Session overview
- The Grand-Mère affair dominated Question Period, with opposition members from the Canadian Alliance, BQ, and PC parties pressing for disclosure of the shareholder registry for 161341 Canada Inc. between 1996 and 1999, and Minister of Industry Brian Tobin repeatedly deflecting by citing the ethics counsellor's clearance and the RCMP's closed investigation.
- A procedural controversy erupted over the timing of a lawyer's letter from the Grand-Mère Golf Club being tabled at the Standing Committee on Industry: Canadian Alliance House leader Chuck Strahl raised a question of privilege alleging the ethics counsellor withheld the letter during questioning and then released it to the media before parliamentarians could examine it.
- Corporate access to FTAA Summit of the Americas events and negotiating texts was challenged by NDP and BQ members, who questioned whether sponsorship fees of $75,000 to $1.5 million gave large corporations privileged access to FTAA leaders, while Minister for International Trade Pierre Pettigrew insisted civil society including unions and NGOs would also be included.
- The Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton addressed two separate defence files: foot and mouth disease disinfection protocols for British troops training at CFB Wainwright and Suffield, and allegations of political interference in the maritime helicopter procurement program arising from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment.
- Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Hedy Fry's remarks during her answer on March 21 International Day for the Elimination of Racism — referencing crosses being burned on lawns in Prince George, British Columbia — prompted an immediate point of order from Canadian Alliance MP Richard Harris demanding a withdrawal and apology.
- Prime Minister Jean Chrétien personally confirmed at the dispatch box that he was owed money from the sale of his Grand-Mère Golf Club shares and that he wanted to be paid, while maintaining he had no interest in either the golf course or Auberge Grand-Mère at the time he assisted the auberge with its Business Development Bank loan application.
Minister of Industry Brian Tobin provided the specific, verifiable timeline for the lawyer's letter: legal consent was given at 4:30 p.m. at the request of the ethics counsellor, the letter was faxed to his office, and it was tabled before the industry committee at 5:10 p.m. — the only exchange in the session where a minister gave precise, concrete facts in direct response to a factual question.
Duceppe cites a specific exchange at the Standing Committee on Industry where the ethics counsellor said "Oh, yes" to a direct question about the Prime Minister's involvement in negotiations, and asks the Prime Minister to confirm it.
Rather than addressing Stockwell Day's specific question about why the Prime Minister contacted the ethics counsellor in January if the shares were in a blind trust, Tobin responded solely with a personal jibe about Day's leadership prospects, providing no factual content whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition) repeatedly asked whose names appeared on the shareholder registry for 161341 Canada Inc. between 1996 and 1999 — this was never answered with the actual names, only assertions that the Prime Minister's name was not on it after 1993.
- Joe Clark (Calgary Centre) asked what concrete proof the Prime Minister could offer that a transfer of shares to Akimbo actually occurred, and offered to allow tabling of the actual documents — no proof was tabled and the question was dismissed with a rhetorical non-answer.
- Stockwell Day asked why the Prime Minister called the ethics counsellor in January if his portfolio was managed at arm's length in a blind trust, as stated in his public declaration of assets — this question received no substantive answer.
- Francine Lalonde (Mercier) asked whether the proposed FTAA agreement under services excludes or protects the social economy, particularly day care for $5 — the minister confirmed Canada's general position on health and public education but did not address the specific social economy question.
- Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre) asked why Prepulsid was not pulled the minute problems associated with it first came to light, given that Health Canada had reports of heart problems including 10 deaths in Canada before issuing only a warning — the parliamentary secretary cited a coroner's inquest and a class action suit without explaining the decision-making timeline.
Why is the Minister of Industry refusing to release the names on the shareholder registry showing who was the fourth shareholder in the Grand-Mère Golf Club between 1996 and 1999?
Day identifies a specific document gap — the shareholder registry names between 1996 and 1999 — and directs a clear, answerable ask at the Minister of Industry, grounded in the released lawyer's letter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a letter was released from the Grand-Mère Golf Club's lawyers by the Prime Minister's personal ethics trainer. The Liberals claim that the letter, which of course was written and paid for by the Prime Minister's former business partners, clears him. Actually it proves nothing. The only way we will get to the bottom of this Grand-Mère affair is if all of the relevant documents are released. Why is the Minister of Industry still refusing to release the names that appear on the shareholder registry that shows who was the fourth shareholder between 1996 and 1999? Why will he not just release it?
Tobin states the ethics counsellor found no conflict, the RCMP closed its investigation, and that independent verification of the shareholder list is being sought, with information forthcoming.
Tobin lists procedural steps taken (ethics counsellor, RCMP, company release) but does not directly name the shareholders or explain why the registry has not been released, deflecting with a call to move on.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been part of a demand for the ethics counsellor to investigate this matter. The ethics counsellor has done so and, as recently as yesterday, said clearly again that the Prime Minister was not in any conflict. The Leader of the Opposition was part of a demand for the RCMP to investigate this matter. The RCMP did investigate and closed the books because there was no basis for an investigation. The Leader of the Opposition asked that the company release the names of the shareholders and, by the way, independent verification is being sought today with respect to that list. That information is forthcoming. I say it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to get back to the real business of Canada.
Whose names appear on the corporate registry of the Grand-Mère Golf Club between 1996 and 1999, and will the ethics counsellor release that information?
Day sharpens his ask by clarifying he wants the corporate registry names released by the ethics counsellor, not the company, making the question more precisely targeted than the first exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to use his own phraseology, I do not want the Minister of Industry to get his shorts and his socks in a knot. I am just asking a basic question. We never asked that these names be released by the company. We asked that the ethics trainer for the Prime Minister release from the corporate registry the names of the shareholders. We still do not have them. Whose names were on there between 1996 and 1999? That is all we are asking.
Tobin attacks Day's lawsuit, his party's byelection payment, and a law firm donation, making no reference to the shareholder registry.
Tobin completely abandons the shareholder registry question and attacks Day's personal legal and financial record, providing zero information relevant to the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was not the Leader of the Opposition's shorts that he got in a knot when he got sued for $800,000 for making sarcastic, wrong and false comments about another individual. The gentleman talks about ethics, but it was his party that paid $50,000 to bring about a byelection and still has not produced the money. It is that party that accepted $70,000 from a law firm that benefited from the very suit for which the member was found guilty. The member has no room to lecture this Prime Minister on ethics, none whatsoever.
Given that the Prime Minister's public statement said his portfolio was managed at arm's length in a blind trust, why did he call his ethics counsellor in January if he had no control over his shares?
Day cites a specific public statement by the Prime Minister about a blind trust and poses a pointed, logically coherent question about why he would call the ethics counsellor in January if the trust was truly arm's-length.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he is upset because he must still carry the Prime Minister's baggage on this, and that will hurt his leadership challenge. He has a leadership race to face and he is carrying some weight on his back. In his public statement on his assets that were to be reported, the Prime Minister wrote that his portfolio, and I quote: —is managed by a third party, at arm's length and in a blind trust. If the Prime Minister had no control over his shares, why did he call his ethics counsellor in January?
Oh, oh.
Tobin dismisses the question and mocks Day's leadership prospects, providing no answer about the blind trust or the January phone call.
Tobin ignores the blind trust question entirely and makes a personal jab about Day's leadership, offering no substantive engagement with the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it does not matter how many times the Leader of the Opposition—Leader of the Opposition for the moment—continues to ask these kinds of questions. These kinds of questions will not save his leadership.
If the shares were in a blind trust, why did the Prime Minister phone the ethics counsellor in 1996 to say the sale had not gone through, and whose names were on the registry between 1996 and 1999?
Day again presses the specific registry names question and highlights the contradiction between the blind trust claim and the 1996 phone call to the ethics counsellor, maintaining factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we still cannot get an answer and the Prime Minister will not stand up and give an answer. Why can we not get the information? He said that the shares were in a blind trust and yet he phoned the ethics trainer in 1996 to say that the sale of the shares had not gone through. We have been asking the same question. We just want a simple answer. Whose names were on that registry between 1996 and 1999? Answer the question.
Tobin quotes the ethics counsellor's statement that the Prime Minister had no personal interest at stake and that he ceased to have a financial interest in the golf course in November 1993.
