Session overview
- Opposition parties pressed the finance minister repeatedly to table a budget or updated economic forecast, citing a TD Bank chief economist's warning that the October 2000 economic statement is 'now outdated' and its assumptions 'decidedly optimistic'; the minister defended the contingency reserve and prudence measures as sufficient.
- The Auberge Grand-Mère affair dominated multiple exchanges, with the Bloc Québécois and the PC leader pressing the Prime Minister on whether Jean Carle was involved in the BDC loan file; the Prime Minister repeatedly maintained Carle had no involvement, while oppositions cited an internal BDC memo and a memo prepared by BDC suggesting otherwise.
- The NDP raised concerns about legislation extending patent protection for brand name drugs, introduced in the Senate rather than the House of Commons; the Minister of Industry confirmed Canada was complying with a WTO ruling and defended the use of the Senate for the bill.
- Canada's position on national missile defence was questioned by the NDP and the Bloc; the Prime Minister stated Canada would not say no before discussions with the Americans, Russians, and Chinese take place, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs called the scenario of major disruptions hypothetical.
- A Canadian Alliance MP raised an internal BDC memo showing the Auberge Grand-Mère loan was assessed as carrying 'very high' global risk and not meeting 'normal policy and criteria of the bank'; the Minister of Industry responded by attacking the questioner's credibility rather than addressing the memo's contents.
- The Minister for International Trade made a clear commitment that Canada would never allow negotiations on its right to maintain its own health and education systems under the free trade area of the Americas, and confirmed the P.E.I. potato trade dispute would be raised with U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick on Monday.
The Minister for International Trade made a specific, on-the-record commitment that Canada would never allow negotiations on its right to maintain its own health and education systems under the free trade area of the Americas, giving Canadians a clear and testable government position.
Cites a specific date (February 7), quotes the Prime Minister's exact words from Hansard, and asks a single yes-or-no accountability question about whether that statement was the truth.
When presented with an internal BDC memo stating the Auberge Grand-Mère loan carried 'very high' risk and did not meet the bank's normal policy and criteria, Tobin responded entirely with a personal attack on the questioner about parliamentary pensions, without addressing the memo at all.
Outstanding questions
- Miss Deborah Grey asked whether the Auberge Grand-Mère BDC loan — documented in an internal memo as carrying 'very high' global risk and not meeting 'normal policy and criteria of the bank' — was approved because the Prime Minister arranged it; no minister addressed the substance of the memo.
- Joe Clark asked the Prime Minister to confirm whether his April 10, 1999 letter to The National Post — stating he had 'no direct or indirect personal connection with the hotel in question or with the adjacent golf course' — was accurate, and whether he would table all relevant documents respecting his attempt to sell shares in the Grand-Mère golf course to Akimbo Development Corporation; this went unanswered.
- Mr. Monte Solberg asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to confirm whether FACT is a terrorist front and whether cabinet colleagues should not be raising money for it, given that the department's own lawyers argued this position before the Supreme Court of Canada; the minister declined to answer on the basis that the matter was before the courts.
- Mr. Stockwell Day asked the Prime Minister directly what his plan was — specifically whether he intended to reduce spending or back off on debt reduction — given that revenues would be reduced during the economic downturn described in the red book; the Prime Minister did not address the question.
- Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis asked whether the government was prepared to eliminate the automatic injunction against generic competition as a measure to address high drug costs following its decision to comply with the WTO ruling on pharmaceutical patents; the minister did not address this specific measure.
Day quotes the TD Bank chief economist saying the October 2000 economic statement is now outdated, and asks the finance minister to table a budget soon rather than offer a vague spring commitment.
Cites a named expert (TD Bank chief economist and former assistant deputy minister of finance) and a specific document (October 2000 economic statement) with a clear ask: table a budget soon.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, along with the official opposition others are also expressing concern about the government's financial plan no longer being in touch with the changing economy. I would like to quote from the chief economist at the TD Bank. He is also the former assistant deputy minister of finance. He said of the finance minister's economic update that “the October 2000 economic statement and budget update is now outdated”. A vague commitment from the finance minister about some update some time in the spring just will not cut it. If the finance minister is not prepared to listen to concerned Canadians, to the markets, to people in business or to the official opposition, will he at least listen to his former top adviser and now a chief economist and table a budget and do it soon?
Martin argues that Drummond and most economists have called for an economic update, not a budget, and says an update will come when the private sector forecasters' consensus is ready.
Martin engages the substance by clarifying what Drummond actually called for (an economic update, not a budget) and references the private sector forecaster consensus process, but does not give a timeline or direct commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to listen to the people that he is quoting. Neither Mr. Drummond nor the vast majority of other economists have said that we should be producing a budget. They have asked for us to do an economic update to update the projections. Of course we have said on a multitude of occasions that when the consensus of private sector forecasters is ready, of which Mr. Drummond is one, it will obviously be the time to consider an update, as indeed we did last spring.
Day quotes Drummond describing the October update's assumptions as 'decidedly optimistic' and asks when the finance minister will table a concrete financial plan, not a vague spring promise.
Cites another specific Drummond quote calling assumptions 'decidedly optimistic' and presses for a concrete date rather than a vague spring promise, though the framing includes rhetorical asides.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to give him that consensus for days and days now, and he is not listening. Here is another quote from Mr. Drummond, his former senior adviser: “The economic assumptions underpinning the October update now seem decidedly optimistic”. He is saying these are not realistic plans. I want to assure the finance minister that we are not blaming the downturn on him. We are not doing that. He had nothing to do with it, just like he had nothing to do with the upturn. I am trying to impress upon him that this is an important issue. Canadians want a financial plan to know how to lessen the impact of an economic downturn. When will he table it, not some vague promise of spring?
Martin dismissively says the government has long acknowledged the U.S. slowdown and defends the contingency reserve and prudence provisions in the October statement as sufficient foresight.
Martin deflects by sarcastically welcoming Day to 'the real world' and pivots to defending the contingency reserve and prudence provisions rather than addressing the timeline ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would really like to welcome the Leader of the Opposition to the real world if he has only now discovered that there has been a revision by most private sector forecasters that there is a slowdown going on in the United States. Well, then, welcome to reality. The government has been saying that for quite some time. What the government has also said in terms of its own forecasts is that in the October statement we put in a contingency reserve and the prudence to cover this very kind of eventuality. In short, we have shown foresight and that Canada is the stronger for it.
Day invokes the red book's 50/50 revenue commitment and asks the Prime Minister whether, given an economic downturn reducing revenues, he will cut spending or back off debt reduction, and how Canadians can know without a budget.
