Résumé de la séance
- Le thème dominant était le Programme des commandites : les partis d'opposition ont pressé le gouvernement au sujet de l'échange de lettres avec les avocats de Jean Chrétien, que les avocats du juge Gomery ont dit menacer les travaux de la commission, tandis que les ministres citaient répétitivement la lettre du 9 juin du procureur général comme preuve de leur appui au juge Gomery.
- L'espionnage chinois au Canada a été soulevé dans quatre échanges, à la suite des affirmations du transfuge Hao Fengjun selon lesquelles la Chine opère plus de 1 000 espions au Canada et mène une campagne de harcèlement contre des membres du Falun Gong; le gouvernement a refusé de discuter des détails opérationnels et s'est limité à des assurances générales.
- Les préoccupations environnementales et sanitaires ont occupé une place importante : Jack Layton et Bob Mills ont tous deux interpellé le gouvernement sur sept jours de smog touchant l'Ontario et le Québec, le plan Kyoto du gouvernement et l'augmentation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, tandis que le gouvernement invoquait le projet de loi C-49 et son plan sur les changements climatiques.
- La contamination à l'agent orange à la BFC Gagetown et la contamination de l'eau à Shannon, au Québec, ont suscité des échanges sur les retards dans l'établissement des faits, les compensations possibles et les demandes de divulgation d'un rapport secret, le ministre de la Défense nationale soutenant qu'un processus scientifique rigoureux était en cours.
- La ministre de la Coopération internationale a apporté une correction pendant les recours au Règlement, reconnaissant avoir mentionné par erreur 500 000 $ alors que le montant exact lié au projet de loi C-48 était de 500 millions de dollars en financement potentiel de l'aide.
- La législation sur la protection des dénonciateurs prévue dans le projet de loi C-11 a fait l'objet de débats, les membres de l'opposition réclamant un commissaire véritablement indépendant pour enquêter sur les divulgations de corruption, tandis que le président du Conseil du Trésor a renvoyé le débat en comité.
La ministre de la Santé a pris un engagement précis et vérifiable, annonçant que la première phase de consultations sur l'enregistrement et la divulgation complète des renseignements sur les essais cliniques avait débuté le 8 juin, avec le premier atelier public se tenant ce jour-là à Ottawa et d'autres séances prévues à Halifax et à Vancouver.
Cites Justice Gomery's letter directly, references his lawyer's words, and poses a clear yes/no ask: will the government end the arrangement as Gomery demands?
Plutôt que de répondre à l'allégation précise de Harper selon laquelle un échange de lettres avait eu lieu à l'insu du juge Gomery contrairement à l'engagement du procureur général, le premier ministre a écarté la question comme déjà répondue, puis a offert de déposer un exemplaire du régime South Beach Diet, sans aucunement traiter le fond de la demande de reddition de comptes.
Questions sans réponse
- Stephen Harper a demandé si le gouvernement prendrait les mesures précises exigées dans la correspondance du juge Gomery du 6 juin — traiter immédiatement les allégations de partialité de M. Chrétien ou les faire retirer — et n'a reçu aucune réponse directe par oui ou par non. (Échanges 1–3)
- M. Stockwell Day a demandé si le premier ministre avait soulevé la question de l'espionnage chinois au niveau diplomatique et politique lors de sa visite en Chine en janvier; Pierre Pettigrew n'a offert qu'une déclaration générique sur les discussions en cours avec les officiels chinois sans confirmer si le sujet avait été abordé. (Échange 15)
- M. Tom Lukiwski a demandé au ministre des Travaux publics de confirmer si sa directrice des communications, Mme Susan Murray, avait téléphoné aux médias avec des chiffres trompeurs sur le coût de la commission Gomery le même jour où M. Chrétien a déposé sa requête pour annuler la commission; le ministre n'a jamais confirmé ni nié ces appels téléphoniques précis. (Échanges 22–23)
- M. Guy Côté a demandé au ministre de la Défense nationale de rendre public le rapport secret sur la contamination de l'eau à Shannon, au Québec; le ministre a reconnu le transfert de 34 millions de dollars et les travaux en cours, mais ne s'est pas engagé à divulguer le rapport. (Échanges 18–19)
- M. Jason Kenney a demandé pourquoi le ministre des Travaux publics avait dépêché sa directrice des communications pour répandre ce que le juge Gomery lui-même a qualifié d'« exagération et de déformation de la réalité » concernant le coût de sa commission; le ministre a nié cette caractérisation, mais n'a pas expliqué qui avait passé les appels ni pourquoi. (Échange 30)
Harper demande si le gouvernement mettra fin à son arrangement avec Jean Chrétien tel que le juge Gomery l'exige, citant l'avertissement de l'avocat du juge selon lequel cela met en péril les travaux de la commission.
Cites Justice Gomery's letter directly, references his lawyer's words, and poses a clear yes/no ask: will the government end the arrangement as Gomery demands?
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery has written to the government demanding that it reverse its deal with Jean Chrétien. Through his lawyer, Justice Gomery says that the arrangement is not in the public interest. In fact, his lawyer says that “the ability of Justice Gomery to complete his work will be put in jeopardy”. He asked the government directly to either expedite Mr. Chrétien's accusations of bias or have them withdrawn. Will the government end the arrangement with Mr. Chrétien as Justice Gomery demands, yes or no?
Martin nie l'existence de tout arrangement et affirme que le gouvernement s'oppose à toute contestation de l'impartialité du juge Gomery, maintenant ou à l'avenir.
Martin flatly denies any 'arrangement' exists without addressing the specific correspondence cited, and does not answer whether the government will comply with Gomery's request.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no such arrangement. Our position is very clear. There should not be a challenge to the impartiality of Mr. Justice Gomery. There should not be a challenge now and there should not be a challenge later. If there is, we will oppose it.
Harper insiste pour savoir si le premier ministre fera ce que le juge Gomery demande précisément — régler immédiatement la demande de Chrétien ou la retirer — compte tenu de la contradiction entre le soutien public et les démarches privées.
Harper sharpens the ask by characterizing the discrepancy between public support and private dealings, and reiterates the specific request Gomery made, but does not introduce new documentary evidence.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is not the arrangement the government made. While the Prime Minister supports the judge in public, he is making a deal in private to the contrary with Mr. Chrétien. The judge has just asked the government to either deal with Mr. Chrétien's request immediately, or withdraw it so that the judge can do his work in peace. Will the Prime Minister do what Justice Gomery is asking or not?
Martin répète qu'il n'y a aucun accord et que le gouvernement s'oppose à toute contestation de l'impartialité du juge Gomery.
Martin again simply denies any agreement exists and restates the same position from Exchange 1, entirely ignoring the specific request Gomery made to the government.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this time I will say it in French: there is no agreement. Our position is clear. Justice Gomery's impartiality should not be challenged, not now, not ever. If it is, we will object.
Harper affirme que le gouvernement a échangé des lettres en coulisse sans en informer le juge Gomery, contrairement à l'engagement du procureur général, et demande si le gouvernement se conformera aux exigences de Gomery du 6 juin ou continuera à travailler avec les avocats de Chrétien.
Harper cites a specific letter dated June 6, references the Attorney General's prior undertaking, and the allegation that Gomery was not informed — grounding the question in identifiable documents.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, these answers by the Prime Minister are simply not factually correct. Here is what the Prime Minister is doing. He had an exchange of letters, call it what they will, behind Justice Gomery's back. Justice Gomery was not even informed about this. It was contrary to the undertaking the Attorney General had made. Now Justice Gomery is demanding, in his correspondence of June 6, very specific action by the government. Is the government willing to take that action or is it going to continue to work hand in hand with Chrétien's lawyers?