Tobin quotes the ethics counsellor's finding of no conflict and states the Prime Minister ceased to have a financial interest in the golf course in November 1993, which is tangential to the registry names question but at least engages the conflict-of-interest substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the information required was provided yesterday in a letter that was tabled before the industry committee. Let me quote from what the ethics counsellor said yesterday, less than 24 hours ago. He said: I am satisfied that the prime minister had no personal interest at stake when he assisted the auberge in its applications before the Business Development Bank. He went on to say that the golf course ceased to have an interest in the auberge in mid-1993 and that the Prime Minister ceased to have a financial interest in the golf course in November 1993. Most people could understand that, even the Leader of the Opposition.
Whose names were on the Grand-Mère Golf Club shareholder registry between 1996 and 1999?
Day repeats the same specific registry-names question for the fifth time, which is still grounded and answerable but loses points for being repetitive rather than advancing new factual ground.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple: Whose names were on the registry between 1996 and 1999? The Prime Minister is shaking his head. He wishes this would go away. The future hopeful leader is wishing it would go away. That is a lot of baggage to carry. The only question we are asking is whose names were on the registry between 1996 and 1999? That is all we are asking.
Tobin asserts that the Prime Minister's name was not on the registry after 1993 because he was not a shareholder after that date.
Tobin addresses the core claim by asserting the Prime Minister's name was not on the registry after 1993 because he was not a shareholder, which is a direct if unverified assertion responsive to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apparently the Leader of the Opposition is having great trouble with the simple, hard, disappointing reality that the Prime Minister's name was not on the registry after 1993 because he was not a shareholder.
Does the Prime Minister admit he was directly involved in negotiations to ensure payment for his shares in the Grand-Mère Golf Club, as the ethics counsellor confirmed at committee the day before?
Duceppe cites a specific exchange at the Standing Committee on Industry where the ethics counsellor said "Oh, yes" to a direct question about the Prime Minister's involvement in negotiations, and asks the Prime Minister to confirm it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Industry, when I asked the ethics counsellor if the Prime Minister was involved in negotiations to obtain payment of his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course, he clearly and distinctly replied “Oh, yes”. Does the Prime Minister admit that he was directly involved in the negotiations and that he personally ensured he would get paid for his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course?
Chrétien says he consulted the ethics counsellor about his personal affairs as ministers are entitled to do, and that the counsellor confirmed everything was in order.
Chrétien confirms he consulted the ethics counsellor about personal affairs and received a clean certificate, but does not directly admit or deny personal involvement in negotiations to get paid for his shares, which was the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is there to provide advice on ethical issues to all those who need to have trustees. All ministers, including the Prime Minister, have the right to consult the ethics counsellor. So, under the circumstances, I spoke to him about my personal affairs, as ministers must do when they have problems, and it is his duty to provide advice to us. The ethics counsellor said that everything had been done properly and that my trustee had given him all the information and had fully co-operated, and he delivered to us a certificate confirming that everything was in order.
Does the Prime Minister recognize, as his ethics counsellor testified yesterday, that he had a financial interest in getting paid for his Grand-Mère Golf Club shares and was personally involved in negotiating that payment?
Duceppe quotes the ethics counsellor's specific testimony that the Prime Minister mandated his lawyer to negotiate and had an interest in getting paid, asking Chrétien to confirm having a financial interest during a period of alleged conflict.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor said that the Prime Minister was personally involved and that he had mandated his lawyer to negotiate. He added that the Prime Minister clearly had an interest in getting paid what he was owed. Does the Prime Minister recognize, as his ethics counsellor did yesterday, that he had an interest in getting paid for his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course, and that he had a financial interest, when he was involved in negotiating what is called a “financial interest”?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien confirms he held no shares after November 1993 but that someone owed him money and he wanted to be repaid, which he frames as completely normal.
Chrétien confirms he no longer held shares after November 1993 but that money was owed to him and he wanted repayment, which partially addresses the financial-interest question while avoiding the conflict dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we did not have shares in that company since November 1993. Someone owed money to us and I wanted to get paid. Since I earn less than the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who gets $160,000 in addition to his salary as party leader and member of the House, I wanted my money back, which is perfectly normal.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his personal interest in being paid was served by the Business Development Bank loan to Auberge Grand-Mère, since the hotel's financial health was tied to the golf course's value?
Gauthier builds on the ethics counsellor's testimony and asks a logically specific question about whether the Prime Minister's personal interest in being repaid was served by the Business Development Bank loan given the financial linkage between the hotel and the golf course.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ethics counsellor confirmed that the Prime Minister had every interest in getting paid for his shares, and the Prime Minister has just confirmed this. Is the Prime Minister going to admit that his personal interests were served by the business development bank loan to Auberge Grand-Mère, since the financial health of that hotel was tied to the value of the golf course, and this could not do otherwise than to help him find another purchaser?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien denies having any interest in either the golf course or the hotel and says the RCMP, ethics counsellor, and Minister of Industry have all confirmed there was no conflict of interest.
Chrétien denies any interest in either the golf course or hotel and repeats the RCMP and ethics counsellor findings but does not address the specific financial linkage argument between the hotel's health and the golf course's value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, money was owed to me, and I had no interest whatsoever in either the golf course or the hotel. I did, however, want the money owing me to be paid. That is completely normal. They are making accusations, but the RCMP has looked into the matter, the ethics counsellor has done the same, and the Minister of Industry has stated that I did not own shares. That should be clear to everyone. In my opinion, when people rise in the House, when everyone says there is no conflict of interest, then—
Given that the Prime Minister just confirmed he had a personal interest in getting paid when he helped Auberge Grand-Mère obtain a Business Development Bank loan against the bank's own advice, will he contradict himself?
Gauthier's question is more of a rhetorical summary and challenge than a new specific ask, though it does confront the Prime Minister with his own admission and invites a contradiction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we understand each other very well; that is what we have been saying from the beginning. The Prime Minister wanted to get paid. He wanted his money when he made approaches to get help for Auberge Grand-Mère, to obtain a loan despite the unfavourable opinion of the Business Development Bank of Canada. It was in his personal interests to do so, as he just confirmed. Well, then let him take the floor and tell us otherwise.
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Chrétien confirms he was owed money, then justifies his involvement by citing his duty to create jobs in Saint-Maurice where unemployment was 19%, noting the business now employs 50 people, 20 more than in 1996.
Chrétien confirms he was owed money and wanted repayment, then shifts to his duty to create jobs in a riding with 19% unemployment and notes the business now employs 50 people, which is tangential to the conflict question but not entirely without content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have always said the same thing. I have said from the start that I was owed money. What I also said, and what people are forgetting, is that it was my duty to work to ensure that jobs were created in a riding where there was 19% unemployment.
This business in fact employs 50 people today, which is 20 more than in 1996. It was my duty to help create jobs in the riding of Saint-Maurice and I do not—
Given that the government's own tender call advertised a sponsor leaders' welcoming reception, a sponsor networking breakfast to address delegates, and a keynote luncheon with priority seating, is the government selling privileged access to FTAA leaders or just engaging in false advertising?
McDonough quotes specific language from the government's own tender call for corporate sponsorship, identifying concrete items advertised (sponsor leaders' welcoming reception, networking breakfast, keynote luncheon with priority seating) and asks a pointed either/or question about privileged access.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister vehemently denied that the government is selling privileged access to FTAA leaders. Let us consider carefully what the government's own tender call for corporate sponsorship said. It advertised a sponsor leaders' welcoming reception. What do they get? They get a potential speaking opportunity. It advertised a sponsor networking breakfast to address delegates. It also advertised a keynote luncheon with priority seating and a closing reception, a networking opportunity. It sounds a lot like privileged access to me, or is the government just engaging in false advertising?
Chrétien says the purpose is to show foreign leaders that Canadian business people are good Canadian citizens who welcome them and are good investors in their countries, framing it as good public relations for trade.
Chrétien explains the rationale for inviting Canadian business people to the FTAA summit but does not address the specific tender-call language McDonough cited or explain why priority access to leaders is being sold as a corporate sponsorship benefit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that we have invited Canadian business people who have major interests in all these countries to show them that they are good Canadian citizens, that they are well known in Canada, and that they are welcoming these leaders to Canada so that they can conclude they are good investors in their countries. I think it is good public relations in the best interest of improving trade between Canada and the 33 other nations.
