Résumé de la séance
- La fiscalité et l'excédent budgétaire ont dominé la période des questions, les députés du PCC et du BQ pressant le gouvernement de remettre l'excédent de 8,9 milliards de dollars aux Canadiens sous forme de réductions d'impôt, tandis que le ministre des Finances défendait le bilan fiscal du gouvernement.
- La ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration Judy Sgro a fait l'objet de questions soutenues concernant des allégations de favoritisme envers une bénévole de campagne, les frais de déplacement de son personnel durant les élections et des remboursements de voyages personnels, les députés du PCC demandant qu'elle se retire en attendant l'enquête du commissaire à l'éthique.
- Le BQ a pressé le gouvernement d'établir une politique fédérale concrète pour l'industrie aérospatiale, invoquant les besoins urgents d'entreprises dont Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney et Bell Helicopter, tandis que le ministre de l'Industrie et le ministre des Transports n'ont fourni que des assurances d'une stratégie à venir.
- La réforme du Sénat et l'aliénation de l'Ouest ont été soulevées par les députés du PCC à l'approche de l'élection sénatoriale en Alberta, le premier ministre refusant de s'engager à nommer les gagnants et insistant sur une réforme globale plutôt que fragmentée.
- La séance s'est terminée par un incident de procédure notable au cours duquel le président du Conseil du Trésor Reg Alcock a admis avoir traité un député de « scumbag » durant la période des questions et a été invité à retirer ses propos.
- L'élection du général Ray Henault à la présidence du comité militaire de l'OTAN a été annoncée à la Chambre, et la ministre d'État à la Santé publique a souligné que le plan canadien contre la pandémie d'influenza est reconnu par l'Organisation mondiale de la santé comme un modèle exemplaire.
La Chambre a appris le fait concret et vérifiable que le général Ray Henault avait été élu président du comité militaire de l'OTAN, plaçant un Canadien aux plus hauts échelons de l'OTAN dans un rôle de conseiller auprès du secrétaire général.
Exceptionally specific: names the director of parliamentary affairs, gives the precise dates (May 28 to June 28), and itemizes expenses — $1,200 transportation, $2,400 accommodations, $2,300 meals and incidentals — totalling $5,900, with a clear yes/no ask.
En réponse à une question précise sur la question de savoir si le premier ministre lui demanderait de se retirer en attendant l'enquête du commissaire à l'éthique, Sgro a simplement dit « J'ai déjà répondu à la question deux fois », sans fournir de réponse de fond à la question distincte de reddition de comptes posée.
Questions sans réponse
- Jim Prentice a demandé pourquoi la vice-première ministre n'avait pas informé la Chambre que ses propres fonctionnaires avaient admis que le processus de RRA sur les pensionnats est profondément déficient — aucune réponse n'a été donnée, Anne McLellan se limitant à rappeler que le processus est en place et que plus de 1 000 demandes ont été reçues.
- Peter MacKay a demandé si le premier ministre ferait mettre de côté la ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration jusqu'à la conclusion de l'enquête du commissaire à l'éthique — le premier ministre n'a pas répondu et la question a été esquivée par la ministre elle-même.
- Rahim Jaffer a demandé pourquoi les contribuables devaient payer les frais de voyage personnels de la ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration et ceux de son mari lors de sa nomination au cabinet — la ministre a simplement dit que le député devrait « vérifier ses faits » sans aborder le fond de la question.
- Stephen Harper a demandé si le premier ministre s'engagerait à nommer les gagnants de l'élection sénatoriale albertaine aux trois postes vacants de l'Alberta au Sénat — le premier ministre a refusé de prendre tout engagement, invoquant sa préférence pour une réforme globale du Sénat.
- Gilles Duceppe a demandé si le gouvernement veillerait à ce que le Québec reçoive la part du lion des avantages de la politique aérospatiale fédérale, comme l'Ontario en bénéficie dans le cas de l'industrie automobile — le ministre de l'Industrie a rejeté ce cadrage et ne s'est engagé qu'à une politique nationale sans aborder la comparaison d'équité.
Harper demande si le premier ministre nommera les gagnants de l'élection sénatoriale de l'Alberta aux trois sièges vacants de cette province.
The question is specific and timely, referencing the upcoming Alberta Senate election and asking for a direct commitment on naming the three elected senators to vacancies.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in less than a week, Albertans will choose the people they want to have as representatives in the Senate. News reports today indicate that the Prime Minister may reverse his longstanding opposition and name some elected senators. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that he will name the winners of the election to all three of Alberta's Senate vacancies?
Martin affirme soutenir la réforme du Sénat, mais pas de façon fragmentaire, préférant l'examiner dans son ensemble.
Martin deflects with a general statement about Senate reform needing to be done 'in its entirety' rather than addressing the specific commitment to name the Alberta election winners.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have long been an advocate of Senate reform. However I do not believe that doing Senate reform piecemeal would bring us the desired result. What it could quite well do is simply exacerbate a number of the problems. What I think we should do is look at Senate reform but look at it in its entirety.
Harper demande au premier ministre de respecter l'engagement du discours du Trône de réduire les impôts des Canadiens à faible et modeste revenu, en invoquant un vote tenu trois semaines plus tôt.
Harper invokes a specific prior commitment — a throne speech vote three weeks earlier to reduce taxes for low and modest income families — giving the question some factual grounding, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we would all like to look at it in its entirety but over here we are prepared to do something as opposed to doing nothing. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to give some money back to Canadian taxpayers. In doing so, he broke yet another promise. I remind the Prime Minister that it was only three weeks ago in the House that he stood on his feet and voted to reduce taxes for low and modest income Canadian families. Will the Prime Minister keep his word, fulfill his commitment and execute the promise in the throne speech?
Martin affirme que le gouvernement entend réduire davantage les impôts, mais seulement après avoir respecté ses engagements en matière de soins de santé, de garde d'enfants et de défense, mettant en garde contre un retour au déficit.
Martin engages the topic of tax reduction but does not address the specific throne speech commitment Harper cited, instead conditioning future tax cuts on meeting other spending priorities.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that it is our intention to further reduce taxes, as we have done. However we will only do so after the government has met all of its commitments, from health care, to child care, to defence. To do otherwise would run the risk of going back into deficit and then we would have to borrow to pay for the tax cuts the Leader of the Opposition is talking to. This country has been there, done that and we are not going back.
Harper demande pourquoi le premier ministre refuse de respecter la promesse du discours du Trône de réduire les impôts alors que l'excédent est plus de quatre fois supérieur aux prévisions.
Harper asserts the surplus is more than four times larger than expected and references the throne speech and a recent vote, but the question is partially rhetorical and lacks a sharp single ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government already has four times more surplus than it said it needed to fulfill its commitments. It should give the money back to Canadians.
Hear, hear!
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal caucus could cheer that kind of over-taxation. Once again, Liberal promises have been broken, even though the surplus is more than four times larger than expected and even though they voted to reduce taxes. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to respect the promise made in his throne speech?
Martin félicite le ministre des Finances pour sa gestion économique et accuse le chef de l'opposition de proposer d'anciennes politiques menant au déficit.
Martin congratulates the finance minister and pivots to attacking Harper's policies as deficit-inducing, without addressing the throne speech promise or the surplus figure cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the finance minister for his management of the Canadian economy. He has decreased Canada's debt. The Leader of the Opposition should know that what he is recommending consists of old policies, incurring a deficit and being forced to borrow to reduce taxes. We will never return to the kind of harmful practices now being proposed by the leader of the Alliance-Conservative opposition.
