Session overview
- Airline security legislation dominated the opening exchanges, with the government confirming the bill would be introduced tomorrow after failing to table it as expected that day.
- The CBC's suspension of journalist Normand Lester drew repeated Bloc Québécois challenges over whether the government was pressuring the corporation to promote Canadian unity, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage refusing to intervene.
- Amendments to the anti-terrorism Bill C-36 were debated, with opposition members arguing that ministerial certificates and limits on the information commissioner represented an unjustified power grab and culture of secrecy.
- The Prime Minister affirmed Canada's goal to sign the Kyoto agreement, distancing the government from comments by the Minister of Industry that had suggested Canada might not keep its Kyoto commitments.
- The state of Canada's military transport fleet was challenged, with the opposition alleging that grounded Hercules aircraft were hampering Operation Apollo; the Minister of National Defence disputed the characterization.
- Employment insurance fund surpluses estimated at $8 billion drew criticism from both the Bloc Québécois and NDP, who questioned whether contributions were too high and whether workers affected by forestry layoffs would receive adequate support.
The Prime Minister made a concrete government commitment to sign the Kyoto agreement and outlined the state of negotiations at Bonn and Marrakesh, clarifying that the Minister of Industry's earlier comments did not reflect official policy.
The question cites a specific two-year-old ministerial promise to add sexual orientation to hate propaganda laws within months, names a specific triggering incident (the beating in Fredericton), and references a fresh named murder victim (Aaron Webster) and the method of killing, making a clear and time-bound accountability ask.
The Prime Minister's entire response â 'It might be tomorrow' â offered no explanation for why the promised airline security legislation was not tabled that day and gave Canadians no substantive information whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Stockwell Day asked whether air marshals would be included in the airline security bill â neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Transport answered this directly.
- Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick asked whether an employee of the Immigration and Refugee Board had been suspended pending the RCMP investigation â the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration did not confirm or deny this.
- Mr. Peter MacKay asked what evidence the Minister of Justice had that disclosure under access and privacy acts had compromised the security of Canadians or allies, justifying ministerial certificates â the minister did not provide any such evidence.
- Right Hon. Joe Clark asked why the government ignored the unanimous recommendations of the special Senate committee for an independent oversight committee under the anti-terrorism legislation â the Minister of Justice did not address this recommendation.
- Mr. Rahim Jaffer asked whether the immigration minister would announce measures to detain undocumented refugee claimants until their identity and background could be verified â the minister rejected the premise but offered no alternative concrete measure.
Day asked why promised airline security legislation was not tabled as expected and who was responsible for pulling it.
The question references a specific government signal about legislation expected that day but frames it with rhetorical 'nervous nellie' language and a compound vague ask about who is responsible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during times of national urgency, it is the role of the federal government to send signals of confidence to its citizens. The government has not done that on any file that it has handled since September 11. The government gave a very clear indication yesterday that we would see legislation today related to airline security. Somehow during the night someone pulled the plug on that legislation. It is not here today. Who is the nervous nellie over there? Is it the Prime Minister or is it the minister in charge?
Chrétien said it might be tomorrow, offering no further explanation.
The Prime Minister's single-sentence reply that it 'might be tomorrow' is technically responsive in the narrowest sense but provides no substantive explanation or commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it might be tomorrow.
Day asked the Prime Minister to confirm with a yes or no whether the new airline safety bill would be tabled the next day.
A focused yes/no question demanding a firm commitment on whether the airline safety bill would be tabled the following day, which is a clear and specific accountability ask.
Source text
That is very assuring to Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure us that we will have the new airline safety bill tomorrow? Yes or no?
Chrétien said 'surely tomorrow,' providing a minimal but direct commitment.
ChrĂ©tien gave a direct commitment â 'surely tomorrow' â though it lacks any detail about content or process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, surely tomorrow.
Day asked the government to explain the apparent contradiction between rejecting air marshals while considering CF-18s, and whether the bill would include air marshals.
The question identifies a real contradiction between statements on air marshals and CF-18s and asks whether the bill will include air marshals, but it is loaded with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting that on the question of air marshals, the minister has said that it is not the Canadian way to have that kind of security. However, in the same breath they have said there could be CF-18s flying around cities ready to knock down a passenger airline if there is a problem. At the same time they have said that CF-18s will not be equipped to go into Afghanistan. What is the Canadian way, when it comes to airline security? Will there be air marshals in that bill tomorrow or will there be CF-18s ready to knock down passenger airlines?
Chrétien noted that Day's House leader had already been informed the bill would be tabled tomorrow, without addressing the substance of the question.
Chrétien deflected entirely by noting that Day's House leader had already been informed of the bill's tabling date, not addressing the air marshals or CF-18 contradiction at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is very funny is that a few minutes ago his House leader was informed that the bill was to be tabled tomorrow.
Moore asked why the transport security legislation was not tabled given that the government had given notice and sought unanimous consent from all parties to clear the House schedule for it.
Moore asks a specific procedural question about why the transport security legislation was not tabled after the government gave notice and sought unanimous consent, grounding it in an identifiable sequence of events.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these flippant, arrogant non-answers by the Prime Minister do not instill the confidence that Canadians deserve. The transport minister gave notice to all parties in this House. The House leader from the government side asked for unanimous consent of all parties in this place to clear the slate so we could have this legislation in the House and we could address the serious issue of transport security legislation. Why is that not on the table? What happened?
Collenette confirmed the notice was given, said the bill would be introduced tomorrow without specifying the reasons for the delay, and attacked Moore for commenting on bill contents he had not read.
Collenette acknowledged the notice was given, said the bill would come tomorrow 'for a number of reasons,' but did not specify those reasons and pivoted to attacking Moore for discussing bill contents he had not seen.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to speak for the House leader but I understand that he did give notice under the rules to hon. members that a bill may be coming forward today. Unfortunately for a number of reasons that bill will be introduced tomorrow. What I find ironic is the hon. member was prancing around outside the House announcing on CPAC what is in a bill. He had not even seen the bill. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? He is wrong.
Moore accused the transport minister of mismanaging the air industry and asked when he would table legislation to give confidence to Canadians.
Moore's question is largely rhetorical and accusatory, blaming the minister for competition failures in multiple cities, with only a vague ask about when legislation will be tabled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was going on the transport minister's word. I will not make that mistake twice. The air industry in this country is in trouble because of the transport minister's actions. Competition is dead in Montreal, Toronto, St. John's and Halifax not because of the Midas touch but the lead touch of the transport minister. We need leadership from the transport minister. He is not introducing legislation today. There is a long weekend coming up. When is he going to show leadership, table legislation, do something to give confidence to the House and Canadians?
Collenette cited enhanced airport security measures already implemented and explained that amendments to the Aeronautics Act planned for next year were being advanced before Christmas, with the bill coming tomorrow.
