is that there are four contracts being discussed here: one that predated the existence of the government; two that were extensions because a new process was not put in place; and a fourth that was issued under a competitive process. That is what the evidence indicates and those are the facts.
Ablonczy affirme que travaux publics a enquêté et conclu en 1995 que le ministre des Finances, l'actuel premier ministre, avait agi contrairement aux lignes directrices approuvées par le cabinet et que c'était tout simplement inacceptable, avant que sa question ne soit interrompue.
Ablonczy cites a specific 1995 public works investigation finding that the finance minister had acted contrary to cabinet approved guidelines and that this was simply unacceptable, grounding the question in documentary findings, though the question is cut off before completion.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, here is what the documents really show. Public works investigated and found that the finance minister, the current Prime Minister, had acted contrary to cabinet approved guidelines. That is what they found in 1995. They said this was simply unacceptable. The truth is starting to come out about how the Prime Minister led the way in breaking and abusing contract rules. Is it not true that the Prime Minister was very comfortable in--
Goodale se réfère au document même qu'Ablonczy tient en main et affirme que les contrats 2, 3 et 4 ont tous été émis par le ministère des Travaux publics, soutenant que le ministère approprié a administré le processus.
Goodale responds by citing the issuing department for each of the four contracts — noting that contracts 2, 3, and 4 were issued by the Department of Public Works — which is relevant but does not address the 1995 finding that the finance minister acted contrary to cabinet approved guidelines.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the very document that the hon. member has in her hand Contract No. 1 was issued in September 1993, before this government came into office. Contract No. 2 was issued by the Department of Public Works. Contract No. 3 was issued by public works. Contract No. 4 was issued by public works. The process was administered by the appropriate department.
Ablonczy allègue qu'une enquête de travaux publics a révélé que les appels d'offres pour le travail du ministère des Finances étaient rédigés avec un biais évident en faveur d'Earnscliffe, que d'autres firmes ont cessé de soumissionner parce qu'elles voyaient que c'était truqué, et demande comment le premier ministre peut nettoyer le gâchis alors qu'il a enfreint toutes les règles comptables établies par le cabinet.
Ablonczy alleges tenders were written with a clear bias to the one firm favoured by the Prime Minister and that other firms quit bidding because they figured out it was rigged, drawing on the same investigative documents, but ends with a rhetorical flourish rather than a clean question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that was a good try, but here is what the investigation by public works really found out. Tenders for finance department work were written with a clear bias to the one firm favoured by the current Prime Minister. Other firms just quit bidding because they figured out it was all rigged. So, in order to give pork to his cronies, the Prime Minister broke all of the accounting rules laid down by the cabinet. The Prime Minister claims to want to clean up this mess, but how can he do that when he is standing in the rubble of all the rules he broke himself?
Goodale cite le même document pour montrer qu'il y avait une confusion considérable au sein même de travaux publics concernant les règles de passation de contrats, soutenant que le gouvernement cherchait à résoudre cette confusion en faveur de la concurrence.
Goodale quotes directly from the same document to argue there was considerable confusion within public works about contracting rules and that the government was trying to resolve it in favour of competition, engaging the document but framing it to deflect the bias allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is being a little selective. In the very document she is referring to there is a clear indication that there was considerable confusion with respect to the administration of some of the rules. Let me just add one quote, “Within our own department”, that would be the department of public works, “we have at least three sectors that can issue contracts for public opinion research and each sector probably has a different definition of what is public opinion research”. It was that very confusion that we were trying to resolve in favour of competition.
Compte tenu de la déclaration de Philippe Couillard selon laquelle accepter des normes canadiennes ou être responsable devant Ottawa en matière de santé est hors de question, comment le ministre de la Santé peut-il justifier d'exiger des comptes du Québec?
Cites a specific public statement by Philippe Couillard and poses a reasonably clear constitutional accountability question, though it is framed partly rhetorically.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Minister of Health, Philippe Couillard, stated yesterday that accepting Canadian standards or being accountable to Ottawa in matters of health was out of the question. Faced with such clear words, how can the Minister of Health still imagine that it is right to demand accountability from the Government of Quebec in the matter of health care, when it is not the federal government's responsibility to provide health care and when all its interventions only complicate the situation?
Pettigrew affirme avoir parlé avec le ministre Couillard et que le gouvernement ne cherche pas à imposer des conditions, mais à élaborer un plan transparent avec les provinces fondé sur des objectifs qu'elles acceptent elles-mêmes.
Pettigrew directly addresses the Couillard reference, claims personal contact with Couillard, and clarifies the government's approach to transparency versus accountability, though without hard factual detail.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to talk with Minister Couillard after the speech I gave in Toronto yesterday. He was completely comfortable with what I had to say. I agree completely that it is not our place to impose conditions on the provinces. The way we want to work is to develop a plan with the provinces by setting objectives they would agree to themselves, in a completely transparent way. No government is asking for accountability from another, but the point is to be transparent vis-à-vis our citizens, within our own jurisdictions.
