Session overview
- The Auditor General's report dominated Question Period, with opposition parties pressing the Prime Minister on findings of widespread mismanagement at HRDC, a $3 billion spending figure cited by the Canadian Alliance, and ongoing RCMP investigations in the Prime Minister's own riding.
- The Prime Minister repeatedly cited the Auditor General's finding that HRDC had initiated 'quite extraordinary corrective action' and that no cases of malfeasance by public servants were identified, using these quotes to deflect calls for an apology.
- The Auditor General's criticism of budget plan 2000 for 'misleading financial disclosure' and a $7 billion overstatement of the five-year tax reduction plan was raised by the Canadian Alliance ahead of the Finance Minister's afternoon economic statement.
- The Bloc Québécois raised specific allegations of patronage involving Groupe SM receiving a CIDA contract without a bidding process and four RCMP investigations in the Prime Minister's riding, including matters related to Claude Gauthier, Placeteco, and Transélec.
- The Minister of Health announced that a source of Cisapride had been identified and that authorized release was in progress, responding to concerns about patients unable to access the drug Prepulsid after Health Canada removed it from the market; the minister also ordered a forensic audit into alleged Health Canada funds used for cruise ship events.
- The Bloc Québécois challenged the government on a clause in Bill C-44 that they alleged would enable the government to divert the employment insurance fund surplus, while the NDP questioned whether the afternoon mini-budget would be funded from the EI surplus.
The Minister of Health made a specific, concrete announcement that a source of Cisapride had been identified and that authorized release was currently in progress, directly addressing the immediate access problem for patients who could not obtain the drug Prepulsid.
Precisely pits two ministers' statements against each other â the Minister of Public Works saying no public money was spent on Downsview Park versus the Minister of National Defence admitting money was being spent â and asks which minister is telling the truth, making it a sharp and specific accountability question.
Rather than addressing the substance of the opposition's claims about the Auditor General's report and the information commissioner's findings, the Prime Minister responded with an irrelevant remark about the Leader of the Opposition speaking too often with Jesse Helms and a suggestion to sing God Save the Queen.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Stockwell Day asked whether the Prime Minister would apologize for the RCMP investigations that have taken place in connection with matters in his government â no apology or substantive response was provided. (Exchange 4)
- Mr. BenoĂźt Sauvageau asked whether the Minister for International Cooperation could justify the awarding of a CIDA contract to Groupe SM without a bidding process, given that Groupe SM contributed $90,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada between 1994 and 1999 â the minister denied the premise without addressing the specific contribution figures. (Exchange 16)
- Mr. Paul CrĂȘte asked whether the government was prepared to withdraw the clause in Bill C-44 that would enable it to get its hands on the employment insurance surplus â the minister did not answer yes or no but defended the clause as a clarification requested by the Standing Committee on Finance and the Auditor General. (Exchange 20)
- Right Hon. Joe Clark asked the Prime Minister what he was trying to hide by establishing the Downsview Park corporation by order in council rather than through Parliament â the Minister of Public Works deflected by saying nothing was hidden without explaining the choice of mechanism. (Exchange 12)
- Mr. Gilles Duceppe asked how the Prime Minister could justify cronyism, favouritism, and government mismanagement in light of the auditor general's and information commissioner's reports, specifically regarding Claude Gauthier's involvement in the Placeteco and TransĂ©lec scandals â the Prime Minister responded by attacking Duceppe's record on sovereignty rather than addressing the specific allegations. (Exchange 7)
Day cited the auditor general's finding of $3 billion in waste/mismanagement in one department and asked whether the Prime Minister would at least apologize to Canadians.
Cites a specific dollar figure ($3 billion) from the auditor general's report and translates it into concrete comparables, but the ask â will he apologize â is rhetorical rather than a substantive accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report, one of the most scathing in recent memory, talks about one department alone wasting and mismanaging something like $3 billion per year. In one year, $3 billion would hire 4,000 doctors, 4,000 nurses and purchase 500 MRIs. The auditor general goes on to say that apparently whatever has been put in place to supposedly fix the problem in fact is probably not adequate. If the Prime Minister will not even fix the problem, will he at least apologize to Canadians for this?
Chrétien read a quotation from the auditor general saying HRDC had taken 'quite extraordinary corrective action,' that the plan 'is serious, is working, and is going in the right direction.'
Chrétien directly counters Day's characterization by reading an auditor general quotation stating HRDC was 'on the right track' and that the corrective action plan 'is serious, is working,' which engages the specific claim made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. Leader of the Opposition is getting those quotations, but I have a quote by the auditor general that I will read. He says: âHRDC has initiated quite extraordinary corrective action to address these serious problems. We concluded that the Department was on the right track...we did in fact spend a fair bit of effort to assess the adequacy of their implementation or corrective action plan and we found that the plan is serious, is working, and is going in the right direction. That is a quote from the auditor general.
Day alleged the Prime Minister gave a CIDA grant to an unqualified close friend in his own riding and again asked him to apologize.
Day references a specific grant to a close friend of the Prime Minister in his riding and a CIDA grant, but the ask again collapses into a demand for an apology rather than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can be as selective as he wants. In fact the auditor general continues to speak about the factâ
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, he calls his MPs nervous nellies and we certainly saw a display of that right there. It has been pointed out that the Prime Minister, in his own riding gave a grant to someone who was unqualified to receive a CIDA grant but who was a close friend of his. This is just one of a depressing catalogue of things that have not been done properly by the Prime Minister. If he will not fix them, as he indicated he will not, will he at least make Canadians feel a little bit better on the apparent eve of an election by saying that he is sorry and apologize?
Chrétien said it was not a grant but a contract for $2.5 million awarded to the lowest bidder, saving $2.5 million, and said Day had made a mistake.