References the red book's revenue formula (50% spending, 50% taxes and debt reduction) and asks the Prime Minister how he will handle reduced revenues without a budget, but the ask is somewhat compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was only last Friday that the government finally admitted we are into an economic downturn. Let us talk about that contingency reserve. In the red book there is a reflection about revenues, with 50% going to increased spending and 50% going to taxes and debt reduction. Since the Prime Minister wrote the red book we will not blame the finance minister. Will the Prime Minister tell us, then, what is his plan? How can we know? With revenues being reduced as they will because we are in a downturn, is he planning to reduce spending, or will he back off on debt reduction which will weaken the dollar? How can we know what he will do without a budget?
Chrétien simply states that everyone is praising the government for its January 1 tax cuts and their perfect timing relative to the U.S. downturn.
Chrétien does not engage the red book formula or the revenue question at all, offering only a one-line boast about January 1 tax cuts praised for their timing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone around who knows the situation is praising the government because we reduced the taxes on January 1. Everyone said that we had perfect timing in doing it at the same time as the downturn in the United States.
Kenney quotes Drummond's finding that the October statement omits its own tax changes and new spending commitments and asks whether the finance minister agrees the economic assumptions are not realistic, and what he considers realistic.
Cites Drummond's memo pointing out that the October statement omits its own promised tax changes, spending commitments from red book three, and the throne speech, and asks directly whether the finance minister agrees the assumptions are not realistic.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess the finance minister still has not sent a memo to the Prime Minister pointing out that taxes are going up this year with the CPP increases. Mr. Drummond said in the same report that the October statement “does not reflect the tax changes promised in the statement or spending commitments in red book three or the throne speech”. He also said that economic assumptions in the October statement were “decidedly optimistic”. Does the finance minister agree with his comment that the assumptions are not realistic? If he does agree, what does he believe are realistic assumptions for the future of our economy?
Martin defends the October statement's prudence and contingency reserve as designed to cover such eventualities, and repeats that an economic update will come when the private sector forecasters' consensus is ready.
Martin defends the contingency reserve and prudence offsets without directly agreeing or disagreeing with Drummond's characterization of the assumptions, and repeats the spring economic update promise without new specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we have every year, and opposition members have had a lot of difficulty with it because they said we were being too prudent, the assumptions that were made in the October statement were then offset by the contingency reserve and the prudence for just this kind of eventuality. That is why we do not have to rush into an economic update. It is certainly why we do not have to rush into a budget, because in fact we have shown the foresight. I have said that when the consensus of private sector forecasters is ready we will indeed do an economic update. We did it last spring and we will do it this spring. We did it last fall and we will do another one next fall. Welcome to the real world. That is the way the government operates.
Kenney cites manufacturing, composite index, and machinery investment all declining for multiple consecutive months and asks what plans the finance minister has to protect Canadians from a real economic downturn.
Cites three specific recent economic indicators (manufacturing down two straight months, composite index down two straight months, investment in machinery and equipment down three straight months) and asks for the finance minister's specific plans.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. A statement which did not incorporate its own tax changes or consider new spending increases in the red book showed foresight; I think not. On Monday we learned that manufacturing was down for the second straight month. Yesterday we learned that the key composite index was down for two straight months. Today we learn that investment in machinery and equipment is down for three straight months. With these growing clouds on the economic horizon, what plans does this finance minister have to protect Canadians and their economy from the very real prospect of a downturn?
More, more.
Martin argues Canada's October tax stimulus was four times greater than the UK's and eight times greater than planned in the US, asserting Canada has already acted where others are still talking.
Martin pivots to comparing Canada's October tax stimulus to the UK and US rather than describing any forward-looking plans to protect Canadians from the downturn, partially engaging the economic context but not the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again all I can say is: Take a look at what we have done compared to other countries. The tax stimulus that we provided the economy in our October update, which took effect on January 1, was four times greater than that of the United Kingdom and eight times greater than those planned in the United States. The fact is what other people are talking about doing we have already done. The fact is that we have provided for the spending.
Duceppe cites a memo made public the previous day proving Jean Carle was involved in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, contradicting the Prime Minister's prior denial, and asks whether the Prime Minister will continue denying verifiable facts.
References a specific memo made public the previous day that contradicts the Prime Minister's prior denial of Jean Carle's involvement in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, and asks if the Prime Minister will maintain his denial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister denied in the House that Jean Carle was involved in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair. However, a memo made public yesterday proves exactly the opposite. Is the Prime Minister going to stick to his version and keep denying verifiable facts?
Chrétien repeats his chronological defence: the loan was made in 1997 when Carle worked for his office and had nothing to do with it; Carle only joined the bank in 1998, after the loan was made.
Chrétien addresses the question directly with a chronological account of Carle's employment timeline but does not acknowledge the memo or its contents, making his denial incomplete relative to what was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, when Mr. Carle worked for me, he had nothing to do with this loan. When the loan was made in 1997, Mr. Carle worked for my office. He joined the bank in 1998. So there was absolutely no involvement by Mr. Carle in this business either before or after, because the loan was made before he joined the bank in 1998.
Duceppe specifies that a memo from Jean Carle suggests answers to give journalists defending the Prime Minister on this file, the Liberals refused to table it, and asks why the Prime Minister denies facts contained in a memo he will not examine.
Clarifies the allegation precisely — a memo from Jean Carle suggesting answers to journalists to defend the Prime Minister — and notes the Liberals refused to table the memo, sharply framing the cover-up issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that Mr. Carle received a commission on the loan. What we are saying is that a memo from Jean Carle suggests answers that could be given to journalists in order to defend the Prime Minister, who maintains that Mr. Carle was never involved in this business. This proves the contrary. The Liberals have refused that the memo be tabled. Why is the Prime Minister maintaining the opposite of what is confirmed by verifiable facts contained in a memo he does not want to look at?
Chrétien restates the 1997 loan date and Carle's 1998 arrival at the bank, and describes Carle's role as maintaining relations between the Business Development Bank of Canada and the department, not handling loans.
Chrétien repeats the 1997/1998 chronology about the loan and Carle's role in relations between the bank and the department, but does not address the memo or the alleged media-management cover-up at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this occurred in 1997, and Mr. Carle joined the bank in 1998. Relations between departments and crown corporations are established by the employees working in these corporations. Mr. Carle's job was to maintain relations between the Business Development Bank of Canada and the department. Mr. Carle has absolutely nothing to do with loans, or with this loan, which was made before he joined the bank.
Duceppe asks the Prime Minister about the alleged cover-up attempt in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair and whether he will admit verifiable facts rather than keep denying the evidence.
Attempts to shift focus from the loan to the cover-up dimension of the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, but the question is broadly phrased and does not cite new specific evidence beyond what was already established.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make my question more specific. We are told that he has nothing to do with loans. But we are talking about the entire Auberge Grand-Mère affair. There were negotiations, there was a loan, and there was a subsequent attempt to cover up. My question for the Prime Minister has to do with the cover-up attempt. Will he admit the verifiable facts or is he going to keep denying the evidence?