Martin prétend avoir déjà répondu deux fois, puis dépose un exemplaire de The South Beach Diet comme attaque personnelle envers Harper, sans offrir de réponse substantielle.
Martin does not address the June 6 correspondence or the specific action Gomery demanded; instead he tables a copy of The South Beach Diet as a personal attack on Harper, a complete non-answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have now answered the hon. member's questions twice, but I would like to raise another issue. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party has said that the Leader of the Opposition is going to spend this summer on the barbecue circuit. I understand the dangers of the barbecue circuit and I would therefore like to table this document for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition this summer. It is a document called The South Beach Diet .
Toews demande au procureur général pourquoi il n'a pas donné suite à la demande précise des avocats du juge Gomery d'obtenir le retrait permanent des allégations de partialité de Chrétien ou leur règlement immédiat devant les tribunaux.
Toews specifically attributes the request to Justice Gomery's lawyers, states the precise ask (permanently withdraw or deal with bias allegations immediately), and directs the question to the Attorney General, making it highly targeted.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not think--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians are impressed by that kind of answer. Lawyers representing Justice Gomery have specifically asked the Liberal government to take all necessary steps to have Jean Chrétien permanently withdraw his allegations of bias against Justice Gomery or to have those allegations dealt with immediately in court. My question is for the Attorney General of Canada. Why has he not complied with Justice Gomery's request? It is not an issue of what the deal is. Why has he not made that request and complied with that request?
Cotler cite le mémoire de faits et de droit du gouvernement montrant qu'il s'est vigoureusement opposé à la demande de Chrétien et a soutenu que l'allégation de partialité était sans fondement.
Cotler quotes the exchange of letters to show the government opposed Chrétien's application on the merits, but does not explain why the government has not complied with Gomery's specific procedural request.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think I need to remind the member opposite of what is written in this exchange of letters: It is clear from the memorandum of fact and law filed on behalf of the Attorney General in response to Mr. Chrétien's judicial review application that the government was vigorously opposing Mr. Chrétien's application. The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected. That remains our position.
Toews demande pourquoi, alors que l'intérêt public exige une pleine coopération avec le juge Gomery, le gouvernement n'a pas donné suite à sa demande et semble plutôt servir les intérêts politiques du Parti libéral.
Toews presses on why the government failed to act as Gomery requested, but frames it partly rhetorically by accusing the Liberals of serving partisan interests over the public interest.
Texte source
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have refused to comply with Justice Gomery's request. That is the issue. Despite Liberal claims of cooperation with Justice Gomery, the truth is that by failing to act the government is working with Mr. Chrétien to derail Justice Gomery's commission. Why is it that when the public interest demands full cooperation with Justice Gomery the government is only concerned about the political interests of the Liberal Party? Why did this government not act as requested by Justice Gomery?
Cotler convient que l'intérêt public exige une pleine coopération avec la commission du juge Gomery et affirme que le gouvernement continuera à le soutenir pleinement contre toute allégation de partialité ou tentative de retarder la commission.
Cotler affirms general support for Gomery but does not explain why the government did not take the specific action requested, deflecting with a reminder that the government established the commission.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at this point the member opposite is correct. The public interest demands full cooperation with Mr. Justice Gomery's commission which, I would remind him again, we established. We not only cooperate with him but have fully supported and will continue to fully support him against any allegation of partiality. We will continue to support him against any attempt to retard or delay the commission. Our position is that we support Mr. Justice Gomery fully.
Gauthier demande au gouvernement de reconnaître que l'échange de lettres n'a eu que pour effet de déstabiliser et d'inquiéter le juge Gomery tout en rassurant le clan Chrétien.
Gauthier asks the government to acknowledge a specific concrete effect of the exchange of letters — destabilizing Gomery and reassuring the Chrétien clan — but frames it as a rhetorical challenge rather than a precise factual ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the war on legalities between Jean Chrétien and Judge Gomery, it is all very well for the government to say it supports Judge Gomery every way it can, but will it acknowledge that the exchange of letters has had only one effect, which is to destabilize and concern the judge and reassure the Chrétien clan? That is the effect of the work.
Cotler réaffirme que le gouvernement a soutenu et continuera de soutenir le juge Gomery et s'est opposé et s'opposera aux tentatives de retarder la commission.
Cotler repeats boilerplate support for Gomery and opposition to delays but does not address the specific claim that the exchange of letters destabilized the judge and reassured the Chrétien clan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we supported Judge Gomery in the past when allegations of bias were levelled against him and we will continue to support him in the future. We opposed attempts to delay the commission and, in the future, we will do so again.
Gauthier demande, en citant la lettre du 9 juin dans laquelle l'avocat du gouvernement s'est opposé à la démarche du juge Gomery pour régler la question de partialité avant la rédaction de son rapport, si le gouvernement donnera instruction à ses avocats de soutenir véritablement le juge Gomery.
Gauthier cites the specific June 9 letter and its content, identifies a direct contradiction between the government's stated position and what its lawyers argued in that letter, and asks the government to instruct its lawyers to actually support Gomery.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice is speaking truthfully, he should admit that the government did such a bad job that it has ended up doing the opposite. That is the exact opposite of what he is saying. In a letter dated June 9, counsel for the government contends that he does not support the action of Judge Gomery, who wants to have the matter of his bias settled before he begins drafting his report. Will the government, which says it supports Judge Gomery, ask its lawyers to really support Judge Gomery, contrary to what it says in the June 9 letter?
Cotler cite la lettre du 9 juin pour affirmer que le mémoire du procureur général s'est vigoureusement opposé à la demande de révision judiciaire de Chrétien et a soutenu que l'allégation de partialité était sans fondement.
Cotler quotes the June 9 letter's reference to the factum opposing Chrétien's bias allegation, which partially addresses the substance, but does not acknowledge or resolve the contradiction Gauthier identified regarding the procedural support for Gomery's hearing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to the June 9 letter, the factum presented on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, in response to Mr. Chrétien's request for a judicial review, shows clearly that the government vigorously opposed Mr. Chrétien's request. The Attorney General argues primarily that Mr. Chrétien's allegations of bias are unfounded and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness has always been respected.
Guimond demande comment le gouvernement peut être cru lorsqu'il affirme publiquement soutenir totalement le juge Gomery alors qu'une lettre du 9 juin de ses propres avocats dit qu'ils ne peuvent pas le soutenir devant la Cour fédérale.
Guimond cites the June 9 letter and its specific contradiction with the Minister of Public Works's previous day statements, asking how the government can be believed given the inconsistency.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that Justice Gomery had the government's support, but he was careful not to tell us that a letter from the government's counsel dated June 9 says the exact opposite, that the government cannot support Justice Gomery regarding his hearing before the federal court. How are we supposed to believe the government when it changes its version every day? On one hand, its own lawyers are saying that they cannot support Justice Gomery, while on the other hand, the government says in this House that it totally supports Justice Gomery.
Brison indique que la lettre du 9 juin a été déposée à la commission Gomery, cite son libellé selon lequel l'allégation de partialité de Chrétien était sans fondement, et affirme que le gouvernement soutient la position du juge Gomery qui veut avoir qualité pour faire valoir ses arguments.