ChrĂ©tien directly corrects the characterization â distinguishing a grant from a contract and specifying it was '$2.5 million, the lowest price' â but does not address the broader accountability question about favouritism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. Leader of the Opposition who should say that he is sorry. He made another mistake. That party keeps making mistakes. He referred to a grant. It was not a grant. It was a contract and the contract was $2.5 million, the lowest price. We saved $2.5 million by giving the contract to the lowest bidder.
Day asked whether the Prime Minister would apologize for what both the auditor general and the information commissioner said, framing it around the value of forgiveness before a possible election.
Day references both the auditor general and the information commissioner but the question dissolves into a rhetorical flourish about forgiveness and values on the eve of an election, making the ask unanswerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there was no mistake. The way that contract went out, it was a grant. If he will not apologize for all the things the auditor general has said, will he apologize for what the information commissioner has said? He has had a day to think about it. We can all make mistakes. Three billion dollars a year, it can happen. Canadians are very forgiving, and I say that sincerely. On the eve of a possible election call, which he says will be based on values, does he believe in the value of forgiveness? Will he just stand and say to Canadians that he is sorry and apologize?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien deflected by recounting that when Day was a provincial MLA he welcomed a $20 million loan guarantee to Fletcher Fine Foods in his riding that ultimately left the Alberta government with a $14 million bill.
Chrétien pivots entirely to Day's provincial record involving a $20 million loan guarantee to Fletcher Fine Foods, deflecting from both the auditor general and information commissioner issues entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in public administration there are always some problems for everybody and we try to correct them. I have heard accusations of very bad things. When the hon. member was a provincial MLA he was happy to welcome a $20 million loan guarantee from the Alberta government to Fletcher Fine Foods in his riding saying that it would create local jobs. He, like many other MPs, wanted his riding to have jobs. Unfortunately the deal went bad and the government of Alberta was left with a bill of $14 million.
Day argued that unlike his own record, the Prime Minister's involvements have required RCMP investigations, and asked whether he would apologize for those investigations.
Day makes a pointed contrast between his record and the Prime Minister's by referencing RCMP investigations specifically linked to the Prime Minister, but the ask â will he apologize for those investigations â remains rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister delights in reviewing my record which is encouraging to me because he may learn something from my record. The auditor general talked about the policies I put in place as the finance minister, which were highly effective, and I received praise for those. The main difference between my record of involvement with any kind of grants, or whatever it may be, is that none of my involvements have required RCMP investigations, but his have. Will he apologize for all those RCMP investigations that have had to take place?
Chrétien quoted the auditor general saying no malfeasance was identified among public servants and that the main factor was an imbalance between fast service delivery and financial controls, and said the opposition's boondoggle claims were unfounded.
Chrétien reads an auditor general quotation explicitly stating no malfeasance was identified and the main factor was 'an imbalance between the desire of their department to provide fast service and the need to have control,' which is partially responsive to the RCMP/wrongdoing framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members opposite make accusations by association and so on. They have no respect. They always talk about dishonesty. What the auditor general had to say yesterday addresses the question of dishonesty. âI am quick to point out that we did not identify any cases of malfeasance by public servants in those programs. The main factor was an imbalance between the desire of their department to provide fast service and the need to have control over the spending of public fundsâ. Members opposite have been talking for months about the boondoggle of $1 billion. The auditor general said that he could not find any proof of anyone stealing in the department.
Day asked sarcastically whether the Prime Minister was claiming that the auditor general, the information commissioner, all media, and thousands of Canadians are all wrong.
Day's question is almost entirely rhetorical â listing media, opposition, and public opinion as agreeing things were done wrong â with no specific factual anchor or answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess we have got it all wrong. The auditor general did say $3 billion worth of spendingâ
Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker, I guess we have got it all wrong. According to theâ
Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen Pavlov's dogs before and we are seeing it again. I guess we have got it wrong. According to the Prime Minister, the auditor general did not say that he wasted $3 billion. According to the Prime Minister, I guess the information commissioner did not say that public servants felt threatened, did not say that the Prime Minister undermined democracy. I guess we have got it wrong. Why does the Prime Minister not just say that we are all wrong, every media report is wrong and the Canadian public who are phoning and e-mailing by the thousands are wrong?
Chrétien made a non-sequitur remark about Day speaking too often with Jesse Helms and jokingly suggested the House sing 'God Save the Queen.'
Chrétien's response about speaking 'too often with Jesse Helms' and suggesting the House sing 'God Save the Queen' has no connection whatsoever to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking too often with Jesse Helms. It might be very surprising that in order for a Prime Minister, a francophone from Quebec, to correct the Leader of the Opposition, I should perhaps invite the House of Commons to stand up and sing God Save the Queen .
Duceppe asked how the Prime Minister could justify cronyism, favouritism, government mismanagement and his questionable conduct in his own riding in the wake of the auditor general and information commissioner reports.
Duceppe references the auditor general and information commissioner reports and the Prime Minister's conduct in his own riding, but the question is compound and vague, dominated by characterizations like 'cronyism' and 'favouritism' without a specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the Prime Minister today and I would have expected more restraint, less arrogance and cynicism, and a greater sense of responsibility. In the wake of the reports from the auditor general and the information commissioner, which confirm what we have been saying here for months, how can he justify the unjustifiable? How can he justify the cronyism, the favouritism, government mismanagement and his more than questionable conduct in his own riding?
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Chrétien cited the Transélec case where auditor general staff indicated no political interference, and quoted the auditor general saying no wrongdoing by politicians or public servants was found.
Chrétien responds with a specific reference to the Transélec case, citing auditor general staff indicating no political interference, and quotes the auditor general on no wrongdoing by politicians or public servants, which partially engages the accountability concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois to stick a little closer to the truth.
