Résumé de la séance
- Le programme de commandites a dominé la période des questions, les membres du PCC et du BQ pressant le gouvernement de nommer les associations de circonscription libérales et les candidats ayant reçu de l'argent sale distribué par Marc-Yvan Côté et Michel Béliveau, tandis que le gouvernement renvoyait systématiquement aux conclusions du juge Gomery et à la GRC.
- Quatre membres du PCC ont interrogé le gouvernement au sujet du compte de fiducie scolaire de la Première Nation Keeseekoose, alléguant que plus de 600 000 $ avaient été volés et que l'ancien chef — également candidat libéral — et une équipe de hockey locale dont ce même candidat était président avaient reçu des fonds; le ministre des Affaires indiennes a rejeté les questions comme une campagne de salissage contre les dirigeants des Premières Nations.
- Les membres du NPD Jack Layton, Alexa McDonough et Ed Broadbent ont contesté le refus du gouvernement de trouver un compromis sur le calendrier électoral, soutenant que tous les partis d'opposition avaient accepté un arrangement pratique pour terminer le programme d'automne avant de déclencher des élections en janvier; le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre a insisté sur le fait qu'une motion formelle de non-confiance était la seule voie légitime.
- La péréquation et la situation fiscale de la Saskatchewan ont été soulevées par des membres du PCC et du BQ; le ministre des Finances a soutenu que la Saskatchewan avait reçu 799 millions de dollars en paiements supplémentaires depuis février 2004 et a signalé un surplus provincial de 873 millions de dollars, tandis que les membres de l'opposition ont soutenu que la province perd encore environ 1 milliard de dollars en raison des récupérations sur les revenus des ressources naturelles.
- L'agriculture, les refuges pour femmes autochtones, le programme de soins de compassion, la section d'appel des réfugiés, l'achat du complexe Skyline à PowerCorp, et les questions de patronage concernant David Dingwall et André Ouellet figuraient parmi les autres sujets soulevés, la plupart ayant reçu des réponses non pertinentes ou des réponses dilatoires de la part des ministres.
Le ministre de la Santé a fourni des chiffres précis et concrets : le Budget 2005 alloue 300 millions de dollars sur cinq ans pour une stratégie intégrée comprenant 18 millions de dollars par année pour la stratégie canadienne sur le diabète, les Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada ont investi près de 6 millions de dollars pour la recherche sur le diabète de type 1 en 2004-2005 et 12 millions de dollars pour le diabète de type 2, avec un engagement de croître à 30 millions de dollars au cours des quatre ou cinq prochaines années.
Cites a specific action — Alberta's Monday announcement allowing producers a choice of how to calculate the reference margin under CAIS — and asks the minister to commit to offering the same choice in the six federally administered provinces, a clear and answerable ask.
Plutôt que d'aborder le fond de la question de Jack Layton sur les raisons pour lesquelles le gouvernement ne voulait pas faire de compromis sur le calendrier électoral, Valeri a suggéré que Layton venait tout juste d'arriver à la Chambre et a répété les mêmes arguments sur la convention de confiance sans s'engager sur la proposition précise soumise au Parlement.
Questions sans réponse
- Stephen Harper a demandé quelles associations de circonscription libérales spécifiques au Québec avaient empoché de l'argent volé dans le cadre du programme de commandites, tel qu'identifié par le juge Gomery — le gouvernement a refusé de les nommer et a renvoyé uniquement au rôle de la GRC (Échange 3).
- Michel Gauthier a demandé pourquoi les personnes ayant reçu de l'argent sale distribué dans 18 circonscriptions — pouvant inclure des députés en exercice, des candidats, des employés politiques ou des personnes nommées par le gouvernement — n'avaient subi aucune conséquence et pourquoi le gouvernement prétend avoir fait le ménage (Échange 16).
- Jim Prentice a demandé si le gouvernement retenait des documents d'audit sur le vol du fonds de fiducie scolaire de Keeseekoose afin de protéger l'ancien chef qui était également le candidat libéral local, mais n'a reçu aucune réponse de fond (Échange 12).
- Rona Ambrose a demandé quand le gouvernement fournirait le financement nécessaire aux refuges pour femmes autochtones dans le nord du Québec, étant donné que les femmes autochtones sont 37 fois plus susceptibles que les femmes non autochtones d'être victimes de viol — le ministre a renvoyé entièrement à la prochaine réunion de Kelowna (Échange 21).
- Lynne Yelich a demandé à la ministre du Développement des ressources humaines et des compétences d'expliquer pourquoi aucun changement au programme de soins de compassion n'avait été soumis au Cabinet malgré un engagement pris quelques semaines plus tôt à la Chambre selon lequel des changements arriveraient 'très bientôt' — la ministre n'a pas abordé le fait de ne pas avoir soumis de changements au Cabinet (Échange 34).
Harper demande quand le premier ministre réduira les frais fonciers à l'aéroport Pearson, citant la déclaration de l'IATA selon laquelle le loyer est 'le plus grand obstacle à la réduction des frais aéroportuaires à Pearson'.
Cites the International Air Transport Association's statement and identifies ground rent as the specific issue, with a clear ask to lower ground fees at Pearson Airport.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Torontonians are increasingly upset over the huge fee hikes at Pearson International Airport. The airport says that the fee hike is necessary because the federal government is charging unreasonable ground rent. Today the International Air Transport Association said that rent is, “the biggest single obstacle to lowering airport fees at Pearson”. When will the Prime Minister show some leadership, stop punishing Toronto, and lower ground fees at Pearson Airport?
Lapierre indique que le facteur dette dépasse 40% et que le loyer représente 14% des dépenses, mentionne 5 milliards de dollars de soulagement d'ici 2011, et laisse entendre une possible action à court terme sans engagement ferme.
Provides some relevant figures (debt factor over 40%, rent at 14% of expenses, $5 billion in relief by 2011) and hints at possible short-term action, but does not commit to lowering ground fees.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the biggest factor that is influencing rent in Toronto is the debt factor which is over 40%. The rent represents 14% of the expenses. My colleagues have been looking at that with the GTA and we have had discussions with the airport authority. Obviously, we are giving them $5 billion in relief. That $5 billion in relief is coming by 2011. Perhaps in the short term, we may be able to do something up front to help them because --
Harper demande quand le premier ministre va passer outre à son ministre des Finances et réformer le programme de péréquation pour que la Saskatchewan ne perde pas plus de 750 millions de dollars de revenus.
Cites a specific 2004 promise on equalization reform, a concrete delay to 2006, and a quantified cost of over $750 million in lost revenue to Saskatchewan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, hopefully before that relief is delivered in 2010 there will be a new government. The Prime Minister is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over $750 million in lost revenue. When will the Prime Minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so Saskatchewan does not lose this money?
Goodale affirme que la réforme de la péréquation est en voie pour 2006 et que des paiements planchers ont permis de verser 799 millions de dollars à la Saskatchewan au cours des 18 derniers mois.
Goodale confirms the reform is proceeding in 2006 and cites $799 million in payments over 18 months, but does not address the specific $750 million loss claim or the demand that the Prime Minister overrule the finance minister.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the reform process that we launched in 2004 with respect to equalization is going forward. In fact, we expect it to take place during the course of 2006. In the meantime, there have been floor payments and other arrangements put in place to assist the provinces that are going through various forms of transition. In Saskatchewan's case thus far, that has resulted in payments of $799 million in the last 18 months.
Harper demande au premier ministre de rendre publics les noms des associations de circonscription libérales au Québec qui, selon le juge Gomery, ont empoché de l'argent volé.