Collenette listed security measures already taken at airports, referenced planned amendments to the Aeronautics Act being moved up before Christmas, and confirmed the bill would come tomorrow â partial but substantive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member since September 11 has not looked at the substance of things that we have done. We have instituted much more rigorous security measures at our airports, security measures that work and are respected by the industry. I have said on a number of occasions publicly and in the House that there would be amendments to the Aeronautics Act that were planned for next year. We are bringing them forward before Christmas precisely to deal with some of the aspects that have come out of the tragic circumstances of September 11. The bill will be introduced tomorrow. I ask the hon. member to be patient.
Duceppe asked why the Prime Minister, who in 1995 said CBC had a mandate to promote Canadian unity and acted accordingly, now refuses to denounce the censorship of Normand Lester by claiming CBC independence.
Duceppe cites a specific November 12, 1995 statement by the Prime Minister and asks a pointed question about the inconsistency between past CBC intervention and current refusal to denounce the Normand Lester suspension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 1995, the Prime Minister stated that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had the mandate to promote Canadian unity, not provoke separation.
Hear, hear.
Let them clap, Mr. Speaker, and while they are at it, they should change the name, they should call it âThe O Canada Broadcasting Corporationâ. How can the Prime Minister who, following the referendum, did not hesitate to rein in the CBC in the name of Canadian unity now refuse to denounce the censorship of which Normand Lester is a victim by claiming that the crown corporation is independent?
Copps said the government would not interfere in CBC staffing matters, as doing so would itself be censorship.
Copps deflected entirely, arguing that government interference in CBC staffing would itself constitute censorship, without addressing the inconsistency with the 1995 intervention cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the Bloc Quebecois member would expect the government to make decisions regarding staffing at the CBC. If we were ever to interfere in such matters, we would be accused of censorship.
Duceppe asked whether the Prime Minister's refusal to denounce CBC's treatment of Normand Lester is precisely because Lester's book does not fit the Canadian unity mandate the government wants to impose on CBC.
Duceppe invokes a named journalist (Peter Desbarats) and makes a specific causal argument about why the government refuses to denounce CBC's treatment of Normand Lester, asking the Prime Minister to confirm or deny it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister, not the aspiring prime minister. What I am asking is that they intervene, as they did following the referendum. Peter Desbarats, an important Canadian journalist, said that if Mr. Normand Lester had penned a book celebrating Canada's history, he would never have been suspended. I would add that, if Normand Lester's book had promoted Canadian unity, he would still be working. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the reason he is refusing to denounce the CBC's treatment of Normand Lester is precisely because what Mr. Lester did does not fit within the mandate of promoting Canadian unity that he would like to impose on CBC?
Copps stated only that the government does not interfere in CBC affairs and will not do so.
Copps gave a one-line non-answer restating that the government does not and will not interfere in CBC affairs, ignoring the specific argument and framing of the question entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc Quebecois wants the Government of Canada to interfere in the CBC's affairs. We do not interfere, nor will we.
Gauthier asked whether the government's complacent attitude toward Radio-Canada's decision is tantamount to supporting the suspension of journalist Normand Lester, contrasting it with the Prime Minister's intervention at the Museum of Civilization.
Gauthier draws a pointed contrast between the government's intervention in the Museum of Civilization decision and its inaction on the Normand Lester suspension, asking whether their attitude amounts to supporting the suspension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the past, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made no bones about the fact that Radio-Canada should promote Canadian unity. Back then, it was not a serious matter. Last week, in the case of the Museum of Civilization, the Prime Minister saw to it that the decision be changed. Do the Prime Minister and his Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize that their complacent attitude regarding Radio-Canada's decision is tantamount to supporting the suspension of journalist Normand Lester?
Copps stated that the Government of Canada will never get involved in issues relating to the employment of a Radio-Canada employee.
Copps gave a blanket one-sentence refusal to get involved in Radio-Canada employment issues, making no effort to address the Museum of Civilization comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will never get involved in issues relating to the employment of a Radio-Canada employee.
Gauthier asked whether the government is using Normand Lester's book as an opportunity to settle accounts with the journalist who exposed the scheme between the government, Robert Guy Scully, and the Heritage Minutes.
Gauthier raises a conspiracy-framing question about whether the Normand Lester book is a pretext to settle scores over the Robert Guy Scully and Heritage Minutes affair, which is speculative and difficult to answer factually.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will let those who are listening to our debates assess the quality of the answers provided. Is Normand Lester's book not a perfect opportunity for the government to settle its accounts with the journalist who exposed the scheme between the government, Robert Guy Scully and the Heritage Minutes ? Is the government not using Normand Lester's book to finally get at him?
Copps noted that Normand Lester's book received support from the Canada Council for the Arts according to its publisher, suggesting the government was not targeting it.
Copps noted that Normand Lester's book received support from the Canada Council for the Arts according to its publisher, which is a factual point tangentially relevant to the idea that the government was targeting the book, but does not address the scheme allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to its publisher, Normand Lester's book got the support of the Canada Council for the Arts. Therefore, I am surprised that we would target Mr. Lester's book, considering that, according to his publisher, it received funding.
Blaikie asked whether the Minister of Industry was speaking for the government when he suggested Canada might not keep its Kyoto commitments, and who is actually speaking for the government on the Kyoto accord.
Blaikie cites a specific ministerial statement by the Minister of Industry suggesting Canada might not keep its Kyoto commitments and asks the Prime Minister directly whether that reflects government policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I am sure that many Canadians who want Canada to be an environmentally responsible member of the international community would be concerned that yesterday the Minister of Industry seemed to suggest that Canada is not going to keep its commitments on the Kyoto accord. I ask the Prime Minister, was the Minister of Industry speaking for the government when he made the suggestion that Canada might not keep its Kyoto commitments, or just who is speaking for the government when it comes to the Kyoto accord?
Chrétien said the government intends to sign the Kyoto agreement, citing progress at Bonn and Marrakesh and noting that the clean energy export question and provincial consultations are still ongoing.
ChrĂ©tien addressed the Kyoto question with some factual context â progress at Bonn and Marrakesh, the unresolved clean energy export question, need to consult provinces â and affirmed the goal is to sign, but did not directly address what the Minister of Industry said.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has one policy that we all agree on. We want to and we hope that we will be able to sign the Kyoto agreement. The negotiations are not yet terminated. At the meeting in Bonn we made progress on some elements of it. We made more progress at the meeting in Marrakesh last week. The question of the export of clean energy has not been concluded yet. We have to consult with the provinces too, but we intend to go through the process. The goal is to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Blaikie asked the Prime Minister to have the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry coordinate on communicating to industry that environmental competitiveness and keeping Kyoto commitments are not contradictory.
Blaikie makes a substantive policy suggestion about coordinating the Environment and Industry ministers' messaging on Kyoto competitiveness but frames it as a request rather than a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell his colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry, to sit down together and come up with a program for communicating to industry that it can be competitive and friendly to the environment all at the same time, instead of sustaining the myth that somehow there is a contradiction between keeping our Kyoto commitments and a competitive industry in Canada?