Again today, the papers reported that, in the case of TransĂ©lec, the auditor general's staff have indicated that there had been absolutely no political interference. In his report, the auditor general said that an examination of all these files did not reveal a single person from the public serviceâand we, as MPs and ministers, are part of the public serviceâand clearly said that there had been absolutely no wrongdoing by politicians or public servants in any of these cases.
Duceppe cited Claude Gauthier's involvement in both the Placeteco and Transélec scandals, four ongoing RCMP investigations in the Prime Minister's riding, and alleged the Prime Minister wanted an election before investigations concluded.
Duceppe names a specific individual (Claude Gauthier), references both Placeteco and Transélec scandals, cites four RCMP investigations in the Prime Minister's riding, and raises the specific allegation of calling an election before investigations conclude, giving real factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my words were very carefully chosen. There was no better way to put it. If we are going to talk about the truth, the truth is that his friend, Claude Gauthier, is involved in both the Placeteco and TransĂ©lec scandals. The truth is that there are four RCMP investigations ongoing in the Prime Minister's riding. The truth is that it was not $250 that was misspent; millions have disappeared. The truth is that perhaps this Prime Minister wants an election before the investigations are concluded, before the law gets involved. He does not want to know what is going to happenâ
Hear, hear.
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Chrétien noted that in one instance it was his office that called the police, and stated the auditor general confirmed the Transélec case was 'completely in order,' before pivoting to attack Duceppe for breaking a promise to serve only one term.
ChrĂ©tien makes a partial responsive point â that it was his office that called the police in one instance â but then deflects into an attack on Duceppe's broken promise to serve only one term and partisan remarks about the Bloc's interest in federal money.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois to have the honesty to say that, in one instance, it was my office that called the police. I hope he will take this opportunity to do so.
Right now, the auditor general has said that, in the case of Transélec, everything is completely in order. He said so himself. When this member was elected, he very clearly promised all Quebecers they would be in the Parliament of Canada for one term only. Then it was two terms. All they are interested in is the federal government's money, because they are not able to win in Quebec.
Gauthier recalled the Prime Minister's February 9 statement minimizing the HRDC scandal to $250, and asked whether he recognized there was a very serious problem in the department.
Gauthier references the Prime Minister's specific February 9 statement minimizing the HRDC scandal to '$250' and grounds the question in a contrast with what the auditor general's report revealed, though the final ask is cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I realize that, on the eve of an election, it is trying for the Prime Minister to realize that his score in Quebec will be no more than 20 members. We understand that but we are sorry to say that we are going to knock him flat in this election. Members will recall that on February 9 the Prime Minister said that the whole Human Resources Development Canada scandal amounted to $250. It was nothing, he said. Does the Prime Minister, on the eve of the end of his mandate, not realize that there is a very serious problem in theâ
Chrétien quoted the auditor general saying the Minister of Human Resources Development had taken necessary steps with her six-point program, and that the problem was a desire for fast service rather than any dishonesty by politicians or officials.
Chrétien quotes the auditor general on the minister's six-point program and the fast-service/control imbalance, and repeats that no politician or public official tried to benefit, which is tangential to the specific '$250' mischaracterization raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I quoted the auditor general, who said that the Minister of Human Resources Development had taken the steps necessary when she put her six point program in place to ensure that any abuse would be corrected. He said that one of the department's problems was its desire to provide very quick service to the public and the fact that files were not totally complete as the result. However, he said that no politician or public official had tried to benefit from all of these transactions or succeeded in doing so. The member should recognize this if he is at all honest.
Gauthier asked whether the Prime Minister should recognize that it took ten interventions in the House, after repeated denials, before the government was forced to order investigations including four unprecedented ones in his own riding.
Gauthier asks a specific process-accountability question â whether the government was forced to act only after ten interventions in the House and only to avoid losing face â and references four unprecedented investigations in the Prime Minister's own riding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of recognizing things, should the Prime Minister not be recognizing the fact that it was only after some ten interventions in the House, after he denied it and the Minister of Human Resources Development denied it, that the government was forced to face facts and, to avoid totally losing face, ordered investigations, including an unprecedented four in his own riding?
Chrétien said the auditor general confirmed no official in his office, the department, or himself had any involvement in the files, and that the auditor general thanked the minister for setting up a program that works.
Chrétien repeats the auditor general's finding of no official involvement including himself, and credits the minister's program, but does not address the specific allegation that the government denied the problem and acted only under sustained opposition pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know they are incapable of establishing anything clearly and so they try to make people guilty by association. The auditor general has said that no official either in my office, or in the department or any of those involved, including myself, had any involvement in these files. This is what the auditor general said and he thanked the minister for setting up a program that works. He is very satisfied with what we are doing now. I can see that the Bloc Quebecois is rather discouraged by the situation.
Blaikie asked the Minister of Health to explain why staff at a Health Canada-funded medical treatment centre in Manitoba were on their second cruise ship event of the year disguised as professional development while the facility was shut down and patients were not receiving treatment.
Blaikie raises a specific, concrete allegation about a Health Canada-funded medical treatment centre whose staff went on a second cruise ship event in one year disguised as professional development, with a clear factual ask about what is going on.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. He will be aware there are reports that the staff of a certain medical treatment centre in Manitoba, funded by Health Canada, are now not on their first but on their second cruise ship event this year disguised as professional development. I wonder if the Minister of Health could tell us just what on earth is going on: two cruises in a year in the name of professional development while the place is shut down and people who need treatment are not getting it.
Rock said he found the allegations troubling, reported that the foundation president orally confirmed no Health Canada money was used for those purposes, but stated he had asked the deputy minister to carry out a forensic audit and would demand return of any public money found to have been used for those purposes.