Chrétien repeats that Carle had nothing to do with the loan, notes the caisse populaire and Fonds de solidarité were also lenders, and says there is nothing to hide since the enterprise is still in operation four years later.
Chrétien repeats the same chronological defence about the loan and Carle's employment timeline without engaging the cover-up allegation at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they have been talking about this for two years. We have answered in the House time and again. I repeat that, when Mr. Carle worked for me, he had nothing to do with this loan. When the loan was made in 1997, he worked for me. In 1998 he left my office and was hired by the Business Development Bank of Canada. The loan had already been running for a year, and it was also held by the caisse populaire and the Fonds de solidarité. There is nothing to hide. All these lenders have continued the loan for four years and the enterprise is still in operation.
Duceppe compares the Prime Minister to Richard Nixon, accuses him of calling an early election to hide the truth, and challenges him to behave honourably and admit he is denying the facts.
The question devolves into a rhetorical Nixon/McCarthy comparison and a personal challenge to the Prime Minister's honour, with no specific factual ask or new evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is ducking the questions. We are told that parliamentarians are behaving like Joe McCarthy. I think that the Prime Minister is starting to look more and more like Richard Nixon, and that is the truth. Perhaps that is why he called an early election, to keep the truth from coming out. I call on him to have some respect for the House. Is he able to behave like an honourable person and admit that he is denying the facts?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien says the member must have very few arguments to resort to such comparisons, reaffirms he has nothing to hide, and says he has been saying the same thing for two years and will continue to do so.
Chrétien dismisses the question as evidence of weak arguments and simply reasserts he has told the truth for two years, with no substantive engagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member must have very few arguments if these are the ones to which he is resorting. I gave the House all the details. I have nothing to hide. I have been saying the same thing for two years now and it is what I will be saying for the next two years.
McDonough asks whether the Prime Minister will condemn the national missile defence system when he meets British Prime Minister Blair tomorrow, and tell him not to count Canada in — as he failed to tell Mr. Bush.
Identifies a specific upcoming meeting with Mr. Blair as the occasion and asks for a concrete commitment to oppose national missile defence, but the three-part compound question dilutes its sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the British Prime Minister will be in Ottawa tomorrow on his way to Washington to meet with President Bush. My question is for the Prime Minister. When he sits down with Mr. Blair, will he condemn the national missile defence system? Will he make it clear that Canadians reject this proposal that would not have been acceptable even during the cold war? Will the Prime Minister tell Mr. Blair what he failed to tell Mr. Bush: do not count Canada in?
Chrétien jokes that he will tell Blair not to follow the advice of the socialists of Canada, and does not address national missile defence.
Chrétien deflects entirely with a quip about not following socialist advice rather than addressing the national missile defence ask or the Blair meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will tell Mr. Blair that it is better for him not to follow the advice of the socialists of Canada because he will be in deep trouble.
McDonough notes that Germany, France, and other European nations have severe reservations and Lloyd Axworthy rejects it outright, and asks why Canada cannot just say no to more military build up from nuclear missile madness.
References European reservations and Lloyd Axworthy's outright rejection of national missile defence, but the ask — 'why can Canada not just say no' — is more rhetorical than a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get a serious answer to serious Canadian foreign policy questions. Germany, France and other European nations have expressed severe reservations about this nuclear missile madness. Lloyd Axworthy rejects it outright. Why can Canada not just say no to more military build up?
Chrétien says he has discussed the matter with the president and will with Blair, that Canada's position is that discussions must include China, Russia, and NATO, and that he will not say no before those discussions take place.
Chrétien provides a substantive account of Canada's actual position: discussing with the Americans, insisting on consultations with China and Russia and NATO, and not saying no before discussions take place — a more specific answer than the question warranted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed that with the president and I will discuss that with Mr. Blair. I want to know what the facts are first. I will have discussions with the Americans, who have decided they will not proceed if it will cause a lot of problems for NATO and if they cannot find an arrangement with the Chinese and the Russians. It is our position that there have to be discussions with everyone and if they want to have discussions with everyone, we will not say no before the discussions take place. In discussions we have to listen first.
Clark quotes the Prime Minister's February 7 answer — 'The answer is no' to whether Jean Carle was involved in any way in the Auberge Grand-Mère file — and asks directly whether that statement was the truth.
Cites a specific date (February 7), quotes the Prime Minister's exact words from Hansard, and asks a single yes-or-no accountability question about whether that statement was the truth.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I asked the Prime Minister the following: —whether Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in the Auberge Grand-Mère file, either during his tenure in the Prime Minister's Office or in his work with the Business Development Bank. The Prime Minister replied “The answer is no”. Was the Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons on February 7 the truth?
Chrétien says what he said in the House was the truth and repeats that the loan was made in 1997 when Carle worked for him and was not involved, and that Carle only joined the bank in 1998.
Chrétien asserts the February 7 statement was the truth and repeats the chronological employment defence, but does not directly engage with the new memo evidence or acknowledge any inconsistency in his prior answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I said in the House of Commons was the truth and I will repeat what I said to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The loan was made in 1997. Mr. Carle was working with me and was not involved in the file. He joined the bank in 1998, so he had absolutely nothing to do with this loan to Auberge Grand-Mère. That was a loan not only from the bank, but from the caisse populaire and from Le Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec. This loan was made in 1997 and the loan is still in operation after four years.
Clark clarifies the question is not about the loan but about any involvement by Jean Carle in any transactions related to Auberge Grand-Mère, and asks whether the Prime Minister's February 7 answer still stands or whether he is changing his position.
Explicitly narrows the question away from the loan to any involvement in any transactions related to Auberge Grand-Mère, directly re-citing the February 7 exchange and asking whether the Prime Minister is changing his position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question was not about the loan. The question was about whether Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in this file. The Prime Minister cannot pass this off to Pinocchio. He has to answer this himself.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Jean Carle involved in any way in any of the transactions related to Auberge Grand-Mère? Is the answer to the question asked on February 7 the same, or is the Prime Minister changing his position?
Chrétien states Jean Carle was never involved in the loan by the Business Development Bank, then pivots to attacking Clark personally, accusing him of pure jealousy and recalling past scandals under his administration.
Chrétien limits his answer to the specific loan question Clark says is not his concern, then attacks Clark personally and taunts him about never returning as leader of the opposition, wholly evading the broader involvement question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Jean Carle was never involved in the loan by the Business Development Bank. The leader of the opposition has just said that he has nothing against the loan. The problem the leader of not the opposition has, who will never come back as leader of the opposition, is that it is pure jealousy. This government, for almost eight years, had no scandals while he was in an administration that had one every month.
Grey quotes an internal BDC memo stating the global risk for BDC is very high and the financing structure does not meet normal policy and criteria of the bank, and asks whether that is why the Prime Minister has not been entirely forthcoming with the House.