Solberg exige que le premier ministre respecte la promesse du discours du Trône et restitue l'excédent de 8,9 milliards de dollars aux Canadiens.
Solberg names the $8.9 billion figure and references the throne speech commitment, but frames it with rhetorical flourish and the ask is essentially a repeat of earlier questions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think taxpayers are going to ralph if they hear any more of that. The $8.9 billion is not the Prime Minister's fun money to play with any way he wants. It belongs to Canadians. I remind him that he agreed three weeks ago in the throne speech to give some of that money back to Canadians. The finance minister told us yesterday at the finance committee that he wants our input. Here is our input: tell the Prime Minister to fulfill his promise and give Canadians their money back.
Goodale cite les réductions d'impôts historiques de 100 milliards de dollars et vante le bilan budgétaire du Canada comme le meilleur du G-7.
Goodale cites the $100 billion in tax cuts under the previous finance minister and general fiscal record talking points without addressing the throne speech commitment or the $8.9 billion surplus.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, when the Prime Minister was the minister of finance, the government implemented the biggest tax cuts in Canadian history, $100 billion. The financial statement yesterday spoke about the value of a competitive tax system and the need to maintain that kind of tax system in Canada, and we will do that. That is all part of having the best fiscal record in Canadian history and the best fiscal record in the G-7.
Solberg demande de nouveau au premier ministre de tenir son engagement et de remettre l'argent aux Canadiens, en utilisant une analogie de culture populaire.
Solberg's question is largely rhetorical, using a 'Father Knows Best' analogy, and the ask is a vague repetition of earlier demands with no new factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, watching the government handle the surplus is a little like watching a Father Knows Best rerun. We have the Prime Minister over there playing big daddy telling Canadians that he will decide how to spend their money. I am going to ask the Prime Minister to do something radically different. I am going to ask him to keep his commitment and give Canadians back their money.
Goodale énumère les réalisations budgétaires : sept budgets excédentaires, 61 milliards de dollars de réduction de la dette, 3 milliards de dollars d'économies annuelles sur les intérêts, une cote de crédit AAA, 100 milliards de dollars en réductions d'impôts et 200 milliards de dollars consacrés aux priorités sociales et économiques.
Goodale delivers a list of fiscal accomplishments including seven consecutive surplus budgets, $61 billion in reduced debt, and $100 billion in tax cuts, which is substantive context but does not address the throne speech commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what have we done with the country's fiscal strength? We have had seven consecutive surplus budgets, $61 billion in reduced debt, $3 billion in lower interest costs every year, consistently low interest rates, low inflation, a AAA credit rating, the fastest growing standard of living in the G-7, $100 billion in tax cuts, 10 consecutive cuts in EI rates and $200 billion in the social and economic priorities of Canadians, like health care, Canada pension and early intervention for children. We are building the future.
Duceppe demande ce que le premier ministre attend pour agir sur une véritable politique fédérale de l'aérospatiale, en citant les demandes de l'ensemble de la communauté financière et des affaires du Québec.
Duceppe names specific stakeholders (Quebec Aerospace Association, FTQ, Montreal Chamber of Commerce, Quebec Employers' Council) and references Bloc proposals tabled that morning, but the ask — 'what is the Prime Minister waiting for' — is somewhat open-ended.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Aerospace Association, the FTQ, the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the Quebec Employers' Council, basically Quebec's entire financial community is demanding a real federal aerospace policy. It is urgently needed, and the Bloc Québécois laid proposals on the table this morning, but the Liberals are continuing to drag their feet. Quebec's aerospace industry needs a policy now. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to act?
Martin affirme que le gouvernement a déjà annoncé qu'il présentera son plan pour l'aérospatiale et attribue la prééminence du secteur aux politiques industrielles du gouvernement.
Martin vaguely says the government would be presenting its plan and credits government industrial policies for Canada and Quebec's prominence in aerospace, without any specifics on timing or content.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has already announced that it would be presenting its plan for the aerospace industry. I should take this opportunity to tell the leader of the Bloc Québécois that one of the reasons why Canada and Quebec are so prominent in that sector is this government's industrial policies.
Duceppe demande au gouvernement de s'assurer que le Québec reçoit la part du lion des avantages de la politique fédérale sur l'aérospatiale, étant donné qu'au moins 55 % de l'industrie aérospatiale canadienne est au Québec, comme l'Ontario bénéficie de la politique automobile.
Duceppe cites the specific statistic that at least 55% of the Canadian aerospace industry is concentrated in Quebec and draws a parallel to automotive industry treatment of Ontario, making a substantive equity argument with a clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, they are so prominent and so good that the government is still waiting, and and does not know what it wants. When it talks about help for the sector across Canada, the fact is that at least 55% of the Canadian aerospace industry is concentrated in Quebec. This is a reality that the Liberals must not forget. Therefore, will the government refrain from sprinkling money about and make sure that Quebec gets the lion's share of the benefits generated by the federal aerospace policy, just as Ontario benefits in the case of the automotive industry? We are asking for equal treatment.
Emerson affirme qu'il y a 38 000 travailleurs de l'aérospatiale à l'extérieur du Québec qui ne seront pas sacrifiés, s'engage à une politique nationale avec d'importants avantages pour le Québec et signale qu'il rencontre ce soir l'association aérospatiale de tout le Canada.
Emerson directly acknowledges 38,000 aerospace workers outside Quebec, commits to a national policy with benefits in Quebec, and notes a meeting that evening with the aerospace association of all of Canada, providing some specificity.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that there are 38,000 aerospace workers outside of the province of Quebec and we will not sacrifice them. We will build a policy that serves the aerospace industry all across the country. Yes, it will have tremendous benefits in the province of Quebec, but it will be a national policy. We are not buying a pig in a poke. We will do an orderly negotiation. I am meeting tonight with the aerospace association of all of Canada to move that strategy forward.
Crête demande si le gouvernement entend annoncer des mesures concrètes prochainement pour l'industrie aérospatiale, en citant les besoins urgents d'entreprises comme Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter et Bombardier.
Crête names specific companies (Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter, Bombardier), identifies specific policy elements needed (research and development support, sales financing commitment, small and medium size business policy), and notes Bombardier's imminent decision deadline.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all across Canada, companies and their employees, including Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter and Bombardier, are concerned. They need a plan that will provide, among other things, a research and development support program, a sales financing commitment and a policy to support small and medium size businesses in the aerospace industry. The government must realize that it has to act before it is too late, because Bombardier, for example, must make a decision very shortly. Does the government intend to announce specific measures in the near future?
Emerson affirme que le gouvernement avance sur une stratégie qui sera annoncée après la conclusion des discussions et des négociations, promettant d'agir en temps opportun.
Emerson commits to moving ahead on a strategy and announces it will be done in a timely manner but provides no specifics on content or timeline, and deflects with a statement about not throwing taxpayer money at problems.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead on a strategy and we will announce the strategy once we have completed discussions and negotiations. We will not just throw taxpayer money at this problem. Many industries in this country are in a serious situation. We are moving forward with an aerospace strategy, and we will do it in a timely manner.
Crête demande si le plan du gouvernement pour l'industrie aérospatiale s'aligne sur les propositions du Bloc Québécois et si le ministre des Transports assumera ses responsabilités en tant que représentant du gouvernement au Québec.