Brison notes the letter was tabled at the Gomery commission and quotes its language opposing the bias allegation, and adds that the government supports Justice Gomery's standing request, partially engaging the contradiction but not fully resolving it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member refers to the June 9 letter. In fact, the Prime Minister referred to that letter yesterday and it was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday. In that letter, once again, it is clearly stated that the Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that “Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”. We support Justice Gomery's work and in fact we support his position that he wants standing in order to make his case. We support that position.
Guimond demande pourquoi, si le premier ministre veut vraiment soutenir le juge Gomery de toutes les façons possibles, il a donné instruction à ses avocats d'écrire à Jean Chrétien d'une manière qui a rassuré Chrétien et perturbé le juge Gomery.
Guimond asks a pointed question about why the Prime Minister instructed lawyers to write to Chrétien — which reassured Chrétien and unsettled Gomery — if he truly wants to support Gomery in any way he can.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in one of his rare responses in the House, says he wants to support Justice Gomery in any way he can. If that is the case, then why did he need to instruct his lawyers to write to Jean Chrétien, which reassured the former PM and unsettled Justice Gomery?
Cotler distingue entre le fond et la procédure, affirmant que le gouvernement a soutenu Gomery contre les allégations de partialité sur le fond et soutient également son audience procédurale devant le tribunal.
Cotler distinguishes substance from procedure to claim support on both fronts but does not explain the decision to write to Chrétien or why the lawyers' letter had the effect Guimond described.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion between substance and procedure. In terms of substance, we have supported and will continue to support Justice Gomery against any charges of bias. As for procedure, we also support Justice Gomery regarding his hearing before the court.
Layton demande si le premier ministre admettra que le plan Kyoto de son gouvernement a échoué depuis 12 ans, citant sept jours consécutifs de smog et les critiques de spécialistes en santé, de 11 organisations environnementales et du Globe and Mail, et quand il présentera un meilleur plan.
Layton references seven days of smog, cites health experts, 11 environmental organizations, and the Globe and Mail as critics of the Kyoto plan, but the ask — 'bring in a better plan' — is vague and the 12-year framing is rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For seven straight days residents of Ontario and Quebec have been choking on smog, not just in southern Ontario but in northern Ontario as well. Health experts, 11 environmental organizations and even the Globe and Mail are saying that the government's Kyoto plan will not do the job. Is the Prime Minister capable of admitting that over 12 years the results have not come about? When is he going to bring in a better plan?
Martin affirme que le gouvernement dispose de l'un des meilleurs plans de lutte contre les changements climatiques parmi les grands pays et que le dernier budget a été qualifié par la plupart des environnementalistes comme peut-être le budget le plus vert jamais présenté.
Martin praises the government's climate change plan and budget as among the best without addressing the specific criticisms from health experts and environmental organizations or committing to any concrete change.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to examine the government's climate change plan or the government's overall environmental thrust, what he will see is one of the best climate change plans of any of the major countries. He will also see that the most recent budget was qualified by most environmentalists as perhaps the greenest budget ever. The reason is that we are very much aware of the environmental problems caused by smog, impure water and impure air. The fact is that this government is dedicated to dealing with those issues.
Layton demande si le gouvernement prendra enfin des mesures concrètes concernant la situation de Devils Lake, qu'il décrit comme une crise environnementale imminente menaçant les eaux du Manitoba.
Layton raises Devils Lake as a specific and imminent environmental crisis affecting Manitoba's water, asking whether action will follow, but the question is partly rhetorical and the ask is not precisely defined.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of saying that everything is under control, one would think that the government might finally be willing to admit that it is not and take some responsibility, but obviously that is not going to happen. Let us turn to Devils Lake for a moment. Here is an environmental crisis that is about to hit this country. Manitoba's water is about to be polluted. There has been no movement whatsoever on the issue. Are we finally going to get some action on the Devils Lake situation? Or are we just going to get more words about how important it is, but no results?
Dion critique un député néo-démocrate pour avoir prétendument insulté les États-Unis et affirme que le Canada travaille fort avec ses amis américains pour empêcher l'ouverture de l'émissaire sans évaluations environnementales appropriées, sans préciser d'action concrète.
Dion does not address Devils Lake or what action the government is taking; instead he pivots to criticizing an unnamed NDP MP for allegedly insulting the United States, making the answer almost entirely a deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the leader of the NDP would stand up today and say that he has no link at all with what one of his MPs said, because it is not a time to insult our friends in the United States. It is time to work with them to be sure that the wrong thing will not be done and this outlet will not be opened at a time when there have not been proper environmental assessments. We have a treaty to respect. We are working very hard and we will have results, but with no insults to anyone.
MacKay demande combien d'espions chinois ont été arrêtés ou expulsés, citant les affirmations du transfuge Hao Fengjun faisant état de plus de 1 000 espions chinois au Canada et un avertissement de décembre du SCRS concernant l'espionnage économique, et ce que le gouvernement fera pour protéger la souveraineté et la sécurité canadiennes.
MacKay cites Hao Fengjun by name, references a December CSIS statement, mentions Sidewinder, and poses a specific double ask: how many Chinese spies have been arrested or deported and what will the government do.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Hao Fengjun, a former police officer and Chinese defector, says that China has more than 1,000 spies operating in Canada. Last December, CSIS said that foreign governments were resorting to economic espionage against Canada, and China has been one of the most enterprising in gaining access to information from sensitive industries, including the energy and technology sectors. Sidewinder is another example. The Prime Minister was questioned about this in February. As usual, he refused to act. Can he now tell the House just how many Chinese spies have been arrested or deported? What is he going to do to protect Canadian sovereignty and security?
McLellan refuse de discuter des détails opérationnels du SCRS et offre une assurance générale que le SCRS, la GRC et d'autres agences sont au courant des activités des gouvernements étrangers et prennent toutes les mesures raisonnables et nécessaires pour protéger la sécurité des Canadiens.
McLellan refuses to discuss operational details of CSIS and offers only a general reassurance that agencies are aware of foreign government activities, without addressing the specific numbers asked or any concrete action.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, we are not going to discuss operational details of our intelligence gathering agency, CSIS, in the House or anywhere else. I do want to reassure the hon. member and all Canadians that not only CSIS but the RCMP and other intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies are very much aware of the activities of various foreign governments in this country. We take all steps that are reasonable and necessary to protect not only the security of Canadians, but the economic security of our businesses in this country.
MacKay demande si le gouvernement demandera une copie du rapport de renseignement chinois de Hao concernant un pratiquant du Falun Gong aux autorités australiennes et fera une demande formelle à la Chine de cesser le harcèlement des citoyens canadiens.
MacKay cites a CSIS report on foreign intelligence services manipulating expatriates, names Hao's report given to Australian authorities, and poses two specific asks: request the report from Australia and make a formal request to China to cease harassment of Canadian citizens.
Texte source
In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is not very reassuring at all because the government knows the problem is there and yet does nothing. Mr. Hao says that in addition to spying, China is conducting a campaign of intimidation and harassment against Falun Gong members, mainly in Toronto and Vancouver. This action is consistent with a CSIS report that foreign intelligence services manipulate, threaten and exploit expatriates living in Canada. Mr. Hao claims that he has given a Chinese intelligence report about a Falun Gong practitioner in Canada to the Australian authorities. Will our government request a copy of this report from Australia and will it make a formal request to the Chinese government to cease and desist in the harassment of Canadian citizens?
McLellan affirme être au courant des allégations concernant les droits des membres du Falun Gong, mais refuse de discuter des détails opérationnels, demandant à MacKay de respecter le fait que le SCRS ne peut pas fonctionner si on l'y oblige.