Cites and quotes from a specific internal BDC memo stating 'the global risk for BDC is very high' and acknowledging the financing structure 'does not meet the normal policy and criteria of the bank,' and asks whether this is why the Prime Minister has not been forthcoming.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact there are a couple of questions that arise from the loan itself, and I would like to bring them up. We have obtained an internal memo from the Business Development Bank that details the very loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère. I will quote from that document. It states: —the global risk for BDC is very high. We are aware that the financing structure recommended does not meet the normal policy and criteria of the bank. Is that why the Prime Minister has not been entirely, shall we say, forthcoming with the House? That is the memo.
Tobin ignores the memo entirely and attacks Grey for posing with four-legged animals outside parliament while complaining about parliamentary pensions and then accepting one after the election.
Tobin does not address the internal memo, the loan risk assessment, or the Prime Minister's forthcomingness at all, instead attacking Grey personally over parliamentary pensions and posing with animals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is not forthcoming is the posing with four-legged animals outside parliament complaining about parliamentary pensions and then grabbing one right after the election is over. That is not professional.
Grey cites BDC memo figures showing the Auberge Grand-Mère loan went from $415,000 to $600,000 despite the bank ignoring its normal procedures, and asks whether it is the shady nature of the loan or the fact that the Prime Minister arranged it that prevents him from answering.
References specific figures from the BDC memo — an original loan amount of $415,000 increasing to $600,000 — and asks whether the loan's shady nature or the Prime Minister's arrangement of it prevents him from answering, though the question is partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the BDC memo which says very clearly—
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty sad over there no matter what day of the week it is. The BDC memo concerns loans to the Grand-Mère of $415,000. What did it end up getting? It got $600,000. Let us look at this. A bank is very worried about lending a large sum of money so it first ignores its normal procedures, it increases the loan by 50% extra and then it hands over the cash. I would love the Prime Minister to call my bank when it is time to renew my mortgage. I want to ask, is this a shady loan or is it the fact that he arranged it?
She surely will, Mr. Speaker. Is it the shady nature of that bank loan or is it the fact that he arranged it that prevents the Prime Minister from answering?
Tobin cites the ethics counsellor's finding that the Prime Minister was in no conflict and complied with ethics rules, and the RCMP's conclusion that there was no need for further investigation, and calls the matter ridiculous.
Tobin cites the ethics counsellor's finding of no conflict of interest and the RCMP's finding of no need for further investigation, partially engaging the loan legitimacy issue, but does not address the specific figures from the memo or why the loan exceeded normal criteria.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts are pretty clear. The facts are that we have had a request by the Leader of the Opposition directly to the ethics counsellor for an investigation. That has now occurred and a definitive answer has been given saying that the Prime Minister of Canada was in no conflict and has complied with the ethics rules. Then we had two letters from the leader of the Conservative Party to the RCMP. Surely all Canadians can agree that the RCMP are objective and professional. It did an investigation that said there was no need for a further investigation. Then the leader of the Conservative Party wants to coach the RCMP on how to be policemen. This matter is ridiculous and—
The member asks the Minister for International Trade to confirm that Canada's position remains that culture, health, and education will never be included in FTAA negotiations.
Cites a prior ministerial commitment and asks for explicit confirmation that culture, health, and education will never be included in FTAA negotiations — reasonably specific with an identifiable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has said time and again that Canada's position was that culture, health and education would never be included in the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas. Could the minister confirm today that Canada's position is still the same and that our country will never accept that these issues be negotiated under the free trade area of the Americas?
The minister says Canada is developing a different way of treating cultural products and has always made clear Canada would never allow negotiations on its right to have its own systems in health and education.
The minister addresses culture and health/education separately but uses hedged language ('never allow negotiations on its right') rather than a flat confirmation that these issues are off the FTAA agenda entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as regards culture, we have done some very important work, along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to develop a different way of treating cultural products. We feel it is important that these products not be subjected to standard trade legislation. As for the other issues, namely health and education, I have always made it very clear that Canada would never allow negotiations on its right to have its own systems and its own way of doing things in these most important areas.
The member asks for a specific assurance that culture, health, and education are not on the FTAA negotiating agenda, noting that the public lacks access to the basic texts.
Sharpens the prior question by noting lack of access to basic negotiating texts and asks for explicit assurance that culture, health, and education are not on the FTAA agenda — clear and specific ask with factual framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since we do not have access to the basic texts to be used in the negotiations, could the minister give us today the assurance that none of these issues are on the agenda of the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas?
The minister claims he already gave a clear answer and then describes upcoming meetings of environment, labour, and trade ministers in preparation for the Quebec City summit and Buenos Aires negotiations.
The minister claims he just gave that assurance but then pivots to describing upcoming ministerial meetings on environment, labour, and trade without directly stating these issues are absent from the FTAA agenda.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is what I just did in a very clear manner. We intend to keep working with our colleagues from the hemisphere and to conclude, through negotiations other than those on the FTAA, agreements on the environment. Environment ministers will meet in preparation for the summit in Quebec City. We will also have meetings with labour ministers, who are holding their own talks. In early April international trade ministers will negotiate in Buenos Aires the extensions and the integration of the free trade area of the Americas.
The member asks why the government defended grants to the Strathroy Community Resource Centre rather than protecting taxpayer money, given that fraud charges have now been laid against three board members.
Cites a specific grant recipient (Strathroy Community Resource Centre), references a prior parliamentary exchange, and grounds the question in a police announcement of fraud charges — factually specific with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last April, when we enquired about grants to the Strathroy Community Resource Centre, the parliamentary secretary not only defended the grants but attacked us for even questioning them. As it turns out, we had every reason to be concerned. Last Thursday the police announced that fraud charges were going to be laid against three members of the board. I ask the minister: Why was the government defending these grants instead of protecting taxpayer money from criminal misuse?
The minister says allegations of wrongdoing were always taken seriously, the department asked police to investigate, the OPP has laid charges against three individuals, and the matter is before the courts.
The minister confirms the OPP laid charges and that the department asked police to investigate, but declines to explain why the government defended the grants rather than protecting taxpayer money, citing the matter being before the courts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, whenever there were allegations of wrongdoing in circumstances involving government money we took them seriously. The department did ask the police to investigate. The hon. member is correct, the OPP have laid charges against three individuals. This is before the courts and, as such, I will say no more on the case.
The member asks the minister to explain how the HRDC performance report could claim no money was missing from grants and contributions while at least 20 police investigations are ongoing and fraud charges are being laid.
Cites the HRDC performance report's finding that 'no money was found to be missing' and juxtaposes it with at least 20 police investigations, creating a pointed and factually grounded contradiction demanding explanation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the minister really does not know what is going on in her department. The HRDC performance report states that last year's audit of grants and contributions found “that no money was found to be missing”. This is quite interesting given that there are at least 20 police investigations into the grants and contributions program. If no money is missing, as the minister claims, can she then explain to the House why there are these police investigations and why they are laying fraud charges on the files?