Crête references the Minister of Transport's public statement about not giving in to a bidding war and the Bloc's consultation process, but the ask — whether the plan aligns with Bloc proposals and whether the minister will assume his responsibilities — is diffuse.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the aerospace industry has every reason to be concerned, considering the government's vague replies and the Minister of Transport's statements to the effect that he will not give in to a bidding war. The Bloc took time to consult stakeholders before tabling its policy for the development of the aerospace industry. We are asking the government to make a commitment and tell us whether the plan that it has in mind for the aviation industry is along the lines of the proposals made by the Bloc Québécois. Will the Minister of Transport finally assume his responsibilities as the government's representative in Quebec?
Lapierre attaque le Bloc pour avoir proposé une politique qu'il n'aura jamais à mettre en œuvre et affirme que le gouvernement soutiendra l'industrie aérospatiale comme il l'a toujours fait.
Lapierre attacks the Bloc for never having to implement policy because it will never be in office and offers no information about the government's aerospace plan or its relationship to the Bloc's proposals.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is rather easy for the Bloc Québécois to come up with a so-called aerospace policy, when it knows that it will never have to implement it, because it will never be in office. Bloc members will always be irresponsible. The truth is that this government will support the aerospace industry, as it has always done. If there is an aerospace industry in Quebec, it is thanks to this government and definitely not the Bloc Québécois.
Layton demande au premier ministre de dire à George Bush que la course aux armements — provoquée par le bouclier antimissile de la guerre des étoiles — est inacceptable, citant l'annonce de Poutine de nouvelles armes nucléaires et une évaluation de Scientific American qualifiant le système d'd'inutile'.
Layton references Putin's announcement of new nuclear weapons, hypersonic weapons testing, and a Scientific American scientist calling the missile defence system 'useless,' but conflates several issues and the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we learned today of a very grave situation unfolding on the world stage. Vladimir Putin has announced that there will be the development of new nuclear weapons. This is on top of the hypersonic weapons already being tested by his government. That is exactly the kind of arms race that George Bush's star wars missile defence will produce, and it is why a top scientist in Scientific American has indicated very clearly that the system is “useless”. Will the Prime Minister take a position on this issue and tell him that the arms race is unacceptable whether it is for George Bush or Mr. Putin?
Martin affirme que le Canada s'oppose à la prolifération nucléaire, soutient la Commission internationale de l'énergie atomique et les inspections en Iran et ailleurs, et soulèvera la question dans chaque forum international.
Martin addresses nuclear proliferation and the international Atomic Energy Commission but does not address the star wars missile defence question specifically or Putin's announcement directly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has made it clear from the very beginning that nuclear proliferation is a blight that all countries must work to stop. That is why we have supported the international Atomic Energy Commission and why we have supported inspections, whether they be in Iran or elsewhere in the world. The world cannot afford a nuclear arms race. That is the Canadian government's position and one we will continue to defend. I will raise it in every international forum, and that will always be the position that this country will defend.
Layton accuse le gouvernement d'avoir une position incohérente — s'opposant à une course aux armements tout en y participant — et exige une position ferme disant non à George Bush sur le bouclier antimissile de la guerre des étoiles.
Layton's exchange is largely rhetorical, mocking the government's position with a Kerry-esque flip-flop reference and demanding a 'no' to George Bush without specifying what action or decision is required.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is the position on star wars missile defence? I am sure he would have voted for the $87 billion before he then turned around and voted against it. What we have is a Canadian position that says that we are against an arms race but that we are willing to be part of one; that we favour multilateralism but that we do not mind tearing up multilateral arms treaties by Mr. Bush; and that we think star wars is bad but that we are happy to let Mr. Bush go ahead with it. It is unacceptable. What we have on the world stage is an incoherent Canadian stance. This is the time for a firm stance and to say no to George Bush.
Martin affirme que le gouvernement est contre la prolifération nucléaire et contre la militarisation de l'espace, demandant quelle partie de cette réponse Layton ne comprend pas.
Martin gives a direct two-point statement — against nuclear proliferation and against the weaponization of space — which directly addresses the core of Layton's challenge, though it remains brief and does not engage the star wars policy decision.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are against nuclear proliferation. We are against the weaponization of space. What part of that answer does the leader of the NDP not understand?
Ablonczy demande si la ministre de l'Immigration a abusé de sa position pour favoriser une partisane de campagne venue sur un visa de travail temporaire en tant que danseuse nue et cherchant à passer devant les autres pour obtenir le statut de résidente permanente.
Ablonczy provides specific narrative detail — a campaign worker on a temporary work visa who had not been ordered to leave and whose husband said normal channels were too frustrating — and asks a direct yes-or-no accountability question about abuse of position.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister helped a campaign worker jump the queue, someone who came here to work as a stripper on a temporary work visa, then married a Canadian and applied to stay. This supporter had never been ordered to leave, nor was her application turned down. She just did not want to wait in line like everybody else. Her husband said that normal channels were too frustrating so she volunteered to help the minister hoping to get a special deal, which is exactly what she got. Is it not true that the minister abused her position to show favouritism to a supporter?
Sgro affirme que l'immigration est fondamentalement humaine et que, dans un souci de transparence, elle a personnellement contacté le commissaire à l'éthique pour démontrer que ses actions étaient irréprochables, promettant de partager les conclusions avec la Chambre.
Sgro does not address the specific allegation of preferential treatment but pivots to a statement about contacting the ethics commissioner herself, framing it as transparency without engaging the facts of the case.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the issue of immigration is one that is fundamentally human and everyone in the country, no matter who he or she is, is entitled to fair and compassionate treatment. I take these issues very seriously. For the sake of transparency, I want everyone to know that I, no one else, personally contacted the ethics commissioner to demonstrate that my actions were beyond reproach. These findings will be shared very gladly with all members of the House.
Ablonczy presse la ministre en citant les déclarations du mari aux médias selon lesquelles lui et sa femme ont fait du bénévolat pour la campagne de réélection de la ministre dans l'espoir qu'elle puisse aider à la demande de résidence permanente, et non pour des raisons humanitaires et de compassion.
Ablonczy references the husband's media statements directly and draws a distinction between humanitarian and compassionate grounds versus political volunteering, but the question is cut off and lacks a sharp final ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is good that the minister understands there is an ethical problem here. The woman's husband said in the media nothing about humanitarian or compassionate problems. He said--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, this woman's husband talked freely to the media. There was no humanitarian and compassionate problem here. He said that he and his new wife were hoping that the minister could help with her landed immigrant application, so they volunteered for her re-election campaign. He said he was desperate because he had been frustrated in his efforts to go through normal channels at the immigration department. The minister claims she is going to clean up the abuse of the system.
Sgro affirme recevoir des milliers de demandes de membres de tous les partis, citant une demande du député de Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley comme exemple, et dit examiner tous les cas sur des motifs humanitaires et de compassion.
Sgro deflects by citing a request from the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley as an example of the thousands of requests she receives, without addressing the specific allegation of a link between volunteering and preferential treatment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in case my official opposition critic is not aware, the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley came to me in this House yesterday seeking my intervention. This is one of thousands of requests, including several that I have received in the very short time that I have been in the House. This is one of thousands of requests I have received this year from members on all sides of the House. I can assure the member that I will look at all cases on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and I will continue to do so.
MacKay cite l'interdiction du code de conflit d'intérêts d'utiliser sa charge pour accorder un traitement préférentiel, signale que le commissaire à l'éthique a été saisi de l'affaire et demande à la ministre de déposer le rapport et de se retirer jusqu'à la conclusion de l'enquête.
