Résumé de la séance
- La justice pénale a dominé la période des questions, les députés du PCC et du BQ pressant le gouvernement sur les permissions de sortie à Wonderland, les assignations à domicile pour trafiquants de drogue, la propagation de la méthamphétamine en cristaux, les peines avec sursis et la réforme de la libération sous caution, tandis que les ministres ont cité des examens en cours et des renvois au Comité permanent.
- Les tensions fédérales-provinciales sur les services de garde ont occupé plusieurs échanges, les députés du BQ citant les ministres libéraux québécois Pelletier et Béchard pour soutenir qu'Ottawa imposait des conditions aux transferts et menaçait la compétence provinciale.
- Le rôle international du Québec a été débattu lors des échanges sur les affaires étrangères, le ministre des Affaires étrangères citant le traité de l'UNESCO sur la diversité culturelle comme modèle de collaboration fédérale-provinciale, tandis que les députés du BQ réclamaient une participation directe du Québec sur la scène mondiale.
- L'éthique et le lobbying ont été mis en cause par deux séries de questions distinctes visant le lobbying non enregistré du candidat libéral Richard Mahoney pour Canadian Satellite Radio et un contrat à fournisseur unique lié à la famille du député de Pontiac.
- Une urgence de santé publique à la Première Nation de Kashechewan, où toute la communauté a déclaré l'état d'urgence en raison d'une contamination à l'E. coli de l'eau potable, a été soulevée par Jim Prentice; la ministre a confirmé que le ministre des Affaires indiennes se rendait dans la communauté et que 26 000 litres d'eau en bouteille avaient été expédiés.
- Les modifications proposées à la Loi sur la concurrence, incluant un Office de surveillance du secteur pétrolier et des pouvoirs d'amende accrus pour la fixation prédatrice des prix et les complots criminels de fixation des prix, ont été exposées par le ministre de l'Industrie en réponse à une question sur les prix de l'essence.
La ministre a confirmé des mesures gouvernementales concrètes déjà prises — envoi d'opérateurs certifiés de traitement de l'eau, stabilisation du système de désinfection, élimination du risque bactérien dans l'eau traitée et expédition de 26 000 litres d'eau en bouteille — et a indiqué que le ministre des Affaires indiennes se rendait personnellement à Kashechewan, fournissant à la Chambre des informations précises et vérifiables sur une urgence en cours.
Lists specific access requests by category (inmate phone call monitoring system, drug scanners and scan results, drug scanner and drug dog procedures) and asks precisely why this security information is being given to inmates.
Toute la réponse de McLellan — « à ma connaissance, aucune de ces informations sensibles n'est accessible à un détenu dans le système correctionnel fédéral » — a contredit catégoriquement les exemples documentés précis soulevés par MacKay sans aborder aucun des détails nommés ni s'engager à faire enquête.
Questions sans réponse
- Stephen Harper (échange 1) a demandé pourquoi la ministre ignorait que des criminels endurcis avaient reçu des permis de voyage pour Wonderland à au moins neuf reprises, comme l'a confirmé le chef de police de la région de York — McLellan a dit enquêter mais n'a fourni aucune explication sur cette lacune.
- Peter MacKay (échange 13) a demandé pourquoi des informations précises liées à la sécurité — notamment sur le système de surveillance des appels téléphoniques des détenus, les scanners de drogues et les procédures relatives aux chiens renifleurs — étaient communiquées aux détenus en vertu des lois sur l'accès à l'information, et n'a reçu qu'un démenti général sans que les documents nommés soient abordés.
- Betty Hinton (échange 22) a demandé si le Premier ministre accueillerait le pédophile condamné David James Caza — qui avait 42 condamnations et était évalué comme présentant un risque élevé de récidive — comme résident dans sa circonscription, soulignant l'absence de conditions de libération conditionnelle efficaces; la ministre a renvoyé au Comité permanent sans aborder le cas précis.
- Michael Chong (échange 28) a demandé comment le Premier ministre conciliait sa promesse qu'Ottawa ne serait plus une question de « qui connaissez-vous au CPM » avec la présence de Richard Mahoney à une réception au 24 Sussex avec des partisans de Canadian Satellite Radio juste avant que le cabinet statue en faveur du client de Mahoney — le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre n'a répondu qu'en énumérant des mesures d'éthique sans lien direct.
- Christiane Gagnon (échange 18) a demandé pourquoi, après 16 mois et une promesse électorale ferme, l'arrangement de financement des services de garde avec le Québec demeurait non réglé sans conditions — Robillard a confirmé que les négociations se poursuivaient mais n'a pas expliqué le retard ni répondu à la promesse non tenue.
Harper demande comment la ministre pouvait ignorer que des criminels endurcis avaient obtenu des laissez-passer pour Wonderland à au moins neuf reprises cet été, en citant le chef de police de la région de York.
Cites a specific official (York region police chief), a specific number (nine occasions), a specific venue (Wonderland), and a specific season (this summer), making it a well-grounded accountability question with a clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about convicted criminals getting passes to children's theme parks. She told the House she did not know whether this was happening. Yet a Correctional Service Canada official says it happens all the time. In fact, the York region police chief says that hard core criminals on no less than nine occasions got travel permits to Wonderland this summer. How can the minister not have a clue that this sort of thing is going on in her own department?
McLellan affirme qu'elle n'était pas au courant des allégations, qu'elle a demandé au Service correctionnel du Canada d'enquêter et que les permissions de sortir sont toujours assorties de conditions.
McLellan acknowledges the gap in her knowledge, confirms she has asked Correctional Service Canada to investigate, and explains the conditional-release framework, but does not address why she was unaware or provide any substantive new information.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the allegations made by the chief of police were not known to me. I asked Correctional Service Canada to follow up on this, and it is investigating the matter. Temporary releases are provided from facilities such as halfway houses. They always are provided on conditions. I have asked Correctional Service Canada to follow up on the specific allegation that the chief has made. However, I also call upon the chief and would ask the chief to provide me with any specific information or facts he has.
Harper, citant le président des chefs de police de l'Ontario, soutient que les peines avec sursis, les assignations à résidence et les protocoles de réduction de peine ne dissuadent pas les récidivistes et demande quand le gouvernement agira.
Quotes the Ontario police chiefs president and lists specific sentence types, but the ask—'when is the minister going to get it?'—is rhetorical and unanswerable as a specific policy commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister's job is to know that this happens and to ensure that it never happens in the first place. The president of the Ontario police chiefs said, “Conditional and intermittent sentences, house arrest, 2 for 1 and 3 for 1 earned sentence protocols, mandatory parole and weekend passes to local theme parks do little to dissuade murderers, marijuana grow operators, ecstasy manufacturers, carjackers, child molesters and others from committing these horrific crimes”. Everyone else in the country knows being soft of crime does not work. When is the minister and the government going to get it?
McLellan affirme que la sécurité publique est l'objectif fondamental du système correctionnel et indique qu'elle a renvoyé la Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition ainsi que la législation sur la libération conditionnelle au Comité permanent de la justice.