Chrétien joked that it is not a big problem for the two ministers to communicate since they are sitting next to each other in the House.
Chrétien deflected with a quip that the two ministers are sitting next to each other in the House and can communicate easily, providing no substantive commitment or policy response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to do better than I am doing right now. They are sitting next to each other in the House of Commons so it is not a big problem for them to communicate.
Clark asked why the government's anti-terrorism bill amendments explicitly prevent the information commissioner from exercising his normal duties, characterizing it as a power grab to limit parliament's oversight and Canadians' rights.
Clark identifies a specific provision in the anti-terrorism bill amendments and asks explicitly why the government does not allow the information commissioner to exercise his normal duties, grounding the question in a concrete legislative concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the name of security the government's amendments to the anti-terrorism bill put the civil rights of Canadians at serious and unnecessary risk. Those parts of the bill are not about Osama bin Laden. They are about shutting down the information commissioner and other officers of parliament. This is a power grab by the government to limit the power of parliament and to limit the rights of Canadians. Why explicitly does the government not allow the information commissioner to exercise his normal duties?
McLellan quoted the privacy commissioner's press release praising the amendments as protecting privacy rights and maintaining oversight, but did not address the specific question about the information commissioner.
McLellan quoted the privacy commissioner's press release supporting the amendments, which is relevant context but does not address the specific question about the information commissioner's duties or why that officer's oversight was curtailed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member refers to officers of parliament. Let me read for the House and the right hon. member what one of those officers, the privacy commissioner, said today in a press release in relation to the amendments of yesterday: All existing privacy rights of Canadians remain fully safeguarded, the oversight role of the Privacy Commissioner remains intact, and even the issuance of certificates is closely circumscribed and subject to judicial review. He went on to say: Your action is a great victory for the privacy rights of all Canadians. You have reaffirmed on behalf of the Government of Canada that privacy is a fundamental human right--
Clark asked why the government ignored the unanimous recommendations of the special Senate committee for an independent oversight committee to protect the rights of Canadians.
Clark asks a specific question about why the government ignored the unanimous recommendations of the special Senate committee for an independent oversight committee, grounding it in a concrete parliamentary process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not encouraging to have another watchdog of parliament muzzled. These provisions are one more example of the culture of secrecy which is the trademark of the government. The Prime Minister hides his agendas. His office interferes at APEC. He tried to conceal his phone call to the Business Development Corporation. Now the government seeks the power to extend secrecy in the name of international relations, security or defence. Why did the government ignore the unanimous recommendations of the special Senate committee for an independent oversight committee to protect the rights of Canadians?
McLellan said they were not creating a new officer of parliament but cited the privacy commissioner's endorsement and asserted the legislation ensures the highest degree of political accountability, without explaining the decision on the Senate committee's recommendation.
McLellan returned again to the privacy commissioner's statement about privacy rights and asserted political accountability in the legislation, without addressing why the Senate committee's unanimous recommendation for an independent oversight committee was rejected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me make it absolutely plain that while we are not creating a new officer of parliament, in relation to oversight I return to what the privacy commissioner said. He is an officer of parliament who in fact believes that we have continued to vindicate privacy as a fundamental human right even in times of gravest crisis. Far from being secretive in this legislation, I point out to the right hon. member that what we have done through our amendments and in the original legislation is attempt to ensure the highest degree of political accountability and--
Jaffer asked whether the airline safety legislation would include provisions to stop people from arriving at Canadian airports without documentation while claiming refugee status, citing approximately 18,000 such cases per year.
Jaffer cites a specific statistic â 18,000 people arriving without documentation annually â and asks a specific question about whether the airline safety legislation will include provisions to address this, though framed with rhetorical embellishment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, each year about 18,000 people arrive at this nation's airports without documentation. Somehow they get on a plane in another country and yet arrive here without papers and claim refugee status. If the government ever gets around to air safety legislation, will the minister ensure it has provisions to stop this mysterious cycle of disappearing papers?
Caplan acknowledged the problem of undocumented arrivals exists in Canada and other countries and quoted Ambassador Cellucci on working overseas before people board planes, without addressing what the air safety legislation would contain.
Caplan acknowledged undocumented arrivals as a known problem shared by other countries and quoted Ambassador Cellucci about working overseas before people board planes, but did not address whether the air safety legislation would include relevant provisions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that people arrive in Canada who do not have proper documentation. In fact other countries have the same problem. Let me quote Ambassador Cellucci. He says that we need to work together overseas even before people get on airplanes. We are not saying that the United States and Canada should not continue to be countries that welcome immigrants, refugees or those seeking asylum. I agree with Ambassador Cellucci.
Jaffer asked whether the immigration minister would immediately announce measures to detain undocumented refugee claimants until their identity and background can be verified.
Jaffer makes a specific ask â that the immigration minister announce measures to detain undocumented refugee claimants until identity and background can be verified â grounded in a security and legitimacy argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, then the minister should agree with the official opposition because that is exactly what we have been saying all along. Not only is the immigration minister risking national security. She is doing incredible damage to Canada's legitimate refugees. Those who abuse Canada's refugee system bring into question the legitimacy of all refugees. If the government will not include measures in air safety regulations, will the immigration minister immediately announce measures to detain undocumented refugee claimants until their identity and background can be verified?
Caplan cited Canada's obligations under the Geneva convention of 1951, distinguished between being undocumented and posing a security risk, and noted that detention does occur when evidence of a security risk exists.
Caplan referenced Canada's obligations under the Geneva convention of 1951, distinguished between undocumented people and security risks, and said that when evidence of a security risk exists detentions do occur, partially addressing the question but not committing to new measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a proud signatory to the Geneva convention of 1951. We have an obligation to offer protection to those who are in genuine need. We know that some people come to Canada without documents. Some of those people are in genuine need of protection and others are not. It is wrong to acquaint undocumented people with automatically posing any kind of security risk. That is not true. That is why when we have evidence to suggest that someone poses a security risk we can and we do detain them.
Gagnon asks whether the difference in treatment between a CBC producer who participated in the Montreal love-in and Normand Lester, who was suspended for writing a book, reflects the Corporation's desire to comply with the Prime Minister's wishes about defending Canadian unity.
The question cites a specific 1995 incident involving a CBC producer at the Montreal love-in and contrasts it with Normand Lester's suspension, making a pointed accountability ask about differential treatment, though the causal link to the Prime Minister's wishes is speculative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, a CBC producer took part in the Montreal love-in, held in violation of Quebec's referendum laws, without any repercussions, yet Normand Lester writes a book that has nothing to do with his job and is suspended. Journalistic ethics alone are not enough to justify the difference in treatment. Does the difference not lie instead in the Corporation's desire to comply with the wishes of the Prime Minister, who complained right after the referendum that it was not defending Canadian unity sufficiently?