How much did corporations pay for access to the FTAA negotiating text, or was it given to them for free?
McDonough makes a specific factual claim that corporations have access to the FTAA negotiating text and asks directly whether they paid for it or received it free, though the claim itself is asserted without documentary evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish the government would be as transparent with the negotiating text as it is with its corporate access program. It is plain for all to see that access to FTAA leaders is for sale. We even know the price tag. We also know that corporations have access to the negotiating text. My question is for the Prime Minister. How much did the corporations pay for the negotiating text, or was it just a freebie for them?
Pettigrew flatly denies that business people have access to the negotiating text, explains that the government consults trade unions, business, and universities without giving them the text, and states the government supports making the texts public when consensus among the Americas is reached.
Pettigrew directly denies that business people have access to the negotiating text and explains the government's consultation process and its stated position in favour of making texts public, which is a partial but responsive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is completely ludicrous to pretend that the business people have access to the negotiating text. As a responsible government leading these negotiations we obviously consult. We consult trade unions. We consult business. We consult universities. We consult people all over the place, but they do not have access to the special negotiation text. I remind the House that the government stands for making these texts public as soon as possible, but we need the consensus of the rest of the Americas to do it.
Given that in Hansard of March 23, 1999 the Prime Minister said the debt was in the hands of a blind trust and he had nothing to do with it, but the ethics counsellor yesterday said the Prime Minister was implicated in negotiations for three years, was the counsellor wrong, did he mislead the committee, and what kind of blind trust allows active involvement in negotiations?
Clark cites a specific Hansard date (March 23, 1999) and quotes the Prime Minister's own words about the blind trust, then directly confronts the contradiction with the ethics counsellor's committee testimony about three years of negotiations, posing a clear and answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Hansard of March 23, 1999, the Prime Minister said: I sold the shares of that company in 1993. After that I had nothing to do with either the golf course or the hotel...The debt that was owed to me...was in the hands of a blind trust. I have nothing to do with it. However yesterday Mr. Wilson said that the Prime Minister was implicated in the negotiations to dispose of the shares for three long years. Was the counsellor wrong? Did he mislead the committee? What kind of blind trust allows the Prime Minister to be actively involved in negotiations?
Tobin dismisses the question with a fishing metaphor and tells Clark to move on, providing no substantive engagement with the Hansard contradiction or the blind trust question.
Tobin completely ignores the Hansard quote, the blind trust contradiction, and the question about whether the counsellor misled the committee, instead using a fishing metaphor to dismiss the question entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the leader of the fifth party said he would engage in a little fishing on this issue. It is time for the leader of the fifth party to recognize that the river is dry. He should take his pole and go back home. There is no more fishing on this subject.
Since the lawyer's letter says a transfer of shares was approved but not that it occurred, and since Akimbo was never listed as an owner, what concrete proof can the Prime Minister offer that a transfer actually took place, and will he table the actual documents?
Clark makes a precise textual argument about the lawyer's letter — noting it says a transfer was approved but not that it occurred, and that Akimbo was never listed as an owner — and asks for concrete proof of an actual share transfer with an offer to table documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the carefully crafted letter of evasion tabled yesterday is most significant for what it hides. It says that a transfer of shares was approved. It carefully does not say that a transfer of shares occurred. In fact, it affirms that the so-called purchaser, Akimbo, was never listed as an owner of the shares. What concrete proof can the Prime Minister offer the House that a transfer of shares actually occurred? If he has any proof at all of an actual transfer, will he agree to table it so that Canadians can judge the actual documents themselves?
Tobin says the ethics counsellor and RCMP have judged the issue and attacks Clark's record on his party's leadership, providing no response to the Akimbo point or the request for transfer documentation.
Tobin cites the ethics counsellor and RCMP conclusions but entirely ignores the specific textual argument about the letter, the Akimbo point, and the request for documentary proof of an actual share transfer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has judged this issue. The RCMP has judged this issue and Canadians are judging this leader. This is a leader who failed to see a conspiracy all around him with regard to his leadership, when what was really happening was foreign money was being brought into the Conservative Party. He could not see what was happening but imagines a conspiracy where none exists. It is time for this leader to get back to the real business of Canadians, not accusations, not smear and not false and malicious innuendoes with respect to the Prime Minister.
Who told ethics counsellor Howard Wilson what to say at the committee hearing and when to slip the lawyer's letter to the committee chairman?
Grey asks who directed Wilson on what to say and when to release the lawyer's letter, which is a factual accountability question, but the framing relies heavily on colourful rhetoric ("dodging questions like a well trained seal") that weakens its specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is funny; the weaker the point, the louder they yell. We have some pretty basic questions about the evasion and deception that is going on. Yesterday, Howard Wilson sat through an entire committee hearing on this subject, dodging questions like a well trained seal. It was only at the very end of that meeting that he quietly slipped the committee chairman a copy of the lawyer's letter. I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the industry minister who told Wilson what to say and when to say it.
Tobin denies anyone told the ethics counsellor what to say and defends Wilson as a distinguished public servant, then attacks Grey over her pension, without addressing the timing of the letter's release.
Tobin denies anyone told Wilson what to say but then attacks Grey personally over her pension, providing no information about the timing or coordination of the letter's release.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nobody told the ethics counsellor what to say or when to say it. It is tragic that members opposite use the immunity of the House. Some say things inside the House but have no courage outside the House. Others attack civil servants, who are distinguished and doing their jobs, by abusing the immunity of the House. This is a distinguished public servant acting in an honourable fashion, more honourable than the member who said “I will never take a pension” and then soaked it up at the first opportunity.
When exactly did the Minister of Industry receive the lawyer's letter, and why was it released to the committee only after Howard Wilson had finished testifying on the golf course section and moved on to another topic?
Grey raises a procedurally specific accountability question about when the Minister of Industry received the lawyer's letter and why it was released only after Wilson had finished testifying on the golf course section, which is a concrete and answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the industry minister tried to slip that very letter in last night by tabling it under documents, when in fact it was a ministerial statement. Mr. Wilson stonewalled questions from the opposition yesterday, but he answered Liberal softballs like a well rehearsed actor. Then he slipped the letter to the committee chairman after that entire section on the golf course was finished and they were on to another topic. When exactly did the Minister of Industry receive that letter, and why was it released only after Wilson was out of the hot seat?
Tobin makes a sarcastic remark about the Leader of the Opposition's questioning ability and begins a sentence about legal matters that is not completed in the record, providing no information about when he received the letter.
Tobin begins a sentence about legal matters but the answer is cut off and contains no date or explanation of when he received the letter or why its release was timed as described, amounting to near-deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, that presumes that getting questions from the Leader of the Opposition would put someone in the hot seat. Of course that is a presumption that no one should ever make in this place. Legal—
Grey asked when Tobin received the letter from the lawyer referenced in the ethics counsellor matter.
A single, sharp, factual ask about a specific piece of correspondence and its timing, directly tied to an accountability issue before the House.
Source text
When did you get that letter?
Tobin said legal consent was given at 4:30 p.m. at the request of the ethics counsellor, the letter was faxed to his office, and it was tabled at 5:10 p.m. before the industry committee.
Tobin provided exact times (4:30 p.m. for legal consent, 5:10 p.m. for tabling), identified the mechanism (fax to ethics counsellor), and named the committee where it was tabled, directly addressing the question.
Source text
I am going to tell you exactly if you will listen. Legal consent was given—
Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to advise the House, because in fact I checked in anticipation of this question, that legal consent was given yesterday at 4.30 p.m. at the request of the ethics counsellor. The letter was faxed to his office, and he tabled it at 5.10 p.m. before the industry committee.
Paquette asked whether the Minister for International Trade recognized that giving broad access to huge multinationals through sponsorship purchases was deepening distrust of globalization and the FTAA negotiations.
The question combines a substantive concern about privileged access through sponsorships with rhetorical framing about the exclusion of all but "the rich and famous," making the specific ask implicit rather than precise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, distrust of globalization is growing. It is growing because just about everyone is being excluded from the discussions on the free trade area of the Americas with the exception, it appears, of the rich and famous. Does the Minister for International Trade realize that, by giving such broad and privileged access to the huge multinationals by having them buy sponsorships, he is broadening this distrust of globalization and the current negotiations?