McLellan states public safety is the fundamental objective, mentions she has referred both the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and parole legislation to the Standing Committee on Justice, which is partial but relevant context.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I made plain yesterday, the purpose of our corrections system and our parole system, the transcendent and fundamental objective of that system, is public safety. I also have suggested that it is time for us to review both our Corrections and Conditional Release Act and our parole legislation. That is why I have referred both to the Standing Committee on Justice. If the opposition does not have any views on that and want to leave it up to us to look at the reform of those legislations, then we will do that. However, in the name of democracy--
Harper cite l'avertissement du Vancouver Board of Trade selon lequel la criminalité nuit à l'économie de la ville et la déclaration du chef de police de Vancouver selon laquelle les lois fédérales permettent aux voleurs de récidiver sous caution à répétition, demandant quand le gouvernement agira après 12 ans.
Cites the Vancouver Board of Trade and Vancouver Police Chief Graham with a specific claim about bail reoffending, but the question is cut off and combines multiple grievances without a single answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister started both these answers with this cute little smirk. When I take my family to Wonderland and other families, there is nothing funny about it. The Vancouver Board of Trade has said that crime is so bad in Vancouver that it is doing damage—
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, talk about a bunch of people who just do not get it. Yesterday the Vancouver Board of Trade said that crime is so bad in Vancouver it is doing damage to the economy of the city. Vancouver Police Chief Graham says federal laws allow thieves to reoffend and they get bail again and again and again. When is the government, after 12 years—
Cotler affirme que le Canada possède certaines des peines les plus sévères au monde et indique qu'un avis a été donné concernant la réforme du régime de détention à domicile et une révision de la libération sous caution dans le cadre de la conférence fédérale-provinciale-territoriale.
Cotler claims Canada has some of the most stringent penalties in the world and references a conditional sentencing regime reform and a bail review reform under the federal-provincial-territorial conference, but does not address the Vancouver-specific claims.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the opposition does not take note of the fact that we have some of the most stringent penalties in the world right now. We have given notice both with regard to the reform of the conditional sentencing regime and with respect to the inquiry now with regard to bail review reform under the federal-provincial-territorial conference.
Harper cite le ministre québécois des Affaires intergouvernementales qui qualifie le déséquilibre fiscal, le pouvoir fédéral de dépenser et la notion d'intérêt national de menaces, et demande si le premier ministre respectera la compétence du Québec en matière de garde d'enfants sans conditions.
Cites a specific statement by Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs naming three specific threats (fiscal imbalance, federal spending power, national interest concept) and asks a clear yes/no jurisdictional question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to take that seriously. On a different topic, it is clear that the federal government intends to impose its conditions on Quebec with respect to the child care program. Yesterday, Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that “The use of the federal spending power is a threat. The fiscal imbalance is a threat. And now, there is a third threat: the concept of national interest”. In support of the true national interest, will the Prime Minister respect Quebec's jurisdiction over child care, no strings attached?
Robillard dit seulement que le gouvernement collaborera avec toutes les provinces dans l'intérêt national pour le bien-être des enfants.
Robillard gives a vague one-sentence platitude about working together in the national interest without addressing Quebec's jurisdiction, the no-strings-attached ask, or the minister's specific concerns.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the national interest, we will work together with all the provinces for the well-being of our children in this country.
Harper soutient que le premier ministre a déjà qualifié le programme de garde d'enfants du Québec de réussite et que le gouvernement fédéral cherche maintenant la confrontation dans un champ de compétence provincial, demandant si le premier ministre réalise que cela menace l'unité nationale.
References the Prime Minister's own prior praise of Quebec's child care model and raises national unity, but the question is broad and combines corruption rhetoric with a policy ask in a way that dilutes its accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister himself who said that the child care program in Quebec was a success story. Now, it is time the federal government respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Corruption in this federal government has already sullied the reputation of federalism in Quebec. Still, this government is seeking confrontation with the Government of Quebec in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Does the Prime Minister realize that this bad habit is a threat to national unity?
Robillard juge totalement irresponsable de lier l'initiative de garde d'enfants à la corruption, affirme que le premier ministre a qualifié le modèle québécois d'innovation inspirante pour les autres provinces et dit que le gouvernement respectera ce que fait le Québec.
Robillard attacks Harper for using the word 'corruption' in connection with child care and notes the Prime Minister called Quebec's model innovative, but does not address the confrontation-with-Quebec or national-unity substance of the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to be a responsible leader in this country, is going to use the word “corruption” in connection with just about anything, even a national child care initiative, then he is not fulfilling his duties properly. That is what I believe. It is totally irresponsible to make a connection between this initiative and what is being done in terms of child care in Quebec. The Prime Minister said that it was an innovative model, which is an inspiration for the other provinces, and we are going to respect exactly what Quebec does.
Duceppe demande comment le premier ministre explique que le ministre québécois des Affaires intergouvernementales, M. Pelletier, un libéral, considère l'attitude du gouvernement fédéral sur le déséquilibre fiscal, le pouvoir de dépenser, l'intérêt national et la place du Québec sur la scène internationale comme des menaces à la compétence du Québec.
Duceppe names a specific federalist Liberal Quebec minister (Mr. Pelletier) and lists four specific areas of disagreement, making it a well-grounded question with a clear ask about the Prime Minister's explanation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister and the Prime Minister hold completely different views of Ottawa-Quebec relations. The Quebec minister feels that the Liberal government's attitude is a threat to Quebec's jurisdiction. He has, moreover, given four examples of this threat: fiscal imbalance, federal spending power, the new concept of national interest and Quebec's place on the international scene. How can the Prime Minister explain that the opinion of the minister, Mr. Pelletier, Liberal though he may be, differs completely from his, as far as Ottawa-Quebec relations are concerned?
Martin souligne que 45 ententes ont été signées avec le Québec cette année seulement et 67 l'année précédente comme preuve de la bonne collaboration entre le Canada et le Québec.
Martin cites 45 agreements signed with Quebec this year and 67 last year as evidence federalism is working, which is a relevant factual counter but does not explain the substantive disagreement with Minister Pelletier on the four specific points.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the agreements signed with Quebec, 45 of them this year alone. They show how well federalism is working. Last year, there were 67 agreements signed between Quebec and the Government of Canada. That is further proof of how well we are able to work together. All I ask of the leader and chief of staff of the Bloc Québécois is that he have a proper look at what we are doing. He ought to then realize that Canada and the Government of Quebec are in—
Duceppe cite le ministre libéral québécois Pelletier, selon qui « l'intérêt national ne doit pas être confondu avec l'intérêt fédéral », et demande si le premier ministre reconnaît qu'il confond ces deux concepts en invoquant l'intérêt national pour justifier son intervention en matière de garde d'enfants.
Duceppe directly quotes Minister Pelletier's distinction between 'national interest' and 'federal interest' and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes he is doing exactly what Pelletier criticizes, grounding it in a named federalist source.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will quote the words of Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Pelletier, a Liberal, on this new federal doctrine. He said, “the national interest must not be confused with the federal interest”. When the Prime Minister uses the national interest as his reason for interfering with child care, does he not realize he is doing exactly what the Quebec minister is faulting him for: confusing national interest with that of the Liberal government? Those are not my words, but the words of a good Quebec federalist.
Oh, oh!
Robillard affirme que l'existence même du Bloc québécois est la pire menace à l'unité nationale, note que le Bloc ne parle pas au nom du gouvernement fédéraliste du Québec, et cite la prestation fiscale pour enfants de 1998 comme précédent d'implication fédérale auprès des enfants.