Copps answered only 'No' with no elaboration.
The minister's entire answer is a single word 'No,' which provides no substantive engagement with the specific comparison or accountability question raised.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker.
Gagnon asks whether Normand Lester's suspension is connected to the fact that his unflattering depictions of John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King conflict with the version of Canada promoted by the Canada Information Office as broadcast by Robert Guy Scully and his Heritage Minutes.
The question draws a specific comparison between Normand Lester's depictions of John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King and the content of Robert Guy Scully's Heritage Minutes, implying ideological interference, though the ask remains rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, is the problem with Normand Lester not connected to the fact that his somewhat unflattering depictions of John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King are not consistent with the somewhat watered down version of the Canada Information Office as broadcast by Robert Guy Scully and his Heritage Minutes ?
Copps answered only 'No' with no elaboration.
The minister's entire answer is again a single word 'No,' with no substantive engagement with the specific allegation or comparisons cited.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker.
Fitzpatrick asks the minister to confirm whether the RCMP raided the office of the Immigration and Refugee Board commissioner in Montreal as part of a corruption investigation.
The question cites reports of an RCMP investigation into corruption at the Immigration and Refugee Board and asks a specific, verifiable yes/no question about whether the Montreal office was raided.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are reports of an RCMP investigation into corruption charges with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Could the minister confirm that as part of this investigation the office of the Immigration and Refugee Board commissioner in Montreal has been raided by the RCMP?
Caplan says she takes allegations of wrongdoing seriously and that the RCMP is called in when there are allegations, but does not confirm or deny the raid.
Caplan confirms that allegations trigger RCMP involvement but does not confirm or deny the specific raid, instead pivoting to a general principle about letting police do their job without political interference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. I take very seriously, as does the government, any allegations of wrongdoing. That is why when there are allegations officers of the RCMP are called in. I would suggest to the hon. member that we let the police do its job and that we let it do it without political interference.
Fitzpatrick, citing opposition sources, presses the minister on whether the IRB commissioner's office was raided and whether an employee has been suspended pending the RCMP investigation.
The question presses with a more specific follow-up, citing opposition sources who say the raid occurred, and asks whether an employee has been suspended pending the RCMP investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, another statement of denial from a sad minister. Sources have told the official opposition that the office of the Immigration and Refugee Board commissioner has in fact been raided. Has an employee been suspended pending the outcome of the RCMP investigation?
Caplan describes the IRB as a quasi-judicial independent body whose chair has authority to act on wrongdoing, and repeats that the police should be allowed to do its job without political interference.
Caplan describes the IRB as a quasi-judicial independent body and repeats the point about letting police do their job, but does not address whether an employee was suspended.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board is a quasi-judicial independent body. The chair of that board has all the authority necessary to take appropriate action whenever there are suggestions of inappropriate behaviour or in fact wrongdoing. I would repeat again that it is up to the police to do its job. We should let it do its job without political interference.
CrĂȘte asks what more the Minister of Human Resources Development needs to take action given a unanimous report already in her hands and an anticipated $8 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, in the context of 5,000 job losses in the softwood lumber industry.
The question cites specific figures (5,000 jobs, $8 billion surplus), names affected regions, and references a unanimous report in the minister's hands, making a pointed ask about when she will act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the recent closings announced by large paper mills will result in the loss of 5,000 jobs in the softwood lumber industry. Thousands of workers will be affected in the Abitibi, SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean, North Shore, Lower St. Lawrence and GaspĂ© regions. The Minister of Human Resources Development has a unanimous report in her hands, and an $8 billion surplus is anticipated in the employment insurance fund. What more does she need to take action?
Stewart says the government is concerned, has been in contact with Abitibi and workers, expects most will be eligible for EI benefits, and hopes the Quebec government will use its Part II transfer dollars to assist individuals.
Stewart acknowledges the concern, says she has been in touch with Abitibi specifically and with workers, and notes EI eligibility, but does not address the unanimous report or the $8 billion surplus directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with these recent announcements and recognize the difficulties they will cause for those who may be facing layoffs. I can tell the hon. member that we have been in touch with Abitibi specifically and with workers. We want to make sure they have full access to the programs that exist through employment insurance. We anticipate the majority of them will be eligible for benefits and we hope the government of Quebec will be there with their part II dollars that are transferred from this government to assist individuals at this time.
CrĂȘte asks the minister to admit that when $8 billion in surpluses accumulate in the EI fund in a single year and profits total $44 billion, either the protection provided is inadequate or contributions are too high.
The question poses a pointed logical dilemma â either protection is inadequate or contributions are too high â grounded in specific figures of $8 billion surplus for this year and $44 billion total, but is framed as an admission request rather than a single sharp ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister may play the same tape as much as she wants but a fact remains. Will the minister admit that when surpluses of $8 billion are accumulated in an insurance fund for this year alone, and profits total $44 billion, either the protection provided is inadequate, or else contributions are too high?
Stewart says the government has never hesitated to make improvements to EI and points to the small weeks pilots becoming a national part of the program this week.
Stewart touts the small weeks pilot becoming national as evidence of improvement but does not engage with the specific logical dilemma or figures cited by CrĂȘte.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has never hesitated to make changes and improvements to the employment insurance system. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that just this week the small weeks pilots have become a national part of the employment insurance program to the applause of Canadians across the country, including seasonal workers in the hon. member's riding.
Sorenson asks whether the Solicitor General condones the transfer of convicted cop killer Clinton Suzack to a minimum-security institution after only six years of a life sentence, noting that the sentencing judge, the Ontario legislature, and the Liberal leader of Ontario all believe this was wrong.
The question names a specific individual (Clinton Suzack), cites the nature of his conviction, the duration served (six years of a life sentence), his transfer to a minimum-security institution, and references the sentencing judge, the Ontario legislature, and the Liberal leader of Ontario as opponents of the move, ending with a clear binary ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Clinton Suzack, a convicted cop killer, after serving only six years of a life sentence, was moved to country club fed where he can golf and fish without being monitored. It is still a prison but a liberal style prison. The sentencing judge believes this was wrong. The Ontario legislature believes this was wrong. Even the Liberal leader from the province of Ontario believes this was wrong. I have a simple question for the solicitor general. Does he condone such a move? Does he believe this is right or wrong?
MacAulay says Suzack is in a medium security institution, that he cannot discuss the specifics of the case, and that Correctional Service Canada used research-based tools to determine placement, which is not a political decision.
MacAulay clarifies that Suzack is in a medium security institution (correcting the question's characterization), notes that Correctional Service Canada used research-based tools, but declines to express a personal view and does not directly answer whether he believes the move was right or wrong.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the individual the hon. colleague is speaking about is in a medium security institution. Of course I cannot discuss the specifics of the case. Correctional Service Canada has evaluated his placing. Correctional Service Canada uses research based tools in order to decide where a person is based. It is not a decision made by politicians.