References the Gomery report specifically and asks a clear factual question about whether the names of Liberal riding associations that received stolen money will be made public.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Saskatchewan does not buy that and no other federal members buy that. In fact, the only person in Saskatchewan who believes that is the finance minister. It is now 16 days since Justice Gomery made his report public. In it, he says that certain Liberal riding associations in Quebec pocketed stolen money, but the names of those ridings remains a mystery. Will the Prime Minister be frank enough to make public the names of these ridings that used money stolen from the taxpayers?
Lapierre affirme que le rapport Gomery couvre ce que le juge Gomery souhaitait examiner, et que toute enquête supplémentaire relève de la GRC, non du premier ministre ou de l'opposition.
Lapierre deflects to the RCMP's role and denies the Prime Minister's responsibility to act, without addressing whether the names will be released.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition needs only to read Justice Gomery's report. All the points Justice Gomery wished to examine are covered by it. Now, if any investigation is required, that will be the role of the RCMP. I know that all stakeholders are prepared to speak to the RCMP at any time, as every citizen has a duty to do. It is, however, not the role of either the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister to carry out a judicial inquiry.
MacKay demande si le premier ministre réalise maintenant que les Canadiens ne croient pas à son affirmation selon laquelle il ignorait les irrégularités du programme de commandites, citant ses rôles de ministre des Finances et de vice-président du Conseil du Trésor.
Cites cabinet material examined by Justice Gomery and the Prime Minister's specific roles as finance minister and Treasury Board vice-president, but the core ask is rhetorical ('does he now realize').
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in reference to ad scam the Prime Minister said, “The problem did not lay with the concept of the sponsorship program”. That concept, according to cabinet material examined by Justice Gomery included, “strengthening of the organization of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec”. The Prime Minister, as finance minister, sat in the cabinet that discussed the creation of the program. He sat as vice-president of the Treasury Board that reviewed the audits of the program. In his leadership lust, he took over the machinery of the Liberal Party. Does the Prime Minister now realize that Canadians do not believe his ongoing claim that he knew nothing of the wrongdoings in the Liberal Party's sponsorship program?
Brison cite directement le rapport du juge Gomery, affirmant que le premier ministre 'a droit, comme les autres ministres du caucus québécois, d'être exonéré de tout blâme pour négligence ou mauvaise conduite'.
Brison directly quotes Justice Gomery's exoneration of the Prime Minister from the report, which substantively addresses the accountability claim, though it does not engage with the cabinet material cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is what Justice Gomery said in his report: [The Prime Minister], whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct. That is exactly what Justice Gomery said. After hearing from 172 witnesses and after his commission reviewed 28 million pages of documents, Justice Gomery exonerated the Prime Minister completely.
MacKay demande si Chrétien avait raison d'affirmer que le premier ministre actuel était 'au courant comme je l'étais' concernant le programme de commandites.
References a specific Chrétien statement ('He was aware like I was aware') and the Treasury Board sign-off process, but the question is framed in a compound and rhetorically loaded way.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is another non-answer from one of the turncoat, twin towers of virtue on the Prime Minister's ad scam defence team. Mr. Chrétien said he was told by the Treasury Board members that there were no problems with the program. The current Prime Minister, as Treasury Board vice-president, would have to sign off on that response. In reference to the Prime Minister's knowledge, Mr. Chrétien said, “He was aware like I was aware”. Was Mr. Chrétien correct in his assertion that the current Prime Minister was “aware like I was aware”, or does he need more proof of the truth to be proven?
Brison invoque le juge Gomery comme représentant la vérité, puis attaque MacKay pour avoir quitté un parti 'modéré, progressiste et centriste', sans faire référence à la déclaration de Chrétien.
Brison does not address the Chrétien quote or the Treasury Board sign-off question, instead pivoting to a personal attack about MacKay's political history and party membership.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for most reasonable Canadians Justice Gomery represents the truth. Beyond that, the hon. member and I were once both members of a moderate, progressive and centrist party that believed in bilingualism, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and multiculturalism. I still am and he is not.
Duceppe demande comment le premier ministre peut affirmer que le dossier des commandites est clos alors que les paiements de Béliveau à la circonscription de Louis-Hébert et un don de 5 000 $ de Norbourg à un candidat libéral en 2004 restent sans réponse.
Cites specific testimony from Michel Béliveau at the Gomery commission, names a specific riding (Louis-Hébert), and identifies a specific dollar amount ($5,000 from the Norbourg president), with a clear question about unanswered allegations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Michel Béliveau, the former director of the Liberal Party banned for distributing envelopes of dirty money from the sponsorship scandal told the Gomery commission that he had paid off the $8,000 debt accumulated by the candidate in the riding of Louis-Hébert in the 1997 election. The Liberal candidate in Louis-Hébert in the 2004 election received $5,000 from the president of Norbourg, who swindled thousands of small investors. How can the Prime Minister claim that the sponsorship scandal file is closed and that things have been cleaned up when a number of allegations regarding the Liberal Party remain unanswered?
Lapierre accuse Duceppe de 'salissage' et d'allégations non corroborées dans le rapport du juge Gomery, sans aborder les faits précis soulevés.
Lapierre dismisses Duceppe's question as 'muckraking and untruths' without addressing any of the specific facts cited, and does not answer whether the allegations remain open.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the leader of the Bloc Québécois is trying to develop new muckraking activities. He is making allegations not corroborated in Justice Gomery's report. I know that the Bloc Québécois leader is not satisfied with the judge's conclusions, but his remarks are nothing but muckraking and untruths. He should be more responsible.
Duceppe soutient que puisque Marc-Yvan Côté a été banni pour avoir distribué de l'argent sale, le gouvernement a le devoir de divulguer qui l'a reçu.
Duceppe makes a logical point about Béliveau and Marc-Yvan Côté and asks whether the government has a duty to identify who received the dirty money, but the question is more argumentative than specifically grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Gomery commission revealed that Mr. Béliveau had paid the $8,000 and that Marc-Yvan Côté had been banned for unlawful action. I imagine that if he gave the money to someone, it is quite likely someone received it. That is basic logic. If someone is to be banished for doling out dirty money, do the members of the government not have a duty to say who got the money? By doing so, they would shed light on this scandal. This activity is not entirely above board, but it took place.
Lapierre accuse le Bloc de faire des insinuations sans preuve, affirme que le rapport Gomery a contredit le Bloc sur tous les points, et n'aborde pas le devoir de divulguer les bénéficiaires.
Lapierre again dismisses the question as 'insinuations' and 'sullying tricks' without addressing the logical argument or the duty to disclose recipients.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois leader has a habit of trying to tarnish people's reputation and making insinuations without providing any proof or naming names. He has tried to cast doubt on a lot of people. This is the old Bloc Québécois style, their old sullying tricks. People have, however, seen through it, because the Gomery report contradicted the Bloc on all points. They should have learned.
Guimond soulève le cas de la candidate libérale de Lévis qui a dit avoir été pénalisée pour avoir refusé de 'faire de la politique sale', et fait référence à l'expulsion de Marc-Yvan Côté pour avoir donné de l'argent contaminé à 18 circonscriptions, mais la question est interrompue.
Cites the testimony of a Liberal candidate in Lévis and references Marc-Yvan Côté's expulsion for giving tainted money to 18 ridings, but the question is cut off before a specific ask is made.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we will submit a concrete case to the Minister of Transport. According to the Liberal candidate in Lévis, the Liberal Party of Canada was not as generous to her in 1997 because she refused, in her own words, “to play dirty politics”. She added “I have always been told I was too honest to be a politician”. Marc-Yvan Côté was expelled from the Liberal Party of Canada for having given tainted money to 18 ridings in eastern Quebec, and in these 10 or so candidates received money personally. Since the Prime Minister refuses to name the candidates who received the tainted money, he might find it easier to—
Lapierre affirme que chaque sou a été remboursé au gouvernement par le Parti libéral et que le rapport Gomery fournit ses conclusions, accusant le Bloc d'«assassinat de caractère».