MacKay cites the specific language of the conflict of interest code — 'Public office holders shall not use their position of office to assist private entities or persons where this would result in preferential treatment to any person' — and asks two clear questions: table the ethics commissioner report and step down during investigation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the interests of being completely clear about that, the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley was not seeking input on behalf of someone working on his campaign. There is something completely different about that. The conflict of interest code states clearly: Public office holders shall not use their position of office to assist private entities or persons where this would result in preferential treatment to any person. The ethics commissioner has been asked to investigate. Will the minister agree to table that report in the House and will she step down until this investigation is complete?
Sgro répète qu'elle a personnellement contacté le commissaire à l'éthique pour démontrer que ses actions étaient irréprochables et que les conclusions seront clairement communiquées à la Chambre.
Sgro simply repeats her earlier statement about having personally contacted the ethics commissioner and promises to share findings, without committing to table the report or addressing the request to step down.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, maybe we need to do something with the audio on the other side. I clearly said, and I will repeat it in case he did not hear. For the sake of transparency, I personally contacted the ethics commissioner to demonstrate that my actions were beyond reproach. These findings will be clearly shared with the House.
MacKay demande au premier ministre de demander à la ministre de se retirer pendant l'enquête éthique, soulignant le conflit selon lequel le commissaire à l'éthique relève de la ministre visée par l'examen.
MacKay raises the structural accountability problem that the ethics commissioner reports to the minister under investigation, and asks the Prime Minister to have the minister step aside — a reasonably specific procedural ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us review this. The ethics commissioner has been asked to investigate. Here is how this allegation of preferential treatment works. The minister has not provided any information yet. This is the democratic deficit at work. Once the opportunity to investigate has been complete, what does the ethics commissioner do? He reports to the minister. In the interests of transparency and honesty, will the Prime Minister have the minister step aside until the investigation is complete?
Sgro affirme avoir déjà répondu à la question deux fois, sans fournir de réponse de fond.
Sgro's response — 'I have already answered the question twice' — is a complete non-answer that does not address the procedural concern about the ethics commissioner reporting to the minister or the request to step aside.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question twice.
Loubier demande si le gouvernement est prêt à admettre que l'utilisation du surplus devrait faire l'objet d'un débat ouvert à la Chambre, en citant la vérificatrice générale.
References the Auditor General's criticism for grounding but the ask is broad and partly rhetorical ('admit that its choices should be debated').
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has already criticized the fact that the way billions of dollars in the surplus will be used is not subject to any public debate. Yet there is no shortage of priorities: unemployment, housing, economic development and agriculture. The government's attitude is proof of just how irresponsible it is. Is the government prepared to admit that its choices for use of the surplus should be debated openly here in this House?
Goodale énumère le débat sur les crédits, les comptes publics, le budget et les consultations prébudgétaires du comité des finances comme occasions existantes de débat.
Goodale lists several legitimate parliamentary venues for surplus debate but does not engage with the Auditor General's specific criticism about transparency.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that opportunity happens many times during the year: the debate on the estimates, the debate on the public accounts, the debate on the budget, and the debate in the finance committee of the House of Commons and its prebudget consultations. Indeed, I look forward to the very learned and constructive contributions of all members of Parliament to the shaping of the future surplus.
Loubier demande ce que le ministre des Finances a à dire aux agriculteurs dans la détresse qui demandent une aide que le gouvernement refuse d'accorder.
Largely rhetorical and accusatory ('demagoguery'), with no specific policy ask or factual grounding beyond a general reference to agriculture being in 'desperate straits.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, while he is congratulating himself on good administration and they are all busy applauding, agriculture in Canada, in Quebec in particular, is in desperate straits? What does the Minister of Finance, in his demagoguery, have to say to that? What is his answer to the farmers, who are in such desperate straits and are asking for his help, which he refuses to give?
Goodale cite un filet de sécurité de 5,5 milliards de dollars, 2 milliards pour l'ESB et les démarches à l'OMC pour défendre les droits commerciaux des agriculteurs.
Goodale cites specific figures — the $5.5 billion safety net system and $2 billion for BSE — and mentions WTO advocacy, providing substantive context even if the question was vague.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question as a former minister of agriculture in this House. We have put on the books of this country a $5.5 billion safety net system to assist farmers in difficult circumstances. We have, over the course of the last year and a half, put in place $2 billion to be of particular assistance in the case of BSE. We are fighting the fight for farmers at the WTO in order to maintain their trade rights and their marketing rights around the world. Indeed, as further requirements arise in agriculture, they will get a very sympathetic ear from this finance minister and this Prime Minister.
Côté demande si le gouvernement devrait utiliser son important surplus pour régler des problèmes comme le chômage, le logement, le développement régional et l'agriculture plutôt que de le dissimuler.
The question is broad and rhetorical, listing multiple policy areas without a specific ask, though it raises a legitimate concern about surplus transparency.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government has a huge surplus, not only in its budget, but also in its various foundations. It has billions of dollars it could use to help people. Instead of continuing its bad habit of disguising the surplus, should the government not use it to solve the problems of unemployment, housing, regional development and agriculture, to name but a few?
Goodale cite 2,7 milliards pour les changements climatiques, 4 milliards pour les sites contaminés et des investissements dans l'éthanol, l'énergie éolienne et la séquestration du carbone.
Goodale cites some spending figures ($2.7 billion for climate change, $4 billion for contaminated sites) but responds to environment rather than the unemployment, housing, and regional development issues Côté named.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, indeed we do. I have already mentioned the money that has gone into agriculture, for example. The honourable gentleman mentioned issues related to the environment. We have in fact invested $2.7 billion to deal with climate change. We have invested another $4 billion to deal with the cleanup of contaminated sites. We have invested in ethanol, wind power and carbon sequestration. We have a very elaborate agenda for dealing with the environment and under the environment minister, it will increase.
Côté demande si le gouvernement reconnaîtra qu'il est inacceptable d'affecter tout le surplus à la dette sans aucun débat au Parlement.
Raises a specific procedural concern about the entire surplus being applied to the debt without parliamentary debate, but the ask is framed as a rhetorical acknowledgement rather than a precise question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, our concern is that the government has applied all of its surplus to the debt, with no debate whatsoever here in Parliament. There are urgent problems that require choices to be made. Will the government acknowledge that it is unacceptable for the entire surplus to be applied to the debt without debate, thus refusing to put his huge financial resource at the service of the people to whom it belongs, in fact?
Goodale réénumère le processus des crédits, les comptes publics, le débat budgétaire et le comité des finances, suggérant que l'opposition n'utilise pas ces occasions.
Goodale repeats the same list of parliamentary processes from Exchange 16 and adds a mild jab at the opposition, without addressing the specific claim that the entire surplus went to debt without debate.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, through the estimates process, the public accounts process, the budget debate in the House, and the work of the finance committee of the House of Commons, there are huge opportunities to debate the fiscal condition of the country and the priorities in the budget. If the opposition does not take advantage of those opportunities, that is not the government's fault.
Guergis demande si la ministre peut assurer à la Chambre que son personnel financé par les contribuables, qui a réclamé plus de 11 000 $ en frais de déplacement du 21 mai au 29 juin, n'a pas travaillé à sa campagne.
Highly specific: cites a named time period (May 21 to June 29), a dollar figure ($11,000), and a specific role (ministerial liaison officer), asking for a clear assurance that staff did not work on the campaign.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the immigration minister about her employees' expenses during the election and she avoided my question, so I will ask her again. Three of the minister's staff claimed expenses to be in her riding during the election period. One claimed expenses for a month as her ministerial liaison officer during the election. In fact, from May 21 to June 29, staff members claimed more than $11,000 in travel expenses. Can the minister assure us that her tax funded staff did not work on her campaign at all?