Le gouvernement réalise-t-il que le chantage qu'il exercerait sur le Québec et les provinces en matière de santé se fait au détriment des malades, en citant la déclaration de Jean Charest selon laquelle la santé est la responsabilité du Québec?
Cites a Jean Charest quote but the core question dissolves into partisan rhetoric about 'blackmail' and 'obsession with sticking its nose into other people's business,' making the ask vague.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there was one man who was unhappy with the health minister's actions and that was Jean Charest. He said, “Health is the Quebec government's responsibility. It makes good sense, and for that reason, there is no question about making compromises”. Does the government realize that the blackmail it is perpetrating with respect to Quebec and the provinces is done at the expense of the ill, and that they are the ones who will pay the price for the federal government's obsession with sticking its nose into other people's business?
Pettigrew affirme que le gouvernement veut un partenariat avec les provinces, jouer un rôle de soutien, sans conditions, sans reddition de comptes entre gouvernements, et seulement une transparence envers le public.
Pettigrew reiterates the partnership framing and explicitly denies imposing conditions or requiring accountability between governments, engaging the substance of the charge but without new specifics.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what our government wants is partnership with the provinces. We want to play a supporting role to permit the provinces to carry out the very important responsibilities they have toward Canadians. We intend to work with them. There is no question of conditions. There is no question of accountability. There is no question of one level of government being accountable to another. It is a question of each level of government being accountable to the public, in a completely transparent way.
Le député libéral de Montmagny-L'Islet a-t-il transmis au ministre le plan d'aide aux travailleurs âgés des employés de Whirlpool, et compte tenu de la fermeture de l'usine le 14 mai, quand le ministre donnera-t-il suite à cette demande?
Highly specific: names Whirlpool employees, the Liberal member for Montmagny-L'Islet, a concrete funding plan, and the May 14 plant closure deadline, with two clear answerable questions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last fall, Whirlpool employees gave the Liberal member for Montmagny-L'Islet a plan to create an older workers assistance program, the funding for which would be provided by the employees, employers, Quebec and Ottawa. Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House if his Liberal colleague for Montmagny-L'Islet passed this plan on to him? Since time is of the essence, as the plant will close on May 14, when does the minister intend to follow up on the workers' request?
Volpe affirme que des projets pilotes ont été mis en œuvre et que leurs résultats sont analysés, et que si les résultats sont positifs, des décisions et des programmes à long terme suivront, sans aborder le plan spécifique de Whirlpool ni l'échéancier.
Volpe ignores both specific questions — whether the plan was passed on and when action will be taken — instead offering a vague reference to pilot projects and their analysis.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to realize today that the member opposite has taken a page from the Liberals. That is wonderful. Pilot projects have been implemented. We are currently analyzing the results of these pilot projects. Obviously, if the results are positive, decisions will be made and the necessary measures taken to provide people with long term programs.
En citant une promesse faite en 2000 par l'actuel premier ministre sur un programme d'aide à la transition pour les travailleurs, quelles mesures concrètes a-t-il mises en place pour faciliter la transition des travailleurs de plus de 55 ans qui perdent leur emploi?
Cites a specific 2000 campaign statement attributed to the current Prime Minister on POWA and asks what concrete measures have since been implemented for workers over age 55, making it a reasonably sharp accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is time to change the record; he played the wrong one in answering my question. During the 2000 federal election, in answer to a question on the POWA, a Liberal minister told the workers at Beloit in Sherbrooke, “In a changing society, we need a program to help with the transition”. That minister is now Prime Minister. Four years later, can the Prime Minister tell us what concrete measures he has put in place to ease the transition for workers over age 55 who lose their jobs? When will he finally fulfill the promise he made in 2000?
Volpe cite la création de 157 000 emplois pour les travailleurs âgés au Canada l'année dernière et 43 000 au Québec, affirmant que le meilleur programme est un emploi, sans aborder les mesures de transition ni l'engagement sur le PAWA.
Volpe pivots entirely to job creation statistics (157,000 jobs for older workers nationally, 43,000 in Quebec) without addressing the POWA promise or any specific transition program for workers over 55 who lose their jobs.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the results speak for themselves. This is not just about transitional measures. The best program is a job. Are there jobs in Quebec and in the region? Yes, obviously. For example, last year in Canada, we created 157,000 jobs for older workers, 43,000 of them in Quebec. I see these as positive results, but the Bloc is playing to the gallery.
Comment les Canadiens peuvent-ils faire confiance à un premier ministre qui aurait enfreint les règles et utilisé une politique gouvernementale pour contourner les règles d'attribution de contrats afin d'attribuer des contrats à Earnscliffe?