Lapierre states that every red cent has been paid back by the Liberal Party and that the Gomery report provides conclusions, but does not address the unnamed candidates who received money or the cut-off question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Justice Gomery has examined the entire situation and every red cent of the money has been paid back to the government by the Liberal Party of Canada. The Gomery report provides certain conclusions. The Bloc Québécois members are not satisfied with those conclusions, so they want to invent some scandals and continue their character assassination based on facts that are not true.
Guimond demande que si le ministre croit que les 120 000 $ d'argent sale de Marc-Yvan Côté ont été remboursés, qui les a reçus en premier lieu.
Asks a sharp and logical follow-up question: if the $120,000 of Marc-Yvan Côté's dirty money has been reimbursed, then someone received it — who?
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the minister believes that the $120,000 of Marc-Yvan Côté's dirty money has been reimbursed, that means certain people received that money. Who did and who did not receive it?
Lapierre affirme qu'il n'appartient pas au gouvernement de faire le travail de la police, et que la GRC dispose de l'ensemble du rapport Gomery et a accès à tous les documents et témoins.
Lapierre deflects to the RCMP's role and expresses faith in police over the Bloc, without identifying or committing to identify who received the money.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is not our role to do the job of the police. I am sure that the member, not being satisfied with Justice Gomery's work, will not be satisfied with the role of the police either. Yet the RCMP has the entire Gomery report in its possession, and can have access to all documents and all witnesses. I have far more faith in the police than in the Bloc Québécois.
Layton demande pourquoi le premier ministre n'acceptera pas la proposition de compromis qui permettrait à la Chambre d'adopter certaines mesures avant de déclencher des élections en janvier, citant la déclaration de la vice-première ministre selon laquelle rien n'empêche le premier ministre d'accepter.
References the Deputy Prime Minister's statement from the previous day as grounding, but the question ('Why is it that this leader is the only leader in the House that will not compromise?') is largely rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all week we have been listening to Liberals say that they could not adopt the reasonable compromise that is before Parliament that could get things done and launch the election in January. However, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that there was absolutely nothing to stop the Prime Minister from agreeing to this proposal. It is not a question of whether the Liberals cannot agree to the proposal, it is a question of whether they will. They simply will not. Here is the question. Why is it that this leader is the only leader in the House that will not compromise?
Valeri soutient que la confiance est un interrupteur marche-arrêt et que l'opposition ne peut pas voter la défiance aujourd'hui pour en retarder les conséquences à janvier, invitant l'opposition à présenter une motion de défiance si elle n'a pas confiance.
Valeri reframes the constitutional principle of confidence rather than addressing the specific compromise proposal or the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, and pivots to attacking Layton.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is suggesting that it should be able to vote non-confidence in the government today and have the consequences some time in January. Opposition members have asked this question over and over again. I think the reason they are asking this question over and over again is because the leader of the NDP is fearful of the fact that so many people have said there was absolutely nothing wrong with having an election as indicated by the Prime Minister in his commitment to Canadians. Today he is attempting to backtrack and is afraid to accept the fact that either we have confidence or we do not. If we do not, have the courage to put something forward.
Layton demande pourquoi le Parti libéral ne fera pas de compromis dans l'intérêt du Canada, qualifiant l'approche du gouvernement de 'tactiques d'intimidation puériles'.
Mostly rhetorical and partisan, characterizing the government's approach as 'childish bullying tactics' with a vague ask about why the party will not compromise.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that can only be described as childish bullying tactics. It really is.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, what people have just seen is really quite childish. It is a bullying approach. It does not make sense to Canadians because they do not buy the idea that a party that received 37% of the vote deserves 100% of the control all the time. They want to see a compromise, so that the things they would like to see done can get done. Why will this party not compromise in the interest of Canada?
Valeri explique que la démocratie parlementaire fonctionne selon le principe qu'un gouvernement doit avoir la confiance du Parlement et que la confiance est 'comme un interrupteur marche-arrêt', invitant le NPD à présenter une motion de défiance.
Valeri explains the parliamentary principle that confidence is binary and calls on the NDP to put forward a non-confidence motion, which is marginally responsive to the compromise question but does not address the specific proposal.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has just recently come to this place and he is certainly welcome by all other members, but the hon. member should understand that we are in fact in a parliamentary democracy that operates on a principle that a government must have the confidence of Parliament. If the hon. member wants to in fact demonstrate that he does not have the confidence in the government, then what is required is a motion of non-confidence on the floor of the House of Commons. Confidence is like an on-off switch. One either has it or one does not. If there is a suggestion we do not, then put the motion forward.
Prentice demande si le ministre des Affaires indiennes tente de protéger l'ancien chef et candidat libéral en refusant de produire les documents de vérification concernant le vol de 600 000 $ dans le fonds de fiducie scolaire de Keeseekoose.
Cites a specific dollar amount ($600,000), identifies a shift in the minister's position from 'ridiculous' to 'serious financial irregularities' between Monday and Tuesday, and asks whether he is protecting a former Liberal candidate.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was questioned about the Keeseekoose education trust account of $600,000, which has now been stolen. At the time, he said that the allegations were ridiculous. By Tuesday, according to the minister, those ridiculous allegations had become serious financial irregularities with the RCMP involved and, in addition, criminal charges being laid. The minister is having some difficulty getting his story straight. We know that his department has audit documents about the theft. He is refusing to produce them. Is he trying to protect the former chief, the former Liberal candidate?
Scott affirme que les gouvernements des Premières Nations prennent la reddition de comptes au sérieux, que la police a été informée et que des accusations ont été portées, et accuse les conservateurs de tenter de discréditer les Premières Nations et leur direction.
Scott dismisses the question as an attempt to discredit first nations and makes no reference to the minister's changing account or the audit documents, answering a different question entirely.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, whether the Conservatives like it or not, first nations governments take matters of accountability very seriously. That is exactly what we have seen in this case. Where irregularities were found, the police were informed and charges were laid. What we see from the other side shows once again that these Conservatives will do anything to discredit first nations, their leadership and their members.
Prentice suggère sarcastiquement que le gouvernement établisse un 'registre des délinquants libéraux' que le public pourrait consulter, sans poser de question de reddition de comptes substantielle.
The question degenerates into a call for a 'Liberal offender registry,' which is pure rhetorical mockery with no real accountable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the chief at the time of the theft was the Liberal candidate, but in fairness, I am not surprised that the minister is confused. It is difficult for all Canadians to actually keep a clear picture of which Liberals are under RCMP investigation and which are not, which have been convicted and which have not, and which have been banned from the party for life and which have not. Would the government consider establishing a sort of Liberal offender registry, a criminal registry that the public could consult from time to time and which the minister could use?
Oh, oh!
Scott affirme que les Canadiens reconnaissent une campagne de salissage quand ils en voient une et accuse les conservateurs de cibler la direction des Premières Nations.
Scott accuses the opposition of running a smear campaign and targeting first nations, making no substantive response to any element of the exchange.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I will say it again--
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know a smear campaign when they see it. Canadians know how those members feel about first nations and their leadership. Here we go again.
Breitkreuz demande pourquoi le ministre ne défendra pas les écoliers de la réserve de Keeseekoose, citant des dépenses détaillées incluant 1 200 $ pour Sea World et 125 $ pour Universal Studios prélevés sur le compte scolaire.