Robillard attacks the Bloc Québécois as the worst threat to national unity and pivots to the 1998 child tax benefit under a PQ government, entirely avoiding the Pelletier quote and the national-interest-versus-federal-interest distinction.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the very existence of the Bloc Québécois is the worst threat to national unity. First and foremost—
What is more, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Bloc certainly does not speak for the federalist government in Quebec. That said, this is not the first time the federal government has been involved with issues relating to children. In 1998, when everyone was offered the child tax benefit—in the days of a PQ government in Quebec—we did not hear any protests from the Bloc. It is quite natural then—
Côté cite le ministre libéral fédéraliste québécois Pelletier, selon qui il semble qu'Ottawa entende définir seul les grandes orientations canadiennes pendant que les provinces les mettent en œuvre, et demande si la ministre continuera de nier ces préoccupations.
Côté quotes Minister Pelletier specifically describing Ottawa defining Canadian thrusts while provinces implement them, and asks whether the minister will still deny these concerns given they come from a federalist Liberal minister.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Minister Pelletier added that, “[indeed] we should be concerned about what we are hearing from Ottawa these days. It is as if the Government of Canada was going to define the major Canadian thrusts alone, while the provinces are going to implement them”. Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs continue to maintain that these comments are a figment of the Bloc Québécois' imagination, when in fact they were made by a federalist Liberal minister in Quebec?
Robillard affirme qu'elle poursuivra le dialogue avec son homologue québécois (et non avec le Bloc) et que le premier ministre et le ministre du Développement social ont toujours dit que cela se ferait dans le respect des compétences provinciales.
Robillard says she will continue dialogue with her Quebec counterpart but never with the Bloc, and states the Prime Minister and Minister of Social Development have always said this would be done in respect of provincial jurisdictions, without engaging Pelletier's specific characterization.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will continue the dialogue with my Quebec counterpart, but never with the Bloc Québécois, which does not want things to work in Canada. That is very different. The Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Social Development have always said that this would be done in the respect of provincial jurisdictions. That is what we will do.
Côté cite le ministre Pelletier qui affirme que des déclarations récentes du premier ministre et de deux ministres nommément désignés laissent penser qu'Ottawa est en train de fermer la porte au Québec dans les négociations sur la garde d'enfants, et demande comment Robillard peut prétendre que tout va bien.
Côté quotes Pelletier naming three specific federal ministers whose statements suggest the door is being closed, and poses a pointed contradiction between the minister's optimism and the other party's stated position, though the ask is somewhat implicit.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, they do not even know what respecting jurisdictions is about. The minister may give a list of all the agreements concluded in the past, but the opposite is happening on the child care issue, for example. Minister Pelletier said that “the statements made in recent days—by the Prime Minister of Canada, [the Minister of Foreign Affairs], [the Minister of Transport]—suggest to him that they are in the process of shutting the door”. How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claim that things are just fine as regards the child care issue, when the other party involved in the negotiations says the opposite? The minister should get serious here.
Robillard affirme que la porte est grande ouverte au gouvernement fédéraliste du Québec mais pas au Bloc, et énumère des ententes passées sur la santé, les travailleurs âgés, les sans-abri, le Programme Nouveaux Horizons, l'agriculture et l'environnement comme preuves de collaboration.
Robillard again deflects by distinguishing between the federalist Quebec government (door wide open) and the Bloc (excluded), then lists past agreements on health and other sectors without addressing the child care negotiation impasse Pelletier described.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the door is wide open to the federalist government in Quebec, but not to the Bloc Québécois. That is very clear. This is why, over the past year, we have signed a number of agreements on health, older workers, the homeless, the New Horizons Program for the elderly, agriculture and the environment. We will continue to do so in the child care sector.
Layton affirme que le candidat libéral Richard Mahoney a enfreint les lois sur le lobbying des entreprises, en partie à la résidence officielle du premier ministre, et demande quand le premier ministre assainira le monde du lobbying corporatif.
Names a specific individual (Richard Mahoney), a specific law (corporate lobbying laws), and a specific location (the Prime Minister's official residence), but the ask—'when is the cozy world of corporate lobbying going to be cleaned up?'—is vague and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today we learned that more well connected Liberals think that the rules just do not apply to them. Let me remind everyone that this is taking place on the Prime Minister's watch, or worse, in the case of Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney, it is taking place in the Prime Minister's official residence. Mr. Mahoney broke the corporate lobbying laws. It is the latest in a long line of transgressions and questionable lobbying practices. When is the cozy world of corporate lobbying going to be cleaned up by this Prime Minister?
Emerson affirme que le registraire des lobbyistes est indépendant et que toute violation de la Loi sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes sera examinée, puis accuse le NPD de lancer des attaques sans preuve.
Emerson notes the Registrar of Lobbyists operates independently and that a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act would be investigated, which is a relevant procedural point, but then attacks the NDP for hurling dirt without evidence rather than addressing the substance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the Registrar of Lobbyists does operate independently. If there is a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act, that will be investigated by the Registrar who is aware of all these situations. It is about time those members focused on public policy instead of hurling more dirt at people for which they do not have any evidence.
Layton demande quand le premier ministre s'attaquera au favoritisme et au lobbying corporatif, citant un contrat attribué de gré à gré à une entreprise autrefois détenue par le député libéral de Pontiac et maintenant détenue par sa femme et sa famille.
Identifies a specific contract (sole-source), a specific Liberal MP (member for Pontiac), and a specific relationship (firm now owned by his wife and family), making it reasonably grounded, though the ask remains broadly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Richard Mahoney is in trouble when the Prime Minister stands up for David Dingwall but on this issue remains silent. Let me turn to another contract, this contract awarded on a sole source basis to a firm that used to be owned by a Liberal member of Parliament, the member for Pontiac, now owned by his wife and family. This is the latest in a long line of this kind of transgression. When is the Prime Minister going to get to the bottom of these kinds of issues and clean up cronyism and corporate lobbying in the country?
Valeri affirme que le député de Pontiac nie tout acte répréhensible et a écrit au commissaire à l'éthique pour examiner la question, invitant le NPD à attendre la réponse.
Valeri confirms the member for Pontiac denies wrongdoing and has written to the Ethics Commissioner to investigate, which directly addresses the accountability mechanism, though it does not engage the substance of the sole-source contract allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pontiac denies any wrongdoing on his part, but has written to the Ethics Commissioner to ask him to look into this matter. I hope the member opposite waits for a response from the Ethics Commissioner before commenting on this issue in the House again.
MacKay demande pourquoi le gouvernement permet aux détenus d'utiliser la Loi sur l'accès à l'information pour obtenir des renseignements sensibles sur les gardiens de prison, citant un incident au Québec où un détenu a reçu une liste partielle d'employés du Service correctionnel incluant le nom, le grade, les qualifications et le lieu de travail antérieur d'une gardienne.