McLellan again refuses to discuss operational details and does not address either specific request — obtaining Hao's report from Australia or making a formal diplomatic demand to China — offering only awareness of Falun Gong allegations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of Falun Gong members and some of the allegations and assertions made in relation to their right to peacefully express their points of view and to peacefully associate and demonstrate in this country. However, as I said earlier in response to the first part of the member's question, we do not discuss operational details. I have no intention of doing so now. I would ask the hon. member to respect the fact that agencies like CSIS could not conduct their activities on behalf of Canadians if we were expected to discuss operational details.
Day demande si le gouvernement a convoqué des représentants chinois au Canada pour obtenir une explication complète à la suite des affirmations d'un deuxième transfuge chinois faisant état d'un réseau d'espionnage opérationnel sur le sol canadien.
Day references a second Chinese defector claiming an operational network on Canadian soil, provides context of earlier dismissal, and poses a direct yes/no ask about whether the government has called on Chinese officials for a full explanation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, when we raised the possibility of Chinese espionage in Canada, the government did not seem concerned in the least. Now a second Chinese defector is claiming that there is an operational network on Canadian soil. Has the government called on Chinese officials here in Canada to get a full explanation, yes or no?
Pettigrew affirme que le Canada est toujours en contact avec les représentants chinois dans la capitale et aborde diverses questions, notamment le respect des droits de la personne et le droit des citoyens canadiens à s'exprimer librement.
Pettigrew says Canada is 'always in touch' with Chinese officials and discusses human rights broadly but does not directly answer whether officials were specifically called in to explain the espionage allegations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are always in touch with Chinese officials in the capital. We discuss a number of issues relating to the respect for human rights and the right of Canadian citizens to express themselves in the way they want. This is a free country. We will always insist that people are free to do so in this country. This is what we have been expressing to the Chinese officials.
Day demande si le premier ministre a soulevé les allégations d'espionnage chinois au niveau diplomatique et politique lors de sa visite en Chine en janvier, mettant explicitement de côté toute question opérationnelle du SCRS.
Day explicitly sets aside CSIS operations, focuses the question on whether the Prime Minister raised espionage issues at the diplomatic and political level during his January visit to China, making it a specific and answerable accountability question.
Texte source
There was no answer there, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking about the operations of CSIS. If these allegations are true, then clearly this has implications on our security and sovereignty. If the allegations are false, it has implications on our relations with China. When the Prime Minister was in China in January and these allegations were out there, in the interests of Canadian sovereignty, did the Prime Minister raise these issues with officials? We are not talking about CSIS. Did he raise these issues at the diplomatic and political level?
Pettigrew affirme que le Canada ne manque jamais l'occasion de discuter de questions avec les représentants chinois et veillera toujours à ce que les droits des citoyens à s'exprimer soient respectés au Canada, sans aborder la visite en Chine de janvier.
Pettigrew repeats the same boilerplate about always being in touch with Chinese officials and respecting citizens' rights without confirming or denying whether the Prime Minister raised espionage issues during the January China visit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we never lose any opportunity to have discussions with Chinese officials here in this country. We will always ensure that the rights of citizens to express themselves in whatever way they choose will always be respected in Canada.
Pourquoi le gouvernement procède-t-il encore à des recherches de faits sur les essais à l'agent orange à Gagetown alors que des demandes d'indemnisation existent depuis 15 ans et que la nature toxique de l'agent orange est bien documentée?
The question cites a specific ministerial statement from the previous day and grounds the challenge in a documented 15-year claims history and known toxicological studies, with a clear implicit ask about why fact-finding is still ongoing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday concerning agent orange testing in Gagetown, New Brunswick during the 1960s, the Minister of National Defence said that what the department is trying to do today is reconstruct the facts, establish the connections, and look at the type of compensation that could be offered those affected. How can the minister explain that the government is still engaged in fact finding when there have been claims for compensation for the past 15 years, and when the highly toxic nature of agent orange has been well known and documented in a number of studies since its use in Vietnam?
Le ministre affirme que les événements remontent à 45 ans, que le gouvernement reconstruit les faits et communiquera avec les personnes touchées pour assurer justice et équité, et qu'il faut du temps pour procéder correctement et scientifiquement.
The minister repeats the same 'reconstruct the facts' framing from the previous day without addressing the 15-year compensation claims history or the documented science the questioner cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday in the House, these events and the use of these products date back 45 years. We are trying to reconstruct the facts and the consequences. We will be contacting all those affected in order to determine how we can ensure that justice and equity are served in this matter, as we have in numerous other similar cases. We just need the time to see that this is done properly and scientifically.
Dès que le gouvernement a pris connaissance des dangers liés à l'utilisation de l'agent orange, n'aurait-il pas dû avertir le public du danger plutôt que de tenter de gagner du temps pendant que les victimes souffrent?
The question raises a legitimate accountability point about the government's obligation to warn the public of hazards, but is framed rhetorically and lacks specific factual grounding beyond what was established in the prior exchange.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as soon as the government was aware of the hazards relating to the use of agent orange, ought it not to have warned the public of the danger it was exposed to, instead of trying to buy time, as the minister is still trying to do, while knowing full well, as in all such cases, that time is never on the side of the victims?
Le ministre nie tout camouflage, souligne que les mêmes faits étaient disponibles pendant les neuf ans où les conservateurs étaient au pouvoir, et affirme que le gouvernement fait un effort honnête pour trouver des solutions correctement et scientifiquement.
The minister deflects by asserting there was no cover-up and pivoting to the Conservative government's record during the nine years they were in power, without addressing the warning-the-public obligation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have never tried to cover up what happened. We are trying to find out exactly what did happen. As you know, and as I said in the House yesterday, during the nine years the Conservatives were in power, those same facts and the same knowledge of the consequences of past use of those same products were available. We are making a very honest effort at this time to find solutions to an old problem, one that is very significant for members of the forces and of the public. We will do so properly and scientifically.
Le ministre cessera-t-il de tergiverser et rendra-t-il public sans délai le rapport secret sur la contamination de l'eau à Shannon?
The question identifies a specific secret report on water contamination in Shannon and makes a clear, answerable ask — make the report public — while noting the minister's pattern of deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence dodges my question and repeats himself whenever we ask him about the contamination of water in the town of Shannon. He says that drinking water is now available, that the facts need to be determined and responsibility established. However, what the public wants is access to the report the government is keeping under wraps. Will the minister stop hedging and give the public what it wants by making this secret report public? Will he make it public without delay?
Le ministre affirme que le gouvernement a transféré plus de 34 millions de dollars à Shannon, raccordé des maisons à de l'eau potable, et travaille à déterminer la source de la contamination et les responsables, et ce correctement et scientifiquement.
The minister provides some relevant financial context ($34 million transferred, houses connected to safe drinking water) but does not address the specific ask about making the secret report public.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have taken action with regard to the town of Shannon. We have transferred over $34 million to this community. We have provided a number of houses with direct access to safe drinking water. We are continuing our efforts and working closely with the community in order to determine, first, the source of the contamination and, second, those responsible. The member is well aware that there are a number of sources. We must do what needs to be done, properly and scientifically.
Le ministre comprend-il que les citoyens de Shannon veulent accéder au rapport maintenant pour ne pas se faire dire dans 20 ans que personne ne savait, comme cela s'est passé à Gagetown?
The question draws a parallel with Gagetown to press urgency about the Shannon report, but the ask is emotionally framed and lacks new factual specificity beyond the prior exchange.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we know what the government does when it is the one responsible for this kind of thing: it tries to bury it. We do not want another Gagetown. Does the minister understand that the people of Shannon want access to the report now, because they do not want to be told in 20 years that no one knew?