Cites specific itemized expenses from the Keeseekoose school account ($1,200 for Sea World, $158 for Zorro Jewelry, $125 for Universal Studios, totalling over $3,000) and asks a clear accountability question about the minister's response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, apparently the new Liberal education policy involves paying for California vacations out of a schoolchild's education fund. I ask members to listen to this list of money taken from the Keeseekoose school account: $1,200 for Sea World, $158 for Zorro Jewelry of Santa Monica, $125 for Universal Studios. In total, this is over $3,000 stolen from the children on the reserve to pay for a California vacation. Why will the minister not stand up for the schoolchildren of the Keeseekoose reserve?
Scott affirme que le gouvernement défend l'éducation et les Premières Nations comme le démontre la prochaine réunion de Kelowna, sans aborder les dépenses précises citées.
Scott does not address the specific expenditures or the theft from the children's account, instead pivoting to the upcoming Kelowna meeting and accusing the opposition of not caring about first nations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this government is standing up for education and first nations. That is the reason why we are going to Kelowna at the end of this month. That is what people who really care about first nations do, not this.
Lukiwski demande si le ministre confirmera une enquête complète sur le vol dans le compte scolaire de Keeseekoose, citant plus de 6 000 $ volés en un jour, dont 2 000 $ au Casino Regina et 4 000 $ à une équipe de hockey dont le président était le candidat libéral local.
Cites specific amounts ($6,000 in one day, $2,000 withdrawn at Casino Regina, $4,000 transferred to a local hockey team), identifies the former Liberal candidate as president of that hockey team, and asks a clear question about a full investigation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker , I do not think the minister understands how serious the situation is. On one day alone over $6,000 was stolen from the school's account: $2,000 was withdrawn at Casino Regina and $4,000 was transferred to a local hockey team. The local Liberal candidate was the president of that hockey team. To make matters worse, the Liberals knew about this theft before they nominated the candidate who is at the heart of this controversy. Will the minister confirm today that he will conduct a full investigation of this matter? Or is this simply another Liberal cover-up?
Scott affirme que la GRC est intervenue et a réglé la question, et accuse les conservateurs de salir la direction des Premières Nations.
Scott says the RCMP has been brought in and dealt with the issue, but does not confirm a full departmental investigation or address the nomination of the candidate linked to the controversy.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has been brought in and has dealt with the issue. The reality is that in this case those members are smearing first nations leadership. That is typical of the Conservative Party and the first nations leadership itself will not stand for it.
Gauthier a cité le témoignage de Marc-Yvan Côté sur des enveloppes brunes dans 18 circonscriptions et de Michel Béliveau sur 100 000 $ dans l'ouest du Québec, et a demandé comment le gouvernement peut prétendre avoir fait le ménage alors que ceux qui ont touché cet argent sale restent au sein du Parti libéral.
Cites specific testimony from Marc-Yvan Côté (18 ridings, brown envelopes) and Michel Béliveau ($100,000 in western Quebec) from the Gomery inquiry, but the ask — how can the government claim to have cleaned house — is broad and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government banished 10 people from the Liberal Party for life and is trying to close the books on the sponsorship scandal. However, Marc-Yvan Côté referred to 18 ridings where brown envelopes were handed out and Michel Béliveau spoke of $100,000 that went to ridings in western Quebec. That leaves a lot of people still on the Liberal team who had their hands on this dirty money. Who knows, they could be MPs, candidates, political staff or government appointees. How can the government claim to have cleaned house when these people are still within the Liberal Party and the government?
Lapierre a accusé Gauthier d'abuser du privilège parlementaire et de ternir des réputations sans fondement, sans fournir de réponse substantielle.
Lapierre does not address the question at all, instead accusing Gauthier of abusing parliamentary privilege and tarnishing reputations, offering no substantive response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, did you notice his abuse of parliamentary privilege, his attempt to tarnish the reputation of certain MPs? It is terrible and unfounded. It is simply appalling.
Gauthier a répété le témoignage à l'enquête Gomery selon lequel Marc-Yvan Côté avait distribué de l'argent sale dans 18 des 21 circonscriptions et que Michel Béliveau avait remis 100 000 $ dans l'ouest du Québec, et a demandé pourquoi les bénéficiaires ont agi en toute impunité.
Reiterates specific Gomery testimony — Marc-Yvan Côté handing money to 18 of 21 ridings and Michel Béliveau distributing $100,000 in western Quebec — with a pointed ask about why recipients acted with complete impunity.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem repeating outside what I am saying here. At the Gomery inquiry, Marc-Yvan Côté said he had handed out money to 18 of 21 ridings. Members of Parliament were elected in at least some of those ridings. We are talking about 18 ridings out of 21 that got dirty money. At the Gomery inquiry, Michel Béliveau said he gave out $100,000 in western Quebec to get candidates elected. Why is it that those who got dirty money did so with complete impunity and why does the government claim it has cleaned house?
Lapierre a défié Gauthier de nommer des noms, a invoqué les conclusions du juge Gomery et a qualifié les questions de ragots, sans aborder le témoignage précis ni la question de l'impunité.
Lapierre deflects by challenging Gauthier to name names, dismisses the question as muckraking, and references Justice Gomery's findings without engaging the specific testimony cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the deputy leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to name names, let him do so. But if he just wants to continue tarnishing reputations then he needs to stop. Justice Gomery has spoken. I know they are not happy with Justice Gomery's findings. They want to re-write the report. It is too late. The inquiry is over and Justice Gomery has presented his findings. The rest is nothing more than muckraking. They are trying to tarnish reputations without having the courage to name names. That is their problem.
Loubier a cité une description d'un surplus de plus de 100 milliards de dollars et d'une attitude condescendante d'Ottawa, et a demandé au ministre des Finances de reconnaître l'existence du déséquilibre fiscal et de s'engager à y remédier.
Opens with a quoted passage about a $100 billion-plus surplus and characterizes the federal attitude as cavalier and paternalistic, then asks whether the Minister of Finance will recognize the fiscal imbalance and commit to fixing it — a reasonably specific ask but framed with rhetorical quotation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, “Pockets bulging with what is estimated to be a $100 billion-plus surplus for the next five years, the federal government is taking a cavalier and paternalistic approach to the provinces. This Ottawa-knows-best attitude is beginning to rub the taxpayers the wrong way.” Should the Minister of Finance not at last bow to the evidence, recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance, and make a commitment to fix it, since he has the means, and then some?
Goodale a déclaré que les transferts aux provinces sont au niveau le plus élevé de l'histoire et augmenteront de 100 milliards de dollars supplémentaires sur dix ans, sans reconnaître le déséquilibre fiscal.
Goodale cites transfer payments at their highest level ever and an additional $100 billion over ten years, which is relevant context but does not address the fiscal imbalance concept or commit to fixing it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has increased transfer payments to the provinces to their highest level ever in history. On top of that, over the next 10 years those transfer payments will be going up again by about another $100 billion. All of this is to assist the provinces in discharging their important responsibilities, just as the Government of Canada addresses its very important responsibilities on behalf of all Canadians. It is a question of balance, fairness and transparency. That is what we showed in the statement on Monday.
Loubier a révélé que la citation critique sur l'arrogance fédérale provenait des écrits du ministre des Transports dans Le Journal des affaires, et a demandé quand les libéraux fédéraux cesseront de nier le déséquilibre fiscal.
Loubier reveals that his opening quote was written by the Minister of Transport himself in Le Journal des affaires, adding a sharp accountability angle, and asks when the federal Liberals will stop denying the fiscal imbalance — though the ask remains somewhat vague.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport should give up on his denials, because my opening remark came from something he himself wrote in Le Journal des affaires . He also wrote in that same article that “With their arrogant and opportunistic behaviour, those shameless characters in Ottawa risk reawakening the forces like those that have already brought down many a government”. It is obvious that the minister has had a change of heart because he is now in the process of becoming the poster boy for Liberal arrogance. When will the federal Liberals give up being the only ones denying the existence of the fiscal imbalance and decide to do something about it?