Sorenson asks the Solicitor General to ensure justice is served for constable Joe MacDonald and to return Suzack to a maximum security penitentiary.
The question names constable Joe MacDonald and makes a specific ask â return Suzack to maximum security â but is largely dominated by rhetorical framing about justice not being served and the solicitor general failing to embrace accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clearly the specifics of this case is that justice is not being served. Killers, especially those who have killed police officers, should be held accountable for their criminal actions, a concept that Correctional Service Canada is ignoring, a concept that the solicitor general has obviously failed to embrace. Will the solicitor general ensure that justice is served and that the life of constable Joe MacDonald, the Ontario police officer who was murdered in the line of duty, is properly honoured? Will he return Suzack to a maximum security penitentiary where he belongs?
MacAulay explains that convicted individuals are evaluated and placed in maximum, medium, or minimum institutions and are periodically re-evaluated, saying that is what took place in this case.
MacAulay describes the general process of evaluation and periodic placement review but does not address the specific request to return Suzack to maximum security or engage with the case's particulars.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when individuals are convicted they are evaluated and placed in either maximum, medium or minimum institutions. After they are placed in an institution they are evaluated periodically and placed in the proper institution. That is what took place here.
Discepola asks what assurances the Solicitor General can give Grand Chief Gabriel that peace and public order will be maintained in Kanesatake at all times, following shots fired at the Mohawk police station.
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing the shooting at the Kanesatake Mohawk police station and Grand Chief Gabriel's request, inviting the Solicitor General to reassure rather than to be held accountable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. During the past weekend shots were fired at the Kanesatake Mohawk police station and yesterday Grand Chief Gabriel asked the federal and provincial governments for support. What assurances could the Solicitor General of Canada give Grand Chief Gabriel that peace and public order will be maintained in Kanesatake at all times?
MacAulay says the government is working closely with Quebec and the community, is covering the federal share of costs for additional police officers, and will support any reasonable request for resources needed for long-term public safety and security.
MacAulay provides reasonably specific information: the government is covering the federal share of costs for additional police officers and will support reasonable requests for long-term public safety resources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a serious look at Kanesatake. We are working very closely with the province of Quebec and the community. The community has asked us to cover costs for additional police officers in Kanesatake and I am pleased to say that we are able to cover the federal share. In addition, we will support any reasonable request for resources that are needed to provide public safety and security in the long term.
Godin asks whether the Prime Minister agrees with the Minister of Finance's use of the EI surplus to balance public finances, or whether he is prepared to order the Minister of Finance to remove the payroll tax being imposed despite an $8 billion surplus.
The question cites an $8 billion surplus, references the Minister of Finance's own public statement about the surplus being used to balance public finances, and asks a pointed either/or question directed at the Prime Minister, though the framing conflates two separate asks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the Liberal government may ignore its commitment to reduce employment insurance contributions by 5 cents, even with an $8 billion surplus. In the past, the Minister of Finance clearly indicated that the surplus in the employment insurance fund was now used to balance public finances. My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the Minister of Finance or is he prepared to order his Minister of Finance to remove the payroll tax that he has been imposing for years?
Chrétien notes that EI contribution rates have been reduced every year since the government took office, from $3.07 to $2.25, and says the Minister of Finance's budget will address what comes next.
ChrĂ©tien provides a specific data point â the EI contribution rate fell from $3.07 to $2.25 since 1993 â and defers the specific question about the 5-cent reduction to the upcoming budget, which is a partial but relevant response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when we took office, the EI contribution rate for workers was $3.07. It has been reduced every year since. It is now $2.25 and we will see what the Minister of Finance will announce in his budget.
Robinson asks the Minister of Justice when she will finally add sexual orientation to the hate propaganda section of the criminal code, citing her two-year-old promise made after a beating in Fredericton and the recent murder of Aaron Webster, who was beaten to death with a baseball bat.
The question cites a specific two-year-old ministerial promise to add sexual orientation to hate propaganda laws within months, names a specific triggering incident (the beating in Fredericton), and references a fresh named murder victim (Aaron Webster) and the method of killing, making a clear and time-bound accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice. Two years ago, after a young law student in Fredericton, New Brunswick was brutally beaten simply because he was gay, the minister promised to add sexual orientation to the criminal laws on hate propaganda and she said that she would do it within months. After last weekend's brutal murder of Aaron Webster, who was beaten to death by being repeatedly clubbed with a baseball bat, when will the minister finally move to ensure that she adds gays and lesbians to the protections of the hate propaganda section of the criminal code?
McLellan says she will raise the matter with provincial and territorial colleagues at a meeting next week and will proceed if there is general agreement to do so.
McLellan says she will raise the matter with provincial and territorial colleagues at a meeting next week and will proceed if there is general agreement, but does not commit to a timeline or address why the two-year-old promise was not fulfilled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general and I will be meeting with our provincial and territorial colleagues next week and this is a matter I will take up with them. We had the opportunity to discuss it some time ago but, after consultation with my provincial and territorial colleagues, if there is general agreement to proceed, we will do so.
MacKay asks why the minister is prepared to sunset increased police powers under Bill C-36 via a five-year re-enactment clause yet refuses to subject her own ministerial certificates â which allow hiding information from Canadians â to the same standards.
The question references specific provisions of Bill C-36 (a five-year re-enactment clause on police powers and ministerial certificates), raises a pointed contrast about the sunset clause not applying to the minister's own information-hiding powers, but is densely rhetorical and somewhat hard to parse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the controversial Bill C-36 received some minor watered down changes including a five year re-enactment clause on police powers, yet the sun will not set on the ability of the minister to hide information from Canadians. An injection of judicial review for ministerial certificates is eclipsed by the controversial costly process. The Government of Canada still can deny the information for broad and potentially political reasons. Why is the minister prepared to sunset increased police powers yet stubbornly refuses to subject her own information hiding to the same standards?
McLellan quotes the privacy commissioner's statement that all existing privacy rights remain fully safeguarded, the Privacy Commissioner's oversight role remains intact, and ministerial certificates are closely circumscribed and subject to judicial review.
McLellan quotes the privacy commissioner's assessment of the legislation rather than directly addressing the asymmetry between the sunset clause on police powers and the absence of equivalent limits on ministerial certificates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than come back to what the privacy commissioner said in relation to the legislation. He said: All existing privacy rights of Canadians remain fully safeguarded, the oversight role of the Privacy Commissioner remains intact, and even the issuance of certificates is closely circumscribed and subject to judicial review. I would like to know what the hon. member's problem is.
MacKay asks what evidence the minister has that disclosure under access and privacy acts has compromised the security of Canadians or allies, suggesting that ministerial certificates under Bill C-36 are more about political protection than protection of Canadians.
The question asks for specific evidence that disclosure under access and privacy acts has compromised the security of Canadians or allies, which is a legitimate and answerable evidentiary ask, though it is embedded in considerable rhetorical framing about political protection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that another parliamentary watchdog has been brought to heel just like the ethics counsellor. Canadians should be alarmed as ministerial certificates will allow the cabinet to clamp down on all forms of government disclosure. Institutional and individual accountability will suffer and this further concentration of executive powers signals even more flouting of transparency and openness. What evidence does the minister have that the disclosure under access and privacy acts have compromised the security of Canadians or our allies? Is this not more about political protection than protection of Canadians?
McLellan says she finds the question incredible given that MacKay voted in favour of the legislation at committee the previous evening.
McLellan does not address the evidentiary question at all, instead responding with the ad hominem observation that MacKay himself voted in favour of the legislation at committee the previous evening.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's question quite incredible in light of the fact that I do believe the hon. member, last evening at committee, voted in favour of the legislation.
Pallister asks whether the real reason Canada cannot get Operation Apollo off the ground is that two-thirds of Canada's Hercules transport aircraft are grounded and cannot fly.
The question cites a specific claim that two-thirds of Canada's Hercules transport aircraft are grounded and references the minister's statement to secretary Donald Rumsfeld, making a pointed causal link between grounded aircraft and the inability to deploy for Operation Apollo, though it is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Unbelievably, Mr. Speaker, fully two-thirds of Canada's Hercules transport aircraft are not aircraft at all because they cannot fly. They are grounded. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence told secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington that our troops will be sent âwhen they are readyâ. Well they are ready but their aircraft are not and the government over there is to blame. Is not the real reason we cannot get Operation Apollo off the ground is that we cannot get our transport aircraft off the ground?
Eggleton says that is not the case, that the coalition is working out details for the 1,000-person deployment to Afghanistan, and that Canada already has aircraft and ships contributing to Operation Apollo.
Eggleton denies the premise, says other assets (ships and aircraft) are already contributing to Operation Apollo, but does not directly address the claim about the number of grounded Hercules aircraft.
Source text
That is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. The coalition is attempting to work out the details of the operation for the 1,000 person deployment that will go to Afghanistan for humanitarian aid purposes. We do have aircraft over there that are really quite useful. We have ships over there, so Operation Apollo is in full swing. Canadians are making a contribution to the coalition effort in the fight against terrorism.
Pallister argues that Canada's failure to replace its aging military transport aircraft is embarrassing to Canadian troops and Canada's reputation, citing the three attempts needed to reach East Timor with one plane and colonel Michael Ward's description of airlift in Kosovo as 'near catastrophe.'
The question cites specific episodes (three tries to reach East Timor with one plane, colonel Michael Ward's characterization of airlift in Kosovo as 'near catastrophe') but is largely a rhetorical indictment rather than a single answerable question, and does not conclude with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, aircraft and ships are fine if aircraft can fly, but the fact of the matter is ours cannot and the government does not seem to get it. Our air transport fleet is so frail that it took us three tries to reach East Timor with just one plane. It is no secret that the commander of the Canadian task force in Kosovo, colonel Michael Ward, called our airlift portion ânear catastropheâ. The fact is the government has not got it yet. The failure to replace Canada's military aging transport aircraft is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to Canadian troops. It is embarrassing to Canada's reputation around the world. It has shown Canada as the weak sister in the coalition against terrorism.
Eggleton says Hercules aircraft would not be used to transport the 1,000 troops in any event, that airbuses are used for strategic lift, and that Canada has always been able to get its troops overseas where they have made a solid contribution.
Eggleton makes the relevant factual point that Hercules aircraft would not be used for the 1,000-troop deployment in any event and that airbuses are used for strategic lift, which partially addresses the underlying concern, though he does not engage with the specific East Timor or Kosovo incidents cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we would not use Hercules aircraft to take over the 1,000 men troops in any event. The hon. member fully misunderstands what the Hercules are used for and what strategic lift is about. We do have airbuses that take our troops over. We need larger aircraft which we have always been able to get before. We have always been able to get our troops over. Our troops have always made a very solid contribution. We should be proud of them, not running them down in the way the opposition does.
Why has the federal government still not paid the $500,000 committed on October 13, 2000 for the freestyle skiing centre of Lac Beauport, more than a year after the announcement?
Cites a specific October 13, 2000 announcement, names the freestyle skiing centre of Lac Beauport, specifies the $500,000 figure, notes the Quebec government has already contributed, and asks a single clear question about why Ottawa has not paid one year later.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on October 13, 2000, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport announced with great fanfare that $1 million would be invested over a five year period to develop national training centres, including $500,000 for the freestyle skiing centre of Lac Beauport. The Quebec government has already made its contribution. However, despite the commitments of the secretary of state, Ottawa has yet to make its contribution and it is unduly delaying the completion of the Lac Beauport project. I am asking the Minister of National Revenue what the government is waiting to make its contribution, which still has not been paid one year after the announcement?
The minister says the issue is being examined by Canada Economic Development and the department responsible for amateur sport, and that an answer will come once the review is completed.
The minister says the issue is under review by Canada Economic Development and the amateur sport department but does not address why the committed $500,000 has not been paid, pivoting instead to praise of federal investment in Quebec's economy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the Quebec government is making announcements without necessarily having thoroughly examined the issues, leaving it to the Canadian government to later properly assess the situation. The issue is being examined by both Canada Economic Development and the department responsible for amateur sport. We are reviewing the issue in the global context of Quebec's economic development. In recent years, we have invested massively to put Quebec in a sound position as regards the new economy, research and development, and job creation. We will have an answer as soon as the review of this issue is completed.
Noting the announcement was made just before the election campaign, the member again asks what the government is waiting for to provide the promised money for Lac Beauport.
Adds a pointed observation that the announcement was made just before an election campaign, but the ask is essentially a repeat of Exchange 31 and leans more on partisan framing this time.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk indeed about the circumstances. Oddly enough, the announcement and the promises were made by the secretary of state just before the election campaign. Athletes from Lac Beauport and the Quebec City region are still waiting for the promised money. What is the government waiting to come up with that money?
The minister counter-attacks by citing the Quebec government's pre-election announcement for Petite-RiviÚre-Saint-François and says studies were not properly done, promising the federal government will act at the appropriate time.
The minister deflects entirely by recounting a story about the Quebec government's pre-election announcement for the Petite-RiviÚre-Saint-François ski centre and incomplete studies, never addressing the Lac Beauport commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us do a bit of history here. If my memory serves me right, before a provincial election campaign, the Quebec government announced that more than $10 million would be earmarked for the Petite-RiviÚre-Saint-François ski centre. As usual, that commitment was conditional on the participation of the Canadian government. When we looked at the issue, we realized that not half of the studies had been conducted properly. We worked seriously and took action at the appropriate time. This is what we will do in this case.
Will the Prime Minister tell his industry minister to stop putting the high tech sector in the middle of the Liberal leadership campaign, given that his officials allegedly wrote press releases for high tech players soliciting support for his billion dollar broadband project?
Makes a specific allegation that the industry minister's officials wrote press releases for high tech players soliciting support for his broadband project, but the ask conflates that allegation with the Liberal leadership campaign, muddying accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the industry minister is pushing so hard for his billion dollar broadband project that he is making people in the high tech sector very uncomfortable. High tech players are questioning the minister's tactics, which include having his officials write press releases for them soliciting support for the minister's pet project. Will the Prime Minister tell his industry minister to stop putting the high tech sector in the middle of this Liberal leadership campaign?
The Prime Minister cites the government's record on connecting schools, universities and libraries and says the opposition has no interest in the long term development of Canada.
The Prime Minister does not address the allegation about officials writing press releases and instead talks broadly about connectivity achievements and accuses the opposition of lacking interest in long term development.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, high tech and new technology have been extremely important for the government. We have managed to be the first big country to have all the schools, universities and libraries connected. We want to carry on because we want to be competitive. I know the opposition party has no interest in the long term development of Canada.
Given polls showing business and ordinary Canadians oppose the industry minister's innovation spending proposals, and given the Prime Minister's own warning to leadership hopefuls, will he apply the same standard and rein in his industry minister?
Cites a Compass poll on business leaders' views and a LĂ©ger poll on Canadians preferring tax cuts, and draws a parallel to the Prime Minister's own intervention warning leadership hopefuls, making a reasonably specific ask â but the framing is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously not connecting with the Canadian people. Last week a Compass poll said that business leaders found the minister's innovation spending proposals very unpopular. A LĂ©ger poll reported just yesterday that ordinary Canadians prefer tax cuts to government spending. Yesterday the Prime Minister intervened in his party's campaign warning leadership hopefuls to back off their campaigns because it was hurting the economics of the Liberal Party. Will he apply the same standard and rein in his industry minister because he is hurting the economy of the country?
The Prime Minister mocks the Alliance Party's polling numbers and leadership situation without addressing the question.
The Prime Minister completely ignores the question and uses his entire answer to mock the Alliance Party's leadership situation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if I were from the Alliance I would never refer to any polls. We are praying that they have good leadership. Every morning we pray that they will keep the same leader.
Could the Minister of Justice inform the House of the measures taken with the national crime strategy and how it is helping communities in Toronto and across Canada?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to inform the House about crime strategy measures, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people in my riding of Etobicoke--Lakeshore and across Canada are concerned about crime in their communities. Could the Minister of Justice inform the House of the measures that she has taken with the national crime strategy and how that strategy is helping communities in Toronto and across Canada?
The minister announced $2.7 million in additional funding for 65 new grassroots community based crime prevention projects in Ontario, emphasizing that local communities identify root causes and design plans in partnership with federal and provincial agencies.
The minister provides a specific figure â $2.7 million for 65 new grassroots community based crime prevention projects in Ontario â and explains the community-driven model of the initiative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was with great pleasure that I visited the riding of the hon. member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore on November 8. I had the opportunity to announce additional funding of $2.7 million for 65 new grassroots community based crime prevention projects in the province of Ontario. Let me say that the great strength of our crime prevention initiative is that it is local communities who identify the root causes of crime, identify their resources to fight those root causes and put together plans that we in the federal government working in partnership with local agencies like those in the hon. member's riding and the provinces--
Why does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs refuse to listen to his fellow Quebecers who are unanimously demanding the transfer of tax points?
References a prior exchange and raises the specific issue of tax point transfers demanded unanimously by Quebecers, but the framing is largely rhetorical and the ask is general.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the question of tax point transfers, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs once again missed a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that the federal government can be open and flexible. In hiding behind the equalization increase, the minister tried to dodge the real issue. Why does he refuse to listen to his fellow Quebecers, who are unanimously demanding the transfer of tax points?
The minister states Quebec tax points are worth 19 cents on each dollar of combined tax points and argues it would not be in Quebecers' best interest, adding that the Quebec government backed down from a referendum on the issue.
The minister provides a specific figure â Quebec tax points are worth 19 cents on each dollar of combined tax points â and argues the proposal is not in Quebecers' best interest, but does not fully engage the accountability dimension of why the government refuses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Quebec tax points are worth 19 cents on each dollar of the combined tax points in Canada. It would not be in the best interest of Quebecers to go this route. In any case, the Quebec government sheepishly backed down from its idea of holding a referendum on the issue. Quite understandably: it is obviously an absurd proposal.
Why does the minister not commit to follow Liberal predecessors who transferred tax points, instead of hampering the efforts of his federalist allies in Quebec?
Asks why the minister does not commit to follow Liberal predecessors who transferred tax points, but wraps it in a provocative insinuation about the minister preferring PQ re-election, making the ask largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder if the minister would not rather see the Parti Quebecois re-elected than have to deal with a federalist government in Quebec pushing for decentralization. Instead of hampering the efforts of his allies in Quebec, why does he not make a commitment to follow in the footsteps of his Liberal predecessors, who were not afraid to transfer tax points?
The minister says the member is misinformed and suggests a federalist premier will soon be in Quebec City, without addressing the tax point commitment.
The minister dismisses the question as based on misinformation and alludes to an upcoming federalist premier in Quebec City without addressing the substance of the tax point commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the question; no doubt the member is misinformed about what is happening in Quebec. It is very likely that we will be discussing these things in the near future with a premier in Quebec City who believes in Canada.
Will the Minister of the Environment respect Quebec's environmental protection regulations banning the importation of waste material, so as to prevent areas like the Eastern Townships from becoming dumping grounds, given that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will allow such imports starting in 2003?
Identifies a specific conflict between Quebec's regulations banning importation of waste material and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act coming into force in 2003, and asks a clear question about whether the minister will respect Quebec's regulations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has enacted regulations banning the importation of waste material. As for the Canadian government, starting in 2003, its Environmental Protection Act will allow waste material to be brought into regions such as the Eastern Townships. Is the Minister of the Environment going to respect Quebec's environmental protection regulations so as to prevent areas like the Eastern Townships from turning into dumping grounds for our neighbours to the South?
The minister assures the member that Canadian legislation will be in line with Quebec's new legislation and foresees no conflict between the two.
The minister directly assures that Canadian legislation will be in line with Quebec's new legislation and sees no problem with differences, which substantively addresses the concern, though without citing specific provisions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian legislation will be in line with the new legislation in the province of Quebec. I can see no problem with differences between the federal and the provincial legislation.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Sumas is an American company that applied for a natural gas fired power plant in the state of Washington. This is very close to Abbotsford, B.C. On February 16 this year the application was denied. However, the company filed a revised application on June 29. Many British Columbians are still concerned about the potential effects on air quality by the plant. Could the minister tell the House the position of the Sumas 2 power plant?
Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Environment was heavily involved from the very beginning in the application of the SE2 proposal. It was in fact the science work done by Environment Canada which led the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to reject the first application and the revised application. Now there is a second application. I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to oppose that because it increases air quality problems in the Fraser Valley, just as we will continue to oppose other sources of air quality detriment in the valley.
Is the government prepared to reimburse the federal taxes and fees paid by passengers who are now holding worthless Canada 3000 tickets for services never received?
Clearly identifies that passengers paid federal taxes and fees for services never rendered when Canada 3000 ceased operations, and asks a single specific question about whether the government will reimburse those federal taxes and fees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when Canada 3000 ceased operations, thousands of Canadians were left with no hope of recouping the money they paid for now worthless tickets. Included in the price of these tickets was a number of federal taxes and fees. These individuals paid taxes for services they never received. I ask the transport minister, is the government prepared to reimburse the federal taxes and fees for those passengers who are now holding worthless Canada 3000 tickets?
The minister says many passengers were protected through tour operators and credit card companies, and acknowledges it is unfortunate that some will be out of pocket, but does not address reimbursement of federal taxes and fees.
The minister discusses credit card protections and tour operator arrangements but never directly addresses the specific question of reimbursing the federal taxes and fees embedded in the worthless tickets.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it was rather regrettable that Canada 3000 went bankrupt. It did leave a lot of people stranded. Because of the way tickets are purchased under the auspices of tour operators in certain provinces a large number, probably a vast majority, of those people were protected on other carriers. Certainly credit card companies have honoured their obligations. There are not as many people who are out of pocket, but it is rather unfortunate there will be some.
When will the health minister introduce a national standard for the reuse of disposable medical devices, given that the Canadian Infectious Disease Society and others warn of a real daily danger to the public and the government has known about this problem since 1994?
Cites the Canadian Infectious Disease Society's call for national standards, alleges the government has known about the problem since 1994, and asks a single clear question about when the health minister will introduce a national standard for the reuse of disposable medical devices.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to gamble with Canadian lives by obstinately refusing to set a national standard for the reuse of disposable medical devices. The Canadian Infectious Disease Society has just joined the others in calling for national standards. In fact it has said âWe believe there is a real danger to the public going on each and every day in Canadaâ. Since 1994 the Minister of Health, or others in his government, has known about this problem yet has done nothing. When will the health minister stop rolling the dice and introduce a national standard for the reuse of disposable medical devices?
The minister says the matter falls squarely within provincial jurisdiction, that Health Canada has carried out studies and shared results with provincial ministers in September, and that he will insist provinces put appropriate standards in place.
The minister invokes provincial jurisdiction, notes Health Canada studies and a September meeting with provincial ministers, and says he will insist provinces put standards in place â partially addressing the issue but not committing to a federal standard.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that is squarely within provincial jurisdiction. They are responsible for making sure these devices are used appropriately. Health Canada has carried out studies to determine the facts. We put those facts in front of the provincial ministers as recently as September when I met them in St. John's for our annual meeting. We told them we expect them to put standards in place that are appropriate. We will insist that they do so, that the provinces do their jobs, as we are doing ours, to protect the health of Canadians.
Does the Minister of the Environment realize that thousands of people are affected by Ottawa's two postponements of the Toulnustouc River hydroelectric project, which would create 900 construction jobs and 255 permanent jobs?
Identifies a specific Hydro-QuĂ©bec project on the Toulnustouc River with 526 megawatt capacity, cites employment figures of 900 construction jobs and 255 permanent jobs, and raises the specific concern of two postponements by Ottawa â though the question is cut off before fully stated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Hydro-QuĂ©bec plans to build a dam and a hydro-electric power station with an estimated capacity of 526 megawatts on the Toulnustouc River on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. The project should create about 900 jobs at the height of construction, and 255 permanent jobs during the years of operation. But Ottawa has twice postponed the go-ahead for this project. Does the Minister of the Environment realize that thousands of people are affected by these delays? Does the ministerâ
The minister states he concluded the project was not likely to have a significant negative impact on the environment and returned the file to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to take the necessary action.
The minister directly answers by stating he concluded the project was not likely to have a significant negative impact on the environment and returned the file to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for necessary action, which addresses the status of the delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I concluded that the project was not likely to have a significant negative impact on the environment. I therefore returned the file to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible for taking the necessary action.
When will the minister insist that it is time for the U.S. to start talking rather than Canada doing all the talking in the softwood lumber dispute, contrary to commitments made by the U.S. at last week's WTO talks?
Notes five months of one-sided provincial-U.S. consultations, references commitments made by the U.S. at the WTO talks last week on countervail and anti-dumping, and asks when the minister will insist the U.S. start talking â reasonably specific but the ask is somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the last five months the provinces have been meeting with the U.S. department of commerce on the softwood lumber dispute. The provinces have done all the talking and the U.S. has done all the listening. Our bargaining position is completely unequal, contrary to commitments made by the U.S. at the WTO talks last week on countervail and anti-dumping. When will the minister insist that it is time for the U.S. to start talking, rather than Canada doing all the talking?
The minister says he was pleased that British Columbia pushed back from the table and that Quebec's proposition was well received by the Americans, and promises to continue working as a Canadian team.
The minister discusses B.C. pushing back from the table and Quebec's proposition being well received, and mentions upcoming travel to British Columbia, but does not address the specific ask about insisting the U.S. start talking rather than only listening.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I followed very closely the discussions that were held in Washington last week. I was very pleased when the British Columbia government decided to push back from the table where international trade was co-ordinating. I was very pleased that the following day the Quebec government's proposition was very well received by the Americans. Progress is being made. I will be very happy in the next three days to be in British Columbia. We will continue to work as a Canadian team vis-Ă -vis the Americans.
Given that the attorney general amended Bill C-36 to include annual reports, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs apply the same amendment to Bill C-35?
Makes a specific reference to the attorney general's amendment to Bill C-36 adding annual reports and asks why the same amendment should not be applied to Bill C-35 â a reasonably pointed procedural accountability question, though somewhat cute in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry are sitting together so they can communicate well. I wonder if he could say the same thing for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the attorney general who also sit together. Last night the attorney general amended Bill C-36 to include annual reports. Would she lean over and explain to the Minister of Foreign Affairs why annual reports are good and why he should apply the same amendment to Bill C-35?
The minister says the amendments to Bill C-36 were very helpful in securing parliamentary passage and help in the campaign against terrorism, without addressing whether annual reports will be added to Bill C-35.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs praises the amendment to Bill C-36 but completely fails to address why he will not apply the same annual report amendment to Bill C-35.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first I want to say what a pleasure it is to sit beside the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The amendments that she proposed to Bill C-36 were not only very helpful in securing parliamentary passage of her legislation but also help us in our campaign against terrorism which we are trying to pursue with our allies and with our coalition partners around the world.
The Speaker drew the attention of the House to visitors in the gallery and members responded with approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.