The minister says the vast majority of government investments have made a difference in Canadians' lives and that allegations of wrongdoing are always taken seriously with investigations undertaken as required.
The minister does not address the contradiction between the audit finding and the police investigations at all, instead pivoting to the positive impact of government investments in communities and a general statement about taking allegations seriously.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is absolutely clear is that the vast majority of investments made by the government in communities right across the country, including investments in the hon. member's own riding, have made a difference in the lives of Canadians. I respect, from time to time, that there are allegations made about wrongdoings. We always take them seriously. If investigations are required, they are undertaken and action is followed.
The member asks why the solicitor general has ignored his entreaties for two years regarding gangs terrorizing farmers, and what action he intends to take in light of a UN agency report criticizing Canada's inaction on cannabis cultivation and synthetic drugs.
References a specific UN agency report criticizing Canada, cites two years of unanswered entreaties, and asks a dual question about past inaction and intended future action — reasonably grounded but the ask is compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a United Nations agency has criticized Canada's lack of action against the illegal cultivation of cannabis and its inability to properly control the production of synthetic drugs. I too have called upon the solicitor general here in this House to take action on the gangs terrorizing farmers, but with no satisfactory response. Could the solicitor general tell us why he has turned a deaf ear to my entreaties for the past two years and could he tell us, in light of such a damning report, what action he intends to take so that farm families will no longer fall victim to gang threats?
The minister states that the RCMP supports the SQ, which leads investigations in Quebec, and that the government supports federal, provincial, and municipal police forces across the country to fight organized crime.
The minister does not address the UN report, the resource insufficiency, or the specific threat to farm families, merely stating that the RCMP supports the SQ and that federal-provincial-municipal cooperation will continue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is personally well aware, the RCMP supports the SQ, which leads the investigations in Quebec. We support federal, provincial and municipal police forces across the country and we will continue to do so to fight organized crime.
The member asks the solicitor general, in light of UN criticism of Canada's laxity on drug trafficking, what specific action he will take against drug traffickers and what protection he will provide to farm families.
Focuses the previous question on the specific issue of resources, cites the UN report as international validation, and demands concrete action for farm families — clearer than the prior exchange but still somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of support, but one of resources. Resources are insufficient, as he well knows. We are not the ones saying it this time, the UN is. Now that the laxity of the government is being criticized on the international level, is the solicitor general going to finally tell us what action he intends to take against drug traffickers and what protection he intends to provide to these farm families, who have had enough of his promises?
The minister says the last budget committed $1.5 billion to the public safety envelope and that the government gives the RCMP and other police organizations tools like CPIC to do the job.
The minister cites $1.5 billion in the last budget for the public safety envelope and mentions CPIC as a tool given to the RCMP, which is partially relevant to resources but does not address the specific UN criticism or protection for farm families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware that in the last budget the government committed $1.5 billion to the public safety envelope, which is something that is very important. We give the RCMP and other police organizations across this country the tools to do the job, like CPIC and many other tools.
The member asks the immigration minister to confirm that FACT is a terrorist front for the Tamil Tigers, given that her own department's lawyers are arguing exactly that before the supreme court, and whether cabinet colleagues should have attended a FACT fundraiser.
Identifies a specific supreme court case, names FACT and its alleged link to the Tamil Tigers, references specific cabinet ministers attending a FACT fundraiser, and asks a pointed yes/no confirmation — highly specific and factually grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Tamils are law-abiding good people but in any group there are a few bad apples. Right now the Department of Citizenship and Immigration lawyers are arguing at the supreme court to have a man deported because of his association with FACT, a group they say is a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers. Last year the finance minister and the CIDA ministers argued there was nothing wrong with attending a FACT fundraiser. Will the immigration minister confirm that FACT is indeed a terrorist front and that her cabinet colleagues should not be out raising money for them?
The minister says only that it is completely inappropriate to discuss matters that are before the Supreme Court of Canada.
The minister refuses entirely to engage with the question, citing only that it is inappropriate to discuss matters before the Supreme Court of Canada, without addressing the broader question about cabinet colleagues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that it is completely inappropriate to discuss matters that are before the Supreme Court of Canada.
The member quotes the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's own lawyers describing FACT as a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers and asks how the minister can deny that cabinet colleagues were raising funds for a terrorist front.
Quotes directly from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's own court submissions describing FACT as a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers and cites specific claims about drug trafficking — highly specific with a pointed accountability ask directed at cabinet conduct.
Source text
Especially, Mr. Speaker, when her neck is on the line. In their case before the supreme court, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration lawyers flat out say that FACT is a fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers. They go on to say that the Tigers “raise money through drug trafficking and by relying upon the willing or unwilling expatriate communities abroad, such as the large number of Tamil refugees in Canada”. That is what her own lawyers have said. How can the minister deny that her cabinet colleagues were in fact raising funds for a terrorist front?
No answer was recorded for this exchange.
No ministerial answer is recorded in the source text for this exchange.
The member asks the Minister of National Defence what role his department is playing regarding water quality in Shannon and how he intends to reassure the people of Shannon.
A government backbencher sets up a question for the Minister of National Defence about the Shannon water quality issue, framed partly to rebut Bloc allegations — a clear softball setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the problem facing the people of Shannon and contrary to the allegations of certain Bloc Quebecois members, we have been working together with the various parties since this matter was raised. I would direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of recent press releases by the Quebec minister of the environment on the quality of the water in Shannon, could the minister tell us what role his department is playing in this matter and how he intends to reassure the people of Shannon?
The minister says the department has spent over $2 million since discovering the matter and bringing it to provincial attention in April 1998, conducting studies and remedial action, and commits to continued co-operation with provincial and local officials.
The minister provides substantive information: the department spent over $2 million on studies and remedial action since April 1998, brought the matter to provincial attention at that time, and commits to continued cooperation with provincial and local officials.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my top concern and the top concern of the government is the health and welfare of the people in this community, the people on our base and the people in the surrounding communities. I hope the Quebec government will make that its priority as well. Since discovering this matter and since bringing it to the attention of the provincial government back in April 1998, we have spent over $2 million in terms of doing studies, doing research as to the source of the problems and taking remedial action. We will continue to do that. We want to continue to co-operate with all officials, provincial and local, to make sure that the health of the people in this area is looked after.
The member asks why the government introduced legislation extending patent protection for brand name drugs in the Senate rather than the House of Commons, and why it is complying with a WTO ruling it had previously said it might not accept.