References documents and Earnscliffe but frames the question as a broad rhetorical accusation about trust rather than a specific factual ask, making accountability value limited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells us that he followed the rules for awarding contracts. That is not so. This was not a public tendering process, but a government policy for bending the rules and awarding contracts to Earnscliffe. How can we trust this Prime Minister who breaks the rules in order to put taxpayers' money in the pockets of his friends like Earnscliffe?
Goodale soutient que les documents montrent que le premier ministre et son personnel ont plaidé pour plus de concurrence plus tôt, qu'un système concurrentiel a été mis en place à l'automne 1994 et que le contrat d'Earnscliffe a été attribué par voie de concours.
Goodale directly addresses the documents, argues the Prime Minister and his staff pushed for greater competition, and provides a specific timeline — fall of 1994 competitive system — though the claim is disputed and not fully documented in the answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is misreading the documents. The documents indicate that the Prime Minister and his staff argued for greater competition, not less. They argued for it sooner rather than later. A more competitive system was finally assembled and put into place in the fall of 1994. A competitive contest was held, and it was under that basis that the Earnscliffe contract was awarded.
Pourquoi le premier ministre ne fait-il pas preuve de leadership et ne demande-t-il pas pardon aux Canadiens pour avoir enfreint les règles de financement et dirigé de l'argent vers ses amis d'Earnscliffe?
Names Alfonso Gagliano and the Minister of Finance alongside the Prime Minister in a rule-breaking allegation but shifts into a rhetorical appeal for forgiveness rather than a precise factual question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the documents show that rules were broken. They were broken by Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister himself. Why is the Prime Minister unable to show leadership and ask Canadians to forgive him for having broken the funding rules and putting money in the pockets of his friends at Earnscliffe? Why does he not show leadership and simply ask for forgiveness?
Goodale affirme que les contrats d'Earnscliffe ont été abondamment discutés, que toutes les preuves dans le mémo sont cohérentes avec les informations antérieures, et décrit la séquence des quatre contrats se terminant par un processus concurrentiel.
Goodale provides a four-contract chronology — predating the government, two extensions, then competitive — which is factually responsive but does not address the specific allegation that rules were broken.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the series of contracts with respect to Earnscliffe have been thoroughly discussed in the House, not just in the last number of days but in fact many years ago. They are probably the most exposed and debated contracts in the history of contracting in Canada. All the evidence that has been referred to in the memo that is before the House now is completely consistent with the information given before. The first contract predated the government, the next two were extensions while a competitive process was assembled and the fourth was issued on the basis of a competitive process.
Le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux confirmera-t-il que la question des contrats d'Earnscliffe devrait être renvoyée à l'enquête sur le scandale des commandites menée par les comptes publics?
References David Dingwall's predecessor comments and asks a specific procedural question — whether the Earnscliffe matter should be referred to the ad scam inquiry led by public accounts — though framed with partisan flattery.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to have a Minister of Public Works and Government Services who has a firm grasp of the obvious and who agrees with his predecessor, David Dingwall, that the Prime Minister's contracting practices with Earnscliffe left a bit to be desired. I would like to give him another opportunity to confirm that he agrees that this matter should be referred to the ad scam inquiry being led by public accounts.
Owen affirme que le comité des comptes publics examine les contrats relatifs à la publicité et au parrainage, et invite l'opposition à soumettre les documents au comité et à interroger l'auteur du mémo qui y comparaîtra.
Owen explains what the public accounts committee is examining and directly tells the opposition to put the documents before the committee and question the memo's author there, which is a substantive procedural response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee is looking into issues of contracting with respect to advertising and sponsorship. Opposition members are suggesting, through these documents that they have raised in reference in the House, that this has something to do with it. If that has something to do with it, they should put it before the committee, make their arguments and put their questions to the author of the memo they are referring to, who will be appearing before the public accounts committee. It is that simple.
Compte tenu des allégations concernant la subvention maritime, le scandale des commandites et les contrats d'Earnscliffe, comment le premier ministre s'attend-il à ce que les Canadiens croient qu'il n'avait rien à voir avec ces affaires?
Piles together three separate allegations — the $137,000/$161 million shipping subsidy, ad scam, and Earnscliffe contracting — into a single broad rhetorical question about what the Prime Minister expects Canadians to believe.
Texte source
It looks like that minister will have as long a political future as certain Liberal candidates in Burnaby, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Prime Minister. First there was the $137,000 handout to his shipping empire that turned out to be $161 million. Then he professed to be shocked about Liberal ad scam corruption happening right under his nose. Now he is outraged that leaked documents show how he broke contracting rules to shovel tax dollars to his friends at Earnscliffe. How exactly does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that he had nothing to do with and knew absolutely nothing about breaking the rules to benefit his buddies?
Goodale affirme seulement que les informations dans le mémo n'établissent pas ce que le député allègue, sans fournir de réfutation factuelle spécifique.