Cites a specific incident (partial list of Correctional Service employees in Quebec released to a prisoner) and specific concerns (name, rank, qualifications, prior workplace of a guard), making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, shockingly the Liberal government is allowing prisoners to use the Access to Information Act to obtain information about prison security systems and the personal details of the guards. Recently, a partial list of Correctional Service employees in Quebec was released to a prisoner and one guard was distraught to learn that a prisoner was attempting to get her name, rank, qualifications and where she previously worked. Guards have a legitimate concern, in particular, that prisoners may gain access to their addresses. Why is the government making it easier for prisoners to get sensitive information about the guards that could endanger these officers and the Canadian public?
McLellan affirme qu'à sa connaissance, aucune de ces informations sensibles n'est accessible à un détenu dans le système correctionnel fédéral.
McLellan simply states that to the best of her knowledge none of that sensitive information is available to federal inmates, which is a flat denial without any investigation, evidence, or engagement with the specific incident described.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, none of that sensitive information is available to any prison inmate within the federal correction system.
MacKay énumère des demandes d'accès précises divulguées à des détenus — information sur le système de surveillance des appels téléphoniques, sur les détecteurs de drogue et leurs résultats, et sur toutes les procédures relatives aux détecteurs de drogue et aux chiens renifleurs — et demande pourquoi ces informations de sécurité sont transmises aux détenus.
Lists specific access requests by category (inmate phone call monitoring system, drug scanners and scan results, drug scanner and drug dog procedures) and asks precisely why this security information is being given to inmates.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister is sadly uninformed about her own department. Is it any wonder why Canadians are starting to think that the inmates are running the penitentiaries? Let us look at some of the access requests that were disclosed by her department: information on the inmate phone call monitoring system; information on drug scanners and the results of these scans; and all procedures and policies related to the use of drug scanners and drug dogs checking visitors. This information could cost correctional officers their lives, and it is certainly useful for escapes. Could the minister just explain why this information about security systems is being given to inmates? What is next, picks and shovels?
Oh, oh!
McLellan affirme qu'à sa connaissance ces informations n'ont pas été divulguées en vertu des lois sur l'accès à l'information et que les informations liées à la sécurité des établissements carcéraux et des gardiens sont expressément exemptées de ces lois.
McLellan reiterates her denial and adds the legal point that information relating to physical prison security or safety of prison guards is specifically exempted from access to information laws, but does not address MacKay's specific examples of disclosures that apparently occurred.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate again that to the best of my—
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge this information has not been released under access to information laws. In fact, any information that would relate directly to the security of either physical prison facilities or information in relation to the safety and security surrounding prison guards is specifically exempted from access to information laws.
Toews demande pourquoi le ministre de la Justice appuie l'assignation à résidence alors que, selon le chef de police de l'Ontario, les lois libérales laxistes permettent aux trafiquants de drogue de sévir dans les rues et au crime organisé international d'utiliser le Canada comme base d'opérations.
Cites the Ontario police chief and makes a specific claim that drug dealers receive house arrest rather than prison sentences, but the framing ('killing our children') is highly rhetorical and undercuts the factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ontario police chief told Canadians that lax Liberal laws were strangling and obstructing their efforts to fight crime. International organized crime is using Canada as a base of operations because drug dealers here are sentenced to house arrest instead of real prison sentences. Why does the Minister of Justice continue to support house arrest when drug dealers are out on the streets killing our children?
Cotler qualifie la question d'inexacte et affirme que pour toutes les infractions graves, le gouvernement présentera un projet de loi mettant fin aux peines avec sursis.
Cotler calls the question a misrepresentation and states the government will be introducing legislation to end conditional sentencing for all serious offences, which is a partial but relevant commitment without specifics.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is yet another misrepresentation by the hon. member of the opposition. With respect to the question of house arrest, we have said that with regard to all serious offences we will be introducing legislation that will put an end to conditional sentencing in those matters.
Toews demande si le ministre de la Justice est au courant des préoccupations des enseignants, des infirmières et des policiers concernant la méthamphétamine en cristaux, étant donné que la GRC signale que le Canada se classe au deuxième rang comme source de cette drogue saisie au Japon, et lui demande de répondre à la déclaration du sénateur libéral Larry Campbell qui qualifie ces préoccupations de stupidités.
Cites a specific RCMP statistic (Canada ranks second as a source of crystal meth seized in Japan), names Liberal patronage appointee Senator Larry Campbell by name, and references specific professional groups (teachers, nurses), giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know his facts about house arrest for drug dealers. They are getting it. Liberal patronage appointee, Senator Larry Campbell, says that concern about the spread of crystal meth is garbage. Teachers and nurses are telling us the spread is real. The RCMP now tells us that Canada ranks second as a source of crystal meth seized in Japan. Is the justice minister aware of the concerns of teachers, nurses and police about the spread of crystal meth or are their concerns just garbage? What does he say?
Cotler affirme que le gouvernement a déjà pris des initiatives depuis l'été et insiste sur le fait qu'il s'emploie à faire respecter la loi plutôt qu'à semer la peur, sans aborder les données précises de la GRC ni les commentaires du sénateur Campbell.
Cotler says the government has taken initiatives since the summer and is not engaged in fearmongering but in law enforcement, which is entirely vague and does not address the RCMP statistic, Senator Campbell's comments, or the concerns of teachers and nurses.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my response, if the hon. member wishes to take it seriously, is that we have taken initiatives. We took them already this summer. We are not engaged in fearmongering. We are engaged in law enforcement.
Lalonde cite le ministre québécois des affaires intergouvernementales et l'exemple de Line Beauchamp à l'UNESCO pour demander quel tort il y aurait à reconnaître le droit du Québec de s'exprimer sur la scène internationale.
The question uses a concrete quote from Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister and a specific example (Line Beauchamp at UNESCO) but the ask — 'what is the harm' — is rhetorical rather than a precise accountability demand.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, it is entirely possible for Quebec to speak for itself in international circles without hurting Canada. As proof, he referred to Quebec's minister of culture, who spoke before UNESCO and said, “My colleague Line Beauchamp read a Quebec text, and Canada is still standing today”. So what is the harm in recognizing that Quebec has the right to speak for itself on the international stage?
Pettigrew a célébré l'adoption de la convention sur la diversité culturelle à l'UNESCO comme un succès conjoint et a dit que la ministre québécoise de la culture avait enrichi la voix canadienne plutôt que d'en être exclue.
Pettigrew engages directly with the UNESCO example and frames Quebec's minister of culture as enriching Canada's voice, partially addressing the premise but not answering the normative question about Quebec's right to speak independently.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for today's question since this gives me the opportunity to celebrate an extraordinary event. The governments of Quebec and Canada have, for many years, worked together and succeeded in having UNESCO adopt a Canadian version of a treaty on cultural diversity. Canada's voice was clear, coherent and enriched by, in particular, Quebec's minister of culture, who was not, therefore, denied a voice. On the contrary, our Canadian voice was enriched by Quebec's minister of culture.
Lalonde cite une lettre ouverte du 12 septembre de Benoît Pelletier et Monique Gagnon-Tremblay affirmant que le Québec doit pouvoir agir directement sur la scène internationale, et demande pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral refuse d'acquiescer à ces demandes.
The question cites a specific open letter dated September 12 by named Quebec ministers Pelletier and Gagnon-Tremblay with a direct quotation, grounding the ask in a public document, though the ask ('why is the federal government refusing') remains somewhat broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in an open letter published on September 12, Benoît Pelletier and Monique Gagnon-Tremblay wrote, “In the face of globalization...discussions often touch upon matters of provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, it is essential for the Quebec government to be able to take direct action. Refusing Quebec access to globalization is essentially condemning it to perpetual stagnation”. Why is the federal government refusing to comply with Quebec's very reasonable requests?