References specific legislation extending patent protection introduced the previous day and raises the procedural choice of the Senate, but frames the ask in rhetorical terms ('cave in,' 'ashamed') making it partly partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government introduced significant and far-reaching legislation extending patent protection for many brand name drugs, which will add enormously to the cost of drugs already going through the roof. Interestingly, the government chose not to introduce this bill in this House but chose the other place. The question today is really why this cave in to the WTO and why in fact the Senate? Are the Liberals ashamed of the fact that they are bringing in legislation to conform to an idea which they had previously condemned?
The minister says the legislation is being dealt with in the other place because of its ability to deal efficiently with legislation, and confirms that Canada always seeks to be in compliance with WTO rulings.
The minister explains the Senate route as efficient and confirms compliance with the WTO ruling, but does not address the substantive concern about drug costs or the prior government position that non-compliance was on the table.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the legislation which I sponsored is being dealt with in the other place because of its ability to deal efficiently with legislation. It will move over here at the appropriate time. With respect to the package of amendments, they are in compliance with the ruling of the WTO. Canada always seeks to be in compliance with WTO rulings.
The member asks what the government will do to address high drug prices given its decision to comply with the WTO ruling, and specifically whether it will eliminate the automatic injunction against generic competition.
Cites the pre-election government statement that all options were on the table including non-compliance, and asks a specific policy question about eliminating the automatic injunction against generic competition — factually grounded with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that just before the federal election, in response to the WTO ruling, the government said all options were on the table, including non-compliance. Today the government is prepared to roll over and play dead. The patients, the seniors and the provincial health systems will pay the price. Since the government has obviously decided to cave in to the WTO, we want to know what the government is prepared to do to address the high price of drugs. Is it at least prepared to eliminate the automatic injunction against generic competition?
The minister says there is no evidence drug costs will increase dramatically and defends compliance with WTO rules, arguing Canada has done very well in the world of trade.
The minister denies that drug costs will increase dramatically and defends compliance with international trade rules but does not address the specific ask about eliminating the automatic injunction against generic competition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the cost of drugs in Canada will increase dramatically in the fashion being proposed by the member as a result of complying with the WTO. We will continue to still see many people from south of the border taking buses across the border to try and access cheaper drugs in this country. The hon. member and the NDP cannot be serious in suggesting that Canada alone in the world should decide to create some kind of survivor society completely outside international trade rules. We intend to respect those rules because we have done very well in the world of trade.
The Right Hon. member asks whether the Prime Minister stands by his April 10, 1999 letter to The National Post denying personal connection to the Grand-Mère hotel and golf course, and whether he will table all relevant documents respecting his attempt to sell shares in the Grand-Mère golf course to Akimbo Development Corporation.
Cites a specific letter from the Prime Minister to The National Post dated April 10, 1999, quotes it directly, and asks a single specific request — to table all relevant documents respecting the attempt to sell shares in the Grand-Mère golf course to Akimbo Development Corporation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is dodging on Jean Carle. Let me ask him whether he stands by his assertion in his letter to The National Post on April 10, 1999, in which he said “I therefore had no direct or indirect personal connection with the hotel in question or with the adjacent golf course”. If the Prime Minister stands by that statement, will he agree to table all relevant documents respecting his attempt to sell shares in the Grand-Mère golf course to Akimbo Development Corporation?
The minister recounts the timeline of Jean Carle's employment and disputes that a document cited by the opposition leader came from the Prime Minister's Office, identifying it instead as a BDC document.
The minister addresses the timeline of Jean Carle's employment and disputes the source of a document cited by the opposition leader, but does not answer whether the Prime Minister stands by his letter or whether the documents will be tabled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. In 1997 when this loan was approved, the gentleman in question, Mr. Jean Carle, was employed on Parliament Hill in the Prime Minister's Office. He was not anywhere near BDC at the time. In 1998 he was employed at BDC. Yesterday the leader of that opposition party said that he was quoting from a document from the Prime Minister's Office. I have actually examined it. It is not a document from the Prime Minister's Office. It is a document prepared by the BDC. Insofar as Mr. Carle is concerned, he is the vice-president—
The member cites a letter from four Atlantic premiers requesting renewal of the softwood lumber agreement and the maritime accord, noting a contradictory statement from the parliamentary secretary, and asks the Prime Minister to confirm he understands and will act on the premiers' request.
Cites a specific letter from four Atlantic premiers requesting renewal of the softwood lumber agreement and the maritime accord, quotes from the parliamentary secretary's contradictory statement, and asks for a clear commitment from the Prime Minister — well grounded with a specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I just sent a letter over to the Prime Minister from the four Atlantic premiers requesting renewal of the softwood lumber agreement and specifically the maritime accord. In the letter they said “Failure to continue the current agreement and arrangements would have a devastating impact on our region's softwood lumber industry”. I was surprised a week ago when the parliamentary secretary rose in the House and said “the government is very clear that nobody in Canada wants to see the current deal extended”. I would say that was little disrespectful of the premiers. Would the Prime Minister confirm that he understands the request of the four premiers? Would he commit to act on this request by the four premiers?
The Prime Minister says softwood lumber is extremely important, was one of the first items he mentioned to the US president two weeks ago, but does not commit to acting on the premiers' specific request.
The Prime Minister confirms softwood lumber is important and was raised with the US president two weeks earlier but does not confirm receipt of the premiers' specific request or commit to acting on it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important file for all provinces because softwood lumber is an extremely important commodity which Canada exports to the United States. It was one of the first items I mentioned to the president when I met him two weeks ago.
The member asks whether the government will hold an all-day debate on farm income as demanded by farmers who organized a banquet in the Hall of Honour, and if so, when.
References a specific event (farmers' banquet in the Hall of Honour), cites apparent support from the Liberal rural caucus, and asks a specific question about whether and when an all-day debate will be held — reasonably specific but with some rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last night farmers continued their efforts to get the government to finally pay attention to the farm income crisis through a banquet in the Hall of Honour. The purpose of this banquet was to demand an all day debate on the issue of farmers receiving adequate returns for their investment and labour. The Liberal rural caucus seems to support this debate. We have heard nothing from cabinet. Will the government hold this debate as demanded by farmers? If so, when will it be done?
The minister thanks the member for Toronto—Danforth for organizing the event and says the government has been there for farmers in the past and will continue to be there for them.
The minister thanks the member for Toronto—Danforth for organizing the event and offers a vague assurance that the government will continue to be there for farmers, without addressing the debate request at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the farmers across Canada and everyone in the House I thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for organizing the event last night. It continues to point out the need for support from the government to Canadian farmers. The government has been there for farmers in the past and will continue to be there for them.
The member asks when the minister will deliver concrete financial assistance to farmers, citing three years of government inaction and an ongoing farm income crisis evidenced by farmer protests on Parliament Hill.
Notes three years of inaction on the farm crisis, references farmers protesting on the Hill with combines and machinery, and demands immediate financial action — has some factual grounding but is largely rhetorical in tone.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the farmers up there in the stands do not want platitudes. They do not want banquets. They want action, and they want it today. The government has had three years to take care of the farm crisis in the country, and I guarantee it is a crisis. What has the minister done? We have farmers coming here with combines and machinery. They are protesting on the Hill and inside the House. When will he do something to get some money to farmers now?