Goodale merely asserts the questioner is turning facts upside down and that the memo does not establish what is alleged, providing no substantive facts or direct response to any of the three allegations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman persists in trying to turn all the facts upside down and on their heads. The fact of the matter is the information being referred to by him in this memo does not establish at all what he is alleging.
Le ministre de la Santé s'engagera-t-il à s'assurer que le ministère de la Santé honore son engagement de 10 millions de dollars de financement annuel pour l'initiative canadienne de recherche sur le cancer de la prostate?
A government-backbench softball setup that simply restates a funding commitment and asks the minister to confirm it, with no accountability pressure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. Research is key to a cure, and the Canadian prostate cancer research initiative is a national leader in supporting innovative cancer research. It is my understanding that there had been a commitment from the Department of Health for the annual funding of $10 million supporting this research. Will the minister commit to ensuring that the department goes through with this funding?
Pettigrew explique que l'initiative à durée fixe de cinq ans a commencé en 1999, que le gouvernement adopte maintenant une approche intégrée de tous les cancers par le biais des IRSC, et qu'en 2003-2004 les IRSC ont alloué près de 8 millions de dollars à la recherche sur le cancer de la prostate.
Pettigrew provides relevant factual detail — the five-year fixed period initiative since 1999, the creation of CIHR in 2002, and $8 million allocated to prostate cancer research in 2003-04 — though he does not commit to renewing the specific $10 million annual funding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the five years of funding for prostate cancer research that began in 1999 was a fixed period initiative that provided the necessary boost to increase Canada's capacity in this area. This government is now taking an integrated approach to cancer control that aims to reduce the incidence, mortality and morbidity of all cancers rather than focusing on a few particular tumour sites. In 2002 the CIHR was created to support health research. In 2003-04 the CIHR allocated almost $8 million to prostate cancer research.
Pourquoi les Canadiens devraient-ils craindre le chef conservateur pour son appui à la guerre de Bush en Irak, mais accepter le ministre libéral de la Défense, nommé par le premier ministre, qui maintient fermement que l'invasion de l'Irak était la bonne chose à faire?
Identifies a genuine apparent contradiction — criticizing the Conservative leader for supporting the Iraq war while the Liberal Minister of National Defence fervently maintains invading Iraq was right — making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister whose Liberals constantly criticize Conservatives for things that his Liberal government supports. Could the Prime Minister explain why Canadians should be afraid of the Conservative leader for supporting Bush's war in Iraq, but be comfortable with his Liberal defence minister, appointed by him, who fervently maintains that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Could the Prime Minister explain this absurd contradiction?
Graham affirme que la politique du gouvernement sur l'Irak est très claire depuis plus d'un an, que le premier ministre a pleinement soutenu cette position et que la position du chef de l'opposition aurait envoyé des troupes canadiennes là-bas.
Graham defends the government's Iraq policy as correct and attacks the Leader of the Opposition's position, but does not address or explain the contradiction between criticizing the Conservative leader and retaining a defence minister who supported the same war.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government's policy in respect of Iraq has been very clear for over a year. The Prime Minister totally supported the position we took. I think when we look at what is taking place in the Middle East today, we would all agree that position was the correct position to take. The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition would have had us there with our troops, with the danger, with ourselves exposed to problems that were no part of Canada. The Prime Minister and the government are firmly correct on the position in Iraq, and we will remain where we always were in the best interests of Canadian people.
Le premier ministre peut-il expliquer pourquoi les conservateurs ont tort de soutenir la guerre de Bush en Irak, mais que son propre ministre libéral de la Défense nationale a raison de soutenir cette même guerre?
Sharpens the prior question by focusing specifically on why the Prime Minister's own Liberal Minister of National Defence is right to support the war if the Conservatives are wrong to, making it a pointed follow-up.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has not answered my question. On one hand the Liberals are saying that the Conservatives are wrong to support President Bush's war in Iraq. On the other hand the Liberals are comfortable with the idea of the Prime Minister having appointed the biggest hawk in this Parliament as Minister of National Defence. Can the Prime Minister explain why the Conservatives are wrong to support Bush's war, but his own Liberal Minister of National Defence is right to support the war?
Martin affirme que la différence est que le chef de l'opposition voulait envoyer des troupes en Irak pendant la guerre, tandis que le ministre de la Défense nationale veut envoyer des troupes en Haïti et en Afghanistan pour sécuriser et maintenir la paix.