Le ministre conteste l'affirmation selon laquelle le gouvernement tente d'enterrer le dossier en citant 161 maisons raccordées à de l'eau potable et plus de 34 millions de dollars transférés à la communauté, et affirme que le gouvernement travaille en étroite collaboration avec celle-ci.
The minister pushes back directly on the 'burying' characterization with concrete figures — 161 houses connected, over $34 million transferred — which partially addresses the concern, though still does not address releasing the report.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, how can the member say that we are trying to bury this when we connected 161 houses to safe drinking water? Furthermore, we have transferred over $34 million to the community. We are working closely with the community and examining all the factors in order to determine the facts and find a solution that is appropriate and fair for the entire community.
Pourquoi le premier ministre continue-t-il d'induire la Chambre en erreur en affirmant à tort que la lettre aux avocats de M. Chrétien disait 'Nous nous opposons fermement à tout ce qui pourrait retarder le rapport', alors que cette déclaration ne figure pas dans la lettre?
The question cites a specific letter, contrasts it with what the Prime Minister said in the House, and makes a focused and answerable accusation that a specific quoted statement is not in the letter to Mr. Chrétien's lawyers.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the government misled the House by denying the existence of a secret arrangement with Jean Chrétien. Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of this arrangement. He incorrectly said that the letter read, “We fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report”. That statement is not in the letter to Mr. Chrétien's lawyers. Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead the House?
Le ministre cite la lettre du 9 juin selon laquelle la position principale du procureur général était que l'allégation de partialité de M. Chrétien était sans fondement, et cite l'Ottawa Citizen qualifiant la position conservatrice d'absurde.
The minister quotes a different passage from the June 9 letter rather than addressing whether the Prime Minister's specific quoted statement appears in the letter, and ends with a quote from the Ottawa Citizen dismissing the opposition's position.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the June 9 letter in fact does say, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”. Further, today's Ottawa Citizen said this about the Conservative Party's position: The notion, retailed by [the Leader of the Opposition], that this correspondence reveals a plot between [the Prime Minister] and his predecessor to delay Gomery's report, and, hence, the date of the next election, is beyond absurd.
Pourquoi la lettre du gouvernement donne-t-elle en fait à M. Chrétien le feu vert pour empêcher le juge Gomery de faire rapport de ses conclusions, contrairement à ce qu'a affirmé le premier ministre?
The question persists on the specific letter and asks why it gives Mr. Chrétien a green light to prevent Mr. Justice Gomery from reporting his findings, but relies more on assertion than on citing specific letter text.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what is absurd is that answer. Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of a letter outlining the secret arrangements between Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal government. He claimed it defended Gomery. This is not the case. Why does the government's letter in fact give Mr. Chrétien the green light to prevent Mr. Justice Gomery from reporting his findings?
Le ministre cite à nouveau le passage de la lettre du 9 juin sur la position principale du procureur général concernant l'allégation de partialité de M. Chrétien, et affirme que les Canadiens savent que le premier ministre et le gouvernement appuient les travaux du juge Gomery.
The minister simply repeats verbatim the same passage quoted in Exchange 20 and adds a condescending aside, without addressing the specific claim that the letter gave Mr. Chrétien a green light to prevent Gomery from reporting.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister read from a June 9 letter that was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday and has been tabled in the House. The letter said, and I will speak very slowly so that the hon. member can understand it. Once again, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”. I hope he gets it now because Canadians get it. Canadians know that the Prime Minister and the government support the work of Justice Gomery.
Pourquoi la directrice des communications du ministre, Mme Susan Murray, a-t-elle faussement informé les médias que les coûts de la commission Gomery dépassaient 70 millions de dollars le même jour où M. Chrétien a déposé sa motion pour annuler la commission Gomery, et pourquoi le gouvernement fait-il tout ce qu'il peut pour discréditer le juge Gomery?
The question names a specific official (Ms. Susan Murray), cites a specific false figure ($70 million), and links the timing of her calls to Mr. Chrétien's motion to quash, making a focused accountability ask about coordinated action to discredit Justice Gomery.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, day after day the Minister of Public Works has stood in the House pretending to defend Justice Gomery. We now know that the minister's director of communications, Ms. Susan Murray, falsely advised members of the media that the cost of Gomery was over $70 million. We also know that she made these false allegations on the same day that Jean Chrétien filed his motion to quash Justice Gomery. Clearly, there is a coordinated effort between the government and Jean Chrétien to discredit Justice Gomery. Why is the government doing everything in its power to discredit Justice Gomery and why is it not wanting to find out the truth?
Le ministre affirme que les coûts de l'ordre de 69 à 70 millions de dollars comprennent les coûts directs et les coûts de coopération des ministères couvrant 20 millions de pages de documents, et soutient que le gouvernement est absolument engagé à travailler avec le juge Gomery.
The minister addresses the $70 million figure by explaining it includes departmental cooperation costs and 20 million pages of documents, which is partial engagement with the factual basis but does not address the communications director's specific actions or their timing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the costs of Justice Gomery are in fact in the range of $69 million to $70 million. Those costs include not just the direct costs of Justice Gomery but also the costs involved with the departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and the coordination of, for instance, 20 million pages of documents that have been provided to Gomery. We are absolutely committed to working with Justice Gomery. We want Justice Gomery to succeed. That is one of the reasons why Canadians support the Liberals and not the Conservatives. Canadians want Justice Gomery to succeed as well and they trust our government and our Prime Minister to ensure that Gomery succeeds.
Le ministre confirmera-t-il que sa directrice des communications a téléphoné aux médias pour affirmer que les coûts de Gomery s'élevaient à 70 millions de dollars, et qu'elle a fait ces appels le même jour où M. Chrétien a déposé sa motion pour annuler Gomery?
The question cites Justice Gomery's own confirmed cost figure of $30 million, contrasts it with the $70 million figure, and makes two specific confirming asks about the communications director's phone calls and their timing relative to Mr. Chrétien's motion.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am totally amazed at the ability of the minister to give that answer with a straight face. Justice Gomery himself has confirmed that the cost of his inquiry will only be $30 million or in that range. The rest of the money is money that the government spent on a war room. Will the minister, however, confirm that his director of communications placed phone calls to the media stating that the cost of Gomery was $70 million? Will he further confirm that she made these phone calls on the same day Mr. Chrétien filed his motion to quash Gomery? Members of the media who received those phone calls will be very interested in the minister's response.
Le ministre ne confirme pas les appels téléphoniques, réaffirmant plutôt que les coûts directs du juge Gomery plus les coûts de coopération des ministères atteindront les 70 millions de dollars, et affirme que changer la culture gouvernementale en vaut le coût.
The minister does not confirm or deny the communications director's phone calls or their timing, instead restating the departmental cooperation cost explanation and pivoting to a partisan broadside about the opposition.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Canadians are always interested in the response of any minister of the government because Canadians know that when ministers of the government rise to give answers in the House of Commons, we do so seriously, in the interests of Canadians, and based on facts, unlike the opposition. Justice Gomery's direct costs and the costs involved with government departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery, and coordinating over 20 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents going back to 1994, will reach the $70 million range. That is well worth the cost. Changing the culture of government for generations is worth the cost.
La ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales peut-elle préciser à la Chambre comment le Québec bénéficiera du projet de loi C-48, compte tenu du vote du Bloc contre celui-ci?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to clarify how Quebec benefits from Bill C-48, framed as an implicit attack on the Bloc.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Bloc Québécois joined with the Conservatives to delete all the clauses of Bill C-48. In voting with the Conservatives against C-48, the Bloc voted against additional funding for Quebec in areas that are very important to many Quebeckers. Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48?