Goodale a cité des réactions favorables du ministre des Finances du Québec, de la principale organisation patronale du Québec, d'associations étudiantes et d'universités, sans aborder le déséquilibre fiscal.
Goodale lists favourable reactions from Quebec's finance minister, a large business organization, student organizations, and universities, without addressing the fiscal imbalance or responding to the minister's own quoted words.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would note that in response to the statement on Monday we had a very favourable reaction from the minister of finance of Quebec. We had a very favourable reaction from the largest business organization in Quebec. We have had favourable reactions from student organizations across the country and from universities across the country, including universities in Quebec. All of this is intended to raise disposable incomes, improve standards of living and improve the Canadian quality of life everywhere, in Quebec and all across the country. That is what we are doing.
Ambrose a cité le fait que les femmes autochtones du nord du Québec sont 37 fois plus susceptibles d'être victimes de viol que les non-autochtones, et a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement refuse d'aider les femmes autochtones dans le besoin.
Cites a specific statistic — aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of rape — but the ask ('why is this government refusing to help') is broadly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of rape. Why is this government refusing to help aboriginal women in need?
Scott a dit que la violence familiale et le logement des femmes dans le nord du Canada sont spécifiquement abordés à Kelowna, avec l'appui de l'AFAC.
Scott references domestic violence being specifically addressed at Kelowna with NWAC support and mentions housing problems, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the specific statistic or explain current government actions.
Texte source
Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, in Kelowna one of the items that we are dealing with very specifically, supported by NWAC, as a matter of fact, is domestic violence, along with the housing problems that face women in northern Canada. We are in fact dealing with that very specifically in Kelowna.
Ambrose a répété que les femmes autochtones du nord du Québec sont 37 fois plus susceptibles d'être victimes de violence, a mentionné un sous-financement de près de 200 000 $ pour les refuges, et a demandé quand le gouvernement fournira le financement nécessaire.
Combines the 37-times statistic with a specific funding figure — aboriginal women's shelters in Quebec underfunded by nearly $200,000 — and makes a clear, actionable ask for funding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat this: aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely to be victims of violence. Yet we know that aboriginal women's shelters in Quebec are underfunded by nearly $200,000. The women in these northern communities have been abandoned and they need our help now. When will the government take its responsibility seriously and provide the needed funding for aboriginal women's shelters?
Scott a déclaré que la réunion des premiers ministres à Kelowna traiterait spécifiquement de cette question et a fait remarquer que c'est la première fois que les conservateurs soulèvent le sujet.
Scott again references Kelowna and adds a partisan jab that this is the first time Conservatives have raised the issue, without addressing the $200,000 funding shortfall or committing to any specific action.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the first ministers meeting in Kelowna will be dealing very specifically with this. It has been a matter of some interest for the last year and a half and this is the first time we have heard anything about it from the Conservatives.
Finley a affirmé que le gouvernement avait abandonné les agriculteurs dans le mini-budget malgré les affirmations du ministre, a noté un manque à gagner annuel de 2 milliards de dollars, et a demandé si le ministre admettrait mériter un 'D' pour la distribution des fonds.
References the minister's own prior self-assessment ('A' for his announcement) and a $2 billion annual shortfall, but the ask — will he admit he deserves a 'D' — is largely rhetorical and combative rather than specific.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, true to form, this government abandoned farmers in its mini-budget. Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food referred to the money that he promised farmers. However, the reality is that farmers are facing an annual shortfall of $2 billion. The minister is giving himself an “A” for his announcement. Will he admit that he deserves a “D” when it comes to distributing the money?
Mitchell a cité le paiement TISP de 1 milliard de dollars, le paiement FIP de 1 milliard de dollars et le programme CSRN de 2,2 milliards de dollars, affirmant que les paiements aux producteurs sont à des niveaux records.
Mitchell cites specific programs and amounts — TISP payment of $1 billion, FIP payment of $1 billion, CAIS program of $2.2 billion — and asserts payments to producers are at record levels, which is substantively responsive even if it does not directly engage the 'D' framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary, the economic statement presented by the Minister of Finance clearly stated that we stand by our farmers. We will and we have. We refer to the TISP payment of $1 billion, the FIP payment just this spring of $1 billion, and our CAIS program of $2.2 billion. In reality, payments to producers are at record levels in this country today because our producers are in need. We understand that and as a government we are responding to it.
Finley a cité l'annonce de l'Alberta lundi concernant des modifications au programme CSRN donnant aux producteurs le choix de la méthode de calcul de la marge de référence, et a demandé au ministre de s'engager à offrir le même choix dans les six provinces où le programme est administré par le fédéral.
Cites a specific action — Alberta's Monday announcement allowing producers a choice of how to calculate the reference margin under CAIS — and asks the minister to commit to offering the same choice in the six federally administered provinces, a clear and answerable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is the promises that are at a record high level. The Liberals do not deliver. On Monday the government of Alberta announced changes to the CAIS program that will allow producers in that province a choice of how to calculate the reference margin. Will the minister commit today in the House to follow Alberta's lead and offer the same choice in the six provinces where the program is administered by the federal government? If not, why not?
Mitchell a énuméré les modifications déjà apportées au CSRN et a indiqué qu'une réunion des ministres est prévue la semaine prochaine pour discuter des modifications au calcul des marges, qui nécessitent un accord fédéral-provincial.
Mitchell lists several CAIS changes already made, acknowledges that changing margin calculations requires agreement of the federal government and seven provinces representing 50% of farm gate receipts, and notes a meeting scheduled next week — relevant and partially responsive but does not commit to the specific ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have been working on the CAIS program. In terms of changes, we have increased the cap. We have allowed for negative margin coverage. We have eliminated the deposit. We have allowed for a targeted advance. We have expanded the eligibility for negative margins. We are working on other changes such as inventory evaluation. As the hon. member knows, if we are to make a change in how margins are calculated, we need the agreement of the federal government and the seven provinces that represent 50% of farm gate receipts. We have a meeting scheduled next week where ministers will be discussing just that.
Myers a demandé au ministre de la Santé d'informer la Chambre des investissements du gouvernement pour trouver un remède au diabète juvénile de type 1, à la suite de la visite de la Fondation de la recherche sur le diabète juvénile sur la Colline.
A government-backbench softball asking the Minister of Health to inform the House about government investments in curing juvenile type 1 diabetes, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, juvenile type 1 diabetes is a cause close to my heart. Members of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation were on the Hill yesterday and I would like to thank all the members who met with them. They had some very compelling stories to share and an equally compelling case. Could the Minister of Health please inform the House about the government's investments for curing this debilitating disease?
Dosanjh a cité 300 millions de dollars sur cinq ans pour la stratégie intégrée, dont 18 millions par an pour la stratégie canadienne sur le diabète, près de 6 millions pour la recherche sur le diabète de type 1 en 2004-2005 et 12 millions pour le type 2, devant atteindre 30 millions sur quatre ou cinq ans.
Dosanjh provides specific figures: $300 million over five years for the integrated strategy including $18 million per year for the Canadian diabetes strategy, close to $6 million for type 1 diabetes research in 2004-05, $12 million for type 2, growing to $30 million over four or five years.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this very important question to my attention. I met with members of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation earlier in the year and yesterday. They are doing very important work. Budget 2005 provides $300 million over five years for the integrated strategy, which includes $18 million a year for the Canadian diabetes strategy. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research invested close to $6 million for type 1 diabetes research in fiscal year 2004-05 and $12 million for type 2 diabetes. That is going to go to $30 million over the next four or five years.
McDonough a demandé quand le premier ministre a décidé d'abandonner son engagement à respecter la volonté du Parlement, en citant un compromis pratique pour terminer le programme de l'automne.