Rock directly acknowledges the concern, reports the foundation president's oral denial that Health Canada money was used, and makes a specific commitment â asking the deputy minister to carry out a forensic audit and demanding return of any public money found to have been used improperly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find these allegations just as troubling. I share the member's concern. We have been informed orally by the president of the foundation in question that there was no Health Canada money used for those purposes. Notwithstanding, I have asked the deputy minister to carry out a forensic audit. I can tell the member and I can tell the House that if it is found that any public money was used for these purposes we will demand its return.
Blaikie asked the Minister of National Revenue to assure the House that the federal government would stop obstructing project loophole â a case brought by George Harris from Winnipeg in which the federal court ruled in his favour â and account for how it allowed a particular family to avoid paying $700 million in taxes.
Blaikie names a specific individual (George Harris), a specific case (project loophole), a specific court ruling in his favour, and a specific dollar amount ($700 million in taxes), and asks for assurance that the government will stop obstructing the matter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer, but it is not only through government programs that money is wasted. It is also through various tax loopholes. The Minister of National Revenue will perhaps be aware that in the case called project loophole, pursued by a person from Winnipeg by the name of George Harris, the federal court has now ruled in his favour, once more in spite of federal government obstruction on this matter. Could the minister give us the assurance that the federal government will stop obstructing this and finally account for how it allowed a particular family to get away without paying $700 million in taxes?
Cauchon said there was no obstruction from the agency, cited confidentiality concerns affecting all taxpayers, and stated the case was pending in court within the legislated timeframe, without addressing the $700 million figure or the specific court ruling.
Cauchon denies obstruction and cites confidentiality concerns and that the case is pending in court, but provides no factual engagement with the $700 million figure, the specific ruling, or the obstruction allegation, amounting largely to a non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can say first that there is no obstruction at all from the agency. Second, it is a very important matter. It implies some question of confidentiality, so it concerns each and every taxpayer. I would like to say as well that the case is pending in court. We are in the process of proceeding within the timeframe we have as per the legislation.
Clark quoted the auditor general's report noting that the Downsview Park Crown corporation was established by order in council rather than through parliamentary legislation, and asked what the Prime Minister was trying to hide by keeping it away from Parliament.
Clark quotes directly from the auditor general's report on Downsview Park, identifies the specific mechanism used (order in council instead of parliamentary legislation), and asks what the Prime Minister was trying to hide â a pointed, document-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the issue of secret deals made by the government which were raised by the auditor general's report. In particular I want to refer to Downsview Park. The auditor general said: Normally, when a new Crown corporation is established with unique operating characteristics, it receives a mandate from Parliament through legislation establishing a parent Crown corporation. Instead in the Downsview case the Prime Minister acted by order in council. Will he tell the House of Commons what he was trying to hide when he kept the Downsview corporation awayâ
Gagliano said nothing was hidden, that the corporation's creation was consistent with legislation governing Crown corporations, and that Downsview Park receives no appropriations from the Government of Canada with revenues generated by leasing adjacent lands.
Gagliano denies any attempt to hide anything and offers a brief procedural justification (consistent with legislation governing Crown corporations) and notes Downsview Park receives no appropriations, but does not address the specific auditor general finding that Parliament was bypassed through the order in council.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we did not try to hide anything. The creation of this corporation was undertaken in a manner which was consistent with the role and authority of parliament as expressed through legislation governing crown corporations. Downsview Park does not receive any appropriations from the Government of Canada. Almost all revenues for the development of the park are generated by leasing lands adjacent to the park.
Clark cited the auditor general's finding that national defence spent approximately $4.8 million during 1999â2000 that were not a valid charge against the national defence budget, and asked why the Minister of National Defence let that happen and whether he would stop the practice and recover the money.
Clark cites the auditor general's specific finding that national defence spent approximately $4.8 million that were 'not a valid charge against the national defence budget,' names the minister responsible, and asks two clear questions: why was the money spent and will it be recovered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general says during 1999-2000 national defence spent approximately $4.8 million. Is that nothing? My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Because the auditor general said that those funds were not a valid charge against the national defence budget, why did the Minister of National Defence let that money be spent on purposes that were invalid? Will he stop those practices and get the money back to national defence?
Eggleton said all moneys were spent on legitimate purposes for a property still owned by the Department of National Defence with defence uses, acknowledged a sum went through the wrong vote 1 account and that funds have stopped going from that account, and said a business plan has been requested.
Eggleton acknowledges that funds went through the wrong account (a vote 1 account) and that those transfers have stopped, and asserts all moneys were spent on legitimate purposes, which partially addresses the question but does not address recovery of the funds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all those moneys were spent on legitimate purposes. This property is still in the ownership of the Department of National Defence. There are defence uses on that property. There has been for quite a number of years moneys paid from national defence for the upkeep of those properties to the corporation responsible for managing the entire site. There was a sum of money that went through one of the accounts, a vote 1 account from parliament which was the wrong account. Funds have stopped going from that account. We have asked for a business plan, but the funds have all been spent on legitimate purposes.
Day asked the Prime Minister to either say he has done nothing wrong or apologize, citing the auditor general, information commissioner, all opposition parties, media, and thousands of Canadians as saying things have been done wrongly.
Day lists the auditor general, information commissioner, all opposition parties, media, and Canadians as agreeing things were done wrongly, but the actual ask â say you've done nothing wrong or apologize â is entirely rhetorical with no specific factual anchor.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people have said to me just get used to the fact that in question period the Prime Minister will not respond and he will resort to insults and all kinds of negative associations. I will never get used to that but I will ask the questions.
Oh, oh.
And so I will ask the question. The auditor general says things have been done wrongly. The information commissioner says things have been done wrongly. In a rare moment of unity all the opposition parties are saying things have been done wrongly. The media, bless their hearts, are saying things have been done wrongly. Canadians are saying things have been done wrongly. Will the Prime Minister simply stand and either say he has done nothing wrong or apologize?