La ministre affirme que la position du Bloc est incompréhensible et indéfendable, citant le financement de l'éducation postsecondaire pour les étudiants, le soutien supplémentaire au logement abordable par l'entremise du FRAPRU et le soutien à Transport 2000 comme avantages que le Québec perdrait.
The minister provides specific examples of Quebec stakeholders who would benefit — students, FRAPRU for affordable housing, Transport 2000 — making it a substantive if partisan answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position on Bill C-48 is not only incomprehensible but indefensible, because it will deprive individuals and institutions in Quebec of the support they need. How will students be told there will be no extra help for them with post-secondary education? How will FRAPRU be told that it will no longer get additional support for affordable housing? How will Transport 2000 be told that it will get no extra help? The Liberal Government of Canada will help—
Le ministre de la Défense nationale agira-t-il pour nettoyer les bases radar contaminées sur la côte de la Baie James, étant donné que les dirigeants cris exigent des mesures et que la province de l'Ontario est prête à payer 50 % des coûts?
The question identifies a specific community (Mushkegowuk Cree), a specific problem (contaminated hunting grounds on radar bases), a specific provincial offer (50% cost-sharing), and makes a direct ask about whether the minister will engage.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence of his obligation to the people of the James Bay coast. Forty years is a long time for the Mushkegowuk Cree to wait for the government to come back and clean up the mess it left on the radar bases. I have met with the families who live with badly contaminated hunting grounds. Nobody told them of the danger and nobody did anything to clean up the mess. The Cree leadership is demanding action. We have the provincial government at the table willing to pay 50% of the cost of the federal government's mess. It is waiting on the minister. Is he going to show up?
Le ministre affirme que les terres ont été transférées à l'Ontario en 1965 et gérées par la province depuis lors, mais souligne que le gouvernement fédéral travaille avec l'Ontario sur des activités spécifiques de nettoyage environnemental à la demande de la province.
The minister provides the relevant context that the lands were transferred to Ontario in 1965 and are the province's responsibility, and notes the federal government is working with the province on cleanup — partial engagement that shifts but does not fully dismiss the accountability.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to lands that were transferred to the province of Ontario in 1965 and have been managed by the province since 1965, not by this department and not by the federal government but by the province of Ontario. At the request of the province, we are working with it to deal with specific environmental cleanup activities at the sites. We are discussing with the province how we can deal with this matter, but it is totally erroneous to suggest to the House that we are not working on this. The House must bear in mind that these lands were transferred to the province for its responsibility in 1965.
Pourquoi le gouvernement accorde-t-il 13 millions de dollars en subventions au pont Ambassador pour les agents des douanes tout en refusant le même traitement à un service de traversier frontalier à un kilomètre de là, et la vice-première ministre s'engagera-t-elle à régler ce problème?
The question cites a Senate committee report, identifies specific figures ($13 million subsidization for the Ambassador Bridge), contrasts that with a denied ferry service, and begins a direct ask of the Deputy Prime Minister — though the question is cut off.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a Senate committee report today once again condemns the Liberal government's inaction on our borders. In particular, it noted many of the problems in the Windsor-Detroit corridor and the fact that national security and economic prosperity has been compromised by government dithering. This year alone, the Ambassador Bridge is going to receive $13 million in subsidization for customs officers and staffing. Meanwhile, just a kilometre down the river, the government is denying a border ferry service, with a similar small operation, the same treatment. It also is denying the community a solution to many of the problems we have. This has been in the courts for five years. Will the Deputy Prime Minister--
La vice-première ministre affirme que la situation spécifique mentionnée est devant les tribunaux et qu'il serait inapproprié de commenter davantage, mais confirme que le gouvernement reconnaît l'importance cruciale du passage Windsor-Détroit et travaille avec plusieurs partenaires.
The Deputy Prime Minister notes the matter is before the courts and therefore declines to comment on the specific ferry service issue, then pivots to general comments about the importance of the Windsor-Detroit crossing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member knows that in relation to the situation to which he has just referred, this is a matter before the courts. The parties are in discussions around this matter and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. However, as it relates to Windsor-Detroit, both on our side and on the American side, we are very aware of just how critically important this crossing is to the economic lifeblood of this nation. This is why my colleague, the secretary responsible for homeland security and myself, as well as the state of Michigan, the province of Ontario and my colleague, the Minister of Transport, are all working together to ensure we have--
Quand le gouvernement cessera-t-il d'accorder de l'aide à la Chine communiste, compte tenu de son bilan désastreux en matière de droits de la personne, de ses achats de sociétés canadiennes et de la confirmation que la Chine dispose de mille espions au Canada?
The question cites a claimed figure of a thousand spies and raises the human rights record, but combines multiple issues and the ask ('stop giving one red cent') is broad and rhetorical rather than sharply focused.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the government why it was giving aid to China, given the country's record of operating a spy network in Canada, but I received no clear answer. Canada has no reason to be giving aid to China. First, its human rights record is abysmal and, second, it does not need the money. It is buying up Canadian companies. Today it has been confirmed that China has a thousand spies operating in Canada. When will the government stop giving one red cent to communist China?
La ministre affirme que le gouvernement du Canada ne donne aucune somme directement au gouvernement de la Chine, mais engage plutôt la Chine par l'intermédiaire de l'Université Simon Fraser, du Conseil de recherche de l'Alberta et de l'Association du Barreau canadien pour renforcer la législation sur les droits de la personne.
The minister directly corrects the premise that money goes to the government of China, specifies that funding goes through Simon Fraser University, the Alberta Research Council, and the Canadian Bar Association, and explains the purpose as building human rights capacity.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I have advised the House in the past, and I repeat again, the Government of Canada does not give any money directly to the government of China. Instead, we are engaging the government of China, helping it to build its human rights legislation and to grow its capacity. In that regard we are working with Simon Fraser University, the Alberta Research Council and the Canadian Bar Association setting up legal aid clinics for women in the poorest of the poor areas.
Pourquoi le site Web de l'ACDI répertorie-t-il le projet du Centre chinois de l'industrie de l'alimentation animale comme versant des fonds au ministère de l'agriculture du gouvernement chinois, contredisant l'affirmation de la ministre selon laquelle aucun argent ne va au gouvernement chinois?
The question cites the CIDA website's own listing of the China Feed Industry Centre project and the reference to the Chinese government's ministry of agriculture, making a specific and factually grounded challenge to the minister's prior denial.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the article today in the Globe in Mail mentions the systematic use of torture, so I suggest to you that your plan is not working.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I will suggest to the government that its plan is not working. I will help the minister with some more facts from her website. The CIDA website lists a project entitled, China Feed Industry Centre. Her own website says that it is giving money to the Chinese government's ministry of agriculture. Why are the Liberals giving tax dollars to the Chinese government, a government that is violating Canadian sovereignty and security by operating a massive spy network here in Canada?
La ministre explique que le chiffre d'environ 38 millions de dollars cité par l'intervenante représente le total de tous les programmes de développement en Chine réalisés par des organismes, et non des fonds versés directement au gouvernement de la Chine, et précise que 'bilatéral' signifie entre deux pays, et non des transferts directs de gouvernement à gouvernement.
