Session overview
- The dominant theme of Question Period was anti-terrorism legislation, refugee and immigration security screening, and whether Canada was a safe haven for terrorists, with the Canadian Alliance and Bloc Québécois pressing the government from different angles.
- The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration repeatedly defended the refugee screening system—fingerprinting, photographing, and multi-hour interviews—while the Canadian Alliance challenged its adequacy, citing RCMP counterterrorism warnings and the case of Nabil Al-Marabh.
- The Bloc Québécois focused on civil liberties concerns in Bill C-36, specifically pressing for sunset clauses on provisions such as preventive arrest and questioning the breadth of the definition of terrorist activity after a Liberal cabinet colleague reportedly compared summit demonstrators to terrorists.
- Bioterrorism preparedness was challenged by PC/DR and Canadian Alliance members, who questioned whether Canada Post employees and Canada Customs officers had adequate training and guidelines on handling suspicious mail and anthrax threats.
- Fiscal questions arose regarding whether the government's social spending commitments—including housing, aboriginal programs, and poverty reduction—would survive the reordering of priorities caused by September 11 and increased security spending.
- The Bloc raised concerns about the Communications Security Establishment's electronic surveillance activities operating without a specific act of parliament, while a parliamentary secretary asserted CSE operates within existing Canadian law including the Criminal Code and the Charter.
The Minister of Transport made a specific, concrete commitment that the $55.7 million in enhanced electronic security equipment would be deployed first to the major international airports with the highest passenger inflows and then extended to as many airports as practicable.
The question directly quotes subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act and asks the minister to justify the new power, specifically alleging it bypasses the information commissioner and enables censorship.
When asked why intelligence about Ahmed Sa'id Al-Kadr's terrorist record was not shared with the Prime Minister before he intervened on Al-Kadr's behalf, MacAulay gave only the non-responsive assertion that the Prime Minister asked for 'due course be taken,' without addressing the intelligence-sharing failure at all.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Kevin Sorenson asked whether false documents created in Canada were used by the September 11 hijackers in connection with the RCMP raid on the print shop linked to Nabil Al-Marabh — the Solicitor General refused to answer on grounds of an ongoing investigation.
- Mr. Brian Pallister asked what good it is to expand intelligence services when the government failed to act on existing intelligence about Ahmed Sa'id Al-Kadr, Human Concern International, the Tamil Tigers, and Ahmed Ressam — no substantive answer was provided.
- Mr. Art Hanger asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for a specific assurance that Muhammad Sabir (Hussein Shafquat) would not be released and that his status would be revoked — the minister declined to give any case-specific assurance.
- Mr. Claude Bachand asked the government to confirm whether the Communications Security Establishment's interception of telecommunications is currently governed by any act of parliament — the parliamentary secretary's response cited general laws but did not confirm or deny the absence of a specific enabling statute.
- Mr. Michel Bellehumeur asked whether the Minister of Finance could guarantee that none of the $30 billion that left Canada for OECD-recognized tax havens was used to finance terrorism — the minister stated he simply did not have that information.
Hill cited Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the RCMP's counterterrorism section describing a pattern of false refugee claimants committing fraud to finance terrorism, and asked what measures the government has taken to prevent this.
Cites a specific named RCMP officer, a specific conference, and a specific described pattern, with a clear ask about government measures taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the RCMP's counterterrorism section said at a conference on money laundering in Montreal that terrorists in Canada follow a pattern. First they apply for refugee status. Then they apply for welfare and health cards. Next they get involved in theft and financial crime. Finally they try to launder the money through legal businesses. What measures has the government taken to prevent false refugee claimants from committing their crimes in Canada?
Caplan dismissed the premise as 'myth,' stated that the overwhelming majority of refugee claimants are known, working, and paying taxes, and defended Canada's humanitarian and rule-of-law traditions.
The minister dismisses the RCMP officer's remarks as 'myth' and pivots to general statistics about refugees, never addressing the specific measures taken to prevent the described criminal pattern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the first thing it is important for us to deal with is fact and not myth, whether it is a member opposite or an officer of the RCMP. The facts are these. For the overwhelming majority of people who come to Canada and make a refugee claim, we know who they are and we know where they are. They are working. They are paying taxes. They are undergoing intensive security screening. There are those who would like to see them detained or forced underground. In this country we honour our humanitarian traditions as well as the rule of law.
Hill pressed the minister on why she would not believe the RCMP's own counterterrorism force, which identified false refugee claims combined with fraud and theft as the modus operandi for terrorist cells in Canada.
References the RCMP's counterterrorism force and labels the pattern as 'modus operandi for terrorist cells,' pressing for a specific response, though the ask remains somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not believe the RCMP, who does she believe? Its own counterterrorism force says that false refugee claimants committing fraud and theft in Canada is the modus operandi for terrorist cells in Canada. Her actions to date have done nothing to prevent this. How can the government claim it is doing enough to stop terrorism when it still will not deal with this problem at its roots?
Caplan described the intake procedure for refugee claimants — fingerprints, photograph, interview of three to four hours — and stated that those suspected of being security risks are detained.
Caplan provides some procedural detail (fingerprints, photograph, interviews of three to four hours, detention on suspicion) but still does not address the fraud and theft financing aspect raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again let me say that it is extremely important for the member to know the facts. The fact of the matter is that when someone arrives in Canada and makes a refugee claim, the first thing that we do is take his or her fingerprints. The next thing is a photograph. We then have an interview and right now those interviews are taking three to four hours. Wherever we have evidence to suspect that someone is a security risk he or she is detained. The overwhelming majority of people who come to Canada asking for protection are working and paying taxes. We know who they are and where they are.
Hill asked why the anti-terrorism bill does not provide police with the tools required to ensure that terrorists do not abuse Canada's refugee system to finance their activities, as warned by the RCMP.
Connects the RCMP warning to a specific legislative vehicle (the anti-terrorism bill) and asks a clear question about missing tools, though it somewhat repeats the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has warned this government that terrorist cells in Canada are hiding behind false refugee claims and committing theft and fraud in order to finance their activities. Why does the anti-terrorism bill not provide police with the tools they require in order to ensure that terrorists do not abuse our country's generosity?
MacAulay stated that those who break the law are arrested by police forces and that the government has provided funds, manpower, and technology to keep the country safe.
MacAulay deflects entirely, stating only that police can arrest lawbreakers and that the government has given funds, manpower, and technology, without addressing the specific question about tools in the anti-terrorism bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is not indicating that anybody can enter this country and break the law if he or she so wishes. My hon. colleague is well aware that if people break the law we have police forces that arrest them. We have given the funds, the manpower and the technology to make sure this country remains safe.
Toews asked how the justice minister intends to deal with deportation of dangerous terrorists when she has failed to include necessary provisions in her tabled legislation, contrasting it with American anti-terrorist legislation.
References American anti-terrorist legislation and identifies a specific gap (deportation provisions) in the tabled legislation, though the comparison lacks precise citation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned that the Liberal government has allowed Canada to become a safe haven for terrorists. American anti-terrorist legislation specifically deals with issues relating to the deportation of dangerous terrorists. How does the justice minister intend to deal with this serious problem when she has failed to include the necessary provisions in the legislation she has tabled?
Caplan pointed to Bill C-11, which eliminates the right of appeal to the immigration appeal division for security threats, and noted that the opposition voted on June 4 to restore those appeal rights.
Caplan counters with a specific reference to Bill C-11 and the June 4 vote, which is relevant context but does not directly address what deportation provisions are missing from the justice minister's legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in Bill C-11 we have actually eliminated the right to an appeal of the immigration appeal division for those who pose a security threat to Canada. Do members know what happened on June 4? That member and members of the opposition voted to restore the appeal rights to make it more difficult for us to pursue those who pose a security threat to Canada. That is the fact.
Toews attacked the minister's record and asked how she could offer assurance that terrorists will be deported quickly and efficiently.
Dominated by partisan attack ('done nothing for years,' 'refuses to apply') with only a vague implied ask about deportation assurances, lacking specific factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a minister who has done nothing for years. This is a minister who continues to stand and try to get Canadians to believe that she has done something, and she has done nothing. She has failed to put legal principles in place. How can this minister offer Canadians any assurance that terrorists will be deported from Canada quickly and efficiently and not according to the standards that she refuses to apply?
Caplan stated that Bill C-11, currently before the Senate, streamlines procedures by denying access to the IRB and removing appeal rights, and reiterated that the opposition voted against the bill and tried to reinstate appeal rights.
Caplan again cites Bill C-11's specific provisions (denying access to the IRB, removing appeal rights) and the opposition's contrary vote, which is substantively relevant even if the tone is partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, which is before the Senate at this time, does exactly what the member opposite is saying today that he would like to see happen: streamline our procedures and make it more easy and more efficient for us to be able to remove those by denying access to the IRB and by removing appeal rights. They voted against the bill. Further, they tried to reinstate appeal rights for security tests to Canada. They cannot have it both ways.
Duceppe cited two direct Prime Minister quotes about extraordinary legislation and protecting freedom, then asked whether the Minister of Justice would acknowledge that there should be a time limit on certain clauses of the anti-terrorism bill.
Duceppe quotes the Prime Minister directly twice and asks a precise question about sunset clauses on certain clauses of the anti-terrorism bill, grounding it in the PM's own stated openness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated yesterday, and I quote “If any piece of extraordinary legislation should no longer be necessary, there should be a requirement for it to be withdrawn”. The Prime Minister also specified, and rightly so, that some elements of the anti-terrorism bill should be maintained. I am referring to Canada's adherence to the latest conventions on terrorism, for example. Given the Prime Minister's openness, will the Minister of Justice acknowledge that there should be a time limit on certain clauses of the anti-terrorism bill?
McLellan said both she and the Prime Minister look forward to committee discussion on whether the review mechanism in the legislation is appropriate, and acknowledged that reasonable people of good faith might disagree and suggest other approaches.
McLellan acknowledges openness to committee discussion on review mechanisms and concedes reasonable people may disagree, but does not commit to or reject sunset clauses specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, both the Prime Minister and I have indicated that we look forward to a discussion at committee on whether the review mechanism in the legislation is appropriate. We believe it is. Obviously we believe it is the appropriate mechanism in relation to the entire legislative package before the House. However, I am the first to concede that reasonable people of good faith might disagree on this and might be able to offer the government their best advice as to other approaches.
Duceppe quoted the Prime Minister on protecting freedom and asked the minister to acknowledge that sunset clauses are necessary, particularly for preventive arrest provisions, and to clearly indicate a time limit on certain clauses.
Again quotes the Prime Minister and narrows the ask to a specific mechanism — sunset clauses — on specific provisions such as preventive arrest, making it a focused and answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, speaking of different approaches, I would like to refer once again to what the Prime Minister said regarding the need to protect freedom. He said, and I quote “that even in the wake of September 11 we can live our lives on our terms, according to our values”. In order to show that we value freedom, will the minister acknowledge that sunset clauses are necessary, particularly in the case of preventive arrest, and will she clearly indicate our intentions in this bill by stating that there is a time limit on certain clauses?
McLellan stated that the legislation is fully compliant with the charter of rights and freedoms and said she looks forward to committee discussion on possible review mechanisms.
McLellan defends the bill's charter compliance and mentions committee discussion on review mechanisms but does not address sunset clauses or preventive arrest specifically, leaving the core ask unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously our responsibility to ensure we do not put forward in the House legislation that violates any of our important values or principles, including those found in the charter of rights and freedoms. That is why we believe our anti-terrorism legislation is fully compliant with the charter of rights and freedoms. However, as I have said, I have no doubt there will be discussion at committee in terms of possible review mechanisms. I look forward to that discussion.
Gauthier pointed to a cabinet colleague who compared Quebec City summit demonstrators to terrorists as evidence that the vague definitions in Bill C-36 invite abuse, and asked the minister to tighten them.
References a specific event (a cabinet colleague comparing Quebec City summit demonstrators to terrorists) to challenge the breadth of the definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36, making a concrete case for tightening definitions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our fears about the danger of agreeing to overly vague and sweeping definitions in Bill C-36 were confirmed. One of the minister's cabinet colleagues compared the demonstrators at the Quebec City summit to terrorists. With an example like that, does the minister not realize that all manner of abuses are possible and that she should tighten up the definitions in her bill?
McLellan stated that the definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 was carefully crafted to exclude lawful protest activity, and that the legislation targets activity whose motivation and purpose is terror.
McLellan states the definition was carefully crafted to exclude lawful protest activity and focuses on the intent of terror, but does not address the specific cabinet colleague's comment or explain why the definition is tight enough to prevent such interpretations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 has been very carefully crafted to ensure that we do not apply these provisions to lawful protest activity. I would ask the hon. member to keep in mind that the activity we are focusing on, the centre of this legislation, the objective of this legislation, is to attack activity, the motivation of which and the purpose of which is terror.
Gauthier asked how thousands of police officers, secret agents, and security personnel could be expected to correctly interpret definitions in the bill when Liberal caucus members themselves cannot, and called for clearer definitions.
Presses the logical consequence of a Liberal caucus member misinterpreting the definitions, asking a reasonably specific question about clarity for enforcement personnel, though it partially repeats Exchange 8.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister can keep telling us that these definitions are just fine, but when a member of the Liberal caucus interprets them as meaning that demonstrators are terrorists, what is going to happen when thousands of police officers, secret agents and security personnel interpret the definitions in the proposed legislation, if the Liberals themselves cannot sort them out? Should she not be more prudent and define things more clearly?
McLellan reiterated that lawful protest activity is fully protected in the legislation and asked the member to focus on activities whose goal or intention is to create terror.
McLellan simply restates that lawful protest activity is fully protected and refocuses on terror intent, without addressing the concern about how thousands of enforcement personnel will interpret the definitions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, lawful protest activity is fully protected in this legislation. I ask the hon. member again to focus on what we are truly getting at here, which is those activities, the goal or the intention of which is to create terror.
Blaikie asked when the Minister of Finance would bring in a budget to show how the government will keep its commitments on aboriginal people, poverty, and the environment while also spending extra money combating terrorism.
Raises a legitimate concern about prior commitments on aboriginal people, poverty, and the environment being sidelined by terrorism spending, and asks a reasonably specific question about a budget timeline, though it is somewhat diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with what we all know to be the case, that is the extra moneys that have to be spent combating terrorism. A lot of us on this side, and perhaps on the other side, are concerned that other commitments the government has made with respect to aboriginal people, fighting poverty, the environment, et cetera, not go by the wayside. Could the Minister of Finance tell us when he will bring in a budget to display to us that they will keep these commitments and how they will keep these commitments?
Martin stated the government remains loyal to its commitments, confirmed national security is a number one priority, and said he will bring down either a budget or a fiscal statement once he has all the facts.
Martin affirms the government's loyalty to its commitments, acknowledges national security as a priority, and states he will bring down either a budget or a fiscal statement when he has all the facts — partial but substantive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to bring in a budget to tell the hon. member and the House that the government remains loyal to its commitments and to its obligations. There is no doubt the events of September 11 have certainly changed some of the priorities. National security is a number one priority. We will provide the funding that is required to protect Canadians. As the hon. member knows full well, I will be bringing down either a budget or a fiscal statement. I am very open to bringing down a budget, but I want to make sure I have all the facts at hand before doing so.
Blaikie asked whether the minister would consider eliminating tax cuts for the very comfortable and wealthy as a way to pay for anti-terrorism costs instead of cutting social spending.
Makes a specific policy ask — eliminating tax cuts for the very comfortable and wealthy — as a financing alternative to cutting social spending, with a clear underlying accountability question about fairness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned about and I hope the minister would be concerned about is that the financial burden of fighting terrorism be distributed fairly. In his economic or fiscal statement, or budget we hope, will the minister give consideration to eliminating some of the tax cuts that he brought in for the very comfortable and wealthy in the country, as one of the ways we could pay for this instead of cutting social spending?
Martin argued that the tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited medium and low income Canadians, citing the national child benefit and indexation, and declined to cancel those measures.
Martin defends the tax cuts by characterizing them as primarily benefiting medium and low income Canadians, citing the national child benefit and indexation, which addresses the premise but not the specific ask about reversing cuts for higher earners.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should go back and take a look at what those tax cuts did. Overwhelmingly, those tax cuts were for medium income and low income Canadians. For example, the national child benefit was substantially increased. That was for medium and low income families with children. The whole question of indexation, which protects Canadians against taxation by stealth and which provides low income Canadians with a guarantee that they will live comfortably, we are not going to cancel that.
Strahl cited the solicitor general's October 4 claim that CSIS has all the tools it needs, contrasted it with the CSIS head's admission of affordability constraints and the foreign affairs minister's call for a permanent foreign intelligence agency, and asked whether such an agency will be established.
Cites a specific October 4 statement by the solicitor general, quotes the current head of CSIS on affordability constraints, and notes the foreign affairs minister's contradiction, with a clear ask about creating a permanent foreign intelligence agency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on October 4 the solicitor general told the House that CSIS has all the tools it needs to gather intelligence abroad, yet the current head of CSIS admits that he can collect intelligence abroad only when he can afford to do so. Now the foreign affairs minister has flat out contradicted the solicitor general by saying that to protect Canadians we need to establish a permanent, foreign intelligence agency. Will the solicitor general take the advice of the foreign affairs minister and get the mandate and the money to create a permanent foreign intelligence gathering agency?
Manley clarified that he had raised whether Canada's foreign intelligence gathering capacity needs to be increased as a question for the committee to consider, acknowledged existing but limited capacity in current agencies, and said no decision has been taken.
Manley corrects the framing, clarifies that a committee is examining foreign intelligence capacity, and acknowledges existing but limited capacity, engaging the substance but not directly answering whether a permanent agency will be created.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has it wrong. I have said that one of the issues that we need to consider in our committee that is doing extensive work on a whole range of issues is the degree to which Canada has capacity in foreign intelligence gathering and whether that needs to be increased. Many are arguing that it should be, but the committee certainly has not taken a view on that. In any event, there are foreign intelligence gathering capacities in existing agencies. They are not equivalent to a full scale foreign intelligence gathering service however.
MacKay noted Canada is the only G-7 nation without a foreign intelligence agency and that CSIS has been significantly downsized since 1993, then asked how many foreign officers trained to collect intelligence are working overseas with relevant cultural, geographic, and language skills.
States a specific comparative fact (Canada is the only G-7 nation without a foreign intelligence agency), references CSIS downsizing since 1993, and asks a precise operational question about the number of trained foreign intelligence officers overseas.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G-7 nation that does not have a foreign intelligence agency and since 1993 CSIS has been downsized significantly. If the solicitor general does not know that he should. We need a greater international understanding of external threats through an increased intelligence gathering capacity. Could the solicitor general tell the House how many foreign officers trained to collect intelligence are working overseas and how many have cultural awareness, geographic and language skills to integrate into foreign communities?
Manley accepted the preamble as a recommendation the government will take into account, but declined to provide numbers and suggested that a full-scale foreign intelligence agency would not necessarily have prevented September 11 even with reference to the CIA.
Manley declines to provide any numbers, accepts the preamble as a recommendation, then deflects by questioning whether even a well-funded agency like the CIA could have prevented September 11.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take the preamble of the member's question as a recommendation and I can assure him that the government will take it into account. However, I do not think we need to look very far to realize that a full scale, highly funded foreign intelligence agency is not the only solution to the problems that exist with respect to terrorism. If so, perhaps the CIA would have prevented the attacks on September 11.
Sorenson asked the minister to confirm whether false documents created in Canada, linked to evidence found in an RCMP raid on a print shop connected to Nabil Al-Marabh, were used by the September 11 hijackers.
Names Nabil Al-Marabh specifically, cites his bail release in July, his subsequent US arrest in connection with September 11, and an RCMP raid on a print shop, asking a precise confirmable question about false documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Nabil Al-Marabh was released on bail in Canada in July. He has since been arrested in the United States in connection with the September 11 attacks. A few weeks ago the RCMP raided a print shop and found evidence linked to Marabh. Will the minister confirm whether false documents created in Canada were used by the September 11 hijackers?
MacAulay stated that CSIS and the RCMP are working around the clock with the FBI to bring terrorists to justice, and said he cannot disclose information about an ongoing investigation.
MacAulay states that CSIS and the RCMP are working with the FBI and that he cannot disclose information about an investigation, which is a standard but somewhat legitimate refusal rather than a substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is aware, and I have mentioned it many times in the House, that CSIS and the RCMP are working around the clock with the FBI to make sure that these terrorists are brought to justice. I am sure my hon. colleague is fully aware that I cannot disclose information about an investigation. It would be totally inappropriate.
Sorenson asked why the minister will not give simple, factual answers about the state of terrorism investigations in Canada, comparing this to John Ashcroft's regular briefings and Tony Blair's practice of publishing evidence.
References John Ashcroft's public briefings and Tony Blair's published evidence as comparators, asking why the minister will not give factual answers about Canadian investigations — a legitimate accountability question but framed with some rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we brought information to the House repeatedly to show Canadians that the country is being used as a safe haven for terrorists. In the United States John Ashcroft gives regular briefings about the investigation going on in the United States. Prime Minister Tony Blair takes his evidence and puts it on the website. Why will this minister not give simple, factual answers about the state of investigations here in Canada. Is he aware?
MacAulay noted that he held a worldwide-covered news conference with John Ashcroft, at which Ashcroft himself explained that disclosing investigation information would destroy the investigation.
MacAulay cites his own news conference with Ashcroft and notes that Ashcroft himself said he could not disclose investigation details because it would destroy the investigation — relevant but partially deflects by using Ashcroft as a shield.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is probably aware, I did meet with the attorney general of the United States, John Ashcroft. We had a news conference that was covered worldwide. He was asked questions about investigations. Mr. Ashcroft explained quite clearly to the public that he could not disclose information about investigations because all it would do would be destroy the investigation.
Why is the new discretionary power in the anti-terrorism act to withhold information necessary when the Access to Information Act already allows the minister to withhold records threatening national security?
The question cites the existing Access to Information Act directly and asks a precise comparative question about why the new ministerial certificate power is necessary given existing statutory authority.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that the provision in the anti-terrorism act giving her discretionary power to withhold information from the public is necessary in the interests of national security. How can the minister justify this provision, when the current Access to Information Act already allows her to withhold any record which could threaten national security?
McLellan said the new legislation supplements existing provisions and that a ministerial certificate is needed to ensure certain information is not disclosed in judicial or other public forums, partly to satisfy allies.
McLellan acknowledges the new provision supplements existing law and explains the certificate mechanism but does not directly address why existing Access to Information Act exemptions are insufficient.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is supplementing existing provisions in access to information. As I have indicated to the hon. member before, it is very important, not only for us but for our allies, to ensure that certain information is not disclosed in a public forum, judicial or otherwise. In our new legislation we propose that I be able to issue a certificate to ensure that in certain limited circumstances certain kinds of information will not be made available to the public. I think that is important to ensure our national security.
Given that subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act already allows refusal to disclose information injurious to Canada's defence or allied states, how can the minister justify the new arbitrary power unless it is to sidestep the information commissioner and open the door to government censorship?
The question directly quotes subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act and asks the minister to justify the new power, specifically alleging it bypasses the information commissioner and enables censorship.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act provides, and I quote: The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could ... be injurious to... the defence of Canada or any state allied ... with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities. How can the minister justify this arbitrary power, unless it is to sidestep the information commissioner and thus open the door wide to government censorship?
McLellan said allies will not share confidential information unless guaranteed it will not be disclosed in judicial or other proceedings, and that the anti-terrorism bill provision addresses this need.
McLellan explains the rationale around ally-provided confidential information but does not address the specific allegation about sidestepping the information commissioner or the quoted statutory text.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are certain limited circumstances in which highly confidential information should not be disclosed in a judicial or other proceeding. This information, in many cases, is provided to us by our allies. In fact, they will not provide us with information that may help us in judicial or other investigations unless we can provide them with a guarantee of confidentiality. That is what the provision in the anti-terrorism bill speaks to. I would hope that the hon. member would understand why this is so important in our global--
Given that Foreign Affairs officials and CIDA knew Al-Kadr was running Saudi money to terrorists, yet the Prime Minister claims he did not know of Al-Kadr's terrorist record when he intervened in 1995, what good is intelligence if it is not shared with the Prime Minister?
The question cites specific facts about Ahmed Sa'id Al-Kadr's 1995 arrest, the Prime Minister's intervention, and alleged prior knowledge by foreign affairs officials and CIDA, with an identifiable ask about intelligence sharing with the Prime Minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, Canadian Ahmed Sa'id Al-Kadr was arrested in Pakistan for financing a terrorist bombing and the Prime Minister intervened on his behalf. Foreign affairs officials and CIDA both knew in the 1980s that Al-Kadr was running Saudi money to terrorists in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister says that he did not know of Mr. Al-Kadr's terrorist record. The Prime Minister was the last to know that the man he went to bat for was a terrorist. What good is intelligence if it is not shared with the Prime Minister?
MacAulay said the Prime Minister asked that due course be taken, as he would in any case.
MacAulay's answer is essentially a one-sentence non-answer stating the Prime Minister asked for due course, completely failing to address the intelligence-sharing question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what our Prime Minster asked is what he would ask in any case, that due course be taken. That is how the Prime Minister acts.
Given that the government knew about Al-Kadr, Ahmed Ressam, and the Tamil Tigers before acting, and that allies have frozen Human Concern International's assets, what good is expanding intelligence services when the government will not act on the intelligence it already has?
The question lists several specific cases (Al-Kadr, Ahmed Ressam, Tamil Tigers dinner) as evidence of a pattern but the overall ask is broad and rhetorical about why intelligence is not acted upon.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is soft on terrorism. Our allies have frozen the assets of Al-Kadr's former front organization, Human Concern International, and the government still will not act. The government knew the Tamil Tigers were a front for terrorists before the finance minister dined with them. The government knew that Ahmed Ressam was a terrorist before he tried to bomb an airport. The government knew Al-Kadr was a terrorist before the Prime Minister went to bat for him. What good is expanding intelligence services in this country when the government will not act on the intelligence it already has?
Manley stated that Human Concern International does not appear on any of five relevant lists: the U.S. October 12 audit list, the September 24 executive order schedule, the State Department's foreign terrorist organizations list, the Treasury's specially designated persons list, or the FBI's most wanted list.
Manley directly addresses the Human Concern International allegation by citing five specific lists on which the organization does not appear, providing concrete factual rebuttal to that element of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have a lot of interesting information but so far Human Concern International is an agency that does not appear on any of the following lists, which are really all the lists that anyone is considering: the 39 individuals and groups that were audited by the U.S. on October 12; the schedule of the recent executive order dated September 24; the state department's list of foreign terrorist organizations; the department of treasury's list of those specially designated persons; and the FBI's most wanted list. What list are they on?
Citing the Minister of National Defence's statement that substantial safeguards and regulations exist, what legislation enables the centre to carry out electronic surveillance at the present time?
The question is precise, references a prior ministerial quote from the previous day, and asks a specific narrow legal question: what legislation enables the centre to carry out electronic surveillance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question as to whether national security would be better served by giving a judge the responsibility to decide whether or not electronic surveillance is required, the Minister of National Defence said, and I quote, “We do have substantial safeguards and regulations for how this is done”. Can the minister tell us what legislation enables the centre to carry out electronic surveillance at the present time?
O'Reilly described the authority to intercept communications as targeted at foreign entities to protect electronic infrastructure of importance to the Government of Canada, and stated it is not used to spy on Canadians.
O'Reilly describes the scope and purpose of the interception authority but never identifies what legislation currently enables the centre to carry out electronic surveillance, which was the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the new authority to intercept communication is for targeted foreign entities and to protect electronic information and information and infrastructure that are of importance to the Government of Canada. It is not to spy on Canadians. Its mandate is enunciated and limited. It collects activities that are prescribed. It ensures the privacy of Canadians. It is targeted to foreign entities only.
Can the government confirm that the centre's activities, particularly its interception of telecommunications, are not currently governed by any act of parliament and that parliament has no control over the centre?
The question asks the government to confirm a specific and pointed claim — that CSE's telecommunications interception activities are not currently governed by any act of parliament — making it a clear and direct accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty complicated statement. Can the government confirm that, at this time, the centre's activities, particularly its interception of telecommunications, are not governed by any act of parliament? Let them confess that parliament has no control over the centre at this time. Let the minister admit that.
O'Reilly asserted that CSE operates within Canadian law including the Criminal Code, Canadian Human Rights Act, Privacy Act, and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that a commissioner — former Chief Justice Claude Bisson — was appointed in 1996 and reappointed to review its activities.
O'Reilly names specific legislation (Criminal Code, Canadian Human Rights Act, Privacy Act, Charter) and mentions the commissioner appointed in 1996 and reappointed by the Prime Minister, engaging the substance though not directly confirming or denying whether a specific CSE-enabling statute exists.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that CSE operates within the law of Canada. It includes abiding by the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The commissioner was appointed in 1996. He is the hon. Claude Bisson, former chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal. He was reappointed by the Prime Minister. His mandate is to review the activities and to ensure that they comply with all Canadian law.
Given that 73 people claim refugee status every day and 26,708 did last year, many being undocumented arrivals of questionable identity and origin, how is the system safer by continuing to allow these arrivals to roam in communities?
The question cites a specific statistic (73 refugee claims per day, 26,708 last year) but the ask is somewhat vague — about the safety of releasing undocumented arrivals — blending facts with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about lists, the foreign affairs minister should check the U.K. and the FBI lists. The citizenship and immigration minister's data reveals that 73 people claim refugee status every day of the year, 26,708 people last year. Many are undocumented arrivals of questionable identity and origin. How is the system any safer today by continuing to allow the release of these surprise arrivals to just roam in our communities?
Caplan said anyone making a refugee claim is immediately fingerprinted, photographed, and interviewed, and that concerns about security, identity, or non-appearance are grounds for detention which is applied whenever such evidence exists.
Caplan directly challenges the premise with a clear process description (fingerprinting, photographing, interview, security-based detention), addressing the safety concern raised, though not engaging the volume-of-claims pressure argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is incorrect. Anyone who shows up and makes a refugee claim in Canada is fingerprinted and photographed immediately, and an interview is conducted. If there is any concern regarding security, identity or that they might not show up for their hearing, that is grounds for detention. Whenever we have that kind of evidence we do detain. If we know who the person is and we are not concerned that he or she poses a security risk, we do not detain.
When will the minister stop undocumented claimants without proper security clearance from freely roaming in society, given that the system is swamped to its capacity to properly screen for safety?
The question makes a general claim that the system is swamped without citing new specific data, and the ask — to stop undocumented claimants from roaming — is more a political demand than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is a great disconnect from what the law allows and what is actually happening in practice. The problem is the minister fails to acknowledge the increasing pressure on our system. Our system is in fact swamped to its capacity to properly screen for safety. When will the minister stop all these undocumented claimants without proper security clearance from just freely roaming in our society?
Caplan accused the member of giving a false impression to frighten Canadians and reiterated that every refugee claimant must satisfy an immigration officer regarding identity, security, and appearance, with detention applied where warranted, and noted intensified measures since September 11.
Caplan dismisses the premise as false and accuses the member of frightening Canadians rather than addressing the capacity-pressure argument, then restates the detention process without engaging the 'swamped' claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the member opposite, by giving this false impression, is trying to frighten Canadians, give them the impression that there are people who are not properly identified, that we do not know who they are and that we have concerns that they are a security risk to Canada. That is just simply not true. Everyone who makes a refugee claim at a port of entry or inland in Canada must satisfy the immigration officer that they do not pose a threat, that we know their identity and that they will appear for their hearing or they will be detained. Since September 11 we have intensified--
What is Canada doing to help Afghan refugees and support the people of Afghanistan in building a secure, peaceful, truly democratic society in the aftermath of September 11?
This is a government-backbench softball question with no accountability dimension, simply asking the minister to describe what Canada is doing on Afghan refugees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House about the importance of helping the poor and the Afghan refugees in the aftermath of September 11, and my constituents agree. Canadians know that our security and the long term security in the region depend on the people of Afghanistan building a secure, peaceful, truly democratic society that cares for all its citizens. Could the Minister for International Co-operation say what Canada is doing to help achieve that international goal?
Minna said Canada has provided $6 million for immediate emergency assistance, deployed a special team on the ground to coordinate logistics to get food into Afghanistan before winter, and is in contact with Unicef, the Red Cross, and the UNHCR.
Minna provides concrete information: $6 million committed, a special team on the ground for logistics coordination, and direct contact with Unicef, the Red Cross, and UNHCR, making it a reasonably substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, Canada has been involved in Afghanistan for some time. We have provided $6 million to assist with the immediate emergency. We also have a special team on the ground to reinforce our ability to co-ordinate with logistics, because it is very important to ensure that we get food into Afghanistan prior to the onset of winter. This work is very difficult and that is why I am in contact with Unicef and have just had discussions with the Red Cross and the UNHCR on this situation.
On the international day to eradicate poverty, will the finance minister make a clear commitment to provide financial resources for a national not for profit housing program and for proper resources to address the appalling conditions in which aboriginal people live?
The question cites the international day to eradicate poverty and five million Canadians below the poverty line, and makes two specific asks — a national not for profit housing program and proper resources for aboriginal people — though it is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Minister of Finance said that the government would be loyal to its social spending commitments which, I might add, are incredibly modest, but in the next breath he said that changing priorities will happen because of September 11. On this international day to eradicate poverty, there is huge concern that the government will turn a blind eye to the five million Canadians who live below the poverty line. I would like to ask the finance minister to make a clear commitment to provide the financial resources for a national not for profit housing program and for proper resources to deal with the appalling conditions in which aboriginal people live in this country. Is that--
Martin cited the government's record: aboriginal funding was increased rather than cut in 1995, the national child benefit is at a record level, and transfers to provinces for health care, education, and equalization are at record levels.
Martin does not address the two specific asks (national not for profit housing program or aboriginal conditions) and instead lists past government achievements on aboriginal funding, national child benefit, and transfers, deflecting from the forward-looking commitments requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 when the government brought down the deficit busting budget the one piece of funding that was never cut and was in fact increased was funding for aboriginal Canadians for health care and aboriginal housing. The fact is that the government has brought in the most far reaching piece of new legislation in terms of helping young families with children. The national child benefit has now arrived at a record level. Our transfers to the provinces for health care and education are at a record level. Our transfers in terms of equalization for basic services today are at a record level. That is what the government--
Now that harvest data shows realized net farm income will plummet by more than 70% in Saskatchewan and P.E.I. and 32% overall, how does the government intend to respond to this latest agricultural crisis?
The question cites specific data — realized net farm income plummeting by more than 70% in Saskatchewan and P.E.I. and 32% overall — and references the minister's own prior commitment to wait for harvest numbers before assessing damage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a similar vein the agriculture minister has said he would wait until this year's crop was harvested before assessing the damage. The numbers are in and without doubt there is another disaster looming in rural Canada. According to the data, realized net farm income will plummet by more than 70% this year in two critically important agricultural provinces, Saskatchewan and P.E.I., and by 32% overall across Canada. Now that he is armed with the facts will the minister inform the House how the government intends to respond to this latest agricultural crisis?
Vanclief disputed the member's figures, asserting that realized net farm income in Canada this year will be the highest in a number of years and that program payments through net income stabilization, crop insurance and other programs will be close to $4 billion, also the highest in years.
Vanclief disputes the data directly, stating realized net farm income will be the highest in years and citing program payments of close to $4 billion, but does not announce any new response to the agricultural situation the member characterized as a crisis.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions being armed with the facts. I think he should go back and read the facts. The realized net farm income in Canada this year will be the highest it has been in a number of years. Program payments through programs such as net income stabilization, crop insurance and other program payments will be close to $4 billion, the highest they have been in a number of years. Those are the facts.
Will the minister of public works immediately instruct Canada Post to follow the lead of U.S. postal authorities and issue clear guidelines for Canadians on how to handle suspicious letters or packages?
The question cites a specific comparable action by U.S. postal authorities and makes a clear, actionable ask: will the minister instruct Canada Post to issue clear guidelines for Canadians on handling suspicious mail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, U.S. postal authorities have taken the precaution of informing Americans about the threat of bioterrorism and what to do if they receive suspicious letters or packages. Will the minister of public works immediately instruct Canada Post to follow the lead of its American counterparts and issue clear guidelines for Canadians on how to handle suspicious mail?
Gagliano said Canada Post always informs customers to be diligent with mail, that incidents investigated have been found to be false, that precautions have been taken to protect more than 50,000 Canada Post employees, and that the government will continue to inform people.
Gagliano says Canada Post always informs customers and that precautions have been taken for 50,000 employees, but does not confirm whether Canada Post will issue specific public guidelines comparable to U.S. postal authorities as requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as usual Canada Post always informs its customers to be very diligent in how to deal with mail. We have had some incidents, but after investigation those incidents were found to be false. We have taken all the necessary precautions to make sure that more than 50,000 Canada Post employees have been and are protected with different procedures. We will definitely continue to inform people of the--
Given that the minister himself stated Canadians are entitled to expect their government to have a solid action plan against bioterrorism, will he accept the invitation from the coalition leader and share his action plan with the House?
The question references a written request from a coalition leader and quotes the minister's own statement about Canadians being entitled to expect a solid action plan, asking whether he will share that plan with the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, are we prepared for the worst? Today, the leader of my coalition wrote the Minister of Health requesting that he report to the House on his action plan against bioterrorism. When interviewed last evening, the minister spoke along those same lines in stating that “Canadians are entitled to expect their government to have a solid action plan”. Could the minister tell us if he will accept the invitation from my leader and finally share his action plan with the House?
Rock said Health Canada is working with cabinet colleagues, caucus, and provincial and territorial counterparts to prepare Canada for any threat, and listed specific measures: stockpiled antibiotics and vaccines, enhanced surveillance systems, and stepped-up communications capacity.
Rock describes several concrete elements of preparation (stockpiled antibiotics and vaccines, enhanced surveillance systems, increased communications capacity) but does not commit to formally presenting an action plan to the House as requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the plan is clear. We at Health Canada are working at this time in conjunction with my cabinet colleagues, the caucus and my provincial and territorial counterparts to prepare Canada for any threat. We have stockpiled antibiotics and vaccines. We have enhanced our surveillance systems. We have stepped up our capacity to communicate with other stakeholders in Canada and elsewhere. We are constantly working to solve these problems.
Given that Muhammad Sabir arrived at Calgary airport with phony passports and was revealed to be Hussein Shafquat, who was granted refugee status in 1999, will the minister assure the House that his status will be addressed?
The question cites a specific named individual, a specific date and location (Monday night, Calgary airport), specific details about phony passports and documents, and the established identity as Hussein Shafquat with 1999 refugee status, making it factually grounded with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday night an individual by the name of Muhammad Sabir arrived at the Calgary airport. In his possession he had phony passports and travel documents in different names other than his own. Investigations revealed that his name was actually Hussein Shafquat, who was granted refugee status in 1999. My question is for the minister of immigration. Since Sabir, or Shafquat, whatever his name is, has landed immigrant status in the country, will the minister assure this House and the people of the country that he--
Caplan cautioned against saying anything that would jeopardize an investigation or prosecution, and stated that anyone who obtains permanent residence or citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation can have that status removed under the law, and that is exactly what is done.
Caplan does not address the specific case of Sabir/Shafquat but provides a relevant legal framework — that fraud or misrepresentation allows removal of status — and cautions against jeopardizing an investigation, which partially engages the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first let me repeat what my colleague the solicitor general has said and that is that it is extremely important that we not do or say anything inside or outside of this House that would jeopardize an investigation or a successful prosecution. What I can tell the member opposite is that if someone, anyone, comes to Canada and obtains permanent residence status or in fact citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation, we have the authority in the law to take that status away and that is exactly what we do.
Will the minister give assurances that Sabir will not be released and that his status will be revoked?
The question names the specific individual Sabir and makes a direct two-part ask — that he not be released and that his status be revoked — but is heavily laced with partisan characterization of the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, too often this minister has hidden behind rhetoric as to what she is doing and not doing in this House and in her portfolio. She has never offered assurances to the people of this country about security matters and how she is going to handle them in her department. Again I will ask the minister specifically, will she give assurances to the people and the House that Sabir will not be released and that his status will be revoked?
Caplan accused the opposition of equating refugees with criminals or terrorists, said shame on them, and criticized them for voting against Bill C-11 and trying to restore appeal rights, without addressing the specific asks about Sabir.
Caplan does not address the specific asks about Sabir's detention or status revocation, instead accusing the opposition of equating refugees with criminals or terrorists and criticizing their record on Bill C-11, a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that party has consistently tried to equate refugees with criminals or refugees with terrorists, so I say shame on them. That is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing at this time or at any time. Further, that is the party that voted against Bill C-11. That is the party that tried to restore appeal rights when we wanted to streamline the procedure. They know the rules and the law and whenever we have evidence where we can remove status, we do that.
Bellehumeur asks whether the Minister of Finance can guarantee that none of the $30 billion that left Canada for three OECD-recognized tax havens last year was used to finance terrorism.
Cites a specific figure ($30 billion) and references OECD-recognized tax havens with a timely peg to the Montreal conference, but the ask — can the minister guarantee no terrorism financing — is inherently unanswerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the world money laundering conference concludes today in Montreal. At least $30 billion left Canada last year for three tax havens recognized by the OECD. Can the Minister of Finance guarantee that not one cent of this $30 billion was used to finance terrorism?
Martin says the Minister of Finance does not have that information and that if it exists, it is a matter for the police.
Martin acknowledges he does not have the information and defers to police, which is an honest but entirely non-substantive response to the accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is fairly clear that the Minister of Finance, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, certainly does not have this information. If it does exist, it is a matter for the police.
Bellehumeur asks whether the minister realizes his lack of willingness makes it impossible to know if the $30 billion in tax havens his government encourages has been used to finance terrorism.
The follow-up is more rhetorical than substantive, alleging the government 'encourages' tax havens and conflating the $30 billion figure with terrorism financing without a precise new ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance realize that his lack of willingness continues to make it impossible to know whether the $30 billion invested in these tax havens, which his government encourages, have been or are being used to finance terrorism?
Martin points to the Minister of Justice's omnibus bill, asset freezes, and Canada's OECD leadership on tax havens as evidence the government is acting.
Martin pivots to the government's general anti-terrorism record and OECD leadership claims without addressing the specific allegation about $30 billion or Canada's tax-haven policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as far as financing terrorism is concerned, the Government of Canada, with the Minister of Justice's omnibus bill and by freezing terrorists assets from the start, as the United Nations required, led the way and will continue to do so. When we look at the OECD initiative on tax havens and the Government of Canada's ability to act in the area, we see very clearly that, of all the G-7 countries, Canada is the one providing leadership, and we will continue to do so.
Thompson notes that a customs spokeswoman said officers were fully trained and equipped to deal with anthrax, but that the actual guidelines were only being issued four days later, and asks why the spokeswoman deliberately and dangerously misled Canadians.
Cites a specific media report from last Sunday, names the customs spokeswoman's claim, and identifies a precise four-day gap between the public statement and the issuance of guidelines, with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday it was reported that customs officers nationwide had stepped up their screening of all mail entering the country following the anthrax death in Florida. A customs spokeswoman indicated that customs officers were fully trained and equipped to deal with packages containing anthrax. I learned just this morning that the guidelines on how to screen for anthrax are being issued today, four days later. Why would the minister's spokeswoman deliberately and dangerously mislead Canadians?
Cauchon says Canada has a very good customs system, that officers have been trained at seaports, airports and land borders, and that telephone conversations took place across departments to address the situation.
Cauchon makes no reference to the spokeswoman's statement, the four-day gap, or the guidelines; he offers only a general defence of the customs system and vague references to telephone conversations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all know that in Canada we have a very good customs system. Of course people have been trained, first in regard to seaports, airports and the land border in order to make sure that they keep Canadians safe as well as keeping the border open for trade. Regarding the item to which the hon. member just referred, I can confirm to the House that a number of telephone conversations took place with the aid of all the departments across Canada in order to make sure we deal with the situation appropriately.
Thompson, citing Colette Gentes-Hawn's claim that officers know what to do, asks what Canada Customs was doing until today if instructions on handling anthrax are only now being issued, and whether the minister can reassure Canadians that anthrax has not already arrived.
Thompson names Colette Gentes-Hawn, quotes her directly, and poses two precise questions: what Canada Customs was doing until today and whether the minister can reassure Canadians anthrax has not arrived.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that does not clear up anything. The customs spokeswoman, Colette Gentes-Hawn also stated that “our officers are aware of what has to be done in these type of situations”. If our customs officers are getting the instructions only today on how to handle dangerous substances, including anthrax, what has Canada Customs been up to until today? Can the minister reassure Canadians that anthrax has not already arrived in Canada?
Cauchon says all necessary procedures are in place, officers at land borders, airports and seaports have been properly trained, additional money was announced last week, and he invites the opposition to help reform the system.
Cauchon provides only boilerplate assurances that procedures are in place and officers are trained, ignores the named spokeswoman, and ends by telling the opposition to join the government — no substantive answer to either question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as usual the only thing I can say is that all the necessary procedures are in place in order to make sure that we keep our Canadian society safe. People at the land border, airports and seaports have been trained properly. I would also like to remind the hon. member that last week we announced additional money, additional resources, to make sure we fulfil our duty. Having said that, I would advise the hon. member and all members opposite to get involved with the government in order to help us reform the system and keep helping Canadians in trade as well as on the security side.
Longfield asks the Minister of Labour to explain Canada's overall objectives at the 12th inter-American conference of ministers of labour and what she hopes to accomplish over the next two years.
A government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to explain Canada's objectives at a conference she is already hosting, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today Canada will begin hosting the 12th inter-American conference of ministers of labour here in Ottawa. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to explain Canada's overall objectives. Could she tell the House what she hopes will be accomplished over the next two years?
Bradshaw cites the Quebec summit of the Americas action plan, notes 28 countries are participating, and outlines three priorities: the ILO declaration, modernizing labour ministries, and the labour dimension of globalization and free trade, with Canada chairing for two years.
Bradshaw provides real content — referencing the Quebec summit action plan, 28 countries, the ILO declaration, modernizing labour ministries, the labour dimension of globalization and free trade, and Canada's two-year chairing role.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at the Quebec summit of the Americas, the Prime Minister and the ministers of labour developed an action plan. This week we have 28 countries from the Americas here to do that work. We will be looking at the ILO declaration. We will be looking at modernizing labour ministries. We will also be looking at the labour dimension of globalization and free trade. It is a pleasure for Canada, and we will be honoured to chair this conference over the next two years.
Gouk asks whether the $55.7 million for enhanced electronic security equipment from the $79 million airport security announcement is scheduled for all airports in Canada and, if not, what categories of airports are being considered.
Cites the specific $79 million figure and the $55.7 million sub-component, and asks a precise and answerable question about which categories of airports are being considered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has announced it will be spending $79 million to enhance security at Canada's airports. The majority of that money, $55.7 million, will be for enhanced electronic security equipment. Could the minister tell the House if that is scheduled for all airports in Canada and, if not, what categories of airports are being considered?
Collenette says the equipment will first be applied to the most sensitive parts of the country and airports with the highest passenger inflows — the major international airports — and will then gradually cover as many airports as is practical.
Collenette directly addresses the airport categorization question by specifying major international airports with highest passenger inflows first, then gradual expansion, though without listing specific airports or a timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously as this machinery comes on line in the coming weeks and months it will be applied to the most sensitive parts of the country and the airports with the highest passenger inflows, the major international airports across the country, and then gradually will cover as many airports as is practical.
Gouk asks why the minister believes enhanced equipment at major airports will make flights safer if terrorists can board aircraft at small airports with no radar or x-ray security and disembark on the secure side at a major airport.
Raises a coherent security logic about chain vulnerability and asks a specific operational question about whether enhanced equipment makes flights safer when passengers from unequipped small airports can access the secure side, though it is framed argumentatively.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, most of us have heard the old adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link but obviously the minister has not. State of the art equipment at major airports does absolutely nothing to enhance safety if terrorists board aircraft at airports with no radar or x-ray security whatsoever, then fly into a major airport and disembark on the secure side. Why does the minister think that enhanced equipment will make flights safer if some passengers can avoid it and fly in from small, unequipped airports?
Collenette states that in such cases, passengers in transit are required to go through security at the larger airports.
Collenette gives a brief but direct factual answer — passengers in transit go through security at larger airports — but does not elaborate on how this works or address the full chain-weakness argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that when that is the case those people in transit are required to go through security at the larger airports.
Tremblay cites the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' September 26 appeal for $390 million for two million Afghani refugees, notes Canada sent only $1.2 million, and asks how the government can claim seriousness and whether additional humanitarian assistance will be announced soon.
Cites the September 26 UN High Commissioner for Refugees appeal, the specific $390 million figure, Canada's $1.2 million contribution, and the two-million-Afghan-refugee context, with a clear ask about additional humanitarian assistance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, the federal government's record remains poor. On September 26, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees made an urgent appeal to raise the $390 million required to provide aid to the two million Afghani refugees. Canada sent only $1.2 million, the equivalent of the budget for two days. How can the government claim to be serious and responsible, when its reaction to this current crisis and the money allocated to it are completely derisory? And does it plan to announce additional humanitarian assistance soon?
Minna says the UN announcement was a worst case scenario assuming open borders and mass movement, that the current priority is logistics to get food inside Afghanistan, and that a decision will be made in the next couple of days.
Minna contextualizes the UN appeal as a worst case scenario, explains the current priority is getting food inside Afghanistan, and says a decision on further assistance will come in the next couple of days — partial engagement but no commitment on figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is important to keep in mind that the announcement made by the UN was a worst case scenario which meant that the borders were open and there were millions more people getting out and going into the refugee area. At the moment, for the majority, there has been no great movement from within leaving Afghanistan. The issue is to try to get food inside Afghanistan, and we are working on the logistics. I have restrengthened the people on the ground within my organization and we are working with others. That will indicate the kind of decision we will have to make in the next couple of days.
McTeague asks the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State for the Francophonie for the government's reaction to the postponement of the Francophone Summit in Beirut.
A government-backbench setup asking a minister to react to a postponement of a summit, with no accountability dimension and a loaded characterization of the theme as 'particularly appropriate and contextual.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State for the Francophonie. What is the government's reaction to the postponement of the Francophone Summit in Beirut, whose theme “Cultural Dialogue” was particularly appropriate and, I would say, contextual, in these turbulent times?
Duhamel says the Prime Minister and he were disappointed not to go to Beirut, that the decision to postpone is accepted, and that a new Francophone Summit will be held in fall 2002 in the same country.
Duhamel provides some real information — the Prime Minister and he were set to go to Beirut, the decision to postpone is accepted, and a new Francophone Summit is confirmed for fall 2002 in the same country — though he also uses the answer to restate anti-terrorism objectives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that summit was a very important one in the current context. The Prime Minister and myself were very disappointed, because we were all set to go to Beirut. Unfortunately, we did not go. A decision was made, which we accept; we understand the reasons, but we will nevertheless continue to pursue the Canadian government's objectives, such as that of combatting terrorism. I might add that the summit was merely delayed. Another Francophone Summit will be held in the fall of 2002, in the same country where it was to be held this year.
Members acknowledged the presence of guests in the gallery with applause; no question was asked and no substantive response was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (NDP) raised a point of order asking the Speaker to review the speaking order during the previous night's debate on Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), arguing that she and other members were not recognized to speak despite being present and rising in their places, and she suggested that when a private members' bill is deferred the full hour rather than 45 minutes be allowed for debate. No ministerial response was given as this was a procedural point of order.
- NDP Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of events that took place during the last hour of debate last night on private members' business, Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), which stands in the name of the member for Davenport. As the House will be voting on this bill this evening, I felt it was urgent to bring this matter to your attention. I would like you as Speaker to examine the record pertaining to the debate on Bill C-287 last night, and attempt to find some remedy to avoid this problem in the future. I refer here to page 919 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states: Although there is no practice of a fixed pattern for the recognition of Members wishing to speak during Private Members' Business, the Chair seeks to ensure that there is a smooth flow of debate, providing opportunities for all points of view to be expressed. The matter of speaking order and rotation during private members' business has been raised many times in the House. The procedure book cites the occasions of March 16, 1992, March 18, 1992, November 30, 1992 and October 18, 1995 as examples. Most of the time the debate flows smoothly. Time is shared on both sides of the House and among members from all parties. Indeed, many times the Chair upon seeing a lot of interest in debate on the subject matter of private members' business will consult the House as to division of the remaining time, so that all those who are in the Chamber and who wish to participate may. I was very frustrated by the flow of debate last night and raised this with the Acting Speaker at the time, who stated: At some point in time the Chair had to make a decision to balance those who were for and who were against the bill. I wanted to ensure a better understanding for the public and for our colleagues in the House to help members make up their minds before voting tomorrow afternoon. That was the reasoning behind it. There was no offence intended. I was trying to accommodate as many members as possible. I notified the Table early in the day yesterday that I wished to speak on this bill. I was continuously in the House from the very beginning of private members' hour and rose in my place several times, but to no avail. This matter did not just affect me. Other members in the House intervened with the Acting Speaker as well, but to no avail. I hope you will understand, Mr. Speaker, my frustration in not being allowed to speak on this bill during debate last night, so that I could place on record my full support and that of my party on Bill C-287. I certainly had a unique position to bring to the House on this bill, not just to speak in favour of it, but in fact to bring a different argument forward and to put that on the record, one that focused on the precautionary principle, guaranteeing food safety, health protection and survival of the family farm. The Acting Speaker last night could not have known that these were the points I wanted to get on the record, yet he did state in the House that he knew that other speakers were speaking pro and con, which is why he recognized them. I resort to raising this with you today because of my interest in this issue. I have been working hard on this matter in the House and in committee during this and the previous parliament. In fact, on March 28, 2001, I introduced my own private member's bill, Bill C-310, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, and I also brought forward a motion in May 2000. To conclude, in the interest of ensuring as much debate as possible during private members' business, I wonder if it is possible that when a private members' bill is deferred by order of the House that the full hour, rather than 45 minutes, is allowed for debate, and that in fact you will review the record and my concern that all sides of the House and all members in the House who would like to participate in such debate have an opportunity to do so.