Martin attempts to distinguish the two positions by contrasting sending troops to Iraq during the war versus sending troops to Haiti and Afghanistan for peacekeeping, but does not directly address the defence minister's stated view that invading Iraq was right.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the difference between the two is very clear. What the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do was send our troops to Iraq during the war. That is exactly what he said on the Fox network in the United States. What our government wants to do, what our Minister of National Defence wants to do, is send our troops to Haiti to secure and maintain peace. He wants to send our troops to Afghanistan to secure peace. Our Minister of National Defence wants Canada to help these countries build their institutions. There is a fundamental difference between—
Comment le ministre des Finances peut-il expliquer la lettre interne secrète de David Dingwall affirmant que son ministère avait démontré un modèle de non-conformité et d'évitement des lignes directrices du Conseil du Trésor?
Cites a specific internal letter from David Dingwall to the Minister of Finance describing a pattern of non-compliance with Treasury Board guidelines, and asks the minister directly to account for it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance pleaded innocent to any wrongdoing regarding the issuing of contracts. He said that all the rules throughout the process were indeed followed. How then can he account for the secret internal letter sent to him by his colleague David Dingwall stating that the minister's department had demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with and avoidance of Treasury Board guidelines?
Goodale identifie la lettre comme datant de mars 1995, la relie à un sondage urgent nécessaire pour un programme budgétaire, et affirme que le programme a ensuite été examiné et a reçu un rapport favorable du vérificateur général.
Goodale identifies the specific March 1995 letter and its context, explains there was an urgent reason for the work, and notes the program received a favourable Auditor General report, partially but not fully addressing the 'pattern of non-compliance' characterization.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the specific letter that was referred to was one dated in March 1995 that talked about a certain polling activity that needed to be done in relation to the budget and the activities flowing out of the budget in the spring of 1995. I explained at that time that there was an urgent reason why the work had to be done so the program could be administered properly, and that when the whole process was completed, the program was reviewed and received a favourable report from the Auditor General.
Étant donné que le ministre est devenu ministre de l'Agriculture le 4 novembre 1993 et a été réprimandé pour avoir enfreint les règles le 25 juillet 1995, soit 628 jours plus tard, comment a-t-il pu laisser son ministère déraper à ce point?
Uses specific dates — minister of agriculture from November 4, 1993, reprimanded July 25, 1995, calculating 628 days — to challenge the minister's claim of acting speedily, making it a factually grounded question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister brags about the speed with which government and even he himself dealt with issues regarding the contracting. He became the minister of agriculture on November 4, 1993. He was reprimanded for breaking the rules by the then minister of public works on July 25, 1995, 628 days later. I am not sure of the minister's definition of speed, but how could this pretentiously cautious minister let his department get so far out of control?
Goodale soutient que les lignes directrices pertinentes sont entrées en vigueur à l'automne 1994, et non en 1993, ce qui rend la période plus étroite que prétendu, et que le problème est survenu au printemps 1995 dans une courte fenêtre entre le budget et les semailles.
Goodale directly challenges the 628-day figure by arguing the guidelines came into place in fall of 1994, not 1993, narrowing the relevant period, and notes the issue arose in spring 1995 — a partial but substantive factual response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to guidelines that came into place, not in 1993 but in the fall of 1994. Therefore the period of time that is being referred to here is a much narrower one than the hon. gentlemen indicates. Also, the issue that had to be dealt with was not in 1994 but in the spring of 1995 in a very narrow window between the budget and spring seeding time.
Puisque l'argument de l'urgence est réfuté compte tenu des 628 jours en tant que ministre de l'Agriculture, quelle excuse le ministre utilisera-t-il aujourd'hui pour expliquer l'attribution de contrats sans appel d'offres à Earnscliffe?
References the 628-day period and the urgency defence raised the previous day, but the 'what excuse will the minister use today' framing is primarily rhetorical rather than a precise factual ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister tried to mask his role in the government-wide contracting scandal by claiming that it was urgent that he hand untendered contracts to Earnscliffe. When David Dingwall blew the whistle, the member for Wascana had been agriculture minister for 628 days. That is almost two years of being seized by urgency. That has to be hard on anyone. Since the urgency defence has been blown, what excuse will the minister use today?
Goodale réitère que la lettre indique clairement que la période concernée était autour du budget de mars 1995 et des semailles du printemps, soit seulement six à huit semaines.
Goodale restates the timeframe from the letter as around the March 1995 budget and spring seeding — six to eight weeks — which is a direct if brief factual response to the urgency challenge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the letter that was circulated yesterday indicates very clearly what the timeframe was. The timeframe was the period of time around the budget in March 1995 and spring seeding time in 1995, which was only a matter of six or eight weeks.
Le ministre des Finances cessera-t-il de se cacher derrière son argument de l'urgence et admettra-t-il qu'il était un personnage clé dans la décennie de corruption libérale?
The question is almost entirely rhetorical partisan framing — 'kingpin in the decade of Liberal corruption' — with no specific factual ask beyond demanding the minister stop using the urgency defence.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals are preparing to trot out their old scare tactics in the next election and they are off to a good start. There are too many Canadians who are afraid that there is not a Liberal alive willing to follow the rules when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Will the finance minister stop hiding behind his urgency defence and admit that he was a kingpin in the decade of Liberal corruption?