Pettigrew a indiqué que son mandat est d'améliorer la consultation des provinces, a cité la participation du Québec à des délégations en Chine, au Mexique et à l'OMC, et a dit que le gouvernement est prêt à faire encore davantage.
Pettigrew offers concrete examples (Premier Charest's missions to China and Mexico, WTO delegations) as evidence of cooperation but does not address the specific demand for direct Quebec action articulated in the open letter.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is my mandate at present, given the foreign policy statement, to improve our consultation of and cooperation with the provincial governments, which admittedly have a growing interest in international affairs. We did a remarkable job of facilitating Premier Charest's work in China and Mexico. Quebec has been part of every Canadian delegation that it has asked to join. I ensured this when I had the opportunity, as Minister of International Trade, to take part in negotiations at the WTO. Based on our current best practices, we are certainly prepared to do even more to ensure that our fellow citizens are well served throughout the world.
Gagnon cite l'opposition du ministre libéral québécois Bédard aux conditions sur les transferts en garde d'enfants et demande comment le premier ministre justifie que la question reste non réglée après 16 mois malgré sa promesse électorale d'un financement sans conditions pour le Québec.
The question names a specific Quebec Liberal minister (Bédard), references the 16-month timeline since the election promise, and cites the Prime Minister's specific campaign commitment of no-strings child care funding for Quebec.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, minister Pelletier is not the only one to criticize the attitude of the federal government. Another federalist Liberal minister in Quebec, Mr. Bédard, says he would not agree to any conditions whatsoever from Ottawa tied to any transfer payments for child care. How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that this is still an unsettled issue after 16 months, when he had made a firm promise during the last election that Quebec would receive child care funding with no strings attached?
Robillard a indiqué que le dialogue avec le Québec se poursuit par l'entremise de la ministre Carole Théberge, que le Québec a reçu sa quote-part pour 2005-2006 et que les négociations sont toujours en cours avec l'espoir d'un accord.
Robillard confirms negotiations are ongoing and that Quebec received its share of funding, but does not address the specific 'no strings attached' commitment or explain the 16-month delay.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the dialogue with the Government of Quebec is continuing, through its minister, Carole Théberge. This year alone, 2005-06, the Government of Quebec has received the share of funding to which it was entitled, as have all other provincial governments. Negotiations with the Government of Quebec are still underway and we have every hope of coming to an arrangement.
Gagnon cite la position du ministre Béchard selon laquelle les 165 millions de dollars qu'Ottawa s'apprête à transférer ne devraient être assortis d'aucune condition et souligne que le Québec investit déjà 1,5 milliard dans les garderies, demandant si le gouvernement fédéral reconnaîtra le droit du Québec d'utiliser ces fonds à sa guise.
The question cites a specific dollar figure ($165 million), names minister Béchard, references Quebec's $1.5 billion investment, and asks a pointed yes/no-type question about whether the federal government will recognize Quebec's right to use the money as it wishes.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, according to minister Béchard, the $165 million Ottawa is apparently prepared to transfer to Quebec for child care ought not to have any strings attached, and Quebec will use the federal money where it perceives the greatest need to be. He points out that Quebec is already putting $1.5 billion into its child care system. Quebec must not be penalized for past efforts. Will the federal government recognize the principle that Quebec can use the money as it likes, particularly since what it is already putting into child care is far more than all the other provinces put together.
Robillard a reconnu l'caractère innovateur du système québécois et a dit que le gouvernement n'a pas d'objection à ce que le Québec améliore sa politique familiale au-delà des garderies, mais a accusé le Bloc de fabulation sans préciser les conditions liées au transfert.
Robillard acknowledges Quebec's innovative system and says there is no objection to Quebec improving its family policy, but does not directly answer whether the $165 million will be transferred without strings, and deflects by accusing the Bloc of making things up.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have already acknowledged that Quebec's system is innovative. We have already acknowledged that Quebec could very well improve its policy on the family, since it is already ahead of other provinces. The child care system is one component of such a policy. There are others Quebec wants to develop, and we have no objections. That is absolutely not where the problem lies. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is making things up.
Grewal cite la remarque de Larry Campbell selon laquelle la méthamphétamine n'est « pas un gros problème », invoque des statistiques sur la consommation chez les jeunes de Surrey et les saisies de laboratoires à Richmond, et demande quand le gouvernement libéral imposera des peines d'emprisonnement obligatoires pour le trafic de méthamphétamine.
The question references specific statistics (one in ten Surrey youth, major crystal meth lab busts in Richmond) and names Larry Campbell with a quote, but conflates multiple issues and the mandatory sentence demand is one of several compound asks.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Liberal patronage hack, Larry Campbell, recently said, “Crystal meth is no big deal”. Someone should tell Mr. Campbell about the reports that one in ten Surrey youth have tried crystal meth and about the major crystal meth lab busts in Richmond. Why do the Liberals insist on a do nothing approach that has led to increased drug abuse, an explosion in grow ops and wrecked lives? When will the Liberal government take crystal meth seriously and impose mandatory prison sentences for peddling crystal meth?
Cotler a affirmé que le gouvernement prend la méthamphétamine au sérieux, citant des initiatives de l'été avec le ministre de la santé et une politique de poursuite axée sur les déclarations d'impact communautaire et la gravité de l'infraction.
Cotler says the government takes crystal meth seriously and mentions summer initiatives with the health minister and a pro-prosecutorial policy with community impact statements, but does not address the mandatory prison sentence request specifically.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we take crystal meth seriously and that is the reason that we took the initiatives we did this summer in that regard with my colleague, the health minister. As well, we have a specific pro-prosecutorial policy with regard to all drug prosecutions at this point with regard to community impact statements, with regard to submissions on the gravity of the offence and with regard to the entire approach to allow the courts to appreciate the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
Hiebert cite les audiences du groupe de travail de son parti, la déclaration d'un porte-parole d'un député libéral qualifiant leurs préoccupations de « fearmongering irresponsable », et trois récentes fermetures de laboratoires de drogue dans cette circonscription, demandant au premier ministre d'admettre que le député libéral de Richmond est déconnecté.
Hiebert references his own task force consultations and a spokesperson's quote labelling Conservative concern 'irresponsible fearmongering,' plus three recent lab shutdowns, but the ask — will the Prime Minister admit his MP is out of touch — is more rhetorical than substantive.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for weeks now I have been holding meetings across Canada as co-chair of our party's task force on safe streets and healthy communities. I have heard from police officers, youth workers and city councillors about the exploding problem of crystal meth abuse. The spokesman for the Liberal MP for Richmond says that our concern about crystal meth is “irresponsible fearmongering” and yet three big meth labs were just shut down in his riding. The first step to solving an addiction is to admit that one has a problem. Will the Prime Minister stand up and admit that the Liberal MP for Richmond is out of touch and that crystal meth is a scourge on our Canadian cities?
Cotler a affirmé catégoriquement que la méthamphétamine constitue un problème grave selon la politique gouvernementale et que le gouvernement a agi, sans aborder le cas du député de Richmond ni fournir de précisions.