Chrétien acknowledged that administrations sometimes have problems and they try to resolve them, then pivoted to defending the government's seven-year record and signalled an imminent election where Liberals would contrast their values with the Canadian Alliance's.
Chrétien acknowledges problems can occur in administrations, pivots to a seven-year record defence, and signals an imminent election appeal to Canadians, without addressing the specific accountability question or any of the underlying findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I said and I repeat that with an administration, either the government of Alberta or the Government of Canada, yes sometimes there are problems and we try to resolve them. Let us look at what we have done in the last seven years, look at the record of this government. When we entered office the country was bankrupt and there was unemployment. I will talk to Canadian people about what we have done in the House of Commons. We will go there. The hon. member challenged me to talk to the Canadian people. Very soon we will talk to the Canadian people. They will know the values of the Liberal Party and that party over there which proposes to eliminate any good programs that help the poor in Canada.
Day cited that only about 76 HRD cases were reviewed by the Prime Minister yet launched 12 RCMP investigations, and asked whether the RCMP was wrong or whether the Prime Minister would simply apologize.
Day cites a specific figure â 76 HRD cases reviewed by the Prime Minister launching 12 RCMP investigations â giving the question some factual grounding, though it ends with a binary rhetorical choice (is the RCMP wrong or will you apologize).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our budget program will help the poor and will take 1.4 million low income Canadians from having to pay federal taxes at all. His will not do that. He talked about administration and doing a few things wrong. Only a handful of cases were even reviewed by the Prime Minister in terms of HRD. I think it was 76. It launched 12 RCMP investigations. Is the RCMP wrong, or will you simply stand and apologize?
ChrĂ©tien pivoted to defending specific spending programs â $48 million yearly on literacy, $318 million for aboriginal training, $334 million for youth employment, and $220 million for people with disabilities â and accused the opposition of wanting to scrap programs that help the poor.
ChrĂ©tien entirely ignores the RCMP investigations and the 76-case figure, instead listing specific dollar amounts for literacy, aboriginal training, youth employment, and disability programs to argue the opposition wants to scrap programs that help the poor â a complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have had programs. It will be very interesting to go to the people because we are proud of all these programs. The Leader of the Opposition said he wants to scrap them. All I want to know from the Canadian people is whether it was wrong for us to have spent $48 million every year on literacy programs. Was it wrong to spend $318 million devoted to training for the aboriginal community? Was it wrong to spend $334 million for youth employment programs? Was it wrong to spend $220 million on programs for people with disabilities? Those people over there do not care about the poor and theâ
Why was Groupe SM awarded a CIDA contract without going through the bidding process, and does the minister connect this to the $90,000 in Liberal Party contributions from the firm between 1994 and 1999? Why did the access to information process fail to disclose this patronage case?
Cites a specific auditor general finding, names Groupe SM, and cites a specific dollar figure ($90,000) for Liberal Party contributions, making a clear accountability ask about preferential treatment and access-to-information delays.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the dark saga is still unfolding. In his report, the auditor general mentions a blatant case of patronage. I am referring to Groupe SM, which was awarded a CIDA contract without going through the bidding process, which is in violation of the rules. Does the Minister for International Cooperation justify this preferential treatment by the fact that between 1994 and 1999 Groupe SM contributed $90,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, this is quite the coincidence. Here is another example of how the government is controlling information. The Bloc Quebecois has been trying for months to get information through the access to information process. In spite of repeated requests, complaints and questions in the House, we had to wait for the release of the auditor general's report to know what is really going on. Does the minister feel that it is not in the public's interest to shed more light on this case of patronage?
The minister says access to information requests are handled expeditiously and that CIDA introduced a competitive selection system in 1996, citing the auditor general's acknowledgment that CIDA has made efforts toward fairness and transparency.
The minister disputes the premise and touts CIDA's competitive system introduced in 1996, but does not address the specific Groupe SM no-bid contract finding or the $90,000 contribution figure, nor the access-to-information delays.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the member gets his information. First, all the access to information requests are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Second, CIDA has a competitive system which we introduced in 1996 which was not in existence prior to our government coming to power. According to the auditor general, CIDA has made efforts to make its selection process for competitive contracts more fair and transparent under our government.
Given that a 1994 audit confirmed deep management problems at HRDC and the Auditor General of Canada has now found widespread problems and broken controls, how can Canadians trust a Liberal government that let this mess get worse year after year?
Cites a direct auditor general quote ('We found widespread problems. We found that controls had broken down') and references a 1994 audit, grounding the question factually, though the ask ('how can Canadians trust') is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal record on HRDC is completely shameful. When the Liberals took office in 1993 they knew there were deep management problems in that department. A new audit in 1994 confirmed that. Just yesterday the Auditor General of Canada found more of the same, and I quote: âWe found widespread problems. We found that controls had broken downâ. He said that public money had been put at risk. How can Canadians trust a Liberal government that let this mess get worse year after year?
The minister disputes the Alliance leader's characterization that $3 billion was wasted, defending programs such as Canada student loans, labour market training transfers to provinces, and homelessness funding.
The minister does not address the auditor general's findings or the question of trust; instead she pivots to attacking the Alliance leader's '$3 billion wasted' claim and defends government programs, entirely avoiding the specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I must use this question to clarify something very important. Time and again the leader of the Alliance Party has said that $3 billion has been wasted and that has been repeated by his party's members. I want the House to understand that when he says that he is saying that the $15 million we invest every year for the Canada student loans program is a waste. He is saying that the $1 billion we transfer to the provinces every year for labour market training is a waste. He is saying that the $100 million we invest in communities across the country for homelessness is a waste. Members of that party will either stand up and say that they will cut these programs or they will come clean and say they do not know what they are talking about.