Sgro affirme que les ministres sont tenus de remplir leurs fonctions pendant les élections et que toutes les dépenses sont conformes aux lignes directrices appropriées.
Sgro offers only a generic assurance that expenses were 'within the appropriate guidelines' without addressing the specific dates, amounts, or roles cited in the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all ministers are obligated to fill their duties during elections. All of the expenses are within the appropriate guidelines.
Guergis demande si la ministre peut garantir que sa directrice des affaires parlementaires, qui a facturé environ 5 900 $ en dépenses dans la circonscription du 28 mai au 28 juin, n'a fait aucun travail politique pendant la campagne.
Exceptionally specific: names the director of parliamentary affairs, gives the precise dates (May 28 to June 28), and itemizes expenses — $1,200 transportation, $2,400 accommodations, $2,300 meals and incidentals — totalling $5,900, with a clear yes/no ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister's director of parliamentary affairs worked in the riding from May 28 to June 28 and charged approximately $1,200 for transportation, over $2,400 for accommodations, and almost $2,300 for meals and incidentals. A total of almost $5,900 was charged to the taxpayers by one staff person. Can the minister guarantee to the House that her staff did absolutely no political work during the campaign?
Sgro répète que les ministres doivent continuer leur travail et que tout a été fait conformément aux lignes directrices appropriées.
Sgro repeats the same boilerplate response about ministers continuing their work and expenses being within appropriate guidelines, ignoring the itemized amounts entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, ministers are required to continue to do their work as ministers. I can assure all members of the House that everything was done according to the appropriate guidelines.
Jaffer demande pourquoi les contribuables ont payé les frais de voyage personnels de la ministre et de son mari lorsqu'elle a été rappelée de vacances familiales pour être nommée au cabinet, en citant une demande d'accès à l'information.
Cites an ATI as the source and raises a specific allegation that the minister charged personal and spousal travel expenses to taxpayers, but the partisan framing ('orgy of corruption') weakens its accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister seems to think that this country operates under two sets of rules: the rule of law for Canadians and an orgy of corruption for her and her Liberal friends. According to an ATI, the minister cut short her family vacation when she was appointed to cabinet. Instead of paying the cost herself, she stuck the taxpayer for not only her personal expenses but that of her husband's as well. Why is the taxpayer on the hook for the minister's travel plans?
Sgro dit au député de vérifier ses faits, sans offrir aucune réfutation factuelle ni explication.
Sgro's entire response is a single sentence telling Jaffer to 'get his facts straight,' providing no facts, no denial, and no explanation whatsoever.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member on the other side of the House should get his facts straight.
Jaffer demande sarcastiquement si la ministre entend utiliser beaucoup son passeport dans les semaines à venir pour se reposer, laissant entendre un départ imminent du cabinet.
Primarily sarcastic and rhetorical ('future-ex-minister'), with the passport joke rendering the question largely unanswerable and designed more for political effect than accountability.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, no doubt convinced that she would not be in the cabinet, the future-ex-minister of citizenship and immigration decided to take a vacation outside Canada. She was so torn between her public and her private life that what it took to convince her was the reimbursement of travelling expenses for two, in addition to $10.34 for her passport. Can the minister tell us if she intends to use her passport a great deal in the weeks to come, to get some rest?
Valeri dit ne pas comprendre la pertinence de la question et affirme que la ministre est concentrée sur son travail de ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration.
Valeri does not address any of the travel expense allegations and simply asserts the minister is focused on her job as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how this has anything to do with the responsibilities of the minister, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would suggest to the member opposite that the minister is very focused on doing her job as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will continue to do that job, and will do so in a very effective way.
Tonks demande au ministre d'État à l'Infrastructure et aux Collectivités de faire le point sur la réunion du 12 novembre avec ses homologues provinciaux et territoriaux et les progrès du nouveau pacte pour les villes et les collectivités.
A classic government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to update the House on a meeting he attended, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. On November 12 the minister met with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Toronto. Would the minister please update this House on the outcome of the meeting and the continuing progress of the new deal for cities and communities?
Godfrey rapporte que la réunion a été un succès, que toutes les provinces et tous les territoires souhaitent avancer pour que l'argent de la taxe sur l'essence commence à circuler après le budget 2005, et énumère des principes communs.
Godfrey provides substantive information about the November 12 meeting — provincial and territorial consensus, shared principles of respect for jurisdictions, flexibility, accountability, and the gas tax timeline post-budget 2005.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report that the meeting was a success. The ministers I met with from every province and territory want to get on with the new deal so that money can start to flow from the gas tax after budget 2005. We shared a tremendous amount of common ground regarding respect for jurisdictions, flexibility, investments, sustainable infrastructure, transparency, accountability, and the need for predictable funding. This is a continuation of the great new deal for cities and communities.
Wasylycia-Leis demande si le ministre des Finances appuiera la création d'un bureau parlementaire indépendant du budget, oui ou non.
Asks a direct yes/no question on a specific policy proposal — an independent parliamentary budget office — with some rhetorical framing but a clear, answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister. If he is grumpy that people do not believe him, maybe he should have reconsidered being a Liberal finance minister because people have had enough of Liberals making numbers up as they go along. That is why we in the NDP support an independent parliamentary budget office. Will he support such an office, yes or no?
Goodale dit appuyer l'amélioration des prévisions, mais note que le modèle en question a engendré aux États-Unis un déficit annuel supérieur à la totalité de la dette fédérale combinée du Canada.
Goodale says he supports techniques to improve forecast accuracy but deflects by criticizing the U.S. congressional budget model for generating large deficits, never directly answering yes or no to supporting a parliamentary budget office.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I fully support every technique to improve the accuracy and the reliability of forecasts and projections. However, I would point out to the hon. member that the particular model that she refers to, while worthy of consideration, has generated a deficit, on an annual basis, in the United States bigger than the entire combined federal debt of the Government of Canada.
Wasylycia-Leis demande pourquoi, plus de deux ans après que les États-Unis ont sévi contre la criminalité comptable des entreprises, les libéraux n'ont rien fait, malgré une promesse de commission commune des valeurs mobilières dans deux discours du Trône.
Raises specific comparisons — U.S. corporate accounting laws and a common securities commission promised in two throne speeches — with a clear ask about why Canada has acted on neither, though somewhat compound.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. He is the one who has been out $61 billion in the last five years. People are sick and tired of not having numbers they can trust. Just look at the workers at Nortel and the people whose pension plans are invested in Nortel. The United States has tough corporate accounting laws, not Canada. The U.S. has a common securities commission, not us, even though the Liberals promised it in two throne speeches. Can he explain why, more than two years after the United States cracked down on corporate accounting crime, the Liberals have done exactly nothing?
Goodale accuse le NPD de vouloir copier aveuglément la politique américaine et affirme que le Canada a sa propre politique économique et devance les États-Unis sur la plupart des indicateurs économiques importants.
Goodale mischaracterizes the question as advocating blindly copying U.S. policy and pivots to boasting about Canada's economic indicators, entirely ignoring the corporate accounting laws and securities commission questions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am just peering down to see if the leader of the NDP has left the chamber because I have just heard that party's finance critic say that we should blindly copycat every policy of the United States of America which will necessarily be good for Canada. The fact is that we have our own foreign policy, we have our own economic policy, and we are leading the United States on most of the most important economic indicators.