Frames a question about the Prime Minister scrapping his commitment to respect the will of Parliament, referencing a 'practical, common sense compromise' and the fall agenda, but the ask is vague and heavily rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a minority government last time in the hopes that it would curb the arrogance of the Liberals, who consider themselves accountable to nobody. Despite the Prime Minister's promise to improve democracy, he now seems prepared to thumb his nose at the will of Parliament and at the wishes of Canadians. He is prepared to reject a practical, common sense compromise to complete the fall agenda and then early in the new year launch an election campaign. When did the Prime Minister decide to scrap his commitment to respect the will of Parliament?
Valeri a dit que le premier ministre a pris un engagement à la télévision nationale conforme au souhait des deux tiers des Canadiens d'attendre le deuxième rapport du juge Gomery, et a imputé à l'opposition toute dissolution du Parlement.
Valeri invokes the Prime Minister's commitment made on national television and the two-thirds of Canadians who wanted to wait for Justice Gomery's second report, then blames the opposition, without addressing the compromise proposal or the specific question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians on national television and he is going to be consistent with that commitment. While the hon. member makes the comments that she does, in fact the opposition members are not operating at all in the public interest. They are operating in their own narrow partisan interests. Two-thirds of Canadians said they wanted to wait for Justice Gomery's second report. That is the commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. He made it on national television. The Prime Minister will ensure that he meets that commitment. If in fact this Parliament does dissolve, it will be 100% the responsibility of the opposition parties.
Broadbent a déclaré que le Parti conservateur, le Bloc Québécois et le NPD avaient tous fait des compromis sur la question du calendrier électoral, et a demandé si le refus du gouvernement de faire de même est un exemple d'arrogance libérale sans bornes.
Broadbent notes that all three opposition parties have compromised and asks whether the government's my-way-or-no-way stance is unmitigated Liberal arrogance — largely rhetorical with no specific factual grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or the government House leader. Every member of every party in the House knows that we are going to have an election soon. The Conservative Party has compromised. The Bloc Québécois has compromised. We have compromised. Is it not an example of unmitigated Liberal arrogance to say, “Either it is my way or no way?”
Valeri a cité la déclaration du chef de l'opposition du 10 mai selon laquelle la confiance de la Chambre est le seul mandat démocratique du gouvernement, et a mis l'opposition au défi de présenter une motion et d'en assumer la responsabilité.
Valeri deflects by quoting the Leader of the Opposition's May 10 statement about confidence and challenging the NDP-Conservative partnership, without addressing the compromise offer or the arrogance characterization.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he check with his new-found partner, the leader of the official opposition. On the one hand they suggest they have no confidence and then on the other hand they suggest that we continue to govern, pass legislation and implement government spending. How quickly the hon. member and the leader of the official opposition forget what the Leader of the Opposition said on May 10: “the confidence of this chamber...is the only democratic mandate this government has”. We either have the confidence of this chamber or we do not. If we do not, they can put forward a motion and take responsibility--
Lunn a mentionné l'achat par le gouvernement du complexe Skyline auprès de PowerCorp pour 92 millions de dollars et a demandé comment dépenser cette somme pour un immeuble que le gouvernement n'avait pas l'intention d'acheter représente la meilleure valeur pour le contribuable canadien.
Cites a specific purchase price of $92 million for the Skyline complex from PowerCorp and asks how spending that amount on a building the government was not in the market to buy represents best value — a reasonably grounded ask but with heavy rhetorical framing about Liberal cronies.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government spent $92 million purchasing the Skyline complex from PowerCorp. The government claims that it is getting the best possible value for Canadian tax dollars. The truth is that this is nothing more than best value for Liberal cronies, their friends, and everyone knows it. How is spending $92 million on a building, the government was not even in the market to buy, getting best value for the Canadian taxpayer?
Brison a déclaré que la question repose sur un article de presse non fondé comportant des erreurs factuelles et a offert au député une séance d'information ministérielle, sans fournir de chiffres ou de détails précis en réfutation.
Brison dismisses the question as based on an unsubstantiated media story with wrong facts and offers a departmental briefing, but provides no specific facts to rebut the $92 million figure or explain the purchase decision.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is basing his false allegations on an unsubstantiated media story that had its facts wrong. Yesterday I offered him a briefing from our department that would provide him with the facts. I would reiterate today that the hon. member is more than welcome to entertain that briefing and to learn the facts. He would learn that he was wrong and that best value for the Canadian taxpayer was provided while we achieved reasonable accommodations for Canadian public servants.
Lunn a cité un document d'accès à l'information montrant que PowerCorp a sollicité le gouvernement pour effectuer l'achat de 92 millions de dollars, et a demandé si la transaction reflète un accès privilégié accordé à de puissants libéraux plutôt que la meilleure valeur pour les contribuables.
References a specific access to information document showing PowerCorp solicited the government for the purchase, and asks whether special access to powerful Liberals explains the transaction — reasonably grounded but still rhetorical in framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is an access to information that will show PowerCorp solicited the government to make the purchase. Is there any other company in the country that could just walk into cabinet and ask for $92 million for a building? The truth is that this happens because special access is granted to powerful Liberals and not to anyone else. Is it not true that this is about best value for powerful Liberals rather than best value for taxpayers?
Brison a réitéré l'offre d'une séance d'information ministérielle et a déclaré que le prix d'achat était inférieur à la valeur marchande à l'époque et aujourd'hui, et que les coûts d'aménagement étaient raisonnables.
Brison again offers a departmental briefing and adds that the purchase price was below market value then and today and that fit-up costs were reasonable, providing some factual content but not addressing the access to information document or the solicitation allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that the hon. member does not want the truth to stand in the way of his false allegations. Once again I will reiterate that he can have a briefing from the department which will show him that best value was achieved. Beyond that, the purchase price was below market value then and today, and the fit-up costs were reasonable to ensure that Canadian public servants were housed reasonably in this building that was purchased in 2003.
Pallister a cité au moins 693 000 $ en contrats de lobbying libéraux et 700 000 $ de salaire pour David Dingwall à titre de chef de patronage à la Monnaie, et a demandé pourquoi les libéraux s'entêtent à se défendre mutuellement au détriment des contribuables canadiens.
Cites specific figures — $693,000 in Liberal lobbying contracts and $700,000 in salary — but conflates different amounts and uses loaded language like 'chingwall' and 'patronage leader,' making it more of a rhetorical attack than a precise accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when David Dingwall was thrown out by the people of Cape Breton in 1997, the Liberal patronage machine kicked right into action. Between then and now, Dingwall has received from Canadian taxpayers at least $693,000 in Liberal lobbying contracts and $700,000 for his salary as patronage leader at the Mint. Now Liberal lawyers are negotiating chingwall's severance with other Liberal lawyers. Why do Liberals insist on defending one another and abusing Canadian taxpayers?
McCallum a contesté le chiffre de 700 000 $, expliquant qu'il comprend les salaires d'autres employés, les dépenses de bureau, le papier et les ordinateurs, et a dit que le chiffre de 1 million de dollars ne peut être atteint qu'en comptant le salaire de Dingwall deux fois.
McCallum directly contests the $700,000 figure by explaining it includes salaries of other employees, office expenses, paper, and computers, and notes the $1 million figure double-counts Dingwall's salary — a substantive rebuttal even if incomplete.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is quite astounding that the member opposite continues to put out these false numbers when he has been proven wrong so often. The $700,000 number includes Mr. Dingwall's salary, the salaries of other employees, office expenses, paper and computers. The $1 million cost, to which the hon. member referred before, could only be reached if Mr. Dingwall's salary were counted twice. The member has no credibility on numbers and he should realize that point.