Hear, hear.
The minister notes it is the first question on the issue from the opposition in two weeks, says the government has been working on it, and vows to continue to be there for farmers with all the resources it can possibly muster.
The minister deflects by claiming it is the first question on agriculture from the opposition in two weeks and offers only a vague commitment to continue working on the issue with all resources available, without any specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the event took place last night because it is the first question on this issue from the opposition for two weeks.
Mr. Speaker, while opposition members have been asking questions on other issues, the government has been working on this issue. We have in the past and will continue to do so in the future. We will be there for farmers with all the resources we can possibly muster.
Bourgeois asks whether the minister will amend Bill C-2 to give women who give birth prematurely access to extended parental leave, noting the current program discriminates against them.
The question identifies a specific group harmed (women who give birth prematurely), references a specific bill (Bill C-2), and has a clear ask, though it lacks data or citations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, entitlement under the parental leave program of the federal government for women eligible for employment insurance discriminates against women who give birth prematurely. My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Is the minister prepared to amend Bill C-2 to treat these women fairly and enable them to enjoy extended parental leave?
Stewart defends the doubling of parental benefits and the end-of-2000 commencement date but does not address the premature-birth discrimination issue or any intent to amend Bill C-2.
The minister speaks only about doubling parental benefits and the commencement date without addressing the specific discrimination concern for women who give birth prematurely or whether she would amend Bill C-2.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very proud of our undertaking to double parental benefits. The new program came into place at the end of the year 2000 as we promised. As is the question whenever changes are made, there has to be a date of commencement. We undertook discussions with Canadians. We had to talk with the provinces and territories. We had to create legislation. We set the date for the end of the year 2000 as we promised. We are very glad that on a go forward basis all parents will have access to the program.
Bourgeois asks whether the minister recognizes that negotiating with Quebec to allow it to establish its own parental leave program would be less prejudicial to women.
The question raises a substantive policy alternative (negotiating with Quebec for its own parental leave program) but is framed rhetorically and lacks specific details or data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, if she agreed finally to negotiate with the government of Quebec to enable it to establish its own parental leave program, the program would be far less prejudicial to women?
Stewart reiterates that parental benefits were doubled and says Quebec may add to the program, without addressing federal-provincial negotiations.
The minister restates the doubling of parental benefits and deflects by saying Quebec can add to the program, without engaging with the negotiation request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, as we have always said, we have expanded the parental benefit by doubling it in a very significant way. If the province of Quebec wishes to add to that program, we would encourage it to do so.
Ablonczy asks why a Health Canada scientist was punished by having her paycheque taken away for two weeks after confirming the Brazilian beef ban was not based on scientific evidence but was a pretext to escalate a trade war.
The question references a specific case (a Health Canada scientist punished with a two-week paycheque suspension) and a specific allegation (Brazilian beef ban not based on scientific evidence), though the ask is framed in broad rhetorical terms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today brings more troubling evidence of the lengths to which the government will go to sacrifice Canada's impartial public service if it does not willingly go along with the Liberal self-serving political agenda. A Health Canada scientist has been punished and her paycheque taken away for two weeks. Her crime was being honest enough to confirm the Brazilian beef ban was not based on scientific evidence but was a pretext to escalate a trade war. Why is there this blatant intimidation of a public servant who dares to step out of the official line?
Gray states the scientist was not working on the file, was not a CFIA employee, has grievance and court recourse, and is represented by her union, and notes ministers are ordinarily not involved in such public service decisions.
Gray provides some relevant context — that the scientist was not working on the file, was not a CFIA employee, and has grievance recourse — but does not address why she was punished or the broader intimidation allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I should remind the House that the individual in question was not working on this file. This was not within her area of responsibility in the health department. She was not an employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This individual has available to her a full grievance procedure and eventually, if she wants, recourse through the courts. She is represented by her union. Under the circumstances I think it is appropriate to confirm that ordinarily ministers and members are not involved in these types of public service decisions.
Ablonczy asks why the government continues extreme efforts to prevent citizens from knowing what is really going on, citing the scientist's victory against a Health Canada gag order.
The question is largely rhetorical, referencing a Health Canada gag order and a pattern of silencing public servants, without citing specific documents or a single clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this scientist has just fought a Health Canada gag order and won, but the government continues its efforts to shut her down from telling Canadians the truth. Canadians are unable to feel secure when examples pile up of our public servants being prevented from telling the truth and being made political pawns of the government. Why does the government have to go to such extreme lengths to keep citizens from knowing what is really going on?
Gray says senior officials and veterinary scientists linked to the file are giving full information, and reiterates that the employee has recourse to a full grievance procedure.
Gray notes that senior officials and veterinary scientists on the file are giving full information and reiterates the grievance process, but does not address the specific allegation of continued efforts to silence the scientist.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, senior officials who are directly connected with the file, veterinary scientists and officials of the health department linked with the file are giving full information. She mentioned a court case. I understand the fact situation is different. I also remind her that these types of matters which involve employees are not matters where ministers of the government are directly involved. However, the official in question has recourse to a full grievance procedure. I am sure she is aware of her rights in that regard.
Easter asks what action the Minister for International Trade will pursue with Americans to reopen the border to P.E.I. potatoes after 119 days of closure.
This is a government-backbench softball setup: Easter cites 119 days and a warehouse-full framing but the ask is a cue for the minister to announce action rather than a genuine accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has now been 119 days since the United States took unwarranted and illegal trade action by closing the border to P.E.I. potatoes. We have proven scientifically that this product is safe to export, yet the border remains closed and our warehouses are full. It is time to be aggressive. What action is the minister prepared to pursue with the Americans to have them open the border so our products can get back in the marketplace?
Pettigrew states the Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush, the Minister of Agriculture raised it in Washington the previous day, and he will raise the P.E.I. potato issue with Bob Zoellick on Monday.
Pettigrew provides concrete, specific actions: the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush, the Minister of Agriculture raised it in Washington the previous day, and Pettigrew will raise it with Bob Zoellick on Monday.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank all my colleagues from P.E.I. who have been very active on this file on behalf of potato growing constituents. The Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush. When my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, was in Washington yesterday he raised it with his colleague from the United States. I will be raising the P.E.I. potato issue with Bob Zoellick, the United States trade representative, when I meet with him on Monday. Our government is taking this issue to the highest level. Canada will not stand for protectionism by the back door.
Hanger challenges the minister's claim that simulators compensate for reduced Aurora flying hours, citing information from Canadian Forces Base Greenwood that simulators there are more than 30 years old and do not reflect an Aurora cockpit, and asks how an outdated simulator protects Canada's borders.