Goodale affirme que la lettre expose clairement l'argument de l'urgence — assurer le bon fonctionnement d'un programme de 1,6 milliard de dollars — et que l'examen ultérieur du vérificateur général a conclu qu'il avait été géré correctement.
Goodale reiterates the specific case for urgency as laid out in the letter — a $1.6 billion program needing effective operation — and notes the Auditor General's favourable review, providing some factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the case for urgency is laid out in very specific terms in the letter that was circulated yesterday. It indicates the argument very clearly. It was important to make sure that a $1.6 billion program operated effectively. I am pleased to say that at the end of the program, after a review by the Auditor General, the report was indeed that it had been handled properly.
La ministre du Patrimoine canadien compte-t-elle intervenir pour protéger le droit d'Edith Gendron d'être présidente de Le Québec, un pays, en vertu de l'arrêt de la Cour suprême de 1991 reconnaissant le droit des fonctionnaires à des activités politiques légitimes?
Cites a specific employee, a specific organization, and a specific 1991 Supreme Court ruling as legal grounding for a clear yes/no accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Edith Gendron, who works for the Department of Canadian Heritage, has just received an ultimatum to resign as president of the organization Le Québec, un pays. Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage plan to intervene and call her departmental staff to order, on the basis of the 1991 Supreme Court ruling that confirmed public servants' right to legitimate political activities?
La ministre a qualifié la question de dossier de ressources humaines entre le ministère et l'employée, affirmant qu'il était traité conformément à toutes les normes applicables à la fonction publique du Canada.
The minister confirms the matter is being handled in compliance with public service standards but does not address the specific Supreme Court ruling cited or whether an ultimatum was issued.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that concerns departmental human resources and, as such, is between the department and the employee in question. The department has assured me that the matter was being handled in compliance with all standards applicable to the public service of Canada.
Comment l'appartenance à Le Québec, un pays empêcherait-elle Mme Gendron d'exercer correctement ses fonctions d'administration des programmes d'enseignement du français langue seconde à Terre-Neuve et en Nouvelle-Écosse?
Sharpens the prior exchange with a specific operational question about how Ms. Gendron's role in Le Québec, un pays interferes with her defined duties of administering French-as-a-second-language programs in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to us how membership in Le Québec, un pays would prevent Ms. Gendron from performing her duties properly, those duties being to administer programs to promote the teaching of French as a second language in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?
La ministre a simplement répété qu'elle n'avait donné aucune directive et que la question relevait strictement des ressources humaines entre le ministère et l'employée.
The minister does not engage with the specific incompatibility question at all, simply restating that she gave no directive and that it is a human resources matter.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, to reiterate my position, I have given no directive in connection with this. It is most definitely a matter between the department and an employee, a human resources matter.
Comment le gouvernement peut-il justifier l'octroi de 30 millions de dollars à Rolls-Royce Canada par l'entremise de Partenariat technologique Canada alors que le programme a versé 2,4 milliards de dollars depuis 1996 et n'en a récupéré moins de 2%?
Cites a specific $30 million grant to Rolls-Royce Canada, the program name Technology Partnerships Canada, a total figure of $2.4 billion since 1996, and a recovery rate of less than 2%, though the rhetorical framing weakens the specificity.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is continuing its shameful policy of subsidizing Canada's largest corporations. The Liberals recently gave Rolls-Royce Canada $30 million through Technology Partnerships Canada. This corporate welfare program has given $2.4 billion of taxpayer money since 1996 and has recovered less than 2% of that money. This is completely scandalous. How can the government justify to hard-working taxpayers using this money and giving it to large corporations like Rolls-Royce?
La ministre a défendu Partenariat technologique Canada comme un programme visant à développer la technologie et à maintenir la compétitivité internationale, en soulignant sa portée nationale, y compris en Colombie-Britannique.
The minister defends Technology Partnerships Canada in general terms and mentions geographic breadth but does not address the specific recovery rate figure or justify the Rolls-Royce grant.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada is a program to help develop technology in Canada, which will impact all Canadians. Rolls-Royce is not the only one involved, there are a number of companies throughout the country, British Columbia included. Whether in the west or the east, this is a program to help us remain competitive internationally. We are very proud of it.
Comment le gouvernement peut-il justifier l'octroi de plus de 80 millions de dollars à Rolls-Royce par deux contributions distinctes apparemment pour le même objet—la recherche et le développement de moteurs à turbine à gaz industriels—alors qu'il n'a récupéré moins de 2% depuis 1996?