Given the auditor general's statement that the government has continued to understate the problem and that findings of widespread mismanagement go beyond what was already known, are misleading, hiding the truth, and grossly mismanaging public funds the real Liberal values?
Quotes the auditor general saying 'The government has continued to understate the problem' and references widespread mismanagement findings, but the concluding ask ('are misleading, hiding the truth, and grossly mismanaging public funds the real Liberal values?') is essentially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, is that not interesting? The auditor general yesterday had something to say about that kind of answer. He said âThe government has continued to understate the problemâ. He confirmed that his findings of widespread mismanagement went beyond the problems we already knew about. Are misleading, hiding the truth, and grossly mismanaging public funds the real Liberal values?
The minister quotes the auditor general confirming that actions and plans address the deficiencies found in the audit, that commitments in the action plan are being met, and that corrective actions go beyond the six point plan.
The minister quotes the auditor general directly on the action plan â noting that 'commitments in the action plan are being met' and 'corrective actions go beyond the six point plan' â which is substantively relevant, though it does not engage the specific charge of continued understating.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the auditor general did say is that the actions and plans address the deficiencies that we found in our audit. He writes that the âcommitments in the action plan are being metâ and that âcorrective actions go beyond the six point planâ. He said that HRDC has corrective actions planned and being implemented in response to the problems identified in its 1999 internal audit and âthe actions and plans also address the deficiencies we found in our auditâ.
Can the Prime Minister explain how the government justifies a clause in Bill C-44 that would enable it to divert for its own purposes the employment insurance fund surplus that does not belong to it?
Identifies a specific clause in Bill C-44 that would allow diversion of the employment insurance fund surplus, framing a clear accountability question, though the 'hold-up' framing adds partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to take advantage of Bill C-44 amending the employment insurance program to slip by us a clause that would enable the government to divert for its own purposes the employment insurance fund surplus which does not belong to it. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how he can justify to employees and employers this attempt to legalize a hold-up of the employment insurance fund?
The minister urges the member, if he feels strongly about the issues in Bill C-44, to join the government and pass the bill as quickly as possible.
The minister does not explain or justify the clause in question; she simply urges the member to support quick passage of the bill, which is a deflection rather than an engagement with the substance of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member feels so strongly, as do we, about the issues involved in Bill C-44, he would join with us and pass the bill as quickly as possible.
Is the government prepared to withdraw the clause in Bill C-44 that would enable it to get its hands on the employment insurance surplus so that the bill can be passed quickly, even in a single day?
Poses a direct and binary ask â will the government withdraw the specific clause enabling seizure of the employment insurance surplus â and offers a concrete quid pro quo of expedited passage, making it a sharp and answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Prime Minister would like to see Bill C-44 passed quickly. We have no problem with that if the purpose is to do the right thing for the unemployed. My question is a simple one: Are they prepared to withdraw this clause which will enable them to get their hands on the employment insurance surplus so that we can get this bill through quickly, in a single day if need be?
The minister says the Standing Committee on Finance and the auditor general asked for clarification on how premiums are calculated, and that the bill commits to doing that, with interim premium stability measures identified for this year and governor in council action planned for next year.
The minister references the Standing Committee on Finance and the auditor general requesting clarification on how premiums are calculated and describes interim premium-setting measures, but does not directly answer whether the government will withdraw the specific clause.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance and the auditor general have asked us to clarify how premiums are calculated. In the bill we have committed to do just that. In the interim, to ensure stability, we have identified the premium reduction for this year and the governor in council will do it next year.
Given that the auditor general said the five-year tax reduction plan announced in the last budget was overstated by $7 billion, why should Canadians think the numbers to be presented in the economic statement this afternoon will add up?
Cites a specific auditor general finding that the five-year tax reduction plan was overstated by $7 billion and directly asks whether the numbers in the afternoon's economic statement will be reliable, grounding the question in a concrete, documented claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has gone back to his creative accounting tricks but was caught yesterday by the auditor general. The auditor general said that the five year tax reduction plan announced in the last budget was overstated by $7 billion. The tax reduction is just not there. My question is for the Minister of Finance. If the auditor general says the numbers do not add up, why should Canadians think that the numbers that will be presented this afternoon will add up?
The secretary of state says the opposition's economic statement has a $25 billion black hole, and invites members to wait about 65 minutes for the minister's announcement.
The secretary of state deflects entirely by attacking the opposition's alleged '$25 billion black hole' and then asks members to wait for the minister's statement, providing no engagement with the $7 billion overstatement finding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the auditor general had the opportunity to look at the economic statement put out by the official opposition, he would have verified that there is about a $25 billion black hole there which is totally unaccounted for. I would suggest that hon. members wait for about 65 minutes. In a few minutes we will be hearing directly from the minister on this very important announcement affecting all Canadians.
Given that the auditor general said the last budget amounted to 'misleading financial disclosure,' why should taxpayers believe the numbers in the economic statement this afternoon when the auditor general said the last ones do not add up?
Directly quotes the auditor general's phrase 'misleading financial disclosure' regarding the last budget's numbers and poses a focused question about whether taxpayers should trust the afternoon's figures, grounding the ask in a specific and serious indictment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general said yesterday there was a $7 billion overstatement in the tax reduction and the way that he presents his numbers are suspect. The auditor general said âIn our opinion, this results in misleading financial disclosureâ. It is a serious indictment. Why should taxpayers believe the numbers this afternoon, when the auditor general said that the last ones do not add up?
The secretary of state says the minister's economic statement will show timing and exact numbers, respecting Canadians' right to open and evident information, unlike the opposition.
The secretary of state does not address the 'misleading financial disclosure' finding at all, instead making a general claim that the minister's forthcoming statement will show timing and exact numbers, which is an unsubstantiated forward-looking assertion with no engagement with the auditor general's findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister will be tabling an economic statement which will, unlike the opposition, show timing, show exact numbers. They will all be there respecting Canadians' right to see what is open and what is evident. Unlike the opposition we are not going to hide and we are not going to fudge on the figures.
Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Finance to include appropriate measures for Canada's shipbuilding industry in the mini-budget to be tabled this afternoon, fulfilling a commitment that has been neglected since the beginning of the government's mandate?
Asks whether the Prime Minister directed the Minister of Finance to include measures for Canada's shipbuilding industry in the afternoon mini-budget, which is a specific enough ask tied to a stated long-standing commitment, but the framing ('end of the Liberal regime') is partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the end of the Liberal regime at this time. The government has had seven years to meet its commitments. Among those it has not met is one it has neglected right from the very beginning of its mandate toward the shipyards. Has the Prime Minister asked his Minister of Finance to include in the mini-budget he will be bringing down this afternoon the appropriate measures which Canada's shipbuilding industry has been awaiting for years now?
The secretary of state declines to answer on the grounds that he does not want to scoop the finance minister.
The secretary of state declines to answer entirely, framing it as not wanting to 'scoop the finance minister' in a joking manner, providing zero substantive information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it would be unforgivable for me to scoop the finance minister. I value my life and my friendship too much. I shall not do it.
Why are patients who do not respond to alternative therapies unable to obtain Prepulsid through the special access program that Health Canada said would be available, and what is Health Canada doing about this?
Although a government-backbench question, it identifies a specific named drug (Prepulsid), a specific prior Health Canada advisory, a specific promised special access program, and a concrete present problem â patients unable to access the drug â making it unusually substantive for a softball.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. A few months ago Health Canada issued an advisory that the drug known as Prepulsid would no longer be available to Canadians from pharmacies by summer's end. It also said that patients who do not respond to alternative therapies could obtain it through a special access program. Yet today patients who need this drug cannot access it, cannot obtain it. My question is why? What is Health Canada doing about this?
Health Canada took Prepulsid off the market in May due to cardiac problems; it is working to persuade the manufacturer to make it available on special access requests, and has identified a generic form, Cisapride, with an authorized release source currently in progress.
The minister explains the May withdrawal of Prepulsid due to cardiac problems, describes two specific ongoing actions (persuading the manufacturer to provide special access and identifying a generic Cisapride source), and announces that a source of Cisapride has been identified and authorized release is in progress â directly addressing the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in May of this year Health Canada took this particular drug off the market because of reported difficulties with cardiac problems. We recognize that there are some Canadians who do not respond to alternative treatments or therapies. Health Canada is doing two things. First of all, it is trying to persuade the manufacturer to make it available on special access requests. So far it has not but discussions continue. Second, we have identified a generic form of the drug, Cisapride, that can also treat serious gastrointestinal conditions. I am happy to announce that a source of Cisapride has been identified and authorized release from this source is currently in progress.
Given that the auditor general condemns budget plan 2000 as amounting to misleading financial disclosure â with tax cut overstatements and spending understatements â will the Prime Minister admit that Liberal budget creations have everything to do with electioneering and very little to do with truth?
References the auditor general's finding of 'misleading financial disclosure' and mentions tax cut overstatements and spending understatements, but the concluding ask about 'electioneering' rather than truth is rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report says that the budget plan 2000 amounted to a misleading financial disclosure. Since the auditor general condemns the last budget as being error ridden and rife with misconceptions, tax cut overstatements and spending understatements, will the Prime Minister admit that his Liberal budget creations have everything to do with electioneering and very little to do with truth?
The secretary of state says the opposition does not respect Canadians because its economic statements lack figures and timelines.
The secretary of state does not engage the auditor general's 'misleading financial disclosure' finding at all, instead attacking the opposition for not putting figures or timelines in their economic statements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for a party which has said that it was going to bring a new sense of respect toward all Canadians, it is not respecting Canadians when it brings out its economic statements and it will not put figures to it and will not put a timeline to it. That is not respect.
Given auditor general findings of weaknesses in contribution agreements, amendments without supporting rationale, payments for ineligible costs, payments without claims submitted, and the building of fountains in the Prime Minister's riding, how can the government talk about respect for Canadian taxpayers?
Lists specific categories of findings â weaknesses in contribution agreements, amendments without supporting rationale, payments for ineligible costs, payments without submitted claims â and references the fountain in the Prime Minister's riding, but the overall ask devolves into a general attack on Liberal respect over seven years.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the respect the Liberal government has for Canadian taxpayers: weaknesses in contribution agreements; amendments made without supporting rationale; payments made for ineligible costs and expenses; and payments made without having claims submitted. This is taxpayers' money. On top of that there is the building of fountains in the Prime Minister's riding. How can the government talk about respect when the Liberals have earned nothing, no measure of respect? They are suspect. There has been no measure of respect in seven years of governing this country.
The secretary of state invites Canadians to compare the government's economic program with that of the official opposition to see who is respecting the rights of all Canadians.
The secretary of state does not address any of the specific findings listed or the fountain allegation, instead inviting Canadians to compare the government's forthcoming economic program with the opposition's.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would simply invite Canadians to compare the economic program that will be put forward in a couple of minutes by our finance minister with that put forward by the official opposition to see who is really respecting the rights of all Canadians and not just the elite.
Will the money for the mini-budget to woo Canadian voters come from unemployed Canadian workers, from the much talked about EI surplus?
Asks a reasonably specific question â whether the money for the mini-budget will come from the EI surplus â but the framing ('woo Canadian voters') is partisan and the question is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance will be bringing down a mini-budget in preparation for a possible election. My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the money for this mini-budget to woo Canadian voters come from unemployed Canadian workers, from the much talked about EI surplus?
The Deputy Prime Minister says no and claims the Minister of Finance's statement will help the unemployed and all Canadians, asking all members to support the initiative.