Cotler simply reiterates that the government has said crystal meth is a serious problem and that it has acted, without providing any new detail or addressing the specific claim about the Liberal MP for Richmond.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have said unequivocally that crystal meth is a serious problem. We have articulated it as a policy and we have acted in that regard.
Hinton détaille les 42 condamnations de David James Caza pour pornographie juvénile, agression sexuelle et violations d'ordonnances judiciaires sur 24 ans, son refus de traitement, son risque élevé de récidive et son déménagement récent à Kamloops, demandant implicitement ce que le gouvernement fera pour les délinquants dangereux vivant librement dans les collectivités.
The question names a specific individual (David James Caza), cites 42 convictions over 24 years, lists specific offence types, notes his refusal of treatment and high re-offence risk, and his recent move to Kamloops — highly grounded factually, though it ends with a rhetorical flourish rather than a clean policy ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, David James Caza has been convicted 42 times over the last 24 years for offences ranging from making child pornography, sexual assault, sexual interference and numerous breaches of court orders. He is a pedophile who has refused treatment and is at high risk to re-offend. Mr. Caza is free to live wherever he wants and yesterday he moved from Merritt to Kamloops. This afternoon I will offer Mr. Caza a one way ticket to the riding of LaSalle—Émard. Could the Prime Minister tell me whether he will welcome this new resident?
McLellan a qualifié la question de très sérieuse et a dit avoir demandé au Comité permanent de la justice d'examiner le système de libération conditionnelle, tout en suggérant que l'opposition pourrait contribuer à des améliorations éclairées.
McLellan acknowledges the seriousness of the matter and mentions she has asked the Standing Committee on Justice to take it up, but does not address the specific case of Caza or the adequacy of conditions imposed, and pivots to blaming the opposition for not acting.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member raises a very serious matter. If she is talking about the parole system and the conditions that are imposed upon those who are on parole, I have made it plain that I do believe we need to look at the system, which is why I have asked the Standing Committee on Justice to take this matter up. I do not understand why it is not doing so. At that point the opposition could actually provide informed insight into how we can make this system better for everybody.
Kramp cite le témoignage de hauts responsables policiers au comité de la justice la veille au sujet des gangs, de l'intimidation des témoins, de la drogue et du système de libération conditionnelle, et demande quand le ministre de la justice appuiera les peines minimales obligatoires supplémentaires réclamées par la police.
The question references specific testimony from senior police officials at the justice committee the previous day and lists concrete concerns (gang violence, witness intimidation, drug proliferation, revolving-door parole/bail), though the ask for 'additional mandatory sentences' is somewhat broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at the justice committee yesterday we heard senior police officials from across Canada pleading with the government to wake up to the realities that they are facing; the reality that innocent people are being shot, gangs and thugs are ruling the streets, witnesses are afraid to testify, drugs are rampant, parole and bail is just a revolving door these days and repeat offenders are commonplace. When will the Minister of Justice listen to the police, listen to the victims and listen to Canadians and support the additional mandatory sentences that which the police are calling for?
Cotler a dit avoir rencontré des associations policières et des familles de victimes, être ouvert à toute initiative concernant les peines minimales obligatoires à titre personnel et professionnel, mais a indiqué que les données probantes montrent que ces peines ne sont ni efficaces ni dissuasives, tout en restant ouvert à un examen approfondi.
Cotler directly addresses the mandatory minimums ask by stating his personal and professional openness to them while providing a substantive reason for caution — that evidence shows mandatory minimums are neither effective nor a deterrent — and confirms he met with police associations and crime victim families.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have met with representative police associations and with families of crime victims. I went across the country this past summer and said that we were open to any initiative with respect to combating crime in the matter of mandatory minimums. I have no aversion to mandatory minimums, neither personally nor professionally. I only look at the evidence and the evidence has demonstrated that such mandatory minimums are neither effective nor are they a deterrent. We are still prepared to look at any initiatives that may assist in that regard.
Le député libéral Paradis se moque du plan rapporté du chef du Bloc québécois de développer une armée et un service secret pour un Québec souverain et demande au ministre des Affaires étrangères ce qu'il en pense.
This is a government backbench softball setup with no accountability value — it mocks the Bloc leader's plans for a sovereign Quebec army and secret service and simply invites the minister to criticize the Bloc.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is entitled “There's No Life Like It”. This morning, we learned that the new priority of the Bloc Québécois leader, our new James Bond, is to develop a plan for the army and the secret service of a future sovereign Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is intent on interfering in the PQ leadership race. With proposals like this one, it is clear where the Bloc's priorities are. What does the Minister of Foreign Affairs think of that?
Pettigrew a dit que le chef du Bloc est totalement déconnecté des Québécois, a qualifié la position du Bloc d'indépendance dure sans l'association promise, et a plaisanté en disant que les espions du Bloc devraient découvrir les vraies priorités des Québécois.
Pettigrew obliges with pure partisan attack, calling the Bloc leader out of touch and referencing 19th-century independence rhetoric, with no policy substance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc leader is totally out of touch with the real concerns of Quebeckers. What the Bloc wants is hard-core independence. The much promised association, the link they used to talk about, is a thing of the past. We are back to the 19th century. I would suggest that the Bloc leader's spies be assigned to find out what the real priorities of Quebeckers are.
Crowder accuse le gouvernement de fédéralisme sans contrepartie et, notant l'absence de toute règle pour freiner la croissance des soins de santé privés, demande au ministre de la santé s'il acceptera de s'asseoir avec elle pour rédiger de nouvelles règles, réclamant une réponse par oui ou non.
Crowder references a concrete willingness to write new rules and poses a direct yes/no question about sitting down to write rules to stop private health care's growth, but the framing is partly rhetorical and the 'money-for-nothing federalism' charge is partisan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the health minister may not have a problem with the NDP but the NDP and Canadians have a problem with the government's money-for-nothing federalism. The NDP is ready to sit down and come up with new rules to stop private health care's growth any time. We need new rules because the Liberals do not have any. There is not one word to stop private health care. So much for the Prime Minister's fight for his life. Is the minister willing to sit down with me and write new rules to stop private health care, yes or no?
Dosanjh a dit être prêt à s'asseoir avec n'importe qui et a évoqué les 41 milliards de dollars sur 10 ans, la réduction des temps d'attente et les repères en cours d'élaboration devant être finalisés avant le 31 décembre.
Dosanjh says he is prepared to sit with anybody but pivots to the $41 billion over 10 years, wait times, and benchmarks rather than addressing the specific ask about writing new rules to stop private health care.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to sit with anybody. The issue is that the Prime Minister has provided an additional $41 billion over the next 10 years to the provinces. Wait times are coming down. Benchmarks are being crafted. We will get there before December 31 with the benchmarks across the country.
Cullen cite le classement de la Fondation Suzuki plaçant le Canada au 28e rang sur 30 pays en matière d'environnement et les prochaines négociations climatiques à Montréal, et demande ce que le ministre fera pour cesser de décevoir le Canada et le monde et quand la pollution diminuera enfin.