Cites two specific grants totalling over $80 million to Rolls-Royce for apparently the same stated purpose—industrial gas turbine engines—and references the sub-2% recovery figure, constituting a highly specific accountability challenge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the $30 million grant was given to Rolls-Royce to develop industrial gas turbine engines. In addition, less than four years ago the government gave over $50 million to the same company, Rolls-Royce, to--wait for it--research and develop industrial gas turbine engines. Does it sound familiar? This was over $80 million for the same purpose. It has to be the Rolls-Royce of photocopying. How can the government justify giving over $80 million of taxpayer money to one of the largest, most profitable international corporations and getting back less than 2% since 1996?
La ministre a affirmé que le député avait tort sur les faits, que les deux projets portaient sur des technologies entièrement différentes, et a précisé que les contributions dans le cadre du programme fonctionnent comme des garanties de prêt que l'entreprise devra rembourser.
The minister directly disputes the factual premise by asserting these are two completely different projects and clarifies that contributions function like loan guarantees with repayment expected, but does not address the less-than-2% recovery rate.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the member has the facts wrong. Those are two completely different projects. Two different technologies will be developed that will help other companies in the country to be more competitive and more innovative. I think they will be very good for the economy and for Canadians. First, these are not contributions. They are like loan guarantees. The company will repay the Government of Canada. The objective of this program is precisely that: for the government to share the risks of developing high technology with industry.
Que fera le gouvernement pour assurer un financement durable au FACTOR, la Fondation Aidant les Talents Canadiens sur Enregistrements, dont le financement devait expirer le 31 mars?
This is a government-backbench softball setup citing FACTOR funding expiry on March 31 to invite the minister to announce continued support, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by members of Canada's music industry that the funding for FACTOR, the Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Records, will expire on March 31. The expiration of this fund will affect every facet of Canada's music industry, but individual Canadian artists will be affected the most. What will the government do to provide sustainable funding to FACTOR to ensure there remains a launch pad for tomorrow's Canadian recording stars?
La ministre a déclaré que le gouvernement demeure très engagé envers les artistes canadiens et s'est engagée à leur assurer les outils nécessaires pour réussir grâce à un financement soutenu à long terme pour le FACTOR.
The minister referenced her public comments at the Juno Awards and round tables, and committed to sustained long-term funding for FACTOR, providing a reasonably clear commitment though without dollar figures.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the chance today to repeat what I said publicly at the Juno Awards a few weeks ago. At many round tables I heard the success stories surrounding FACTOR funding and also I heard about the worries surrounding the non-funding of FACTOR. Let me be very clear. The government remains very committed to Canadian artists and I will ensure that they have the necessary tools to continue succeeding both nationally and internationally with sustained long term funding.
Pourquoi la ministre de la Sécurité publique a-t-elle publiquement disculpé le commissaire de la GRC avant que l'enquête sur le détournement potentiel de 4 millions de dollars du fonds de pension de la GRC soit terminée?
Cites a specific prior ministerial statement exonerating the commissioner, references $4 million in allegedly misappropriated RCMP pension funds, and 4,000 RCMP pensioners, posing a clear question about prejudging an ongoing investigation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety was quick to defend the commissioner of the RCMP when questioned about his potential involvement in the misappropriation of $4 million of RCMP pension funds. She said “There is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigated”. How does she know? It is the duty of the minister to protect and defend Canadians' interests, including 4,000 RCMP pensioners. Why has the minister prejudged this investigation?
La ministre a affirmé qu'il n'y a eu aucun préjugement, indiqué qu'on l'a informée qu'aucun fonds ne manquait dans le régime de pension de la GRC, et noté que la GRC a fait appel au service de police d'Ottawa pour mener une enquête.
The minister directly disputes the misappropriation premise by asserting no funds are missing, and notes the Ottawa police service has been called in, but does not explain the basis for her prior statement about the commissioner's conduct.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in fact there has been no prejudging of this investigation. As I have assured the House on a number of occasions, there are no funds missing from the RCMP pension plan. In fact, the RCMP has called in the investigative assistance of the Ottawa police service. I think it is incumbent upon all of us at this point to let the Ottawa police service carry out its investigation.
Pourquoi la ministre a-t-elle blanchi publiquement l'enquête en disculpant le commissaire de la GRC avant que l'enquête soit terminée, contrairement à sa pratique habituelle de ne pas commenter les affaires faisant l'objet d'une enquête policière?
Builds on the prior exchange by pointing to the minister's own past practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations and contrasting it with her statement exonerating the commissioner, but is partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has prejudged and prejudiced this investigation by publicly exonerating the commissioner of the RCMP. In the past the minister has refused to comment on matters that are before the courts or that are subject to a police investigation. Why in this case did the minister whitewash this investigation before the inquiry was even completed?
La ministre a nié tout blanchiment, réitéré que la GRC l'a informée qu'aucun fonds ne manquait dans le fonds de pension, et a de nouveau indiqué que le service de police d'Ottawa a été appelé à mener une enquête approfondie.