Grewal demande quand la ministre mettra fin au favoritisme politique et concentrera ses priorités sur les réfugiés légitimes et les immigrants pour réunification familiale plutôt que sur des candidats prioritaires.
Raises the legitimate issue of processing times and queue jumping but frames it in highly partisan and inflammatory language ('queue jumping Liberal strippers'), making the ask vague and compound.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has difficulty understanding her job. There are thousands of legitimate refugees fearing for their lives and waiting years for their chance to come to Canada. Family reunification immigrants are waiting 53 months to enter the country, but the minister would rather look after queue jumping Liberal strippers. Her job is to focus on those who legitimately need Canada's help and compassion. When will the minister set her priorities right, end political favouritism, and start doing her job?
Sgro décrit une réunion récente avec les ministres provinciaux de l'immigration et annonce un plan pour développer un nouveau système d'immigration adapté au XXIe siècle.
Sgro pivots entirely to describing a meeting with provincial immigration ministers and a vague plan to bring immigration into the 21st century, ignoring the specific allegations about queue jumping and political favouritism.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House about an important meeting that we had on Monday with the ministers of immigration for Canada. Let me tell the House a little bit of where we are going in the future when it comes to immigration. We are creating a system that we are going to develop together with the ministers of immigration across Canada. We are going to bring our immigration system into the 21st century. I look forward to participating in that and I hope the hon. member will assist as we move forward to putting immigration clearly into the 21st century.
Lukiwski demande pourquoi la ministre accorde des récompenses politiques plutôt que de réformer le système pour que tous les immigrants puissent venir au Canada de manière équitable.
Raises the legitimate concern of lengthy wait times for immigrants versus alleged political payoffs, but the ask is vague ('fix the system') and rhetorically framed without citing specific data.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, due to massive problems in the immigration department, thousands of immigrants are forced to wait years before coming to Canada, and wait even longer before being granted resident status, but apparently problems such as this do not occur if one is a Liberal supporter. My question is for the immigration minister. Rather than giving political payoffs, why does the minister not simply fix the system and let all Canadians who want to come to Canada to do so in a fair and balanced manner?
Sgro dit vouloir aller de l'avant pour moderniser le système d'immigration avec un nouveau programme axé sur la rapidité et le développement du pays.
Sgro again pivots to a vague commitment to modernize the immigration system without addressing the specific allegation of political payoffs or providing any details on wait-time reduction measures.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that question. Exactly what I intend to do is move forward to bring our immigration system into the 21st century. That means developing a program and a process that clearly will see expediency and that will be able to help build this great nation of ours. I welcome all members on that side of the House to help us as we move forward with our new program.
Prentice demande qui reçoit des dizaines de contrats de consultation en gestion d'un montant suspect de 88 460 $ chacun, notant que les victimes ne reçoivent pas cet argent et citant la condamnation de l'APN.
Cites the AFN report released the same day, references a specific suspicious contracting pattern (dozens of contracts each at $88,460), and asks who the consultants are — a specific and well-grounded accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Deputy Prime Minister proclaimed her pride in the residential school claims program. Today the AFN condemned this system, saying that it is deeply flawed and that the government is re-victimizing aboriginal Canadians. Now it is reported that the government has issued dozens upon dozens of contracts, suspiciously each in the amount of $88,460, for management consulting services. The victims are not getting this money. Who is getting the money? Who are these consultants? Let the Deputy Prime Minister answer.
McLellan remercie l'APN pour son rapport, le décrit comme faisant partie des consultations en cours, et signale que plus de 1 000 demandes ont été reçues dans le cadre du processus de RAD.
McLellan thanks the AFN for its report and cites over 1,000 ADR applications as evidence the process is working, but does not address the $88,460 contracts or identify who the consultants are.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the AFN for the report that it released today. In fact, that report is part of the ongoing discussions and consultations that we carry on with the aboriginal community as it relates to the residential school question. I do, however, want to reassure the hon. member that our ADR process is in place. It is working and as of today, I believe, we have received over 1,000 applications for the ADR process.
Prentice demande pourquoi la vice-première ministre n'a pas informé la Chambre que ses propres fonctionnaires ont reconnu que le système est profondément déficient, citant les déclarations du grand chef selon lesquelles il est biaisé, abusif, inégal, prendra 53 ans et coûtera 2 milliards en frais administratifs.
Cites specific figures from the grand chief's statement that day — 53 years and $2 billion in administrative costs — and asks why the Deputy Prime Minister did not disclose that her own officials admitted the system is deeply flawed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is bizarre that the Deputy Prime Minister would claim that this process is a success. Today the grand chief said that the system is biased, it is abusive, it is unequal, and it is going to take 53 years and cost $2 billion in administrative costs. What a success. Would the Deputy Prime Minister please stand up and tell the House why she did not tell the House that her own officials have admitted that the system is deeply flawed?
McLellan défend le processus de RAD comme étant plus sensible et préférable à la judiciarisation de milliers de demandes, et répète que plus de 1 000 personnes ont demandé à y participer.
McLellan defends the ADR process as more sensitive and better than court litigation and repeats the 1,000 applications figure, but does not address the 53-year timeline, the $2 billion cost estimate, or the allegation about her own officials admitting flaws.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, we have in place a new process, an ADR process. It is our belief and in fact the belief of many of the victims that this process is better and it is more sensitive. It can be part of the healing process as opposed to litigating thousands of claims in the court and taking millions of dollars and years and years to resolve these claims. That is why we have an ADR process and that is why over 1,000 people have applied to participate in that process.
Le gouvernement va-t-il s'excuser auprès des expropriés et leur restituer les 11 000 acres qu'ils réclament, compte tenu de l'histoire de Mirabel et du départ des derniers vols passagers internationaux?
Cites specific dates (1969 expropriation, February 20 1996 announcement, October 31 2004 last flights) and names a concrete figure (11,000 acres) with a clear dual ask — apology and land return.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in 1969 the Liberal government decided to expropriate 100,000 acres of farmland to develop Mirabel airport. On February 20, 1996, Aéroports de Montréal announced that international passenger flights would be moved to Dorval. Finally, on October 31 of this year, the last international passenger flights left Mirabel airport. What a waste. Is the government going to apologize to those whose land was expropriated and give them back the 11,000 acres they are asking for?
Le ministre a expliqué que le gouvernement a loué les propriétés à ADM jusqu'en 2053 et que les occupants se sont vu offrir une prolongation de bail jusqu'en 2023.
Addresses the lease structure with ADM and offers a lease extension to 2023 as a partial response, but does not address the apology ask or the return of the 11,000 acres.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Government of Canada has leased all Aéroports de Montréal properties to the ADM corporation until 2053. In the meantime, other offers have been made to everyone who now occupies the land, to extend their leases until 2023. I believe that will give those who are occupying the land, for which they have already been paid, an opportunity to continue their agricultural and other uses of that land until 2023, while keeping all options open regarding the future of Mirabel airport.
Pourquoi le gouvernement ne cesse-t-il pas de se cacher derrière l'ADM, de s'excuser pour son erreur monumentale et de revendre les 11 000 acres aux expropriés?
Presses the specific ask for land return and apology again with pointed framing, but the question is more rhetorical ('What is the Liberal government waiting for?') and largely restates the prior exchange.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government must stop hiding behind ADM. It has the power and the duty to maintain the infrastructure of Mirabel airport. It has the duty to apologize for its monumental error to those whose land was expropriated and it also has the power to sell back the 11,000 acres of land they are asking for. What is the Liberal government waiting for?