Pallister a cité les 2 millions de dollars de dépenses somptuaires d'André Ouellet, la promesse du premier ministre de procéder à une vérification et une attente de 14 mois sans résultat, et a demandé si le premier ministre admettra qu'il tente de cacher les faits aux Canadiens jusqu'après les prochaines élections fédérales.
References André Ouellet's $2 million in lavish expenses, the Prime Minister's promise of an audit, and a 14-month wait — specific enough — but combines multiple issues (Dingwall, Ouellet, accountability) and the ask about a cover-up is broad and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I stand by my numbers and the minister stands by Dingwall. The Prime Minister does not clean up, he covers up, and that is what the government is doing. Let us take André Ouellet, please. The Liberal porkmaster general felt entitled to pay himself $2 million in lavish expenses. The public was angry. The Prime Minister promised an audit and 14 months later we are still waiting. What happened to accountability? What happened to cleaning things up? André Ouellet is the poster boy for Liberal entitlement and this is a cover-up. Will the Prime Minister stand up and admit that he is trying to hide the facts from Canadians until after the next federal election?
McCallum a dit que la loi l'empêche de commenter l'affaire Ouellet et a fait l'éloge des employés de l'Agence du revenu du Canada pour la grande diligence et le professionnalisme avec lesquels ils s'acquittent de leurs vérifications.
McCallum disclaims standing by Dingwall, invokes a legal prohibition on commenting on the Ouellet matter, and pivots to praising the Canada Revenue Agency's diligence, without addressing the audit timeline or the cover-up allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not stand by David Dingwall. I stand by at least rudimentary accuracy in the use of figures and facts in this chamber. In terms of Mr. Ouellet, as I indicated rather graphically two days ago, the law inhibits me from commenting on that matter. However I can say that I am honoured and privileged to be in charge of the Canada Revenue Agency because I can attest that the employees of that agency are carrying out their audits and their other tasks with great diligence and great professionalism, which should be recognized on that side of the House.
Pourquoi le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration a-t-il renié la promesse de son gouvernement de créer une section d'appel prévue par la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, comme il l'a confirmé en comité?
The question cites a specific legislative provision (the appeal division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), a four-year timeline, and a confirmed ministerial reversal in committee, making it reasonably specific and factually grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was passed, four years ago, the government had provided for an appeal division to guarantee that the reduction in the number of commissioners would not deny refugee claimants fair and equitable treatment. In committee, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration confirmed that he no longer intended to establish the appeal division, as his government had promised, thereby embarrassing even a number of his Liberal colleagues. Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain the reasons for his about-face?
Le ministre a affirmé que le système actuel a accueilli 28 % de réfugiés de plus l'année dernière que l'année précédente, citant cela comme preuve de justice pour les demandeurs d'asile.
The minister never addresses the about-face on the appeal division, instead pivoting to refugee acceptance numbers as a proxy for justice, which does not answer the question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I said we want a system that allows refugees to integrate into the Canadian system. Our existing system welcomed many more refugees last year than the previous year. Last year, we accepted 28% more refugees. In my opinion that is evidence that there is indeed justice for those truly seeking asylum here in Canada.
Le revirement du ministre sur la section d'appel signifie-t-il qu'il ne considère plus l'équité et la justice importantes pour les demandeurs d'asile, compte tenu du raisonnement que son gouvernement avait invoqué il y a quatre ans?
The question draws a sharp logical contrast between the government's original stated rationale (fairness and justice) and the minister's apparent abandonment of that rationale, but it is more rhetorical than the first exchange and does not introduce new facts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, four years ago, the government explained that the creation of an appeal division was a matter of fairness and justice for those seeking asylum. Are we to understand the minister's remarks to mean that, four years later, he no longer considers fairness and justice important?
Le ministre a répété que la justice réside dans les résultats, soulignant que davantage de réfugiés ont été accueillis l'année dernière que l'année précédente.
The minister again deflects entirely to refugee acceptance volumes rather than addressing the fairness and justice rationale for the appeal division, providing no substantive response to the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the justice lies in the results. Many more refugees were welcomed here last year than in the previous year. That is justice. We voluntarily take in refugees and welcome them to this country.
Le ministre des Ressources naturelles reconnaîtra-t-il que la demande de dissimulation faite en 1981 par son ministère concernant le rôle des mesures de conservation de l'énergie dans la pourriture des murs coûte des milliards de dollars aux propriétaires dans le désastre des condos qui coulent?
The question cites a specific 1981 communication between CMHC and the deputy minister of energy, names the national energy program as the cause, and alleges a documented cover-up demand, making it highly specific and factually grounded with a single clear ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the leaky condo disaster is costing homeowners billions of dollars. The government has known for years that the national energy program caused the disaster and that the department of energy ordered a cover-up. In 1981, CMHC told the deputy minister of energy that his department's energy conservation measures were the main cause of rotting walls in newly constructed homes. The deputy minister's response was to demand a cover-up. Would the Minister of Natural Resources acknowledge that his department's demand for a cover-up is costing homeowners billions of dollars?
Le ministre du Travail et du Logement a refusé de commenter, invoquant une décision antérieure sur la question no 151 et le fait que l'affaire est devant les tribunaux de la Colombie-Britannique.
The minister does not address the substance of the cover-up allegation or the CMHC communication, instead invoking a procedural ruling on Question No. 151 and the sub judice convention regarding British Columbia courts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I believe you ruled on a response we provided to Question No. 151 as appropriate, and you did that yesterday. Therefore I am sure the hon. member in this House would not want me to comment on a matter that is before the British Columbia courts.
Étant donné que la ministre avait déclaré il y a quelques semaines que des changements au programme de soins de compassion arriveraient « très bientôt », pourquoi n'a-t-elle pas encore présenté de modifications au Cabinet?
The question identifies a specific program (compassionate care), cites a prior ministerial commitment that changes were 'coming very soon,' and holds the minister to that public statement, giving it solid accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the compassionate care program was supposed to assist the thousands who perform the physically and emotionally draining task of caring for a terminally ill loved one. However the program is riddled with fundamental flaws and its administration costs far outstrip the benefits. The minister knows that already, just as her predecessors in the portfolio did for over two years. She said, when asked weeks ago in this House, that changes were “coming very soon”. When terminally ill, soon may not be soon enough. As there is a failure to present any changes to cabinet, could the minister explain this failure to keep her word to caregivers?
La ministre a affirmé qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un échec, qu'ils envisagent d'élargir la définition du programme, et a averti qu'une élection pourrait compromettre ce programme et d'autres.
The minister denies failure and mentions looking at expanding the definition, but does not explain why the promised changes have not been presented to cabinet or provide a timeline, and pivots to a potential election threat.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is not a failure. This a new program that was designed with a greater potential uptake than was actually received at the end of the day. We are looking at the program to expand the definition and, quite frankly, if we do have an election, this is one of the programs that may be compromised.
Le ministre des Finances pourrait-il expliquer comment les Ontariens bénéficieront de la mise à jour économique du gouvernement et de son plan de prospérité?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that lists favourable statistics and asks the minister to explain how Ontarians will benefit, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Some critics have erroneously claimed that Ontario will not benefit from the Liberal government's economic update. Our economic success is no accident. We have had over 200,000 jobs created this year and October's unemployment rate reached its lowest point in three decades. Housing affordability remains near its best level on record and corporate profits are at their highest level in over 20 years. Could the Minister of Finance please explain further how Ontarians, like my constituents, will benefit from our government's plan for prosperity?
Le ministre a cité une politique commerciale plus agressive incluant la passerelle de Windsor, des impôts plus compétitifs, un meilleur accès aux universités pour les étudiants à revenus faibles et moyens, le développement des compétences et l'innovation et la commercialisation comme avantages pour l'Ontario.