The minister restates the same points—no funds missing, Ottawa police service called in—without addressing the inconsistency in her approach to commenting on ongoing investigations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, far from there being any whitewash, I have been informed by the RCMP that no funds are missing from the RCMP pension fund. I also have been informed by the RCMP that it has in fact called in the Ottawa police service to conduct a thorough investigation. I suggest that we await the outcome of that investigation.
Qu'attend le ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire pour assouplir le programme de soutien et le Cadre stratégique pour l'agriculture afin que l'indemnisation dans le cadre du programme canadien de stabilisation du revenu agricole ne soit pas fondée sur des prix des céréales artificiellement déprimés en raison des subventions américaines et européennes?
Identifies a specific structural flaw in the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program—that compensation is based on depressed five-year average grain prices distorted by U.S. and European subsidies—and asks for flexibility in the agricultural policy framework, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program only provides grain producers with compensation based on the average price of grain for the past five years, a depressed price because of U.S. and European subsidies. Unfortunately, Ottawa's rigidity forces Quebec and its farmers to apply blanket Canada-wide rules and precludes the development of truly suitable programs. What is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food waiting for to relax the support program and the agricultural policy framework, and allow the money to be used to meet the needs of the agricultural industry?
Le secrétaire parlementaire a déclaré que de nombreux programmes sont disponibles pour aider les agriculteurs partout au pays lorsque leurs marges de revenus diminuent, y compris au Québec.
The parliamentary secretary gives a generic statement that money is available for farmers across the country including Quebec, addressing nothing specific about the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program's methodology or the request for flexibility.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have many programs available to help farmers throughout the country, whether in Quebec or out west, when margins go down in their income. There is money available for farmers right across the country, even in Quebec.
Pourquoi le gouvernement n'a-t-il pris aucune mesure concernant l'abus de solvants alors qu'au moins deux adolescents sont morts au Québec cette semaine en inhalant du gaz butane et que 20% des enfants canadiens auront essayé de renifler d'ici la 8e année, et prendra-t-il des mesures concernant les additifs à l'essence, les pénalités aux marchands de misère et le traitement des toxicomanes?
Cites at least two recent teenage deaths in Quebec from inhaling butane gas, a statistic that 20% of Canadian kids will have tried sniffing by grade eight, and proposes three specific policy options—additives to gasoline, penalties to merchants of misery, and treatment for addicts—though the final ask is broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at least two teenagers died this week in Quebec from inhaling butane gas. Many young people die or are permanently damaged every year from solvent abuse. Twenty per cent of Canadian kids will have tried sniffing by grade eight. Yet this is not a government priority. There is so much it could do: additives to gasoline, penalties to merchants of misery, treatment for addicts. Why has the government taken no action? Has it already forgotten the children of Davis Inlet? Why is the government just a spectator to this human tragedy?
La ministre a cité la stratégie nationale antidrogue financée et renouvelée du gouvernement, indiquant qu'elle porte sur l'application de la loi, l'éducation et le traitement, et qu'elle travaille avec les communautés locales pour rejoindre les jeunes et leurs familles.
The minister references the national drug strategy and its renewal and notes it covers enforcement, education, treatment, and community work, but does not address any of the three specific policy options proposed by the member.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me say, in response to the hon. member's question, that it is in fact a very serious question and that is why this government has funded and renewed our national drug strategy. The tragedies, of which the hon. member speaks, are happening in our communities, which is why our national drug strategy will not only deal with enforcement but will deal with education and treatment, and work with local communities all over the country to ensure we reach young people and their families in their schools and in their communities to deal with this.
Pourquoi le président du Conseil du Trésor n'a-t-il pas encore déposé les listes existantes des événements ayant reçu des fonds du fonds secret d'unité nationale, trois semaines après que son cabinet s'était engagé à fournir cette information dans les 48 heures?
Cites a specific three-week-old cabinet commitment to provide information within 48 hours, references a specific Monday statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, and asks directly when the existing lists of events funded through the national unity fund will be tabled.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it has been three weeks since the Prime Minister's cabinet said it would be able to provide information on the secret national unity fund within 48 hours. On Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said he had no record of the events and that he had to prepare a list of these events. What is the President of the Treasury Board waiting for to table the existing lists of events that received money through this fund?
Le ministre a indiqué que le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor travaille avec tous les ministères pour recueillir des informations sur l'utilisation de la réserve pour l'unité nationale, et que l'examen de tous les programmes gouvernementaux remontant à plusieurs années nécessite un certain temps.
The minister explains the Treasury Board Secretariat is working with departments to gather information on the national unity reserve and that it takes time, but gives no timeline and does not explain why the 48-hour commitment was not honoured.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat is working with all the departments in order to gather information on the use of the national unity reserve. In order to obtain this type of information, it must scrutinize all government programs and activities that go back a number of years. A certain amount of time is needed to complete this process.