Le ministre a défendu le bail de 60 ans et l'offre de prolongation jusqu'en 2023, suggérant que la révision du plan directeur d'ADM en 2023 permettra d'y voir plus clair.
The minister reiterates the lease-extension argument without addressing the apology demand or the possibility of selling back the 11,000 acres, and the answer is cut off before completion.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if signing a lease has any meaning for the hon. member. For us it does. A lease for 60 years was signed by the Canadian government of the day. Now, the people who occupy the land have been offered a lease extension until 2023. That gives them a long period of certainty. We are convinced that Aéroports de Montréal, when it reviews its master plan in 2023, will be able to see things more clearly. Still, at present, we are keeping the future open, because, perhaps, in a few years, they will say thanks to—
Le premier ministre s'engage-t-il à pourvoir les trois sièges sénatoriaux vacants de l'Alberta par des sénateurs élus par les Albertains, comme geste concret pour répondre à l'aliénation de l'Ouest?
References a concrete upcoming event (Monday's Alberta Senate election, third time Albertans are voting) and cites three specific Senate vacancies, making a clear commitment ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that western alienation is real and he would fix it. On Monday, Albertans are going back to the polls for the third time to elect their senators. The time has come for the Prime Minister to listen to Albertans. If he really wants to address western alienation, the time is now. Will the Prime Minister commit to addressing western alienation by filling the three Senate vacancies from those elected by Albertans?
Le premier ministre a parlé de manière générale de traiter les enjeux fondamentaux importants pour l'Ouest et a cité la qualité des députés et ministres gouvernementaux comme preuve d'une perspective nationale.
The Prime Minister does not address the Senate vacancies or the Alberta elections at all, pivoting instead to a general statement about addressing western alienation through good governance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the way to deal with western alienation, or any kind of alienation, is to deal with the fundamental issues that people in western Canada want to see us address. That is exactly what we are doing. In addition, a substantial step was taken after the last election. When we take a look at the outstanding men and women who are on the government side, as members of Parliament and as ministers, then we begin to see the kinds of decisions that we are taking with a national perspective, and that is the way we will deal with western alienation.
Le premier ministre tiendra-t-il sa promesse au premier ministre Klein et utilisera-t-il son pouvoir unilatéral pour nommer les sénateurs élus de l'Alberta, comme cela avait été fait avec Stan Waters il y a 14 ans sans modification constitutionnelle?
Cites the precedent of Stan Waters 14 years prior, clarifies no constitutional amendment is required, references the Prime Minister's specific pre-election commitment to Premier Klein, and asks a pointed yes/no accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that appointing any senator, elected or unelected, does not require a constitutional amendment, nor does it require approval from any province. It is very simple. It requires the same thing that happened 14 years ago when Stan Waters was appointed as Canada's first elected senator. The Prime Minister is the only person who holds the power to make this happen. The Prime Minister told Premier Klein before the federal election he would look favourably at appointing Alberta's elected senators. Will the Prime Minister keep his word to Premier Klein and use his unilateral power to appoint Alberta's elected senators?
Le ministre a dit que le gouvernement est ouvert à la réforme du Sénat mais ne le fera pas de façon fragmentaire, et qu'un large consensus à l'échelle du pays est nécessaire, ce qui n'est pas encore le cas.
The Deputy Leader does not address the Stan Waters precedent, the commitment to Premier Klein, or the unilateral appointment power, instead repeating a general position about comprehensive Senate reform.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated repeatedly that we are open to reform of the Senate, but we are not going to do it in a piecemeal manner. If we are to reform the Senate, it will be done entirely. For that, we need a consensus, a wide consensus across this country, which is obviously not present at the current time.
Le secrétaire parlementaire peut-il informer la Chambre des résultats de l'élection du président du comité militaire de l'OTAN tenue à Bruxelles?
A government backbench softball question asking for the results of a NATO election with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Earlier today there was an election in Brussels at the NATO meeting for a new chairman of the NATO military committee. Could the parliamentary secretary inform the House of the results of that election and the implications, if any, for Canada?
Le général Ray Henault, chef d'état-major de la Défense du Canada, a été élu président du comité militaire de l'OTAN et conseillera le secrétaire général de l'OTAN.
The parliamentary secretary provides the specific result — General Ray Henault elected chairman of NATO's military committee — and explains the significance of the role.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for the question; he shows an enormous interest in foreign policy. I would like to announce to the House that our chief of the defence staff, General Ray Henault, has been elected to the position of chairman of NATO's military committee. This places a Canadian at the most senior levels of NATO. General Henault will be advising the secretary general of NATO. Most important, this reflects his qualifications--
Comment se fait-il que, après que la GRC ait insisté pour des funérailles régimentaires complètes et que des agents aient promis à la veuve que les coûts seraient couverts, la veuve du surintendant Dennis Massey se retrouve avec une facture de 20 000 $?
Cites a specific date (December 18, 2002), names the individual (RCMP Superintendent Dennis Massey), specifies the location, and identifies a concrete claim — the widow being billed $20,000 after being told costs would be covered.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on December 18, 2002, RCMP Superintendent Dennis Massey died in my riding on the Trans-Canada Highway while on duty. The RCMP insisted upon a full regimental funeral and told the widow they would cover the costs. How is it the government insists on a full regimental funeral, has officers claim they would cover the costs and then tries to stick the widow with a $20,000 bill?
La ministre a précisé que c'est la GRC, et non le gouvernement, qui a pris les décisions concernant les funérailles après avoir rencontré Mme Massey, et que le commissaire a demandé une révision des trois cas en question.
The minister clarifies it was the RCMP rather than the government that made decisions, notes the commissioner has asked for a review of three cases, but does not explain how the widow came to face a $20,000 bill or what will be done about it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to answer this question yesterday. I want to clarify that it was not the government that made any decision in this case, but in fact the RCMP met with Mrs. Massey, as they do with all family members in these tragic circumstances. A decision was made as to the kind of funeral that would be held. As I indicated yesterday, obviously there are some questions arising out of this funeral and some others. That is why the commissioner has asked for a review of the three cases that are presently in question.
Combien d'autres familles d'agents fédéraux d'application de la loi tombés au combat ont dû payer leurs propres funérailles régimentaires, compte tenu de la controverse entourant les funérailles du surintendant Massey?
Builds on the prior exchange with a specific follow-up asking for a concrete number — how many other families of fallen federal law enforcement officers have had to pay for their own regimental funerals — signalling a policy accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, with all the controversy surrounding payment for RCMP Superintendent Dennis Massey's regimental funeral, it sounds like a policy change is in order. Could the Minister of Public Safety tell the House how many other families of fallen federal law enforcement officers have had to pay for their own regimental funerals?
La ministre a déclaré que la politique opérationnelle de la GRC sur les funérailles a été appliquée de manière cohérente au fil des ans et que le commissaire a demandé une révision de cette politique.
The minister does not provide any number and instead describes the operational policy as clear and consistently applied, before noting the commissioner's review, which does not answer the specific question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the operational policy of the force in relation to funerals is quite clear and it has been applied consistently over the years. Because of the events that have arisen and the questions that have been raised, the commissioner has asked for a review of this policy and I am sure we all look forward to the results of that review.
Le ministre de l'Environnement interviendra-t-il à la suite de l'autorisation accordée par le Vermont Environmental Board au site d'enfouissement de Coventry de doubler sa capacité, ce qui risque de contaminer le lac Memphrémagog?