The minister explains that the approximately $38 million figure represents the sum total of all development programs in China carried out by agencies, not money directed to the government of China, and clarifies the meaning of 'bilateral aid' — a substantive if incomplete rebuttal of the specific website citation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last week in question period the hon. member, the new critic, tabled a statistical report on official development assistance from my agency. While well-meaning, she mistook the figure of approximately $38 million as moneys being directed directly to the government of China. What that figure represents is the sum total of all of the development programs taking place in China but those are carried out by agencies such as Simon Fraser University and the Canadian Bar Association. The term represents the total of bilateral aid and that, as opposed to multilateral, means between two countries.
Le ministre des Travaux publics confirmera-t-il que c'est sa directrice des communications qui a téléphoné aux médias avec des informations trompeuses sur les coûts de la commission du juge Gomery, étant donné que le juge Gomery lui-même a qualifié ces chiffres d'exagération et de déformation de la réalité?
The question cites a specific May 23 statement by Judge Gomery, quotes him directly calling the cost figures 'an exaggeration and it's twisting reality,' and asks the minister to confirm whether his communications director was the source of the misleading information — highly specific and grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on May 23, Judge Gomery said that government officials had “leaked” misleading information about the cost of his commission. He said: --it's an exaggeration and it's twisting reality. He further said: What they did was...put together the fees of everyone in the Justice Department that worked on the file, the photocopies...and God knows what other expenses that were totally beyond the commission's control. Will the public works minister confirm that it was his communications director who phoned the media with this misleading information to discredit Judge Gomery?
Le ministre ne confirme ni ne nie le rôle de la directrice des communications, réaffirmant plutôt que les coûts comprennent les travaux directs de Gomery, la coopération des ministères incluant 20 millions de pages de documents, et la représentation juridique des parties devant la commission, y compris le Parti conservateur et le Bloc.
The minister does not confirm or deny whether his communications director was the source, instead restating the departmental cooperation cost explanation already given in prior exchanges and adding a note about legal representation for parties including the Conservative Party.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, to the contrary. I have responded to this question in the House in the past and I have explained that part of the costs are those directly applicable to the direct work of Justice Gomery. The rest of those costs involve a wide range of government departments that are cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and providing the levels of vast information and cooperation that is required. Furthermore, some of those costs involve legal representation for parties before the Gomery commission, including the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc, because we are interested in showing fairness and that Canadians have the truth. We support the work of Justice Gomery.
Pourquoi le ministre a-t-il envoyé sa directrice des communications répandre des informations trompeuses et fausses sur les coûts de la commission du juge Gomery, et pourquoi le commissaire est-il si mécontent du gouvernement pour cette raison?
The question directly cites the commissioner's characterization ('an exaggeration and a twisting of reality') and makes a focused ask about why the minister dispatched his communications director to spread information the commissioner himself deemed misleading.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is some way of supporting him. The judge himself says that what the minister just represented is “an exaggeration and a twisting of reality”. What I would like to know is why the minister dispatched his communications director to spread what is, according to the commissioner, misleading and false information about the cost of his commission. Why did he use his communications director to undermine the commissioner and why is the commissioner so upset with the government for having done so?
Le ministre fait une remarque personnelle sur l'intervenant, affirme que les chiffres figuraient dans les prévisions budgétaires du gouvernement, et soutient que le gouvernement appuie le juge Gomery en lui fournissant des ressources financières et une pleine coopération.
The minister opens with a personal attack on the questioner's physical activity, then pivots to government estimates and general support for Justice Gomery without addressing the specific question about the communications director's actions or the commissioner's stated upset.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the only cardiovascular exercise that hon. member is getting is his huffing and puffing on the floor of the House of Commons, which is of no benefit to Canadians. These figures were covered thoroughly in the government estimates. It is there for everybody to see. Beyond that, it is clear that we support the work of Justice Gomery. It is important that we provide him with the financial resources he needs to get the job done, and we are ensuring he has those resources, that full cooperation and that support so Canadians can have the truth. We support Justice Gomery. The Conservatives are trying to misrepresent Justice Gomery.
Le gouvernement entend-il suivre la recommandation unanime du comité d'augmenter l'aide de 12 à 15 % annuellement pour atteindre 0,5 % du PNB d'ici 2010 et 0,7 % d'ici 2015, et déposera-t-il un tel plan?
Cites a specific committee report, a specific unanimous recommendation, and specific numeric targets (12–15% annual increase, 0.5% of GNP by 2010, 0.7% by 2015) with a clear, answerable ask about government intentions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented its report to the House on Monday. One of the recommendations in the report, which was unanimously adopted, reiterates the UN objective and calls for Canada to commit immediately, through a plan, to increase its aid budget by 12% to 15% annually to achieve an aid level of 0.5% of GNP by 2010 and 0.7% by 2015. Can the government tell us if it intends to follow the committee's recommendations and will it table such a plan?
Le gouvernement s'engage à augmenter son budget d'aide d'au moins 8 % par année; la hausse de l'an dernier était de 30 %, et le Canada ne fait des engagements que s'il peut les tenir.
Provides a concrete commitment (8% annual increase) and cites last year's 30% increase, but does not directly address the committee's specific recommendation of 12–15% annually or commit to tabling a plan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to increasing its aid budget by a minimum of 8% per year and we are committed to doing that well out in excess of 2010. In fact, the increase last year was 30% and that shows the commitment of the government to continue to assign to development assistance a higher percentage than to any other department of government. We keep in mind our international reputation of always fulfilling our commitments but we will not make one unless we can.
Étant donné que même avec les 500 millions $ du projet de loi C-48, le Canada n'atteindrait 0,7 % du PNB qu'en 2028 au mieux ou en 2035 sinon, le gouvernement comprend-il qu'il doit mettre en œuvre les recommandations du comité pour atteindre cet objectif d'ici 2015?
Provides specific projections (0.7% of GNP reached in 2028 at best or 2035 otherwise) grounded in Bill C-48 figures, and poses a clear yes/no challenge about implementing the committee's recommendations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am asking. Even with the $500 million set out in Bill C-48, Canada will achieve 0.7% of GNP only in 2028, at best, if those are recurring funds. Otherwise, that objective will not be reached until 2035. Does the government understand that if it wants to achieve 0.7% in a realistic timeframe, that is, by 2015, it must implement the committee's recommendations?
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I can yell louder than they can.
La ministre reproche au Bloc d'avoir voté contre le projet de loi C-48 et les 500 000 $ (sic) qui auraient été ajoutés à son budget, affirmant ne pouvoir apporter beaucoup de sagesse à partir de ce point de départ.
Completely deflects by attacking the Bloc for voting against Bill C-48 and makes an error on the dollar figure ($500,000 vs. $500 million), never engaging with the 2015 timeline or committee recommendations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am at an utter loss because it was that party, that critic and that member who all joined together to vote against the $500,000 that would come to my budget as a result of Bill C-48. If that is their point of departure I can add very little wisdom to the whole issue.
Étant donné que l'Association médicale de l'Ontario affirme que 6 000 personnes mourront prématurément en Ontario cette année à cause du smog, que prévoit faire le ministre au-delà de l'annonce d'un nouveau site Web lors de la Journée de l'air pur?
Cites a specific Ontario Medical Association statistic (6,000 premature deaths), references a specific ministerial action (new website on Clean Air Day), but the ask is broad and partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Medical Association says that 6,000 people will die prematurely in Ontario this year due to smog and the government is doing nothing about it. During Clean Air Day, all the environment minister did was announce the formation of a new website. We can imagine the disappointment people in Toronto felt when they realized just how little the government was doing. What does the minister plan to do to clean up our dirty air?