Hanger cites a specific phone call to Canadian Forces Base Greenwood revealing simulators are more than 30 years old and do not reflect an Aurora cockpit, directly challenging the minister's previous day's claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister supported the reduced flying hours for Aurora aircraft pilots by claiming that simulators would make up for the lost time. He was dead wrong on that assessment. A phone call this morning from Canadian Forces Base Greenwood to my office revealed that the simulators there are more than 30 years old and do not even reflect an Aurora cockpit. Moreover, simulation training is not as effective as flying. In what way does using an outdated simulator protect Canada's borders?
Eggleton says the Canadian Alliance is out of date on its research, asserts the government is investing in new equipment and simulators, and states the chief of the air staff fully supports the recommendation and assures no compromise to coastline security.
Eggleton dismisses the research as out of date and says the government is investing in new equipment and simulators, but does not address the specific claim about 30-year-old simulators at CFB Greenwood or refute that factual allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as usual the Canadian Alliance is out of date on its research. Yesterday it talked about a letter which is almost two years old. Today it is talking about old equipment. The government is investing in new equipment, new simulators, new sensors, new upgrading and technologically advanced equipment. Within the last hour I talked with the chief of the air staff. He fully supports the recommendation that is being made. He assures me that we will not compromise the security of Canada's coastline.
Hanger asks the minister to explain how sitting in a simulator constitutes quality border patrol, given the reduced Aurora flying hours and inadequate equipment under the Liberal government.
The question uses a rhetorical setup about quality versus quantity but contains a pointed implicit challenge: how does simulator training constitute quality border patrol, which is a substantive if somewhat rhetorical ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the chief of the air force would probably be fired if he did not agree with the minister. The minister said that the reduced Aurora flying hours were justified because it was a case of quality versus quantity. Thanks to the Liberal government, when it comes to equipment we do not have either. Would the minister tell the House how sitting in a simulator is quality border patrol?
Eggleton states there will be no reduction in coastline operations per the chief of the air staff, and that the government is investing almost $1 billion in upgrading Aurora equipment to maintain surveillance capability.
Eggleton asserts there will be no reduction in coastline operations per the chief of the air staff and cites an investment of almost $1 billion in upgrading Aurora equipment, providing some substantive content though not directly explaining simulator quality.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there will not be any reduction in terms of the operations on the coastline. This comes from the chief of the air staff. It is bottom up, not top down. We in fact will maintain the kind of service that we have provided. The integrity of the service will be maintained. We are investing in new equipment. We are investing almost $1 billion in the upgrading of the Aurora equipment to act in a proper fashion in terms of our surveillance capability.
Lalonde asks whether the Prime Minister, using his own words that the U.S. missile defence shield 'could cause all sorts of disruptions,' will strongly oppose the project if it leads to a renewed international arms race.
The question cites the Prime Minister's own words from China and asks a specific conditional: will he strongly oppose the missile defence shield if it causes disruptions including a renewed international arms race, though the conditional framing softens the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the important issue of the U.S. missile defence shield, the Prime Minister recently said in China that “It could cause all sorts of disruptions, but that then again it could lead to a solution. We will see”. My question is for the Prime Minister, and I hope he will elaborate further than he did earlier. If it turns out that the U.S. missile defence shield causes all sorts of disruptions, to use the Prime Minister's words, including a renewed international arms race, will the Prime Minister strongly oppose this project?
Manley dismisses the question as hypothetical since the United States has only said it will discuss the issue with allies, Russians, and Chinese, and no specific plan exists at this point.
Manley dismisses the question as hypothetical because no specific plan exists yet, without engaging with Canada's position or the Prime Minister's own quoted words on potential disruptions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question, because so far the United States has said that it would discuss the issue with its allies and also with the Russians and the Chinese. This is only normal. However, there is no specific plan at this point. So, it may be that the hon. member is speculating on something that may never occur.
The Speaker drew the attention of the House to visitors in the gallery, and members responded with approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Minister for International Cooperation Maria Minna and Minister of Finance Paul Martin rose on a question of privilege to refute the member for Medicine Hat's characterization of their attendance at a community event as attending a terrorist dinner, and to demand an apology, arguing the statement besmirched them and the entire Tamil community.
- Lib Maria Minna
- Lib Paul Martin
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during question period the member for Medicine Hat referred to both myself and the Minister of Finance and said that we had attended a terrorist dinner or function and that we support terrorists. We attended a community event. When he says things like that, he is painting members of the Tamil community as a whole as terrorists. I attended a community event that was made up of respectable Canadian citizens. I did not attend or have dinner with a group of terrorists. I take this as an offence and I ask for an apology. I do not support terrorism and neither does my colleague. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how there can be a valid difference of opinion as to the nature of the meeting given the fact that the minister and I were there and the hon. member was not. That is not the issue. The other part of the issue is that it is alleged that we support terrorism and fundraising activities for terrorism. That is clearly not the fact. It not only besmirches us, it besmirches the entire Tamil community, but it is our own privileges that we are raising this.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Canadian Alliance) clarified his earlier question period remarks, stating he did not suggest the Minister of Finance and the minister for CIDA knowingly supported a terrorist group, but argued that as cabinet members they should have known that FACT is a front for a terrorist organization as identified by the department of immigration, CSIS and other government organizations, and that they should renounce that group.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Monte Solberg
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I simply have to bring some clarity to this situation. During question period I certainly did not suggest in any way that the Minister of Finance and the minister for CIDA knowingly supported this group. What I am alleging is simply that the department of immigration, CSIS and other government organizations have pointed to the fact that FACT is a front for a terrorist organization. I argue that both ministers should have known that as they are cabinet members and that they should renounce that group that they in fact unknowingly supported.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Canadian Alliance) asked the Speaker to clarify why his S. O. 31 statement was disallowed, arguing it was not a personal attack but drew on the ethics counsellor's own words about the Prime Minister; separately, Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Canadian Alliance) asked the agriculture minister to retract a claim made during question period that the Canadian Alliance had not asked questions or participated in agriculture matters in the House.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Werner Schmidt
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Howard Hilstrom
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please clarify the reasons why you would not allow my S. O. 31 statement. I would respectfully submit that I did not in any way intend it to be a personal attack on any member in the House but rather to take the very words that the ethics counsellor himself used about the Prime Minister, saying that he was no ordinary MP. It was within that context that these particular words were put together. I did provide you, Mr. Speaker, with the text of what I was about to submit to the House. I would ask if you would please clarify what it is about that statement that you considered to be a personal attack on a member of the House.
Mr. Speaker, in question period today in answer to my question in regard to agriculture, the agriculture minister saw fit to cast aspersions on the Canadian Alliance and me with the idea of our not having asked any questions or participated in any activity in agriculture in the House. That is not true. We have had over eight questions and dozens of statements and speeches. I believe the agriculture minister should retract that.