References a specific recent decision by the Vermont Environmental Board, names the Coventry landfill site and Lake Memphremagog, notes the Bloc's prior request to the International Joint Commission, and ends with a direct ask for ministerial intervention.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Vermont Environmental Board has just authorized the Coventry landfill site to double its capacity. The neighbouring Lake Memphremagog risks being contaminated as a result. This is not a new problem. The Bloc Québécois had asked that it be raised with the International Joint Commission so that it could look into it. With this decision, Vermont is denying a request by the City of Sherbrooke and the RCM of Memphremagog to phase out the landfill. Will the Minister of the Environment intervene?
Le secrétaire parlementaire a dit que le gouvernement prend l'enjeu au sérieux, a noté que le premier ministre en a parlé au président Bush et a mentionné que la MRC de Memphrémagog a maintenant obtenu un statut.
The parliamentary secretary (responding for Foreign Affairs rather than Environment) affirms the issue is taken seriously and mentions the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush, but does not address whether the minister will intervene or what specific action will be taken following the Vermont Environmental Board decision.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a question for foreign affairs. I am pleased to say it is an issue that we on this side of the House also take seriously. I know that there are members on this side who have worked very hard on this issue. I must point out that it was no coincidence that the Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush when he had the opportunity. We are very pleased to find ourselves in a position where the RCM of Memphremagog has now been given a status.
Quelles mesures le gouvernement prend-il pour protéger les Canadiens contre une éventuelle pandémie?
A government backbench softball asking generally what steps are being taken against a pandemic, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable talk recently about the risk of a worldwide pandemic and the preparedness of different countries in dealing with such a problem. Would the Minister of State for Public Health please explain to the House what steps the government is taking to protect Canadians against a potential pandemic?
Le Canada dispose d'un plan complet de lutte contre la grippe pandémique qualifié de modèle exemplaire par l'OMS, et le ministre de la Santé et l'administrateur en chef de la santé publique étaient à l'OMS à New York pour lancer la prochaine phase du Réseau mondial d'information en santé publique.
The minister provides substantive information: Canada's pandemic influenza plan praised by WHO, the Minister of Health and chief public health officer attending the WHO in New York, and the global public health intelligence network launch with specific operational details.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member that Canada has a comprehensive pandemic influenza plan which the World Health Organization has called a best model for other countries. Today the Minister of Health and our chief public health officer for Canada were at the WHO in New York to launch the next phase of the global public health intelligence network. This made in Canada early warning system gathers and disseminates the reports of public health significance in real time on a 24/7 basis, in seven languages, at the Public Health Agency of Canada. The earlier we know about public health risks, the better prepared we can be.
Pourquoi la Chambre des communes n'a-t-elle pas été informée avant que la ministre du Patrimoine soumette la position du Canada à l'UNESCO sur la convention sur la diversité culturelle, étant donné qu'elle touche aux intérêts culturels du Québec?
References a specific UNESCO deadline (November 15), raises a procedural accountability point about why the House was not informed before Canada's position was submitted, and notes Quebec's cultural interests are engaged.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, members of UNESCO had until November 15 to state their position on the cultural diversity convention. We can assume that by now, UNESCO knows Canada's position. Can the Minister of Heritage explain why the House of Commons was not informed before she submitted Canada's position, which, as we know, engages Quebec's cultural interests?
La ministre a précisé que les commentaires écrits sont attendus pour le 19 novembre, que des consultations avec les ministères fédéraux, les provinces et la coalition culturelle sont en cours, et qu'une copie sera fournie aux députés une fois soumise.
The minister clarifies the submission deadline is November 19 (not November 15), explains consultations with federal departments, provinces, and the cultural coalition are still ongoing, and commits to providing a copy to members upon submission — partially addressing the accountability concern.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the members had until mid November, and November 19 is mid November. We will send our written comments on UNESCO's preliminary convention by November 19. In preparing this written submission, we have consulted—that is where November 19 comes into play—federal departments, the provinces and the cultural coalition. As soon as we have submitted it, we will provide hon. members with a copy as well.
Le Président a attiré l'attention de la Chambre sur des invités dans la tribune et les députés ont salué leur présence.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear!
M. Bill Casey (PCC) a soulevé un recours au Règlement pour contester la version de la ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration selon laquelle il ne lui aurait soumis le cas de la famille Heidi et Holger Renner, menacée d'expulsion, que la veille, affirmant l'avoir abordée pour la première fois le 6 octobre. La ministre Judy Sgro a reconnu l'importance du dossier et a indiqué qu'elle l'examine actuellement pour des raisons d'ordre humanitaire et de compassion.
- CPC Mr. Bill Casey
- Lib Judy Sgro
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said during question period that I asked her yesterday for a ministerial permit for my constituents, a desperate family of four in my riding, the Heidi and Holger Renner family, who are about to be deported. If the minister spoke truthfully, she would have said that I approached her on October 6 when she was in her seat in the House. Forty-two days ago I raised this issue with her. Yesterday I received 19 letters of support for the family. I gave the letters to her for this desperate family, Heidi and Holger Renner. I think it is shameful that she would compare this desperate family with her problems with an exotic dancer.
Mr. Speaker, all I want the minister to do is acknowledge that I first approached her in her seat on October 6, not yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member. It is a very important case. I am currently looking at it under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
M. Jack Layton (NPD) a soulevé un recours au Règlement pour s'opposer au fait que le ministre des Finances ait fait référence à sa présence ou à son absence durant la période des questions, et M. John Reynolds (PCC) a soulevé un recours au Règlement alléguant que le président du Conseil du Trésor avait appelé une députée « sweetheart » en criant d'un côté à l'autre de la Chambre. Le président du Conseil du Trésor, Reg Alcock, a précisé qu'il avait en réalité traité le député de Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough de « scumbag » et non de « sweetheart ».
- NDP Mr. Jack Layton
- CPC Mr. John Reynolds
- Lib Reg Alcock
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with regard to comments made by the Minister of Finance during question period. In answering a question from my colleague from Winnipeg North, the minister suggested that I may not have been in the House. I believe it is against the practice of this chamber to refer to the presence or absence of a member who has not been recognized by the Chair. Therefore I would ask that the minister be requested to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, during question period, while the member for Calgary—Nose Hill was asking a question, the President of the Treasury Board was yelling some perhaps unparliamentary comments across the aisle, but at the same time, he called her “sweetheart”. I know her husband thinks she is a sweetheart, but I do not think she wants people to know that the President of the Treasury Board is her sweetheart. I would ask him to apologize for making that statement to the hon. member during question period.
Mr. Speaker, if that was what was understood, I certainly would apologize for it. I believe what I did was call the member for Pictou—Antigonish--Guysborough a scumbag, not a sweetheart.
M. Peter MacKay (PCC) a soulevé un recours au Règlement en exigeant que le président du Conseil du Trésor retire l'utilisation du mot « scumbag » pour désigner un député. Le président du Conseil du Trésor, Reg Alcock, a retiré la remarque tout en précisant qu'il souhaitait seulement clarifier ce qu'il avait dit.
- CPC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Lib Reg Alcock
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not even know that I have to rise to that kind of ridiculous unparliamentary language. Surely you as the Speaker presiding over the House, who wants to maintain decorum would not permit a minister of the crown to stand up and call another member of Parliament a scumbag, as we have just witnessed from the minister. I know that he will now be invited to retract that comment and I know that he will rise in his place laboriously and do that immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I am only too willing to retract the remark. I just wanted to clarify what I said.