Le ministre invoque le projet de loi C-49 et un programme décennal sur l'air pur affirmant une réduction de 90 % des émissions de smog, tout en accusant le Parti conservateur de s'opposer aux mesures environnementales.
Cites Bill C-49 (which the next exchange reveals does not exist), claims 90% smog emission decreases, and pivots to attacking the Conservative Party, without addressing the specific OMA statistic or the website criticism.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have introduced Bill C-49, which that party is opposing because that party has never requested a penny for the environment since the beginning of the budgetary process. Canada is now implementing the toughest targets regarding clean air in order to decrease smog. Smog emissions are decreasing by 90% because of our 10-year clean air agenda. We are now at mid-term and we will continue with our agenda. We need those things to be stopped by the Conservative Party that does not care at all about the environment.
Alors que les gaz à effet de serre augmentent chaque année et que l'OCDE classe le Canada 28e sur 29 en matière d'intégrité environnementale, quand le ministre fera-t-il passer la santé des Canadiens avant ses propres balivernes environnementales?
Cites a specific OECD ranking (28th out of 29 in environmental integrity) and raises greenhouse gas increases, but the question blends substantive facts with rhetorical framing and personal attack.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even know the bill number. There is no Bill C-49. That is how much he knows and is doing about the environment. Just ask the parents who have just had their child diagnosed with chronic asthma what they think of answers like that. Greenhouse gases are increasing every year. The OECD now ranks us 28th out of 29 in terms of environmental integrity. The minister sets up a website in order to accomplish this. When will the minister put the health of Canadians ahead of his own environmental drivel?
Le ministre indique que 30 groupes environnementaux ont écrit aux chefs de tous les partis pour les exhorter à approuver les mesures relatives au protocole de Kyoto présentées dans le budget de février, et demande aux députés de voter pour le projet de loi C-49.
Repeats the reference to Bill C-49 (which the questioner had just noted does not exist) and cites a letter from 30 environmental groups, without addressing the OECD ranking or greenhouse gas increases.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, 30 environmental groups wrote to all the leaders of this House calling on all parties to put aside their differences long enough to ensure that the measures that are necessary for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol introduced in the February budget were approved by Parliament without delay. If those members have a little sense of responsibility they will vote for Bill C-49.
Le ministre de la Santé peut-il informer la Chambre des mesures que prend le gouvernement concernant l'enregistrement et la divulgation des renseignements sur les essais cliniques?
This is a government-backbench softball setup with no accountability dimension, simply inviting the minister to announce a policy on clinical trial registration.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about making informed decisions regarding their health, especially when it comes to medications to treat disease and illness. Canadians need to be sure that the medicines they are taking have been tested and approved through a strict and effective clinical trial process. Would the Minister of Health please inform the House about the steps that the government is taking to address the issue of registration and disclosure of clinical trial information?
Le 8 juin, le ministre a annoncé la première phase de consultations sur l'enregistrement et la divulgation complète des renseignements sur les essais cliniques; un atelier public se tient aujourd'hui à Ottawa, et d'autres suivront à Halifax et à Vancouver la semaine prochaine.
Provides specific information: a June 8 announcement, consultations on registration and full disclosure of clinical trial information, a workshop in Ottawa today, and upcoming sessions in Halifax and Vancouver, with mention of privacy and commercial confidentiality considerations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on June 8, I announced the first phase of consultations on the registration and full disclosure of clinical trial information. That is in keeping with the issue around transparency, accountability and openness in my department. The consultations follow the commitment I made since becoming Minister of Health. Today in Ottawa, the first public workshop will be held and others will follow in Halifax and Vancouver next week. We are moving in this direction, while taking into account personal privacy and commercial confidentiality.
Le ministre s'engage-t-il à créer un commissaire véritablement indépendant pour enquêter sur les divulgations de corruption, comme le recommandent tous les experts et intervenants consultés dans le cadre du projet de loi C-11?
Identifies a specific bill (Bill C-11), notes it is bogged down in committee, cites a specific consensus of experts and stakeholders, and asks a clear yes/no commitment question about an independent commissioner.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for two years this government has dragged its feet on the need to protect public servants who expose corruption. Bill C-11 is bogged down in committee because it ignores the recommendations of every expert and stakeholder. They all agree that an independent commissioner is an essential part of effective whistleblower legislation. Will the minister commit here and now to creating a truly independent commissioner to investigate disclosures of corruption?
Le ministre accuse le député de se concentrer sur les formules accrocheuses plutôt que sur le contenu, précise qu'il sera au comité demain pour discuter de cet élément, et suggère que le député avait eu l'occasion de contribuer mais ne l'a pas fait.
Dismisses the question as a sound bite, notes the minister will be at committee tomorrow, but does not commit to or reject an independent commissioner, and misstates the bill's stage (says first reading when it is in committee).
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the member spent as much time focusing on the content of the bill as he does on his sound bite we would be further along with this. As he knows, I will be at the committee tomorrow to discuss this very item. However, given that the bill is at first reading, he has had the opportunity to have this input for some time but has not chosen to take advantage of it.
Pourquoi le ministre refuse-t-il de s'engager à créer un organisme indépendant pour enquêter sur les divulgations de corruption dans le cadre de la législation sur la protection des dénonciateurs?
Presses the specific point about an independent agency with a direct challenge, but is largely a restatement of the previous question without new factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the agency responsible for investigating disclosures of corruption must be completely independent from government. If the minister continues to refuse to commit to creating an independent agency, it is because he has not resolved to protect whistleblowers. Why does the minister not want to create an independent agency to investigate disclosures of corruption?
Le ministre refuse de négocier une loi pendant la période des questions et affirme que le premier ministre a soutenu depuis le début que le Canada adoptera la loi de protection des dénonciateurs la plus solide de tous les pays du monde.
Repeats the advice to discuss the matter in committee, avoids any commitment on independence, and pivots to a broad claim that the government will have the most robust whistleblowing legislation of any country in the world.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the member would spend some time in committee focusing on the content of the bill we could have this discussion. To try to negotiate legislation during question period is not the most effective way to do it. The Prime Minister has taken the position from the beginning that we will have the most robust piece of whistleblowing legislation than any other country in this world.
Cet échange ne contient que des acclamations de procédure de la part de députés soulignant une présence à la tribune, sans question posée ni réponse ministérielle.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!
La ministre de la Coopération internationale Aileen Carroll a soulevé un rappel au Règlement pour corriger une erreur commise dans sa réponse précédente, précisant qu'elle avait dit 500 000 $ au lieu de 500 millions de dollars — soit le montant qui serait versé au budget d'aide canadien par le biais du projet de loi C-48.
- Lib Aileen Carroll
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct my reply to the critic from the Bloc. I referred to a number that is incorrect. In fact, the Bloc is not supporting the government by refusing to vote for Bill C-48, and therefore $500 million, one half a billion dollars, would not be able to come to the Canadian aid budget. I made the comment, $500,000. My apologies.
M. Jason Kenney (CPC) a soulevé un rappel au Règlement pour demander que le premier ministre dépose un document dont il avait cité des extraits lors de la période des questions la veille, soulignant que 24 heures s'étaient écoulées depuis que le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre avait indiqué qu'une traduction était nécessaire.
- CPC Mr. Jason Kenney
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, you may recall that yesterday, following oral questions, I inquired as to whether the right hon. Prime Minister would table a document from which he had cited. He did not do so. The government House leader indicated that time was required to translate the document. As 24 hours have passed, I wonder if the translation is now complete and if he could please table the document from which the Prime Minister quoted yesterday.