Cullen cites the Suzuki Foundation's ranking of Canada at number 28 out of 30 and the upcoming Montreal climate conference as factual anchors, but the ask — 'when will pollution finally go down' — is vague and the opening personal attack on Dion reduces the accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear why the B.C. New Democrats won 33 more seats without this minister than with him. This week the Suzuki Foundation said that Canada is at number 28 on a list of 30 when it comes to the environment. When the world comes to Montreal, the government will be thoroughly embarrassed. The only two numbers going up for Canadians are for the amount of pollution and the number of empty promises the government continues to make. What will the minister do to finally stop failing Canada and the world? When will pollution finally go down in this country?
Dion a reconnu qu'il faut faire davantage pour l'environnement, a cité le projet vert et le budget le plus vert depuis la Confédération, puis a attaqué la méthodologie de l'étude de la Fondation Suzuki en soulignant les classements improbables de la Turquie et du Mexique.
Dion acknowledges more needs to be done and mentions project green and the greenest budget since Confederation but spends most of the answer attacking the methodology of the Suzuki Foundation study rather than addressing the question about pollution reductions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we need to do much more for the environment. That is why we have the Prime Minister's project green, to do much more, and the greenest budget since Confederation. The one who must be embarrassed is the hon. member, for quoting a study that lists Turkey as the country that has the best environmental record. As for presenting Mexico as thirteenth, that means that we would take water from a tap in Mexico City before doing it here in Ottawa. What a study.
Poilievre a cité un article du Globe and Mail selon lequel KPMG aurait trouvé des irrégularités dans la firme de la famille du député de Pontiac et dans environ 16 millions de dollars de contrats supplémentaires, interrogeant sur les amis et partisans libéraux qui en auraient bénéficié.
Poilievre references a specific Globe and Mail report, names KPMG as the auditor, cites approximately $16 million in additional contracts with serious irregularities, and identifies the MP for Pontiac's family firm — reasonably factual, but the question was interrupted and reframed in vague partisan terms.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail is reporting today that KPMG had found irregularities in the activities of the firm run by the family of the MP for Pontiac. Does the Minister of Public Works—
Mr. Speaker, my question is more generally pertaining to Liberal fat and Liberal corruption, then. KPMG did an additional audit on approximately $16 million worth of additional contracts that were handed out and it found serious irregularities in that amount of money. We already know that some of this money went directly to Liberal friends and Liberal cronies, some of whom sit in the House of Commons now. How much went to Liberal friends and Liberal—
Oh, oh!
Aucune réponse ministérielle n'a été enregistrée; l'échange a été interrompu et aucune réponse n'a été donnée.
There is no ministerial answer recorded for this exchange; the question was interrupted and apparently not answered.
Chong identifie le candidat libéral Richard Mahoney comme ayant fait du lobbying pour Canadian Satellite Radio sans s'inscrire, et décrit un cocktail au 24 Sussex auquel Mahoney et de grands donateurs libéraux ont assisté juste avant que le cabinet tranche en faveur du client de Mahoney, demandant comment cela se concilie avec la promesse du premier ministre qu'Ottawa ne serait plus une question de « qui connaissez-vous au CPM ».
Chong names Richard Mahoney, identifies him as unregistered lobbyist for Canadian Satellite Radio, cites a specific cocktail party at 24 Sussex, the cabinet decision in favour of Mahoney's client two days later, and invokes the Prime Minister's own stated commitments — well grounded with a clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney, a close friend of the Prime Minister, lobbied for Canadian Satellite Radio even though he was not registered, in complete contravention of the rules. The Prime Minister's mandate started with promises of greater ethics and accountability. He said that the sins of the past had nothing to do with them, but had to do with Mr. Chrétien. He promised that never again would this happen on his watch, yet last month, his friend, the candidate for Ottawa Centre, broke the rules by failing to register as a lobbyist. Will the Prime Minister honour his commitment to greater ethics and accountability and remove Richard Mahoney as the candidate for Ottawa Centre?
Mr. Speaker, maybe I will rephrase the question. The Prime Minister's mandate began with promises that no longer would Ottawa be about “who do you know in the PMO”. Last month, Mr. Mahoney, along with supporters of Canadian Satellite Radio and other large Liberal donors, went to a cocktail party at 24 Sussex just before cabinet was to decide on his client's broadcast licence. Two days later, the Prime Minister and the cabinet ruled in favour of Mr. Mahoney's client. How does he reconcile his own promise that no longer will it be about “who do you know in the PMO” with this kind of behaviour?
Valeri a énuméré cinq réalisations du gouvernement en matière d'éthique — la commission Gomery, le commissaire à l'éthique indépendant, un nouveau code de conduite, la divulgation proactive et un rôle accru des comités — sans mentionner Mahoney ni l'allégation de lobbying.
Valeri does not address Mahoney, the unregistered lobbying, or the cocktail party at 24 Sussex at all, instead listing five generic government ethics accomplishments in a classic deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the party across the way never lets facts get in the way of a good smear. Those members say facts do not matter, but I believe facts do matter. Fact: the Prime Minister cancelled the sponsorship program and established the Gomery commission. Fact: the Prime Minister established the first ever independent Ethics Commissioner. Fact: the Prime Minister adopted a new code of conduct for ministers and public office holders. Fact: the Prime Minister created a new policy for proactive disclosure. Fact: the government has given committees a greater role in influencing legislation. I could go on and on, but my time is up.
Lessard cite la recommandation de l'actuaire en chef de la Commission d'assurance-emploi de réduire les cotisations de 8 cents, entraînant un déficit de plus de 720 millions de dollars, et demande si le ministre envisagerait plutôt les recommandations du Comité permanent des ressources humaines d'améliorer la couverture.
Lessard cites the Employment Insurance Commission chief actuary's latest report, specifies an 8-cent contribution reduction and a $720 million shortfall, and names the Standing Committee on Human Resources report as an alternative — well-grounded with a clear comparative ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in his latest report, the Employment Insurance Commission's chief actuary recommends reducing contributions by 8¢, which would mean a shortfall of more than $720 million in the fund. Since this option is not what workers want, would the minister not be better off considering the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and improving the system by enhancing coverage instead of reducing contributions?
Adams a souligné que les cotisations ont été réduites chaque année depuis de nombreuses années et qu'une nouvelle commission publique, transparente et indépendante a été créée pour recommander les taux de cotisation pour l'année à venir.
Adams acknowledges premium reductions over many years and the establishment of the new independent commission but does not address the specific recommendation to improve coverage instead of reducing contributions, deflecting to process.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have reduced premiums every year for many years, but in the last year we have established a new commission, which is a public commission and a transparent commission, and which will recommend the premiums for the coming year. We look forward to the first ruling of that commission as to what the EI premiums should be.
Lessard demande pourquoi le gouvernement ne rétablira pas un programme de soutien du revenu comme le Programme d'aide à l'adaptation des travailleurs âgés (PATA), aboli en 1997, soulignant que cela coûterait moins d'un cent de la réduction de 8 cents des cotisations recommandée par l'actuaire.
Lessard names a specific program (Program for Older Worker Adjustment, POWA), cites its abolition date (1997), and makes a concrete cost comparison (less than a penny of the 8-cent reduction), providing a factual basis for a direct ask about restoring income support.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, take for example the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA, abolished by the government in 1997. Such an income support program, that workers and the Bloc have been calling for for a long time, would cost less than a penny of the 8¢ reduction the actuary is recommending. What is stopping the government from restoring such a program?