Pettigrew made a partisan comment about Bloc internal divisions and then asserted that consultations would include representatives of civil society, unions, and NGOs, without addressing the sponsorship-access allegation.
Pettigrew opened with a partisan jab about intra-Bloc differences before briefly asserting civil society would be included, never addressing the specific allegation about multinationals buying access through sponsorships.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the members for Lac-Saint-Jean and Joliette have settled their differences and that the member for Joliette has given in to pressure by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and taken a more negative approach to free trade and the phenomenon of globalization, which surprises me on the part of the Bloc. Now, I can assure the House of one thing. The consultations on the summit of the Americas the consultations we are holding on the free trade area of the Americas and the receptions sponsored by the business community will include representatives of civil society from unions, non governmental organizations and people from the—
Paquette asked whether the Prime Minister found it insulting that big companies paying between $75,000 and $1.5 million gained access through the businessmen's forum while the premier of Quebec was excluded from the summit of the Americas.
The question cites specific dollar figures ($75,000 to $1.5 million) for access costs and raises a concrete contrast between paying corporations and the excluded premier of Quebec, though the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not many besides the Minister for International Trade really believe that consultations are being held in Canada and Quebec on the free trade area of the Americas. To get this government to listen, it costs between $75,000 and $1.5 million. Does the Prime Minister not find it insulting that the big companies that pay, that have access to the government through the businessmen's forum, can have access to the summit of the Americas, whereas the premier of Quebec is excluded and cannot make himself heard?
Pettigrew noted a March 27 exploratory debate in parliament and his recent committee appearance, and denied that the government was listening only to business people, without addressing the sponsorship amounts or the exclusion of the premier of Quebec.
Pettigrew cited a specific upcoming exploratory debate on March 27 and his recent committee appearance, providing some relevant context, but never addressed the specific figures cited or the exclusion of the premier of Quebec.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on March 27 we will hold an exploratory debate in this parliament on the free trade area of the Americas and on the Quebec summit. Last week, I appeared with my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the standing committee, where the member for Joliette was himself present and where we discussed all of these matters. To say we are listening only to the business people is irresponsible. We will also meet people from the unions, NGOs and, of course, we are consulting all of Canadian society for the benefit of these—
Meredith asked whether the tabling of the letter — released conveniently at the end of the committee meeting despite apparently being available earlier — was orchestrated by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Industry.
The question raises a specific timing anomaly — the ethics counsellor had the letter during the meeting, had it translated, and made copies before releasing it — and asks a pointed accountability question about whether the tabling was orchestrated by the Prime Minister or Minister of Industry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ethics counsellor received clearance, as he put it, to release the letter from the lawyer, coincidentally right at the end of the meeting yesterday. However he had the letter in hand during the meeting. He even had time to have it translated and have copies made. How convenient that the ethics counsellor was instructed to release the letter at the end of the meeting. Was the tabling of the letter orchestrated by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Industry?
Tobin flatly denied orchestration, reiterated that legal consent was received at 4:30 p.m. in response to an early request from the ethics counsellor, and said the letter was then faxed and tabled, calling the matter straightforward.
Tobin directly denied orchestration, repeated the 4:30 p.m. consent timeline, and explained the legal consent mechanism, addressing the core question though not resolving the translation/copying timing anomaly raised.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker, there was no orchestration whatsoever, but if I had my druthers the letter would have been available first thing at that meeting. The blunt reality is that it takes the legal consent of the partners involved and a law firm on behalf of that group to release that letter. That consent was received, because I checked this morning, at 4.30 p.m. In response to an early request from the ethics counsellor, the letter was faxed to his office, sent across to him obviously at the committee and was tabled at the committee. There is no mystery here. It is all very straightforward.
Meredith asked why the minister tried to interrupt the voting for the letter and how the letter could have been translated and copied if it was received in the timeframe the minister described.
The question asks two specific, factual things: why Tobin attempted to interrupt the vote, and how translation and copying were possible within the stated timeframe — legitimate process questions with potential accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why there were cheap theatrics last night when the minister tried to interrupt and disrupt the voting for this letter. I would like to know how it was possible for this letter to be translated and for copies to be made if it was received in the timeframe the minister gave us.
Hear, hear.
Tobin said he was making information available at the earliest opportunity, resented the "cheap theatrics" characterization, and joked that if it were cheap theatrics he would have been wearing a wetsuit — addressing neither specific question asked.
Tobin addressed neither the interrupted vote nor the translation/copying timeline, instead delivering a self-deprecating joke about wetsuit theatrics that drew applause but had no connection to the substance of either question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was making the information available to the whole House at the earliest opportunity. I resent the statement that it was cheap theatrics. I thought the theatrics were fine. If it were cheap theatrics I would have been wearing a wetsuit, and I was not.
Lalonde asked whether the proposed FTAA agreement under services excludes or protects the social economy, citing testimony by Canada's former chief MAI negotiator that the $5 day care private not-for-profit model could be wiped out by the FTAA.
The question cites specific testimony from Canada's former chief negotiator for the MAI at committee the day before and asks a precise, answerable question about whether the proposed FTAA services agreement excludes or protects social economy services like the $5 day care model.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are still unable to find out what is on the FTAA negotiating table, and a number of concerns are being expressed. In committee yesterday, I asked one of our witnesses, Canada's former chief negotiator for the MAI, if he thought that day care for $5, the private not for profit network funded largely by the government, could be wiped out by the FTAA. His response was “Yes, absolutely”. Will the minister tell us whether the proposed agreement under services excludes or protects the social economy, particularly in the area of—
Pettigrew stated broadly that the government protects the room to manoeuvre of the federal and provincial governments in health, public education, and social services, without addressing the specific social economy or private not-for-profit model raised.
Pettigrew gave a broad assurance that the government "has always protected" health, public education, and social services, but never specifically addressed the social economy and private not-for-profit network funding model cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has always protected in the past, is protecting right now and will protect in the future, as long as our government is at the helm, the room to manoeuvre of the Government of Canada and of the provinces when it comes to health and public education, as well as social services.
Lalonde asked whether the minister recognized that releasing the negotiating texts was the only way to reassure Canadians about the fate of public services under the FTAA, given Mr. Dymond's worrying testimony about government-subsidized private sector partnerships.
The question makes a logical argument grounded in Mr. Dymond's testimony and identifies a specific remedy — releasing the negotiating texts — as the only way to provide reassurance, making it a substantive ask with clear factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this answer is worrying because in the Quebec model there are a number of areas in which the government has formed partnerships with the private sector and is providing it with subsidies. Mr. Dymond's answer is extremely worrying as well. Does the minister realize that the only way of reassuring us as to the fate in store for public services, whether delivered by the government or by the private sector, is to give us access to the negotiating texts, documents he is still keeping from us?
Pettigrew explained that the texts are not exclusively Canada's but belong to the whole hemisphere, making unilateral publication disrespectful to partners, then accused the Bloc of irresponsibility, without directly addressing the social economy concern.
Pettigrew explained why Canada cannot unilaterally release the texts (they belong to the whole hemisphere), which is a relevant factual point, but then shifted to a partisan attack on the Bloc, only partially addressing the core ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's position is very clear, and I have lost track of the number of times I have repeated it in the House. We would like to make these texts public but they are not exclusively ours. They are not the property of Canada alone. They are consolidations of positions which belong to the whole hemisphere. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, Canada is assuming its responsibilities. We are going to respect our partners. The Bloc Quebecois may very well say “We will not respect the rest of the hemisphere, and we are going to do as we please and publish texts which you do not wish us to publish”. Our government will be responsible and will treat our partners in the rest of the hemisphere with respect.
Kenney asked, citing the Canadian dollar's drop, inflation reaching the top of the Bank of Canada's band, and limited room for further rate cuts, when the finance minister would bring in a spring budget with fiscal stimulus, long-term debt reduction, and measures to make the economy more competitive.
The question cites same-day dollar movement, inflation reaching the top of the Bank of Canada's band, and U.S. interest rate cuts to build a concrete case, but the ask — "bring in a spring budget with fiscal stimulus" — is somewhat compound and policy-prescriptive rather than a tight accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar has dropped by half a cent again today and inflation has moved up to the top of the band allowed by the Bank of Canada. This means the bank's ability to match yesterday's U.S. interest rate cuts is very limited. Economists are saying that all the burden is being placed on the shoulders of the governor of the bank to shore up our dollar and our economy. When will the finance minister finally begin to do his part by bringing in a spring budget with fiscal stimulus, that is a long term plan to pay down our debt and make our economy more competitive?
Martin said an economic update would come in the spring, backed by the vast majority of economic opinion, and asserted Canada had brought in the greatest amount of fiscal stimulus of any industrial country.
Martin confirmed an economic update was coming in the spring and asserted Canada had brought in the greatest fiscal stimulus of any industrial country, but did not engage with the specific concerns about the dollar, inflation, or the Bank of Canada's constrained room to cut rates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have said that we will bring in an economic update in the spring. Overwhelmingly the vast majority of economic opinion in the country says that is what is required. The hon. member ought to know, and I will say it again for the nth time, that Canada has brought in the greatest amount of fiscal stimulus of any industrial country.
Kenney cited OECD data on Canada having the highest corporate income taxes and second-highest debt in the OECD, argued the Bush tax cuts would worsen Canada's competitive position, and asked why the finance minister would not bring in a real budget with real fiscal stimulus.
Kenney cites OECD rankings for corporate income taxes and debt levels, and references the Bush tax cuts as context, but the question devolves into rhetorical challenge ("keep his head in the sand") and a compound prescriptive ask rather than a single sharp accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister can repeat that fantasy as often as he likes, but the reality is that we continue to have the highest income taxes in the G-7; the highest corporate income taxes in the OECD, says the OECD; and the second highest level of debt in the OECD, says the OECD. After the Bush tax cuts go through we will be losing, not gaining, ground with the Americans in terms of competitiveness. With the 63 cent dollar today and with inflation creeping up, how could the finance minister continue to keep his head in the sand? Why does he not bring in a real budget with real fiscal stimulus that saves our dollar and our economy?
Martin disputed every factual claim, asserting Canada's tax burden and corporate taxes are not the highest, capital gains taxes are lower, Canada has the largest debt reduction and best job creation of any industrial country, while acknowledging global volatility.
Martin contested each of Kenney's factual claims (tax burden, corporate taxes, capital gains, debt reduction, job creation) but without citing specific figures or sources, making it a point-by-point rebuttal that is assertive but not substantively grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, why does the finance critic for the Alliance not simply wake up and take a look at the facts? He is wrong on every instance. Our tax burden is not the highest. Our corporate taxes are lower. Our capital gains taxes are lower. We have the largest debt reduction of any industrial country. We have created more jobs over the last four years than any industrial country. The fact is that Canada in those areas is doing very well. Yes, there is global volatility and yes, we are concerned, but Canada is better prepared to weather that storm than any other industrial country.
Bagnell asked the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism to explain why it remains important to celebrate March 21, the international day for the elimination of racism.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Secretary of State to elaborate on the importance of March 21, the international day for the elimination of racism — a pure opportunity for a ministerial statement with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every year for the last 40 years we have been celebrating March 21. We take the cultural mosaic in Canada for granted. Could the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism elaborate for the House why it is as important as ever to continue to celebrate March 21, international day for the elimination of racism?
Fry noted March 21 commemorates the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, pointed to ongoing discrimination in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Northern Ireland, and cited cross burnings in Prince George, British Columbia as evidence that racism remains a domestic concern.
Fry provided substantive historical context (the Sharpeville massacre), current international examples (Kosovo, Macedonia, Northern Ireland), and a domestic example (cross burnings in Prince George, British Columbia), giving genuinely informative content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. March 21 remembers the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa in 1960 when innocent people were killed protesting apartheid. We only have to look around the world today at Kosovo, at Macedonia and at Northern Ireland to know that people are still discriminated against in the world because of their race, their religion and their culture. We do not have to go too far. We could just go to Prince George, British Columbia, where crosses are being burned on lawns as we speak. It is very important we recognize that race, religion and culture in this country are part of our strengths and that we must keep every day to ensure that we will—
Lill asked whether the government would institute new cultural criteria within the Competition Act to review cultural industry mergers such as the proposed Chapters-Indigo takeover, given that publishers were requiring emergency bailouts and cutting titles.
The question references recent news about publisher bailouts, title cuts, and the proposed Chapters-Indigo merger, and makes a specific policy ask — new cultural criteria within the Competition Act — though it is somewhat broad in scope.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Monopoly booksellers have gained a stranglehold on the book industry in Canada. Yesterday we learned that more publishers were in need of emergency bailouts, were cutting titles, dumping new authors and nervously awaiting what the proposed takeover of Chapters by Indigo will mean to their fragile existence. Will the government consider instituting a new set of rigorous cultural criteria within the Competition Act to review cultural industry mergers such as this one, criteria that will provide strong public safeguards for our writers, publishers and booksellers?
Tobin said the government is concerned about vibrant cultural industries and nurturing Canadian authors, but deferred any substantive response on the specific policy ask by citing the matter's current status before the Competition Bureau.
Tobin expressed concern for Canadian cultural industries and authors, but pivoted to the Competition Bureau process as a reason not to comment, declining to address the specific ask about new cultural criteria within the Competition Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is concerned that we maintain vibrant and dynamic cultural industries within the country, and in particular an environment that nurtures the tremendous work of Canadian authors and writers across the country. The specific question to which the hon. member refers is now before the Competition Bureau, and as is appropriate the bureau is doing its work. It would be inappropriate for me at this juncture to try to foreshadow an outcome prior to the process being completed.
Wasylycia-Leis, citing Health Canada's own May 31 warning noting 44 reports of heart problems and 10 deaths associated with Prepulsid, asked why the drug was not pulled until August 7, 2000, rather than when problems first came to light.
The question cites specific dates (March 19, 2000; May 31; August 7, 2000), a specific drug (Prepulsid), and specific data (44 reports, 10 deaths), asking a precise and accountable question about Health Canada's delay in pulling the drug.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the death of Vanessa Young is deeply disturbing, made even more tragic by the fact that it may have been prevented. Vanessa died on March 19, 2000, of complications associated with Prepulsid. On May 31, Health Canada issued a warning citing 44 reports of heart problems associated with the drug, including 10 deaths in Canada. It took Health Canada until August 7, 2000, to stop the sale of Prepulsid. How could this have happened? How many needless deaths occurred? Why was Prepulsid not pulled the minute problems associated with it first came to light?
Charbonneau said a coroner's inquest had been launched and a class action suit filed, citing these as reasons not to make detailed comments, and noted that warnings had been issued to health care professionals in 1999 and 2000 without addressing the delay question.
The parliamentary secretary cited a coroner's inquest and a class action suit as reasons not to comment in detail, then mentioned warnings issued in 1999 and 2000, but never addressed the specific question of why Prepulsid was not pulled when problems first came to light.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a coroner's inquest has been launched regarding the death to which the hon. member is referring. We must wait for the results of that inquest before dealing with all the details relating to this issue. I should also point out that a class action suit has been filed regarding this issue. This is another reason not to make detailed comments before the House. However, I will say that many warnings were issued to health care professionals in 1999 and 2000 regarding this—
Wayne, citing a Federal Court of Appeal judgment and the minister's prior denial of her direct quotation from it, asked whether Eggleton would admit he was wrong, table the court decision, and agree with the court that there could have been political interference.
Wayne cited a specific Federal Court of Appeal judgment, referred to her direct quotation from it the previous Thursday, noted the minister's denial and a blocked tabling attempt, and asked a tripartite but focused set of accountability questions about the minister's response to the court ruling.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I quoted directly from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment relating to the maritime helicopter program. At that time the Minister of National Defence stated that what I read was “not true”. An attempt to table the decision was then blocked by a government member. Is the minister now prepared to admit that he was wrong? Will he table the court decision himself? Will he finally agree with the court that there could have been political interference?
Eggleton maintained the member was wrong, clarifying that the language about "patent politicization" came from the appellants' citation rather than the judges' finding, and that the judges dismissed the case entirely.
Eggleton engaged directly with the substance, distinguishing between what the court said versus what the appellants argued, and noting the case was dismissed — a substantively responsive answer, though he did not address the tabling request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to have it all wrong. She said that the court called this patent politicization within the Department of National Defence, that the three judges said it. That is not true at all. Certainly the citation by the people who took the case to court was to that effect, but the judges did not find that at all. They dismissed the case.
Wayne quoted paragraph 16 of the Federal Court of Appeal decision raising the prospect that "the procurement procedures suffered from patent politicization within the Department of National Defence" and asked the minister to commit to having the judge advocate general investigate.
Wayne cited paragraph 16 of the court decision verbatim and made a single, specific, actionable ask — that the minister commit to asking the judge advocate general to investigate — grounding it directly in the court document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the court's decision is clear. Paragraph 16 of the decision is very clear. The court raised the prospect that “the procurement procedures suffered from patent politicization within the Department of National Defence”. The minister has a duty and an obligation to ask the judge advocate general to investigate the matter. Will he commit to doing it today?
Eggleton said Wayne was leaving out parts of the document, asserted the judges clearly dismissed the case and found no case had been made, and did not address the request to involve the judge advocate general.
Eggleton disputed the characterization of the paragraph and reiterated the judges dismissed the case, but did not address the specific ask about referring the matter to the judge advocate general for investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member conveniently leaves out certain parts. I have the document here too. That is not what it says at all. In effect, what these judges did quite clearly was dismiss the case. They said a case had not been made. There was an allegation. The case was not made. That is the end of it.
Hanger asked what extraordinary measures the minister had taken to protect Canada's livestock from foot and mouth disease contamination by British army troops who had been exposed to the disease while cleaning up dead animals in the United Kingdom and were now training at CFB Wainwright and Suffield.
The question is grounded in a specific, timely risk scenario — British troops from foot-and-mouth affected areas training at CFB Wainwright and Suffield — and asks a precise question about extraordinary measures taken to protect Canadian livestock.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, British army troops now training at CFB Wainwright and Suffield came from the same agricultural heartland in the United Kingdom now ravaged by foot and mouth disease. These military units tasked with the clean up of dead animals in the United Kingdom have been exposed to this disease in extreme ways. Their clothing, equipment, food supplies, and even the soldiers themselves could very well be contaminated. What extraordinary measures has the minister taken to protect Canada's livestock from contamination?
Eggleton said Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence were working closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and described a disembarkation procedure requiring passengers to be clean and disinfected including their footwear, asserting everything possible was being done.
Eggleton confirmed close cooperation with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and described a disembarkation procedure including cleaning and disinfecting footwear, providing relevant substantive information, though without quantifying the scope of the measures or addressing equipment and food supplies specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence have been working very closely and very co-operatively with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to make sure everything is done to prevent this disease from coming into the country. Everything we could possibly do is being done. Upon disembarkation from any aircraft passengers must be clean and disinfected including their footwear. A procedure is carried out. There is a complete procedure involved to make sure that we do everything possible to prevent that disease from coming into the country.
Hanger noted that the minister's office was contacted on March 16 and appeared unaware of the foot-and-mouth disease threat, and asked what steps were being taken regarding troops potentially arriving from England.
The question cites a specific date of ministerial contact (March 16), identifies a concrete threat vector (troops arriving from England), and asks what steps are being taken, though it is cut off before completing the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this disease is actually destroying an agricultural industry in the United Kingdom. There is a threat to any country when products, equipment or personnel leave England that could very well spread the disease quickly. The minister's office was contacted on March 16 and seemed to know very little about what was happening to this end. There is a potential arrival of troops coming from England in the next few weeks, or they may be on their way now. I am asking the minister what steps—
Eggleton stated that a procedure is in place for thorough disinfection of any aircraft coming from the U.K. or elsewhere, and that preventing aircraft or people from entering is also an option if necessary.
Eggleton confirms a disinfection procedure is in place and mentions the option of preventing aircraft or personnel from entering, which partially addresses the concern but provides no specific details about the troop arrival mentioned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member does not understand about it. I have made it very clear that there is a procedure in place. We are ensuring disinfection is carried out thoroughly to make sure we do everything possible to prevent the disease from coming into the country. If we have to prevent aircraft or people from coming here to make sure of that, we will do that as well. We are making sure that there is a thorough disinfection of any aircraft coming from the U.K. or anywhere else.
Bigras asked what Canada's position is on linking the environment to the FTAA negotiations, given that Latin American countries oppose it while the United States supports it and Canada has remained silent.
The question identifies a specific negotiating context (FTAA), notes a concrete divide between Latin American countries and the United States on linking trade and the environment, and asks for Canada's stated position, though it could be sharper.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was the government's intention to negotiate related agreements on the environment with its partners in the free trade area of the Americas. However, Latin American countries are opposed to linking trade and the environment, while the United States supports the idea. As for Canada, it remains silent. If the environment is a government priority, could the minister inform us of Canada's position and tell us what he intends to do regarding the environment in the FTAA negotiations?
Pettigrew explained that southern hemisphere countries view linking environment to trade as protectionist, while Canada wants to allow these countries to improve economic access and also make progress on the environment and labour standards.
Pettigrew explains the positions of southern hemisphere countries and Canada's desire for both economic development and environmental progress, but does not state a clear Canadian position on whether to formally link environment to the FTAA agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that several countries from the southern hemisphere feel that including the environment in a free trade agreement is an indirect way of engaging in protectionism, of keeping southern countries behind and of imposing on them a way of doing things that slows down their economic development. We feel that, through trade, we must allow these countries to improve their access to the global economy, thus strengthening their own economic development. However, we must also make progress regarding the environment as well as labour standards. We want.
Bellehumeur asked whether Canada intends to support the approach advocated by Mexico's president Vicente Fox, who believes legalization is the only way to effectively fight organized crime related to illicit drug trade, possibly at the Summit of the Americas.
The question references a specific upcoming event (Summit of the Americas), cites a named foreign leader's position (Vicente Fox), and asks a concrete yes-or-no policy question, but the premise about Uruguay raising the issue is speculative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is believed that at the Summit of the Americas Uruguay may raise the issue of drug legalization. In fact, Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, feels that legalization is the only way to lead an effective international war against organized crime, as it relates to the trade of illicit drugs. Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether Canada intends to support the approach advocated by the Mexican president?
McLellan stated that the government has no plans to legalize the possession of marijuana and described Canada's approach as integrated, treating the drug issue as both a law enforcement and a health treatment matter domestically and internationally.
McLellan answers that there are no plans to legalize the possession of marijuana but does not address the specific question of whether Canada would support Mexico's president's approach to drug legalization in the international context of the Summit of the Americas.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that at this time the government has no plans to legalize the possession of marijuana. The hon. member knows that the whole issue around drug enforcement is a complex one. It is a health issue. It is a legal issue. It is an international law issue. It is a law enforcement issue. I wish there were simple and easy answers to this question. Canada's approach again reflects the balance that is required. It is an integrated approach, working both internationally and domestically, treating it not only as an issue of law enforcement but as an issue of health treatment.
Benoit cited an internal document showing the military is significantly below the government commitment of 60,000 and asked how many members are currently on the active list and what Canada's military personnel needs will be over the next five years.
The question cites specific numbers (90,000 in 1993, government commitment of 60,000), references an internal document showing a shortfall, and asks two precise questions: current active-list numbers and five-year personnel needs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were elected in 1993 the Canadian forces consisted of 90,000 members. An internal document states that the military now faces a significant shortfall below the government commitment of 60,000 and still dropping. Will the minister tell the House today, first, how many members there are in the Canadian forces on the active list? Second, what will Canada's military needs be in terms of personnel over the next five years?
Eggleton confirmed the 1994 defence white paper calls for 60,000 regular force troops, acknowledged a shortage due to attrition, and stated the government intends to maintain that level through a recruitment campaign.
Eggleton confirms the 60,000 regular force target from the 1994 defence white paper and acknowledges a shortage due to attrition with a recruitment campaign underway, but does not provide the current active-list number or any five-year personnel projection as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the defence white paper of 1994 calls for 60,000 regular force troops, plus a number of other civilians and a number of others in the reserve force. We intend to continue to work toward that level and try to maintain that level. We have a shortage now because of attrition. We are in fact going on a recruitment campaign to make up those numbers.
Benoit cited a study projecting Canada's military would be 17,000 members short by end of 2002, and asked whether the critical personnel loss is due to the minister's weakness or a deliberate government plan to destroy the military.
The question references a recent study projecting a shortfall of 17,000 by end of 2002, but devolves into partisan attack asking whether the critical loss is due to the minister's weakness or a deliberate plan to destroy the military.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer conflicts with a recent study which said that in fact Canada's military is now 4,000 short, but it will be a startling 17,000 members short by the end of 2002 if the current trend continues. The minister will go down in history as the man responsible for killing Canada's military through funding cuts, through delayed equipment replacement, and now through a critical shortage of personnel. Is the reason for this critical loss in personnel the weakness of the minister, or is it a deliberate plan on the part of the government to destroy Canada's military?
Eggleton dismissed the numbers as wrong and extreme extrapolations, and restated the government's commitment to keeping the Canadian forces able to contribute to international peace and security in accordance with the white paper defence policy.
Eggleton dismisses the numbers as wrong without providing correct figures, pivots to a general commitment to the Canadian forces and the white paper defence policy, and does not address the study or the projected shortfall.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his numbers all wrong, as he usually does. He is extrapolating very extreme cases where there is no intention of the government to see that happen at all. The government has made a very clear commitment that we want to make sure we keep the Canadian forces in a position where they are able to contribute to international peace and security and to carry out the will of the government and the people of this country in their desire to create peace and security in the world. We will continue to do that. We will continue to follow the white paper defence policy of parliament.
Malhi asked why the Government of Canada changed its policy to restore formal relations with India and what the announcement means for Canada-India relations.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the government to explain its own policy announcement, providing no accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada had decided to restore formal relations with India. Why has the Government of Canada changed its policy and announced a re-engagement with India? What does the announcement mean for Canada-India relations?
Pagtakhan explained that re-engagement recognizes a better climate for dialogue, announced full ministerial visits, full restoration of CIDA programming, and support for cultural exchanges, while affirming Canada will continue calling on India to renounce its nuclear weapons program.
Pagtakhan provides substantive content: cites the improved climate for dialogue, lists specific re-engagement measures including full ministerial visits, full restoration of CIDA programming, and support for cultural exchanges, while noting Canada will continue to call upon India to renounce its nuclear weapons program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Canada's re-engagement with India recognizes the fact that a better climate now exists which allows us to pursue an effective dialogue for all aspects of our relationship. Canada is committed to pursuing the broadest political, cultural and economic relationship with India. We will continue to call upon India to renounce its nuclear weapons program. Moreover, re-engagement through full ministerial visits and full restoration of CIDA programming, as well as support for cultural exchanges, will enrich our political relationship.
Schmidt described three consecutive years of hardship for B.C. fruit growers due to hail, heat stress, and export market collapse, noted that NISA helps only a few and AIDA does not help at all, and asked what special emergency action the minister is prepared to take.
The question specifies three consecutive years of setbacks, identifies the specific region (B.C. fruit growers), names two specific programs (NISA and AIDA) and their limitations, and asks what the minister will do to address the emergency, making it reasonably specific and grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. For three consecutive years B.C. fruit growers have suffered setbacks on the basis of hail, heat stress and the collapse of their export market in the last year. NISA helps a few. AIDA does not help them at all. The minister of agriculture knows that B.C. fruit growers are in an emergency situation which requires special action. What is the minister prepared to do to deal with the emergency situation?
Vanclief stated that with crop insurance, NISA, and the Canadian farm income program, British Columbia will receive its portion of the $500 million and will add its 40% provincial contribution to assist producers as the provincial government sees fit.
Vanclief mentions crop insurance, NISA, the Canadian farm income program, and the $500 million allocation with B.C.'s 40% provincial contribution, but does not address the specific claim that AIDA does not help these growers or explain what special emergency action will be taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with the support of crop insurance, NISA and the Canadian farm income program last week, the province of British Columbia will get its portion of the $500 million. It will add its 40% to that in order to assist producers according to the way the provincial government wishes to direct those funds. That will certainly be there to help the producers to which the hon. member refers.
Members acknowledged a presence in the gallery with expressions of approval; no question was asked and no answer was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Three points of order were raised: Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) apologized for a recent breach of standing orders; Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) objected that the media were informed of a major foreign policy change on India before members of parliament were notified, and indicated he was prepared to move a motion on the matter; and Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) demanded that the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women withdraw and apologize for comments he alleged she made linking British Columbia and Prince George to racism and cross-burning. Government House Leader Don Boudria stated he would endeavour to have the secretary of state return to the House to respond after completing a public event on racism.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Peter Goldring
- PC Mr. Bill Casey
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Richard Harris
- Lib Don Boudria
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe my moment of atonement has arrived. I am referring to my recent standing order transgression for which I apologize not only to you, Mr. Speaker, but also to the House and to the nation whose interests I serve. While certainly I meant no disrespect in my action, all infractions of order do have consequences. In the House, even minor infractions are potentially serious in their longer term effects. Parliament's rules are to be respected because they are written by all, for all. I hereby submit my person to the penance of the Chair, and ask for leniency and appeal for clemency under the circumstances. I certainly do not stand here to challenge, nor do I seek changes to, the rules. My hope is to be forgiven by the Chair, before the witnesses in the House, and in front of my colleagues. The essence of the House is honour. I would never intentionally dishonour the House or its procedures.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced in London, England a fundamental change in foreign policy for Canada. In question period today the parliamentary secretary confirmed it to members of the House of Commons. No advance notice was given to members of parliament and no notification was given to the foreign affairs committee. It continues to be the ongoing practice to notify the media before notifying members of parliament. I take objection to this and, if you, Mr. Speaker, find a bona fide breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to discontinue this practice.
Mr. Speaker, during question period the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, a person well-known for her intolerance of anyone who does not agree with her point of view, made a vicious comment by saying that if people want to know about racism and hatred they should go to British Columbia. She further went on to say they are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak. Prince George is where I have lived for more than 40 years. My colleague, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, represents the good, decent, honest people of that city. It is revolting that the minister would cast such vicious and mean-spirited aspersions on the people of Prince George, British Columbia. I ask that the minister be called on to withdraw the statement and to apologize to the House, to the people of Prince George and, indeed, to all Canadians for such a vicious comment.
Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state of course has spoken extensively on issues of racism.
Yes, she has.
Yes, she has probably been a victim of intolerance. She has spoken about the issue at length. I will endeavour to reach her later this afternoon. As we speak, she is making an announcement about racism before a group of Canadians of various ethnic origins. As soon as that is completed, I will attempt to have her return to the House to respond to what the hon. member has raised.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) raised a point of order requesting unanimous consent to table a Federal Court of Appeal document to verify the accuracy of quotes she used during question period regarding the replacement of the EH-101; consent was not granted as some members objected.
- PC Mrs. Elsie Wayne
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again today I referred to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision with regard to the replacement of the EH-101, and the minister referred to it as well. Therefore I would ask for the right to table the document to show that the quotes I gave in the House during question period were accurate and correct.
Agreed.