The minister provides a list of specific policy directions (trade policy including the Windsor gateway, competitive taxes, student access to universities, skills, innovation) that constitute real informational content, though without precise figures.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, our plan for greater competitiveness, productivity and growth will be especially beneficial in Ontario. We will support Ontario's huge business sector with more aggressive trade policy, including further success on the Windsor gateway; more competitive taxes to keep jobs and investment on the Canadian side of the border; more middle and low income students will be able to go to Ontario's excellent universities; more brain power will be developed in this country and in this province; more workers will be able to gain skills; and, more top flight innovation and commercialization. Ontario will be a big winner.
Pourquoi la Saskatchewan ne bénéficie-t-elle pas du même accord équitable que Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador et la Nouvelle-Écosse sur les revenus des ressources naturelles, étant donné que près de 90 % sont récupérés et que la province perd encore un milliard de dollars même après les corrections superficielles du ministre?
The question cites a specific figure (almost 90% clawed back) and a specific dollar loss (a billion dollars) and draws a direct comparison to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, making it reasonably specific with an identifiable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal finance minister again refused to provide a fair deal for Saskatchewan's oil and gas revenue. He thinks that fixing previous errors that his own department made is good enough. Well, it is not good enough for my province which sees almost 90% clawed back on our natural resource revenues. Even with his band-aid fixes to previous mistakes, Saskatchewan still loses a billion dollars because of clawbacks. Could the minister explain to people in Saskatchewan why we should not get the same fair deal as Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia?
Le ministre a déclaré que depuis février 2004 il n'y a plus de récupération de ce type, que la Saskatchewan a reçu 799 millions de dollars supplémentaires, et a noté que la province affiche un surplus de 873 millions de dollars cette année.
The minister directly contests the factual premise, citing February 2004 as the date clawbacks ended, provides a specific dollar figure of $799 million extra to Saskatchewan, and references the province's $873 million surplus, though he does not address the Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia comparison.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is just factually wrong. Since February 2004 there has been no such clawback. Saskatchewan has had the full benefit of its natural resources and its full equalization entitlement, which adds up to $799 million extra to the province of Saskatchewan than it otherwise would have received. I am very happy that today's fiscal accounts in Saskatchewan have reported that the province this year has a surplus of $873 million more.
L'annonce de la nomination du Dr Furlong comme coordonnateur de l'agent orange comprenait-elle des changements importants pour remédier aux lacunes du plan original, notamment rendre le poste indépendant du gouvernement avec le pouvoir de formuler des recommandations en matière de compensation?
The question references the member's own prior recommendations following the resignation of the agent orange coordinator and asks whether today's announcement of Dr. Furlong's appointment included specific changes to address those deficiencies, making it a reasonably focused accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, following the resignation of the agent orange coordinator, I made a number of recommendations to the government to improve the process, among other things, making the position independent of government with the power to make recommendations in regard to compensation. Did today's announcement of Dr. Furlong's appointment to this position include any significant changes to address the deficiencies in the original plan?
Le ministre a salué la nomination du Dr Dennis Furlong en raison de son expérience et de ses compétences en tant qu'ancien ministre de la Santé du gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick, sans préciser si les recommandations spécifiques du député avaient été retenues.
The minister confirms the appointment and describes Dr. Furlong's credentials and background as a former health minister of the New Brunswick government, but does not directly address whether the member's specific recommendations for independence or compensation powers were incorporated.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member recognizes that the appointment of Dr. Dennis Furlong is an important step in the right direction about getting to an understanding of the agent orange issue. This coordinator was selected based on his experience and credentials. He is a former health minister of the New Brunswick government. He knows how government works and how important this issue is to Canadians and people from the Gagetown area. I am very pleased that he is willing to take on this responsibility and we look forward to working with him to solve this important issue.
Pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il mis en œuvre une réduction de 8 ¢ des cotisations d'AE plutôt que d'améliorer le système en appliquant les recommandations du Comité permanent, comme l'exigence de qualification de 360 heures ou le calcul des 12 meilleures semaines, laissant près de 500 000 chômeurs sans soutien adéquat?
The question cites a specific Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities with named recommendations (360-hour qualification requirement, best 12 weeks calculation) and a specific number of affected individuals (500,000), but the final characterization weakens its accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the announcement of an 8¢ cut in EI premiums is very bad news for the unemployed. Instead of improving the system by implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities—such as creating a 360-hour qualification requirement or calculating the best 12 weeks—the government has chosen to ignore the demands of contributors. Is the minister aware that because of her action almost 500,000 unemployed individuals will be forced to continue to panhandle?
La ministre a remercié le député d'avoir souligné les travaux du gouvernement sur l'AE, citant la création d'une commission qui a établi le taux à 1,87 $ de manière indépendante pour rendre les travailleurs et les entreprises plus compétitifs.
The minister does not address the standing committee's recommendations or the 500,000 unemployed individuals, instead praising the independent commission that set the rate at $1.87 and framing the cut as beneficial to workers and business.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for highlighting all the good work we have done with respect to evolving EI, in particular the establishment of a commission that sets the rate independently. It has lowered the rate to $1.87, which will allow both workers and business to be more competitive and reduce the costs.
Le ministre du Développement social pourrait-il expliquer l'accord sur l'apprentissage précoce et la garde d'enfants avec le Nouveau-Brunswick, compte tenu des rapports selon lesquels le premier ministre souhaite un accord semblable à celui du Québec et que le gouvernement fédéral joue des jeux politiques?
This is a government-backbench question framing the opposition as playing politics and asking the minister to explain a deal, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there have been reports in New Brunswick newspapers that the Premier of New Brunswick wants an early learning and child care agreement just like Quebec and that the federal government is simply playing politics with an early learning and child care agreement. Would the Minister of Social Development please tell us about the deal with New Brunswick.
Le ministre a déclaré que le Nouveau-Brunswick a mis fin à la dernière minute à un accord que huit autres provinces ont signé, et a comparé le 1,2 milliard de dollars dépensé par le Québec pour la garde d'enfants en 2003 aux 12,5 millions de dollars du Nouveau-Brunswick, soit environ 100 fois moins.
The minister provides specific comparative figures ($1.2 billion spent by Quebec versus $12.5 million by New Brunswick in 2003) and explains that New Brunswick pulled the plug on a deal that eight other provinces signed, offering substantive factual content.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when negotiations were conducted with officials of the eight provinces, all sides agreed and there was a deal. In one case, New Brunswick at the last minute pulled the plug and refused the deal. In eight cases, eight provinces, also with significant rural populations, found the flexibility they wanted and needed in signed agreements. In one case, New Brunswick, said no. In one case with Quebec, in 2003 the amount spent on child care was $1.2 billion. With New Brunswick, the apples to apples comparative number was $12.5 million. That is $1.2 billion versus $12.5 million, about 100 times different. The people of New Brunswick can--
Aucun résumé.
This exchange consists entirely of points of order and procedural motions to table documents, with no question asked or answered.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the minister's reluctance to respond to my question earlier, I would be pleased to table the access documents which support the preamble of my question in the hope that it would perhaps jog his memory.
Agreed.
No.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, the Minister of National Revenue, in response to my question concerning Mr. Dingwall and the government's intention to pay him severance, disputed facts which I put on the record in terms of Mr. Dingwall's earning. Those earnings were stated correctly by me, in excess of $700,000, salary and benefits, over the term of his employment at the Mint. I would offer to the minister to table a copy of the remuneration agreement which was signed with Mr. Dingwall for his edification so he can get his numbers correct in future and be able to have a more reasoned and intelligent response to reasoned and intelligent questions.
Agreed.
No
Aucun résumé.
No ministerial answer was given; the exchange was purely procedural with members seeking to table documents.