Adams a réitéré que la nouvelle commission indépendante recommandera les taux de cotisation à l'AE selon certains critères, et a noté que le Bloc avait soutenu la création de cette commission, sans aborder le PATA ni le soutien du revenu pour les travailleurs âgés.
Adams repeats his previous answer about the new independent commission and the Bloc's support for it without addressing POWA or the income support program for older workers at all.
Texte source
As I mentioned, and as the party opposite worked for, we have established a new public commission, an independent commission, which will recommend to the government what the EI premiums should be. By the way, it has certain criteria to meet when it makes those recommendations. The Bloc supported that process. It wanted an independent commission. Now we have it. We should wait and see what that commission recommends.
Fletcher cite un nouveau rapport montrant que les temps d'attente ont augmenté dans au moins cinq provinces et que le propre bureaucrate du ministre admet que les délais ne seront pas respectés, demandant comment le ministre peut avoir de la crédibilité auprès des provinces lors de la réunion du week-end.
Cites a specific new report, references the minister's own wait time bureaucrat admitting missed deadlines, and poses an identifiable accountability question about the minister's credibility with provinces ahead of a specific weekend meeting.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the health minister misled the House when he said that wait times have decreased across the country. A new report released yesterday indicates that in at least five provinces wait times have increased. The minister's own wait time bureaucrat admits that deadlines for evidence-based benchmarks will not be met. This weekend, the minister will meet with provincial counterparts to discuss this issue. With this government in such disarray over wait time benchmarks, how can the minister possibly have any credibility with the provinces?
Dosanjh rejette le questionneur comme un partisan de la privatisation, invoque l'engagement de 41 milliards de dollars et affirme que les jalons seront livrés d'ici le 31 décembre, comme convenu par tous les premiers ministres et le Premier ministre.
The minister deflects by labelling the questioner a 'privatizer,' invokes the $41 billion figure without addressing the new report or the bureaucrat's admission, and simply reasserts that benchmarks will be met by December 31 without engaging the credibility question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to see crocodile tears from privatizers over the state of public health care, which we have been trying to strengthen in this country. The fact is that this Prime Minister has provided $41 billion for the next 10 years to strengthen public health care. We will defend public health care. We will strengthen it. We will have the benchmarks by December 31. We signed a deal. All the premiers across the country, including the Prime Minister, signed a deal. We shall have those benchmarks for the people of Canada.
Fletcher demande si le ministre admettra aux provinces ce week-end que le gouvernement a causé la crise des temps d'attente et que le ministre ne sait pas comment la régler.
The question is heavily loaded with rhetorical language ('wishy-washy weasel words') and partisan framing, and the ask — will the minister admit the government caused the wait time crisis — is more a political accusation than an answerable accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister should not be so tough on the private sector because that is where he is going to be applying for a job after the next election. The Conservative Party supports the Canada Health Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This government undermines both. While the minister continues to use wishy-washy weasel words to wiggle out of promised wait time commitments, wait times have actually increased. Will the minister admit to the provinces this upcoming weekend what Canadians already know: that this government caused the wait time crisis and that this health minister has no idea how to fix it?
Dosanjh affirme que les temps d'attente ont diminué selon les données provinciales, puis cite le chef du PCC de 2002 pour le dépeindre comme voulant vider la Loi canadienne sur la santé de sa substance.
The minister counters with a 2002 quote attributed to the CPC leader to paint the party as privatizers, pivoting entirely away from the question about wait times and the upcoming provincial meeting.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that wait times have come down. I do not rely on the Fraser Institutes of the world. There is evidence from all of the provinces across this country that the wait times are coming down. Let me tell members what the privatizers say. The leader of that party today said, back in 2002: The Canada Health Act, at least it has been interpreted, prevents co-payment, user fees, these kinds of things. Surely in some cases these would be preferable to taking services and options out of the public system entirely. This means they want to gut the Canada—
Boshcoff demande comment la législation proposée par le ministre surmontera les problèmes de fardeau de la preuve identifiés dans le rapport de 1998 sur les prix de l'essence concernant la tarification prédatrice et la discrimination par les prix en vertu de la Loi sur la concurrence.
This is a government-backbench softball that references the 1998 report to give the minister a platform to announce proposed legislation, with no real accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. The 1998 report on gasoline pricing in Canada recommended that the federal government act to replace the burden of proof model currently used in sections of the Competition Act when dealing with predatory pricing and price discrimination. How will the minister's proposed legislation overcome these facts?
Emerson explique que les modifications à la Loi sur la concurrence, combinées à l'Agence de surveillance du secteur pétrolier, permettront de mieux s'informer, d'agir plus rapidement et d'imposer des amendes plus élevées pour la tarification prédatrice, la discrimination par les prix et les complots criminels de fixation des prix.
Emerson provides reasonably substantive detail about changes to the Competition Act, the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, enhanced ability to fine companies for predatory or discriminatory prices, and larger capacity to fine in criminal conspiracy cases.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work done by the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. He has been a vigorous advocate for those who are affected by high energy prices. With the changes we are making to the Competition Act, and when we look at the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, we are going to have better information and a sharper ability to move more quickly and fine companies where there is some aberration in pricing conduct through predatory or discriminatory prices. Also, we will have a much larger capacity to fine in cases of criminal conspiracy to fix prices.
Prentice souligne l'état d'urgence à Kashechewan en raison de l'eau potable contaminée à la bactérie E. coli et demande qui est responsable de cette crise persistante après 2 milliards de dollars et 12 ans d'intervention gouvernementale.
The question cites a specific declared state of emergency at Kashechewan, names the contaminant (e-coli), references $2 billion and 12 years of government spending, and presses directly for personal ministerial accountability.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Kashechewan people declared a state of emergency and asked the government to evacuate the entire community because their drinking water is contaminated with deadly e-coli. This did not happen in a third world country. This happened in Ontario and it happened to aboriginal Canadians. In just a moment the minister is going to tell us yet again that he is working on it. The truth is that after $2 billion and 12 years, aboriginal Canadians are still drinking contaminated water. If the minister will not accept personal responsibility, will he tell the House who is accountable for--
Blondin-Andrew rapporte que des opérateurs certifiés de traitement des eaux sont arrivés dimanche et ont stabilisé le système de désinfection, que 26 000 litres d'eau embouteillée ont été expédiés et que le ministre se rend à Kashechewan pour rencontrer la communauté.
Blondin-Andrew provides concrete operational details — certified water treatment operators dispatched, arriving Sunday, system stabilized, 26,000 litres of bottled water shipped — and notes the minister is en route, but does not address the accountability question or the $2 billion/12-year record.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I speak, the minister is on his way to Kashechewan to engage with the people of that community on the priority of their health and the safety of their water. Last week we dispatched certified water treatment operators. They arrived on Sunday. They have been successful in stabilizing the disinfection system and eliminating the risk of bacteria in the treated water supply. To date, at the request of the chief, we have shipped 26,000 litres of bottled water because we are very concerned about the health of those people. The minister is there to engage with them.
Cet échange ne contient aucune question ni réponse substantielle; il ne fait que consigner une reconnaissance procédurale de visiteurs dans la tribune.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear!