Session overview
- The Budget dominated early exchanges, with the Canadian Alliance pressing the government on the shift from five-year to two-year fiscal projections in tomorrow's economic statement and raising concerns about a potential deficit by 2003.
- The Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois mounted a sustained challenge to the government's organized crime bill, arguing that granting police officers immunity to commit criminal acts â subject to political rather than judicial authorization â threatens civil liberties and democratic norms.
- The relocation of the Canadian War Museum from Rockcliffe to LeBreton Flats drew criticism from the Canadian Alliance, who argued veterans and the war museum advisory committee were not consulted before the unilateral decision was announced.
- The NDP raised an acute public-health concern over drinking water, noting that 240 communities in Newfoundland face boil orders and that some communities have bacterial levels 10 to 20 times higher than safe limits, calling for at least $1 billion annually from the surplus.
- The missile defence and NORAD debate produced the clearest constitutional exchange of the session, with the Prime Minister confirming that decisions on Canada's involvement in missile defence will be made by the government â not through a binding Commons vote â after a parliamentary debate.
- The case of Haroun M'Barek, deported to Tunisia and subsequently convicted on the basis of evidence obtained under torture, prompted the Minister of Foreign Affairs to confirm that Canada attended the appeal proceedings and is continuing to raise concerns with the Tunisian government.
The Prime Minister made a concrete and constitutionally significant commitment on the record: Canada will hold a parliamentary debate on missile defence, but the decision will rest with the government that holds the confidence of the House, not through a binding Commons vote.
Cites the Minister of Justice's own stated principle about separating judicial and investigative functions, provides concrete examples of judicial authorization for wiretapping and searches, and asks a precise question about why judges are excluded from authorizing illegal acts under this bill.
Rather than addressing Joe Clark's specific request for a commitment to publish the Business Development Bank review in full and refer it to a joint committee, Cannis responded only by attacking Clark's use of the word 'puppet' and mocking his party's leadership situation.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Stockwell Day asked whether the Minister of Finance would provide fiscal projections for the year 2003 given economist forecasts of a possible deficit â no figures were provided and the question was deflected with a counter-attack on Alliance fiscal policy.
- Mr. Joe Clark asked for a commitment that the Business Development Bank five-year review would be published in full by July 13 and referred to a joint committee of the House and Senate â neither request was addressed by the Parliamentary Secretary.
- Ms. Alexa McDonough asked how long the Prime Minister is prepared to wait before guaranteeing safe drinking water, specifically requesting that at least $1 billion annually from the $5 billion surplus be directed to the water crisis â no timeline or dollar commitment was given.
- Mr. Roy Bailey asked why the Minister of Canadian Heritage did not consult the war museum advisory committee before making the unilateral decision to relocate the Canadian War Museum to LeBreton Flats â the minister did not explain the advisory committee's role or why it was bypassed.
- Mr. RĂ©al MĂ©nard asked why the government prefers to grant police the power to authorize themselves to commit illegal acts rather than require judicial authorization, as is the case for wiretapping and house searches â the Minister of Justice asserted a distinction exists but did not explain it substantively.
Day asks why the government will only show two-year spending projections in tomorrow's budget instead of the usual five-year projections.
Specific and pointed claim about a change in budget projection methodology from five years to two years, with a clear single ask of why.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, instead of the usual five year spending projections, the government will only show us two years. Why?
Chrétien asserts that two-year projections have always been the standard framework for budgets, disputing Day's premise.
Chrétien disputes the premise and asserts two-year projections are standard, but does not explain why this budget deviates from the five-year precedent set by the Finance Minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not right what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. The projections have always been based on two years because it is a fairer way to do it. Sometimes we are invited to project into the longer term for special circumstances, but in terms of budgets, we always use the framework of two years.
Day argues the Finance Minister set a five-year precedent, references an officer of parliament's claim of a culture of secrecy, and asks whether the Prime Minister agrees Canadians would be better assured by more openness about the government's books.
Raises two related points â the deviation from a five-year precedent and the culture of secrecy cited by a parliamentary officer â but combines them into a somewhat vague ask about openness.
Source text
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the Finance Minister has set a five year precedent and now we are deviating from that. Also, it appears that we will be going two years without a full budget being tabled. I think that is unprecedented in western democracies. Now we will only get two years advance on government overspending and we have an officer of this parliament who says that the Prime Minister and his office is creating a culture of secrecy. Does the Prime Minister not think that Canadians would be more assured if their government were being more open about its books instead of more closed?
Chrétien highlights that having a surplus budget five years in a row is unprecedented and briefly reiterates the two-year projection rationale, without addressing the secrecy allegation.
Chrétien touts the surplus record and briefly addresses the projection issue but ignores the parliamentary officer's secrecy allegation entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is unprecedented is a government that has a surplus budget five years in a row. We are making the projections for two years. Sometimes we have occasion to make projections for five years. We did that for the tax cuts but fortunately we reduced it to two years.
Day cites economists forecasting a deficit in three years and asks the Prime Minister to have the Minister of Finance provide the figures for the year 2003.
Cites economists forecasting a deficit in three years and makes a specific, answerable request for the 2003 figures from the Minister of Finance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, some economists are forecasting that we will have a deficit in three years. This is not good news for Canadians. Could the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Finance to give us the figures for the year 2003?
Chrétien uses a counter-forecast about the Alliance's own program producing a $25 billion deficit by 2004 to justify two-year projections, without providing the 2003 figures.
Chrétien deflects by attacking the Alliance's fiscal platform with a counter-economist reference and never provides or commits to provide the 2003 figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to quote economists. One of them has forecasted that, if we were to implement the Alliance's program, we would end up with a deficit of $25 billion by the year 2004. This is why it is easier to make forecasts for two years than for four or five years. In fact, the actual results have been better than what we anticipated in our recent budgets.
Kenney cites a poll showing 76% of Canadians say they have not noticed any federal tax relief and asks how the Prime Minister can persuade them they have received it.
Cites a poll showing 76% of Canadians have not noticed any federal tax relief, giving some factual grounding, but the ask is somewhat rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we would do differently is less wasteful spending for more tax relief. Speaking of tax relief, we released a poll today which shows that 76% of Canadians say that they have not noticed any federal tax relief. The government continues to hype its much promised tax cuts. How come three-quarters of Canadians have not seen a dime of tax relief in their own pockets and how can the Prime Minister persuade them otherwise?
Cullen argues that nearly all economists agree this is the largest tax cut in Canadian history at approximately 2% of GDP, and points to $2.65 billion in infrastructure spending.
Cullen references the largest tax cut in Canadian history approximating 2% of GDP and infrastructure investment of $2.65 billion, engaging the topic but not directly explaining why 76% of Canadians have not noticed relief.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nearly all the economists agree that we have the largest tax cut in Canadian history that is winding its way through the economy right now. It approximates 2% of GDP. If we throw in the provincial tax cuts it gets even higher. Everyone but the member opposite agrees that this is a huge stimulative budget. In fact we have other initiatives as well in terms of infrastructure at $2.65 billion which will create economic activity in Canada and create jobs. I do not know where the member opposite is getting his information from.
Kenney quotes Dale Orr of WEFA saying the small tax cuts 'would probably be too late to help the current weak economy' and asks why the government is delaying tax relief rather than providing it immediately in tomorrow's economic statement.
Cites a named economist, Dale Orr of WEFA, with a direct quote, and asks a specific question about why the government is delaying tax relief given the economic downturn.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am getting it from Canadian taxpayers who have not noticed a dime in tax relief. Today one of the leading private sector economists in the country, Dale Orr of WEFA, said that that small tax cuts promised by the government âwould probably be too late to help the current weak economyâ. Surely the finance minister recognizes that given the current economic downturn we need some serious fiscal stimulus right now to protect Canadian jobs. Why will he not listen to these economists? Why is the government delaying tax relief? Why does it not provide it immediately in the economic statement tomorrow?
Cullen deflects with a partisan jab, then asserts economists almost unanimously say the economy will avoid deficit and that the tax stimulus needs time to work through the system.
Cullen opens with a partisan attack, then vaguely references unanimous economist opinion and mentions CCP and EI deductions maxing out after six months, but does not address why relief is being delayed or respond to the Dale Orr quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the government should be getting management advice from the party across the floor when it cannot even keep its own act together. Notwithstanding that, all economists are saying that this is the largest tax stimulus in Canadian history and that we need to give it a chance to work its way into the economy. The economists have said almost unanimously that we will not be in deficit, that the economy is working very well and we need to give it a chance to work its way through the system. The member knows full well that some of the deductions in terms of CCP and EI max out after six months, so we are going to see that comeâ
Duceppe asks whether the minister will admit there is a serious risk of slip-ups in the organized crime bill that could expose democratic organizations like unions and political parties to police-authorized criminal acts, and whether criminal acts must be limited to organized crime.
Raises a specific concern about the organized crime bill potentially exposing democratic organizations to police-authorized criminal acts and asks a focused question about limiting scope to organized crime.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Justice's bill on organized crime, democratic organizations such as unions and political parties, with absolutely no connection to the underworld, could fall victim to criminal acts perpetrated by police officers and authorized by those with political authority. Will the minister admit that there is a serious risk of slip-ups with this bill and that criminal acts that can be committed by police officers must be limited to organized crime?
MacAulay describes the law as critical and important to police, asserts it is not a blank cheque, and states there are strict limits, controls, and direct political accountability.
MacAulay says it is not a blank cheque and that there are strict limits, controls, and direct political accountability, but does not explain what those limits are or address the specific risk to democratic organizations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a critical new law that is very important to the police across the country. In fact it is not a blank cheque. There are strict limits and controls, and it has direct political accountability.
Duceppe questions whether the minister realizes that granting police officers the right to commit criminal acts beyond organized crime investigations threatens democracy, and challenges the solicitor general to act on his own affairs.
Makes a substantive point about the bill's scope extending beyond organized crime but frames it with rhetorical flourishes about the solicitor general meddling, making the ask somewhat unclear.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here we have someone who says he never interferes with investigations, yet he is going to give permission for criminal acts to be committed. This is not going to be limited to organized crime. That requires an organized crime bill. Democracy is threatened if this right granted to policy officers is expanded to include just any investigation into anyone and anything. Do they realize this? Is the minister going to take this into account? Is the solicitor general, he who claims not to interfere in anything, gong to start meddling in something, for once? If so, let him meddle in his own affairs, not those of the judges.
MacAulay argues the government wants to give police the tools needed for undercover work to fight organized crime, without addressing the scope concern.
MacAulay pivots to the necessity of undercover police work and fighting organized crime without addressing the specific concern about the bill's scope extending beyond organized crime.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the government wants to do is give the police the tools they need to do their job. Do we not want anyone to work undercover in police services across the country? If we do not give them the ability to be able to work undercover then they cannot fight organized crime. The government is going to fight and will continue to fight organized crime.
MĂ©nard points out the contradiction between the solicitor general claiming non-interference in RCMP investigations and the bill's requirement for direct political involvement, and asks whether the only logical solution is to have the judiciary authorize these practices.
Effectively highlights a contradiction between the solicitor general's stated non-interference in RCMP investigations and the bill's requirement for direct political accountability, and asks a focused question about whether judicial authorization is the logical solution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week, the solicitor general said that there would be direct political accountability for police immunity. But each time we ask the minister about an RCMP investigationâinto Shawinigate, HRDC or CINAR, for instanceâhe tells us that he will not get involved and that that is the way it should be. Does the minister understand that the direct involvement of politicians in these investigations leaves the door wide open to significant slip-ups and that the only logical solution is to have the judiciary authorize these practices? Will he admit that this is so?
MacAulay states that police must issue an annual report to the solicitor general and that overstepping their bounds constitutes a criminal act for which they can be charged.
MacAulay explains that police must report annually to the solicitor general and that overstepping results in criminal charges, but does not address the contradiction or explain why judicial authorization is rejected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a tool that all the police forces across the country want and need if they want to fight organized crime. What has to happen is a report must be issued each year to the solicitor general. If they overstep their bounds then they also commit a criminal act and can be charged.
MĂ©nard cites the Minister of Justice's own statement about separating judicial and investigative functions and asks why she prefers police self-authorization for illegal acts rather than judicial authorization, as in the case of wiretapping and house searches.
Cites the Minister of Justice's own stated principle about separating judicial and investigative functions, provides concrete examples of judicial authorization for wiretapping and searches, and asks a precise question about why judges are excluded from authorizing illegal acts under this bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Justice said that the Canadian tradition was to separate the judicial function from the investigative function. The minister is mistaken because, in Canada, it is the judiciary that authorizes illegal acts such as wiretapping and house searches. Will the minister explain why she prefers to give the police the power to authorize themselves to commit illegal acts, rather than give this power to a judge, as required by the universally recognized rule of law?
McLellan asserts there is a fundamental difference between a judge authorizing a warrant for a wiretap and decisions made by the solicitor general in the context of organized crime, but does not elaborate on what that difference is.
McLellan draws a distinction between warrant-based wiretaps and decisions under the organized crime bill but does not explain why judges are excluded; she pivots to criticizing the Bloc for opposing the bill after demanding action on organized crime.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the fundamental difference between a situation where a judge authorizes a warrant for a wiretap and the kinds of decisions that will be made in the context of the solicitor general or provincial counterparts as it relates to organized crime. There is a more important issue here. We on this side have been listening to that party bleat on for months about why the government does not take action against organized crime. The government has taken action. We have given our police the necessary tools to do their jobs. I would ask them to support us.
McDonough cites 240 communities in Newfoundland with boil orders, 76 communities with bacterial levels 10 to 20 times above safe levels, and the Twillingate water crisis, and asks when the government will spend a share of the surplus to solve these water problems.
Cites specific data â 240 communities with boil orders, 76 communities with bacterial levels 10 to 20 times higher than safe levels, and the Twillingate example â grounding the question in concrete facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 240 communities in Newfoundland today have boil orders for their drinking water. The Newfoundland government has released a report showing that 76 communities in Newfoundland have bacterial levels 10 and 20 times higher than anything considered remotely safe. Water from the Twillingate taps has so much bacteria in it scientists say that they have lost count. Will the bottled water over at 24 Sussex have to run out before the government will be willing to spend a share of the surplus to solve the water problems?
Robillard highlights the $2 billion municipal infrastructure program generating $6 billion in total investment, with priority given to green infrastructures to improve air and water quality.
Robillard references the $2 billion municipal infrastructure program generating $6 billion in investments with priority for green infrastructures, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific scale of Newfoundland's crisis or commit to any new action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the government announced the municipal infrastructure program, a $2 billion program which will generate investments of $6 billion in this country, we said very clearly that priority should be given to green infrastructures, which will improve the quality of air and water for the citizens of this country. That is what the Canadian government has done. I understand that the provinces and municipalities have already submitted projects seeking to resolve this problem.
McDonough argues that $4 billion per year is needed for the water crisis but the government has offered only $400 million, and asks why the government will not commit at least a billion dollars annually given the $5 billion surplus.
Cites reliable estimates of $4 billion per year needed versus $400 million offered, references a $5 billion surplus, and proposes a specific figure of a billion dollars annually, making it reasonably grounded, though the final ask is cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, reliable estimates are that $4 billion a year are needed to tackle the water crisis alone and the government has offered up $400 million. Newfoundlanders today simply cannot drink their water. The Prime Minister seems to think it is perfectly okay to export the water. The government is crowing about a $5 billion surplus higher than projected. If the government gets started today with a billion dollars annually it could at least begin to solve the problem. How long is the Prime Minister prepared to wait before he will guarantee thatâ
Robillard reiterates that the $6 billion infrastructure program will help municipalities improve air and water quality, without addressing the funding gap or McDonough's specific dollar request.
Robillard repeats the same $6 billion program talking point from Exchange 10 without addressing the funding gap, the $5 billion surplus, or the specific request for a billion dollars annually.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a program of $6 billion which will help municipalities across the country to have good infrastructure and to improve the quality of the air and water for their citizens. This is a major effort from our government to help municipalities achieve those goals.
Clark states that the law requires a five-year review of the Business Development Bank including the period when presidents Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder mysteriously left, but the industry minister's letter excludes those departures as administrative matters, and asks the Prime Minister to allow the full investigation intended by the law.
Cites the law requiring a five-year review, notes the industry minister's letter specifically excluding the departures of Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder as administrative matters, and makes a clear ask to allow a full investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the law requires a five year review of the activities of the Business Development Bank. That includes the period in which two presidents of that bank, Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder, mysteriously left their duties. The industry minister has written me to say that the review will not investigate those mysterious departures because they are administrative matters. That breaks the spirit of the law and shows contempt for parliament. Will the Prime Minister stop the coverup and allow the full investigation intended by the law of parliament?
Cannis claims everything is transparent and there is no mystery, then pivots to a joke about the Reform Party and Conservative Party.
Cannis dismisses the question with a one-liner about transparency and then makes a flippant remark about party membership shifts, providing no substantive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery there. Everything is transparent. The only mystery here is who is shifting from the Reform Party to the Conservative Party.
Clark asks the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Business Development Bank review in full by July 13, and to submit it to a joint committee of the House and Senate to prevent a Liberal majority from limiting witnesses.
Makes two specific, answerable asks: a commitment to publish the review in full by July 13, and a commitment to submit it to a joint committee of the House and Senate to avoid a Liberal majority limiting witnesses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the act allows the government to delay tabling this review until July 13, conveniently after parliament has risen. Will the Prime Minister, not his puppet, give us a commitment that this review will be published in full on that date? To avoid a situation where a Liberal majority might limit the witnesses who could be called in examination of this report, will the Prime Minister undertake to have the review submitted to a joint committee of this House and of the other place?
Cannis responds only with a personal attack on Clark for using the word 'puppets' and a comment about Clark's leadership, addressing neither specific ask.
Cannis ignores both specific asks entirely and responds only with a personal attack on Clark's use of the word 'puppet' and a comment about his leadership.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the hon. member, and I will use that word in addressing him, uses the word puppets. He should be ashamed because the attack is only a sign of his weakness in his argument and nothing else. He should pay very close attention to his leadership and not ours.
Solberg cites Lieutenant General Macdonald as saying that failing to support missile defence in principle will mean the beginning of the end of NORAD, and asks what grounds the government has for delaying its decision in principle.
Cites Canada's own deputy commander of NORAD, Lieutenant General Macdonald, by name and title with a specific claim about the consequences of not supporting missile defence, and asks a clear question about why the government is delaying its decision in principle.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, NORAD is vital for the security and sovereignty of Canada. Several prominent individuals, including Canada's own deputy commander of NORAD, Lieutenant General Macdonald, have said that failing to support missile defence in principle will mean the beginning of the end of NORAD. On this basis what possible grounds can the government have for delaying its decision in principle?
Eggleton states a new five-year NORAD agreement has just been signed, that NORAD has a clear purpose and function, and that consultations on missile defence began yesterday.
Eggleton notes the new five-year NORAD agreement and that consultations began yesterday, which is relevant, but does not explain the grounds for delaying a decision in principle on missile defence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have just signed a new five year agreement with the United States with respect to NORAD. NORAD does have a very strong purpose and function. It is a useful defence of North America for Canada and the United States. With respect to missile defence, as we have often said, we are into consultations. In fact, we began those consultations yesterday. NORAD still has a very clear function, a very clear purpose and is of value to Canada and the United States regardless of our decision on missile defence.
Solberg references the Prime Minister's statement from the previous day that MPs will be able to debate missile defence before any decision, and asks whether MPs will have the final decision through a vote in the House of Commons.
References the Prime Minister's own statement from the previous day and asks a precise, yes-or-no accountable question about whether MPs will have the final decision through a vote in the House of Commons.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told the commons that MPs will be able to debate the missile defence issue before any decision is taken regarding Canada's involvement. My question for the Prime Minister is, will MPs have the final decision on that issue through a vote here in the House of Commons?
Chrétien states that decisions like this are made by the government which has the confidence of the House, a debate will be held, and members can vote non-confidence if they disagree with the final decision.
Chrétien directly explains the constitutional convention that decisions are made by the government holding the confidence of the House and that a confidence vote is the mechanism available, which substantively addresses the question, though he dismisses a direct binding vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, decisions like that are made by the government which has the confidence of the House of Commons. It is the way we operate. We will have a debate and opinions will be expressed. There will be one moment when they can vote non-confidence in the government if we have not made the decision they want. What is surprising is that they do not know the facts. They have not studied the problem and they are already committed. I think it is better to have hearings and discussions and then to decide after that what the allies should do.
Duceppe asked whether the minister would recognize that her organized crime bill goes far beyond organized crime and threatens democracy itself by allowing political leaders to intervene in police investigations.
Duceppe raises a substantive concern that the organized crime bill allows political leaders to intervene in police investigations and threatens democracy, but the ask is more rhetorical than precisely grounded in specific clauses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that our party had long fought for legislation against organized crime, and that is true. All the while, from the other side of the House, they said it was not necessary. We fought for legislation against organized crime, not a law that allowed political leaders to intervene in police investigations. Will the minister realize that her bill goes far beyond organized crime and threatens democracy itself?
McLellan pointed to the Bloc's past call to invoke the notwithstanding clause and said the legislation was developed after broad consultation with provinces, police forces, and other stakeholders.
McLellan deflects by attacking the Bloc's past position on the notwithstanding clause and citing consultation processes, without addressing the specific claim that the bill permits political intervention in police investigations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing. That is the party that asked the government to consider invoking the notwithstanding clause to deal with organized crime in the province of Quebec. What my colleague, the solicitor general, and I have done is introduce legislation after consulting with the provinces, including Quebec, with police forces, with other stakeholders and after listening to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on which the Bloc had members. I would hope that the Bloc gets behind this legislation to protectâ
Duceppe asked whether the minister would admit that a provision of the bill is ridiculous because it gives police permission to commit a crime after a crime has already been committed.
Duceppe raises a specific and substantive point â that a provision of the bill gives police permission to commit a crime after a crime is committed â but embeds it in charged rhetorical framing including the barn-burning reference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister's words are the height of hypocrisy.
Oh, oh.
They objected to such legislation for I do not know how long and, now, they want a mechanism to enable them to intervene, as they did in the past by torching the barns, for example. Will the minister admit that one of the provisions of this bill is ridiculous to the point of giving the police permission to commit a crime after a crime is committed? Is that acceptable? It is in the bill. It is time she woke up.
Chrétien responded by accusing the Bloc of hypocrisy for returning to collect federal pensions after saying they would only be elected once, making no reference to the bill's provisions.
Chrétien entirely ignores the question about the bill's provisions and instead attacks the Bloc's pension record, a pure deflection with no connection to the organized crime legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one can readily talk of hypocrisy with this party, which told Quebecers it would be elected only once and then leave. But they have all come back to get their pension from the wicked federal government.
Bailey asked why the minister did not consult the war museum advisory committee and veterans' organizations before unilaterally deciding to move the war museum from the promised Rockcliffe site to LeBreton Flats.
Bailey identifies a specific prior commitment (35 acres next to the aviation museum and the new military cemetery at Rockcliffe), names a specific consultative body (the war museum advisory committee), and asks a clear accountability question about a unilateral decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at the press conference yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage disappointed thousands of our war vets from across Canada who believed that the new war museum, as promised, would be built on the 35 acres of land next to the aviation museum and the new military cemetery at Rockcliffe. Why did the minister not consult the war museum advisory committee and the many veterans' organizations before making a unilateral decision to move the war museum to LeBreton Flats?
Copps cited a letter from Barney Danson calling the new site absolutely fabulous and saying he was only too sorry it had not been available at the initial announcement.
Copps does not address why the advisory committee was not consulted or why the site changed; instead she cites a single letter from Barney Danson expressing support for the new site, which does not answer the consultation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, probably one of the most distinguished members of the veteran community, a gentleman by the name of Barney Danson, has worked very hard to see the war museum relocated. I received a letter from Barney who wrote to me from Ireland. He was unfortunately unable to attend yesterday. Do members know what he said in his letter? He said that he thought it was an absolutely fabulous site and that he was only too sorry that it had not been available when we made our initial announcement. He is thrilled that it will be at a place close to parliament for all of Canada to rejoice in.
Bailey asked why the government broke its 1998 promise to build the war museum at Rockcliffe for $70 million, and is now spending twice as much to move it to a smaller site, without consulting veterans and their organizations.
Bailey cites a specific 1998 government announcement, a specific dollar figure ($70 million), a specific new cost (twice as much), and the fundraising efforts of veterans, making a sharp accountability question about broken commitments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the vets and the Friends of the Canadian War Museum have raised millions of dollars. They did this after the government's announcement in 1998, just three years ago, that the war museum would be built in Rockcliffe at a cost of $70 million. Now the government is spending twice as much and moving the museum to a smaller site. Why does the government continue to treat vets and their organizations as second class citizens by not consulting them?
Copps said the Friends of the Canadian War Museum were present and extremely pleased with the announcement, and that an additional $20 million investment secures the best site in Canada for veterans at LeBreton Flats.
Copps claims the Friends of the Canadian War Museum were present and pleased with the announcement and cites an additional $20 million investment, but does not explain why the site changed or address the claim about a smaller site, and ends with a partisan attack on Cheryl Gallant.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, not only were the Friends of the Canadian War Museum extremely pleased with yesterday's announcement, they were present yesterday to thank the government. What we have been able to do by an additional investment of $20 million is make sure that with the rebirth of LeBreton Flats, we have the absolute best site in the whole of Canada to celebrate the contribution made by Canada's war vets. It is a damned shame that the Reform Party does not agree with its critic, Cheryl Gallant.
Dalphond-Guiral asked whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs would admit the deportation of Haroun M'Barek was a tragic mistake given he was convicted on testimony given under torture that was later retracted, and whether the minister would intervene to ensure he receives medical attention and access to his lawyer.
Dalphond-Guiral cites specific facts â the Foreign Affairs spokesperson's statement, testimony given under torture by the key witness who later retracted, and asks two distinct actionable questions about an admission of error and consular intervention.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs stated that Haroun M'Barek had a fair trial in Tunisia. But we now know that he was found guilty on the basis of testimony given under torture by the key witness, who later retracted himself. Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that the decision to deport Mr. M'Barek was a tragic mistake and will he intervene with Tunisian authorities to ensure that Mr. M'Barek gets the medical attention that his condition requires and is allowed to see his lawyer?
Caplan said she does not discuss individual cases but confirmed representations have been made by Foreign Affairs, that the individual received full refugee determination procedures and due process in Canada, and expressed regret about unanticipated difficulties.
Caplan confirms representations have been made by Foreign Affairs and offers some context on due process in Canada but does not address the specific claim about testimony under torture or confirm any admission of a tragic mistake.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while it is not my policy to discuss individual cases, I can tell the member that representations have been made in this case by Foreign Affairs. The individuals did receive full refugee determination procedures and due process in Canada. It is always important in every case for individuals to give full information to the department so that a full determination can be made. It is always unfortunate when a situation occurs where an individual does run into difficulty that was unanticipated.
Dalphond-Guiral pointed out that M'Barek's legal proceedings ended on March 9 when he was sentenced, that his file cannot be found for his appeal, and asked whether the minister would admit Canada has a moral obligation to help him given that Canada's deportation led to his situation.
Dalphond-Guiral directly corrects the minister's previous answer with a specific date (March 9 sentencing) and a concrete problem (missing file preventing appeal), and presses a clear moral obligation question tied to Canada's direct role in the deportation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that Canadian officials from consular affairs are trying to observe the legal proceedings involving Mr. M'Barek. But the legal proceedings ended on March 9, when Mr. M'Barek was sentenced. Mr. M'Barek now wants to appeal, but his file cannot be found. Will the minister admit that Canada has a moral obligation to help this man, since his deportation by Canadian authorities is what led to the tragic situation in which he now finds himself?
Manley confirmed Canada attended the appeal proceedings, is continuing to express concerns to the government of Tunisia, and will try to help M'Barek as much as possible, noting he is not a Canadian citizen.
Manley confirms Canada attended the appeal proceedings and is continuing to express concerns to the government of Tunisia, which partially addresses the question, though he does not respond to the missing file claim or explicitly acknowledge a moral obligation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we attended the appeal proceedings. We are continuing to express our concerns to the government of Tunisia and we will try to help Mr. M'Barek as much as we can. Let us not forget that he is not a Canadian citizen. Still, we are trying to help him.
Schmidt asked what is the point of the government setting up an advisory committee for the war museum and then completely ignoring it before making the decision to move the museum to LeBreton Flats.
Schmidt asks a legitimate process question about the purpose of an advisory committee that was ignored, but the framing is somewhat rhetorical and he does not name the committee or specify what advice was given and disregarded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage suggested that it was perfectly all right and that veterans were certainly supportive of the new location. I would like to challenge the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and ask her, what is the point of the government setting up an advisory committee and then turning around and ignoring it completely before making a move like this? I think it is an insult to the veterans who were asked to provide advice to the hon. minister.
Oh, oh.
Copps cited a Globe and Mail article quoting Alliance MP Cheryl Gallant as supporting the construction of the new museum for veterans, suggesting internal disagreement within the Alliance Party.
Copps does not address the advisory committee question at all, instead quoting a Globe and Mail article about Alliance MP Cheryl Gallant's support for the museum, which is a deflection to internal Alliance disagreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know there are a number of positions right now in the Alliance Party, but I would like to refer the hon. member to Metro Dateline and Shawn McCarthy in the Globe and Mail of yesterday, when he said âMP Cheryl Gallant, the Canadian Alliance culturalââ
Mr. Speaker, in the Globe and Mail the hon. member for RenfrewâNipissingâPembroke was quoted as saying that she supports the construction of the new museum for the veterans. I suspect that the critic and her members should get their stories straight.
Schmidt tried to clarify that his concern is with the process by which the decision was made â specifically that the minister ignored an advisory committee â rather than opposition to building a new war museum.
Schmidt clarifies that the debate is about process â the ignoring of an advisory committee â rather than opposition to the museum itself, but the question is interrupted and remains vague without naming the committee or its advice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage fails to recognize that we all support the construction of a new national war museum. That is exactly the point. It is the process that is at debate here. We have a Prime Minister who suggests that whatever he says goes. His backbenchers also have to do whatever he tells them to do. Now we have an advisory committee that the minister goes ahead and ignoresâ
Oh, oh.
Copps expressed enthusiasm for the announcement, cited Cliff Chadderton as expecting an announcement that would please him, and deflected by referencing splits in the Reform Party.
Copps does not address the advisory committee process question and instead quotes Cliff Chadderton's anticipated pleasure with the announcement, then pivots to attacking splits in the Reform Party.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled that we were able to make an announcement yesterday which will do, I think, pride to the service that has been provided by all veterans in the first, the second, the great and the Korean wars. I would like to comment on a statement made by Cliff Chadderton, chairman of the 37 member national veterans council, when he said that he expected an announcement that would please him. I think it pleased Mr. Chadderton. I know it pleased the members of parliament. I am not sure about the splits in the Reform Party but you will have to figure those out yourselves.
Assadourian noted that Nortel Networks in his riding signed a $275 million U.S. contract with China Unicom and asked what the Government of Canada is doing to help companies like Nortel secure trade and investment opportunities in China.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that simply invites the Secretary of State to promote a Nortel contract and government trade policy, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific. Nortel Networks corporation in my riding of Brampton Centre has signed a $275 million U.S. contract with China Unicom to supply equipment for a wireless network in China. What is the Government of Canada doing to assist companies like Nortel to secure trade and investment opportunities in China?
Pagtakhan said the government applauds the deal, that it means more jobs for Canadians and a more secure place for Canadian innovation in the Chinese marketplace, and that it builds on the broad partnership between Canada and China as a dividend from team Canada.
Pagtakhan provides some substantive content â noting the deal means more jobs for Canadians, advances Canadian innovation in the Chinese marketplace, builds on the Canada-China partnership, and credits team Canada â making this a reasonably informative ministerial answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada applauds this business deal on the part of Nortel. The hon. member for Brampton Centre can take pride in it. This kind of business deal means more jobs for Canadians and a more secure place for Canadian innovation and technology in the Chinese marketplace. As well, it builds on the broad partnership between Canada and China and thereby more people, more people linkages and a more open society. This is evidence of the dividends coming from team Canada, led by the Prime Minister.
Nystrom asked why the Prime Minister did not use some of the $15 billion surplus applied to the national debt toward reindexing transfers to provinces and municipalities to fight poverty and invest in the human deficit.
Nystrom cites reputable studies showing the rich-poor gap and references a specific $15 billion surplus applied to the national debt, but the question is compound and rhetorical in framing despite having identifiable policy asks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The widening gap between the rich and the poor has been one of the biggest failures of the Liberal government in the last eight or nine years. Every reputable study in the country shows that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Why did the Prime Minister not use some of the $15 billion surplus he applied to the national debt toward reindexing transfers to the provinces and municipalities as a way to fight poverty? Why did he not invest in the human deficit instead of paying down the national debt?
Cullen defended the government's balanced approach of paying down debt, cutting taxes, and investing in social and economic programs, arguing that paying down debt gives greater flexibility going forward.
Cullen defends the government's balanced approach of paying down debt, cutting taxes, and investing in programs but does not address the specific question about reindexing transfers to provinces and municipalities or the human deficit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, this party and this government believe in a balanced approach. Paying down debt is a good thing because it gives us greater flexibility moving forward. We are able to redeploy resources into social and economic programs, cutting taxes more and a whole host of things. We are doing everything to the very best of our ability. We are cutting taxes. We are paying down debt. We are investing in important social and economic programs. We will continue this balanced approach.
Godin asked the Prime Minister to specify how much of the $15 billion surplus will go specifically towards narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor.
Godin references a specific $15 billion surplus confirmed by the Prime Minister and asks a pointed, measurable question about how much will specifically go toward narrowing the gap between rich and poor.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if this is a balanced approach, they could have fooled me. Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed, before the Minister of Finance, that the government will have a $15 billion surplus. But Canadians face a huge deficit, a growing gap between the rich and the poor. It is a serious problem. Will the Prime Minister tell us how much of the $15 billion will go specifically towards narrowing this gap?
Chrétien said the government has for several years been transferring significant amounts to Canada's poorest families through billions of dollars in child tax credits, which he claimed has narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor.
Chrétien references billions of dollars in child tax credits for poor families as narrowing the rich-poor gap but does not provide the specific dollar amount from the $15 billion surplus directed toward this goal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member should recognize that the government has, for several years, been transferring significant amounts to Canada's poorest families through billions of dollars in child tax credits, for poor families, an unprecedented move. This has narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada.
Hearn asked what message the government approval of the sale of the Montreal Canadiens to a United States entrepreneur sends to Canadian youth and Canadians generally.
Hearn's question is largely rhetorical and performative, ending with a joke about selling the Minister of Industry; while it raises a legitimate concern about the sale of the Montreal Canadiens it lacks specificity about what policy response is sought.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for culture and heritage. The Minister of Industry has given government approval to sell the fabled Montreal Canadiens to a United States entrepreneur. Despite assurances to keep the team in Canada for a short period, it is still a sale of one of Canada's most prized possessions. What message does this send to Canadian youth and Canadians generally? What could be more Canadian than les Canadiens de Montréal? Why can we not just sell the Minister of Industry instead?
Copps lamented the elimination of the final Canadian team from the NHL playoffs and argued that investment in youth hockey must start at local hockey rinks rather than at the NHL level.
Copps does not address the sale of the Montreal Canadiens or explain what heritage policy applies, instead making general remarks about hockey and local rinks, which is tangential to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for any hon. member who has been watching the NHL I think probably one of the saddest moments was when the final Canadian team was knocked out last week. We have exported an incredible asset, Canada's hockey. However, in terms of investment in our youth, we have to start at the local hockey rinks. We have to start in Corner Brook. We have to start in St. John's. We have to start in Gander. That is where they build the dreams. They do not build them once they reach the NHL.
Hearn cited an Ontario court ruling by Justice Romain Pitt stating a Toronto family posed no threat to Canadian society and that their deportation resulted from an administrative foul up involving double payment of application fees without refund, and asked the minister to intervene for the sake of the children.
Hearn cites a specific court ruling by Justice Romain Pitt, notes two Canadian-born children, identifies an administrative foul up including double payment of fees without refund, and asks for ministerial action â though the question is cut off before the full ask is stated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the immigration department is hiding something even more un-Canadian than selling the Habs. Immigration Canada is preparing to deport a Toronto couple with four children, two of whom were born in Canada, to an uncertain future. This is despite the fact that an Ontario court judge, Romain Pitt, stated that this family was no threat to Canadian society and that this was as a result of an administrative foul up. The judge went on to state that the application fees were paid twice and they still had not received a refund. For the sake of the children, will the ministerâ
Caplan declined to discuss individual cases but committed that no one gets deported over a $50 administrative error while she is Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, while noting that failed refugee claimants and overstays who have had due process do get deported.
Caplan gives a firm commitment that no one gets deported over a $50 administrative error while she is minister, which partially addresses the case, but she explicitly declines to speak to individual cases and pivots to a general defence of deportation policy for failed refugee claimants.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while I do not speak to individual cases I do read the newspaper and I can assure the member and all members of the House that no one gets deported over a $50 administrative error, not while I am Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However people who are failed refugee claimants and have had full due process, people who come to Canada and overstay visitors visas, have had due process and are queue jumpers do get deported but only after due process in Canada.
Mayfield cited Justice Ted Malone's Saskatchewan ruling that the federal government cannot pursue the Anglican Church to share residential school lawsuit costs, and asked the government to settle these lawsuits now to help former students and save taxpayers billions.
Mayfield cites a specific court ruling by Justice Ted Malone in Saskatchewan with a specific finding, and asks a clear policy question about settling residential school lawsuits now, grounding it in the accountability of saving taxpayers billions versus paying lawyers forever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has lost an important test case involving residential schools. Yesterday in Saskatchewan, Justice Ted Malone ruled that the federal government could not go after the Anglican Church to help pay the costs of lawsuits brought against it by former residential school students. Will the government settle these lawsuits now and not only help former students who have suffered years of hardship but also save Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars by settling these lawsuits now rather than later? It has the choice of paying the victims now or paying the lawyers forever.
Gray acknowledged the court case is one trial-level decision on its own facts and said the government is moving to work out settlements that will be fair to the victims, the churches, and Canadian taxpayers.
Gray acknowledges the court decision, notes it is one trial-level decision on its own facts, and says the government is working toward fair settlements â which engages the question but provides no specifics on timeline, scope, or what settlements look like.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the court case in question is one decision at the trial level. It stands on its own facts, but I say to the hon. member that we are moving to work out settlements in a way that will be fair, above all, to the victims, to the churches, and to Canadian taxpayers. I look forward to having my hon. friend's support for these continuing efforts.
Mayfield reiterated that the Saskatchewan court ruled it is the government, not the churches, that bears responsibility for residential school students, and again asked the government to settle these lawsuits now to save taxpayer money and help former students begin healing.
Mayfield presses the specific point from the Saskatchewan ruling that responsibility lies with the government not the churches, reinforces urgency with reference to thousands of former students struggling to survive, and repeats a clear ask to settle now.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has always been the legal guardian of every residential school student. It has frequently ignored this responsibility and continues to ignore its responsibility while dithering in the courts. Thousands of former students are struggling just to survive. The Saskatchewan court has ruled that it is the government, not the churches, that has responsibility. It is a responsibility it cannot cast off. Will the government settle these lawsuits now, save Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars and help former students begin the process of healing?
Gray said the Saskatchewan case does not apply across the whole spectrum of cases and is only one trial-level decision, denied that the government is dithering, and said it is working actively with the churches toward settlements.
Gray disputes the premise of the question by characterizing the Saskatchewan ruling as not applying across the whole spectrum of cases, accuses Mayfield of using unsuitable premises and politicizing the issue, and offers only the vague assurance that the government is working actively with the churches.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has finally slipped into the Alliance trap of having unsuitable premises. The case in question is not one that applies across the whole spectrum of cases. It is only one case at the trial division, but we are working to move toward settlements. We are not dithering. We are working actively with the churches. My hon. friend should work with me in expediting the issue instead of trying to politicize the issue.
How can the minister claim world leadership on reproductive technologies when he allowed the Baird commission recommendations to languish for seven years and has now introduced a draft bill that will defer any decision for yet another year?
The question cites a specific event (Geneva), a specific body (Baird commission), a specific delay (seven years), and a specific claim (draft bill delaying decisions another year), with an implicit but identifiable accountability ask about the contradiction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Geneva, the Minister of Health put forward the idea of drafting an international convention to ban reproductive technologies such as human cloning. How can the minister claim to be a world leader with respect to reproductive technologies, when we know that he allowed the recommendations of the Baird commission to languish for seven years before recently introducing a draft bill, which will put off any decision in this regard for yet another year?
The acting minister stated that the Minister of Health is working with global colleagues to develop a convention prohibiting cloning, a practice the government supports.
The answer acknowledges the minister's Geneva initiative and restates government support for banning cloning, but does not address the seven-year delay or the contradiction at the heart of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said that because of the importance of cloning, not only to Canada but to the rest of the world, he would be working with his colleagues across the globe to prepare and look at developing a convention among governments prohibiting this practice, one which we support as a government and I am sure all members of the House support.
Given a broad consensus in Canada that human cloning should be banned, why does the government not move quickly to introduce a bill to ban it rather than undertaking another year of consultations?
The question notes a broad consensus in Canada and makes a clear ask (introduce a bill to ban human cloning quickly), but frames it with some rhetorical framing about pointless consultations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that there is a broad consensus in Canada that human cloning should be banned, and another year of consultations is perfectly pointless. If the government seriously wishes to ban human cloning, why does it not move quickly to introduce a bill with that in mind?
The minister argued the issue is not partisan and requires broad input from Canadians at the provincial, municipal, and first nation levels before legislation proceeds.
The answer defends the consultation process and appeals to the importance of the issue, but does not address why a bill targeting only the ban cannot be introduced quickly given the stated consensus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious because of the importance of the issue that it is not a political or partisan issue but one that needs a lot of study and thought by Canadians in general. The objective of the draft piece of legislation and the proposal is to get input from all Canadians at the provincial level, at the municipal level, and at the first nation level. We would then go ahead with a consensus in the country on something as important as cloning of human beings.
Given a scathing report on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and a 1998 auditor general indictment, why is the chief commissioner travelling to Indonesia on an expensive junket rather than working on a plan of action?
The question cites a specific recent report, references a 1998 auditor general finding, and asks a concrete and specific question about why the chief commissioner is travelling to Indonesia instead of addressing the plan of action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a scathing report on the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been released, indicating that the commission is nearing collapse due to bitter infighting and turmoil. It is not the first time that the commission has come under indictment. In 1998 the auditor general rapped the commission for what it called a slew of problems. The chief commissioner says she has a plan of action to address the concerns. Could the minister tell the House why the chief commissioner is off to Indonesia on another of her well-known expensive junkets rather than working on a plan of action in Canada?
The minister commended the commission for commissioning the workplace study, noted she is reviewing recommendations from former Justice GĂ©rard La Forest, and said she will work with Madam Falardeau-Ramsay to address concerns.
The minister engages the topic of the report and mentions the La Forest committee recommendations, but does not address the specific question about the chief commissioner's travel to Indonesia.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Canadian Human Rights Commission for recognizing that it has a problem internal to the commission and to its management. I certainly commend it for initiating the workplace study, the report of which we became aware late last week. Let me reassure everyone in the House that we take the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission very seriously. I am reviewing the recommendations of former Justice GĂ©rard La Forest and his committee. They made recommendations for structural change. We are looking seriously at those and I will be working with Madam Falardeau-Ramsay and others to ensureâ
Given that the report found commission leadership should concentrate on promoting human rights in Canada rather than taking trips abroad, will the minister immediately advise the chief commissioner to come home and address the scathing report?
The question cites a specific finding from the report about leadership concentrating on promoting human rights at home, notes the suspension of a senior lawyer, and makes a concrete ask (advise the chief commissioner to return).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one of the findings of the recent report said that the commission leadership should concentrate on promoting human rights in Canada rather than on taking trips abroad. The only action thus far was the suspension of a senior lawyer who stated that the commission had lost its moral authority to act on cases. Will the minister immediately advise the chief commissioner to come home, stay at home and address this report's scathing indictment?
The minister said she has every confidence that senior management will address the concerns identified in the workplace study and pledged to work with the commission to ensure it is functioning, effective, and efficient.
The minister expresses confidence in senior management and pledges to work with the commission but does not address whether she will advise the chief commissioner to return from abroad or the suspension of the senior lawyer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that the senior management of the Canadian Human Rights Commission will address the serious concerns identified in the workplace study released last week. Let me again reassure the House that I will be working with the human rights commission to ensure that we have a functioning, effective and efficient commission that can concentrate on protecting the rights of all Canadians.
Could the Minister of National Defence explain how the Officership 2020 program will help Canadian Forces officers meet complex global security challenges expected by 2020?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that frames a policy context and asks the minister to describe the Officership 2020 program with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the global security situation is expected to be even more complex by the year 2020. Pockets of political instability are multiplying and disputes over human rights, arms control and economic reforms involve many nations and international bodies. If Canada is to function well in this unstable environment the full range of military, political, diplomatic and economic expertise and resources will be needed, including a strong officer corps. Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House how the Officership 2020 program will assist the officers of the Canadian forces to meet these challenges?
The minister described Officership 2020 as a blueprint for leadership and professional development, highlighting a personal enhancement program increasing educational reimbursement from $5,000 to $20,000 and an additional $19 million for post-graduate work.
The minister provides specific details including the personal enhancement program, the increase in reimbursement from $5,000 to $20,000, and the additional $19 million for post-graduate work, offering substantive information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Officership 2020 is a new blueprint for leadership and professional development for the Canadian forces. In fact our aim is to help make the Canadian forces into a learning organization. To that end we are putting a number of new programs in place: for example, a personal enhancement program that will increase the amount of reimbursement for educational courses from $5,000 up to $20,000, not just for officers but for all ranks of the Canadian forces. An additional $19 million is going into post-graduate work as well. All together we are helping to prepare our officers for the 21st century.
Why is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration deporting the Sklarzyk family of six from Poland when the apparent reason is an underpayment of $50 in fees?
The question grounds itself in specific facts about a named family (Sklarzyk), a specific administrative error ($50 underpayment), and asks a clear and direct accountability question about why the family is being deported.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration seems intent on deporting a family of six back to Poland. Mr. Sklarzyk filled out all the correct paperwork in his family's bid for refugee status and even paid what he thought was the full fee for entering Canada. In fact he actually underpaid his fee by $50. Two months ago the department of immigration notified them that they were being deported. I would like to ask the minister of immigration why Mr. Sklarzyk and his family are being deported.
The minister said she cannot discuss the case fully without a consent form and privacy release, denied that anyone is deported due to a $50 administrative error, and expressed hope the member supports due process and removing failed refugee claimants.
The minister invokes privacy legislation as a reason she cannot fully answer, deflects with a general claim that no one is deported for a $50 administrative error, and pivots to supporting due process and removal of failed claimants.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to give full details of the case if the member would give me a consent form and a release under privacy legislation. Until he does that I cannot answer his question as fully as I would like. I can tell him this: No one is deported from Canada because of a $50 administrative error. I am pleased however to hear that he and his party support due process. I also hope that they support our ability to be able to remove those people who are failed refugee claimants, those who have no reasonable right to stay in Canada and have had due process.
Given that the Sklarzyk family arrived in 1994, has two Canadian-born children, no criminal record, and a small business, is this not the kind of family Canada wants to keep?
The question adds specific facts (arrival in 1994, two Canadian-born children, no criminal record, small company started), but shifts to a rhetorical ask about whether this family represents the kind of people Canada wants.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these people came from Poland in 1994 initially on a refugee claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Two of their four children are Canadian born. There is no record of any illegal activity. Mr. Sklarzyk has even started a small company in Canada. I find it impossible to believe that the minister is less intent on deporting criminals than innocent families. Is the Sklarzyk family not the kind of people we want to bring into Canada?
The minister cited Bill C-11 as enabling faster removal of criminals and offered to review individual cases where representations are made, saying she is prepared to hear if someone should be given another opportunity.
The minister references Bill C-11 to address criminal removals but does not engage with the specific facts of the Sklarzyk case, instead offering a general offer to review individual representations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that Bill C-11 in fact expedites and allows us to remove criminals, those who have committed serious crimes in Canada and those who are inadmissible to Canada because of criminal activity, even faster. I will say to the member opposite that if he or any member of the House wants to make representation on an individual case where there is concern, I am always happy to share all the facts of the case and review that case to ensure that no one is improperly removed from this country. If they should be given another opportunity, I am certainly prepared to hear that.
Given a May 9 letter from Quebec's Minister of Transport noting that the federal government announced over $3 billion for Quebec highway infrastructure but made no mention of completing Highway 50, how much money will the minister commit to Highway 50?
The question cites a specific letter from the Quebec Minister of Transport dated May 9, references a $3 billion campaign commitment, and asks a concrete question about funding for Highway 50.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on May 9, the Quebec Minister of Transport wrote to his federal counterpart as follows: During the last election campaign, your government announced investments in excess of $3 billion for Quebec highway infrastructures. There was not even a mention of completing Highway 50. Can the minister make a commitment on Highway 50 and can he tell us how much money he is prepared to put into it, given the importance this project holds for the people of the Outaouais?
The minister cited $100 million invested in Highway 50 over the past 30 years and an existing $11 million project for its extension, asserting the federal government is doing its part.
The minister cites $100 million over 30 years and an $11 million extension project, which is relevant context, but does not address whether Highway 50 will receive funding from the $3 billion commitment referenced in the letter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past 30 years, we have invested $100 million in Highway 50 in Quebec. There is now an $11 million project for the extension of this highway. It is obvious that the federal government is really doing its part in constructing this country's highways.
Could the solicitor general tell the House what results Canadians can expect from the RCMP given the tools and budget increases provided to fight money laundering?
This is a government-backbench softball that recites government achievements and asks an open-ended question about what results Canadians can expect, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last year the federal government provided a host of tools to the RCMP to fight money laundering. It gave it a significant budget increase. It gave it tools. We also adopted money laundering legislation. Could the solicitor general tell us what results Canadians can expect from the RCMP, our national police force, with what it has been given?
The minister noted that as he spoke the RCMP was holding a news conference in Montreal on a major operation dismantling three international criminal organizations specializing in drug trafficking and money laundering.
The minister provides a timely and specific answer referencing an ongoing RCMP news conference in Montreal about dismantling three international criminal organizations specializing in drug trafficking and money laundering.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we speak the RCMP is holding another news conference in Montreal to highlight the conclusions of a major police operation aimed at dismantling illegal activities of three international criminal organizations specializing in drug trafficking and money laundering. This again highlights that when we give police forces the tools to do the job they do the job.
The Speaker drew the attention of the House to visitors in the gallery and members expressed approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Canadian Alliance) rose on a point of order to correct what she said was an incorrect statement by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who had used her name twice in the House and implied that the Canadian Alliance had conflicting views within caucus on the War Veterans Museum, stating that the caucus was in agreement.
- Canadian Alliance Ms. Cheryl Gallant
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only did the Minister of Canadian Heritage use my name twice in the House, she incorrectly stated facts. She made inference that the Canadian Alliance had conflicting views within the caucus on the point of the War Veterans Museum. I wish to say to that we do agree.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Lib) sought and received unanimous consent to withdraw Bill C-300, an act to amend the criminal code regarding the wearing of war decorations, from the order of precedence. Don Boudria also rose to designate Thursday, May 17 as an allotted day.
- Lib Mr. Stan Dromisky
- Some hon. members
- Lib Don Boudria
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent of the House to have Bill C-300, an act to amend the criminal code, wearing of war decorations, standing in my name on the order of precedence withdrawn and the order discharged.
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to designate Thursday, May 17, an allotted day.