No.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) raised a question of privilege charging the ethics counsellor with contempt of parliament for withholding a letter about the Grand-Mère file from the Standing Committee on Industry while he was being questioned, tabling it only at the very end of the meeting after key questioners had left, and then releasing it to the media before members of parliament had a chance to examine it. The chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib), responded that the ethics counsellor notified her at approximately 5:12 p.m. that he had just received the letter — which was from the lawyer for the Grand-Mère golf club, not from the Corporations Directorate — and that committee members could have asked questions about it during the remaining fifteen minutes of the meeting but chose not to.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. Chuck Strahl
- Lib Ms. Susan Whelan
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is in regard to another case where the media was given preferential treatment of information intended for parliamentarians. I would also argue that the timing of the release of the information resulted in impeding the work of members of parliament. My question of privilege charges the ethics counsellor with contempt of parliament for releasing information in a way that impeded members of the industry committee and of the House. The Minister of Industry tabled the same information in the House after the media had an opportunity to examine it. This contempt occurred yesterday. While I recognize that the Speaker is reluctant to intervene in a committee matter, the circumstances in this case are extraordinary and have a direct link to the proceedings of the House. Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 70, defines a proceeding in parliament: Since two of Parliament's constituent elements, the House of Commons and the Senate, were established for the enactment of laws, those events necessarily incidental to the enactment of laws are part of the “proceedings in Parliament”. However, Parliament has also always been a forum to receive petitions, and the Crown's satisfying the grievances of members before granting supply eventually led to straightforward requests for information. Therefore, the events necessarily incidental to petitions, questions, and notices of motions in Parliament in the seventeenth century and today are all events which are part of “proceedings in Parliament”. Mr. Maingot went on to say: Privilege of Parliament is founded on necessity, and is those rights that are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.” Necessity then should be a basis for any claim that an event was part of a “proceeding in Parliament,” i.e., what is claimed to be part of a “proceeding in Parliament” and thus protected should be necessarily incidental to a “proceeding in Parliament.” On page 72 of a 1939 report from the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act, it states: —a proceeding in Parliament covers both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such a question. The House has been seeking for two years, through the daily question period, evidence regarding the Prime Minister's stake in 161341 Canada Inc. The Minister of Industry promised members of the House that the information was coming. The appearance of the ethics counsellor at the Standing Committee on Industry yesterday was used as a follow up to the questions in the House and to the promise given by the industry minister. The Leader of the Opposition asked the ethics counsellor: Will the Corporations Directorate be communicating to the minister, and to you, the name of any fourth shareholder, whether it's Jonas Prince, whether it's the Prime Minister himself, whether it's some other person? Will they actually be communicating that to you so that the House can determine if the Prime Minister had a conflict of interest or not? To which the ethics counsellor replied: I expect that the Corporations Directorate will be responding to my letter. I'm not sure exactly when that will take place. But what my intention is, as I indicated to you in my interim reply, once I have that in hand, I will be responding directly to you and I am quite confident that will remove any lingering uncertainties. Mr. Speaker, in the dying minutes of that committee meeting, after the ethics counsellor was finished as a witness—and you will find this in the last line of the minutes of the committee meeting—he tabled with the chairman the letter he claimed he would give to the Leader of the Opposition directly when he had it in hand. The ethics counsellor then marched over to the media, released the letter to the media and conducted interviews regarding the same letter. That information should have been tabled as soon as he had it and it should have been part of the proceedings of that meeting. He had promised the Leader of the Opposition earlier that the moment he had it he would give it to the Leader of the Opposition but he withheld that information. It was contemptuous when he had that, not to have delivered what was asked of him. It was useless for the committee to release it at the very end when the questioning was over. It was as if he attempted to meet the criteria on some purely technical basis on the notion that the letter should have been tabled with members before the media. However I would argue that what the ethics counsellor did was essentially give the media the first opportunity to scrutinize the letter and to do an interview with him. This was an indirect act that impeded the committee. The entire time the questioning was going on he withheld that critical information about what was in the letter which dealt with the question that the Leader of the Opposition had put to him. Erskine May describes contempt as: —any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. When the Minister of Industry tabled the letter in the House later, he too was guilty of contempt when he promised he would deliver it the moment he had it. On March 20, the Speaker ruled that: With respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House takes precedence.... To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone...I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House. I would argue that an act that has the same results as what you pointed out in your ruling is also contempt. This is what the authorities on parliamentary procedure would have us believe. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you examine the committee minutes. The committee was divided into two parts: a question and comment period about the ethics counsellor and his role as the ethics counsellor, and a meeting concerning the Lobbyists Registration Act. Mr. Speaker, as you go through those minutes you will find there is nothing about the letter that he tabled at the end of the meeting. There are no comments and no questions because we did not know the letter existed, even though he obviously had it in the pocket of his jacket. Mr. Speaker, if you read the papers this morning you will see much discussion on the details of that letter but once again the media came before parliamentarians. The House did not see the letter until much later that same day. The ethics counsellor may not report to directly to parliament but he has now put himself in a situation where parliament must deal with him directly. The ethics counsellor must be held accountable for his actions. He knew full well that he had the letter in his pocket. He denied that information to the Leader of the Opposition when he was asked directly when that information would be available. He denied he had it. He said he would make it available as soon as it was in his possession. It was in the pocket of his jacket the entire time. He denied information to members of parliament that was germane to the subject matter and critical for us to do our job. He is in contempt of parliament. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find a prima facie case against him and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Industry I wish to clarify exactly what took place at committee yesterday afternoon. The meeting continued on after the first round of questions. During the second round there were questions about the Lobbyist Registration Act. During that time period, at approximately 5.12 p.m., Mr. Wilson notified me that he had just received a letter in both English and French. I thought, mistakenly, and the blues will show, that it was from Industry Canada. I suggested that Mr. Wilson should speak to it in between the questioning of witnesses by the member for Burlington and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. During that time period Mr. Wilson explained that he did not want to be excessively dramatic. He had just been given clearance to give the committee a letter. It was an original in French, with translations from Pierre Paquette, the lawyer that represents the golf club, who has written to Industry Canada. He apologized that it was not available earlier but there it was. He hoped that the representatives would get it to their party leaders. The committee then continued for approximately 15 minutes during which time no one raised the question of the letter. If we go back, the earlier comment was with regard to the corporations directorate. This is a different letter from the lawyer for the corporation.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) stated that the timing of the ethics counsellor's release of the Grand-Mère letter raised concerns about whether the counsellor was acting in a way favourable to one side, and called for the ethics counsellor to provide an explanation to the House. Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC), who was present at the committee, confirmed that the letter was divulged just before his round of questioning began and that most of the main questioners on the Grand-Mère file had already left, adding that members likely would not have been permitted to question the witness about the letter given the parameters set by the chair.
- NDP Mr. Bill Blaikie
- PC Mr. Peter MacKay
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee meeting. I am not sure whether the official opposition House leader was either, but I just wanted to say on the matter that it does seem to me a bit odd that this letter should have been released at the time that it was to the committee. I have heard conflicting reports as to whether or not the ethics counsellor may or may not have had the letter on his person all the time that he was there, or whether he received it some time later in the meeting, as the chairman of the committee contends and as I heard from someone else. It does not really matter whether or not he actually had it on him when he was answering the Leader of the Opposition or whether he received it later, although if he had it on him it sort of compounds the problem. Given the preoccupation of the House with this issue, and it is not always a preoccupation that those of us in my party have been able to share because we have decided to devote our few questions to other issues, I have listened carefully to what has gone on between various opposition members and the government on this. I have to say that this is the first time, given the behaviour of the ethics counsellor yesterday in the committee with respect to the release of the letter, I have had an inkling or a feeling that perhaps the ethics counsellor was more than just a guy caught in a very difficult situation, trapped by the limits of his mandate, by the limits of whom he appoints, whom he reports to, who appointed him, and by the limits of the current conflict of interest guidelines the Prime Minister and others operate within. Until yesterday it never occurred to me that the ethics counsellor might actually be acting in a way that was favourable to one side or the other of the argument. However, I have to say I think the ethics counsellor owes the House an explanation at this point. I am still not prepared to say that he was taking sides, but it sure looks like it when he released that letter at the point in time in the life of that committee meeting when he did. I would think that an explanation should be forthcoming from the ethics counsellor and, if there is not an appropriate explanation, it may well be that he was acting in contempt of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the point that has been raised by the hon. House leader for the official opposition. I have also listened to the input of other members. I was present at the committee. As the chair of the committee has indicated, it was just before I was to commence my line of questioning that I noticed Mr. Wilson conferring with someone I presumed to be a staff person, and then pre-empting the committee by the statement. I can verify that it was along the lines, as the chair of the committee said, that he did not mean to be dramatic or overly dramatic, and then he proceeded to divulge the contents or the gist of the letter. It is important to note that as indicated previously there were two distinct points in time in which members of the committee were permitted to ask questions on a certain subject matter, namely the Grand-Mère file. That was limited by the chair of the committee and it was directly related to the Shawinigan-Grand-Mère file to which this letter pertained. Most of the main questioners on the particular subject matter had left by the time the letter was divulged. If they were present or if members of the committee generally wanted to question the witness at that time about the letter, I strongly suggest that we would not have been permitted to in any event, given the parameters that were placed on the committee by the chair. The timing is highly suspect.