The Deputy Prime Minister says 'No' without explaining the funding source, then pivots to claiming the statement will help the unemployed and all Canadians, without substantively addressing whether the EI surplus is the funding mechanism.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance's statement will help the unemployed and all Canadians. I ask that all members support this fine initiative for the betterment of the Canadian people.
How does the Prime Minister defend his government's choice of huge tax cuts to the corporate elite over funding basic human needs such as shelter, given that poverty and homelessness have become tragic growth industries under this Liberal watch?
Frames poverty and homelessness as growth industries under the Liberal government but the ask â defending a 'shameless choice of billions for the few and crumbs for the many' â is highly rhetorical with no specific policy cite or data point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said the Alliance did not care about poverty. I want to say that the Prime Minister has nothing to crow about. The public records clearly show that poverty and homelessness have become tragic growth industries under this Liberal watch. There is a very clear choice here. Is it shovelling out huge tax cuts to the corporate elite or is it funding our basic human needs to shelter? I would like to ask the Prime Minister how does he defend his government's shameless choice of billions for the few and crumbs for the many? How does he defend that?
The Deputy Prime Minister says the government has been spending billions to help the least well off through programs like the national child benefit and a $700 million program for the homeless.
The Deputy Prime Minister cites the national child benefit and a $700 million program for the homeless as concrete programs addressing the least well off, which is partially responsive, but does not engage the specific charge about corporate tax cuts versus basic human needs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the crumbs are in the unsupported insinuations of the hon. member's question. The fact is that we have been spending billions of dollars to help the least well off in our country through programs like the national child benefit and our $700 million program for the homeless. We are helping the least well off in this country and we will continue to do so even if the NDP does not know how to help bring about those results.
The Minister of Public Works said no public money was being spent on Downsview Park, but the Minister of National Defence admitted money was being spent by national defence â which minister is telling the truth?
Precisely pits two ministers' statements against each other â the Minister of Public Works saying no public money was spent on Downsview Park versus the Minister of National Defence admitting money was being spent â and asks which minister is telling the truth, making it a sharp and specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Earlier in the House the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that no public money was being spent on Downsview Park. Then the Minister of National Defence admitted money was being spent by national defence. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me which minister is telling the truth?
Oh, oh.
The Minister of Public Works says the only money received from the government is reimbursements from DND, as Canada Lands managed the commissioning of the site, and suggests the leader of the Conservative Party should have researched this.
The Minister of Public Works explains that the money involves reimbursements from DND as Canada Lands managed the commissioning of the site, which provides some clarification of the apparent contradiction, though it does not fully reconcile the two ministers' statements or confirm which was accurate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only money being received from the government are reimbursements, like the Minister of Defence said before, from DND as Canada Lands managed the commissioning of the size. Maybe if the hon. leader of the Conservative Party did a little bit of research he would have found that out.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs commit today that every eligible merchant navy veteran or surviving spouse will receive their full 100% compensation package as guaranteed by the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs?
Asks a specific, binary commitment question â will every eligible merchant navy veteran or surviving spouse receive their full 100% compensation package as guaranteed by the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs â grounding it in a prior ministerial commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the minister commit to the House today that every eligible merchant navy veteran or surviving spouse will receive their full 100% compensation package owed to them as guaranteed by the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs?
The new Minister of Veterans Affairs compliments his predecessor's work and assures the House that whatever commitments he has made, the minister will try to respect them.
The minister personally commits to respecting the commitments made by his predecessor, which is a direct though qualified answer (using 'I will try to respect' rather than an unambiguous guarantee), partially addressing the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this new Minister of Veterans Affairs wants to compliment my predecessor for the excellent work he has done. I also want to assure the House that whatever commitments he has made I will try to respect.
The Speaker acknowledged the presence of visitors in the gallery, and members responded with approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
Mr. Benoßt Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) cited donation figures from the report on party financing showing that Groupe SM made contributions to the Liberal Party between 1993 and 1999, after his earlier question had been ruled out of order. Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) and Mr. Stéphane Bergeron raised points of order arguing that similar questions linking government decisions to partisan contributions had previously been allowed, and asked the Speaker to review the blues and recording of the exchange. Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-ChaudiÚre, BQ) sought unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-213 at report stage and third reading, but consent was denied.
- BQ Mr. BenoĂźt Sauvageau
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
- Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
- BQ Mr. Antoine Dubé
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier I put a question to the government and to my great surprise you ruled the question out of order. I would still like an answer so I will put the question to you because the figures I wished to give come from the report on party financing. The report on party financing is a public report. According to the report of the chief electoral officer, Groupe SM donated $1,098 to the Liberal Party in 1993; $4,379 in 1994; $232 in 1995; $7,000 in 1997; $955 in 1998; and $22,000 in 1999.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to understand and I am not contesting your ruling, but we simply want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In the past on a number of occasions if I remember correctly, we have put questions to the government on various matters linking the government's decision to partisan action, such as in the case of a contribution to the party in office. In all these cases the Chair allowed these questions. Before you rise, I would simply like to point out that there is a problem. We cannot obtain information because documents are no longer circulating. We cannot obtain satisfaction because the information commissioner is stymied. We can no longer ask questions in the House of Commons. I do not know how to proceed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Far be it from me also to wish to oppose your decision in any way. I would respectfully request that you read the blues and listen to the recording of this portion of oral question period. Listening to the preamble and to the question, at least the portion of the question we are able to hear, it will be clearly seen that it is a matter of a government decision.
Mr. Speaker, I rise also on a point of order. Since the hon. member for York SouthâWeston indicated he would be unable to present his motion during private members' business today, I would seek unanimous consent, notwithstanding any standing order, for the House to proceed today at the end of government orders to examination of Bill C-213 at the report stage and, if possible, to move on to third reading of this bill.
Agreed.
No.