Session overview
- JTF2 accountability dominated Question Period, with opposition members pressing the Minister of National Defence to confirm the existence of a secret memo changing the briefing chain of command and to table the JTF2 chain of command for parliamentary review.
- The Bloc Québécois challenged the Minister of the Environment over Kyoto protocol implementation, arguing that a sectoral approach and the exclusion of past emissions performance disadvantages Quebec while protecting the biggest-polluting provinces.
- Three questions of privilege were raised: one alleging the chief government whip intimidated opposition staff and NDP members during the Standing Committee on Finance chair election; one alleging the Department of Foreign Affairs briefed media on softwood lumber talks before members of parliament; and one concerning the legal counsel of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations publicly defending the committee's handling of the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations.
- The Minister of Health gave an unequivocal refusal to extend hepatitis C compensation to all victims of tainted blood, while the Minister of Labour announced the extension of the deadline for homeless funding organizations from March 31, 2003 to September 2004.
- The Species at Risk Act generated repeated clashes over committee amendments, compensation for landowners, and party discipline, with the Minister of the Environment defending the government's right to override committee recommendations.
- The Minister of Justice confirmed he would co-operate with the justice committee on legislation addressing corporate criminal liability in the context of the tenth anniversary of the Westray mine disaster, while also confirming that Bill C-7, the act in respect of criminal justice for young persons, received royal assent with a delayed coming-into-force date of April 2003.
The Minister of Labour made a specific and immediate commitment, announcing that the funding deadline for organizations helping the homeless would be extended from March 31, 2003 to September 2004, directly resolving the concern raised in the question.
Quotes directly from a cabinet minister in the Senate raising the possibility that JTF2 exceeded its mandate, and asks a single precise factual yes/no question about whether JTF2 went beyond its mandate between specific dates.
Asked whether the government had given up on democracy, openness and transparency given its use of cabinet secrecy to block access to information requests, the Deputy Prime Minister responded only with a partisan jibe about the Alliance party and majority governments, providing no substantive response to the question.
Outstanding questions
- John Reynolds asked whether the Minister of National Defence had changed briefing procedures on JTF2 to exclude the PCO and other civilian agencies — the minister confirmed the existing protocol but did not confirm or deny whether a change had been made.
- Cheryl Gallant asked whether the minister would seek to find and prosecute the person responsible for the leak of the sensitive JTF2 cabinet document — the minister said he did not know the source but did not commit to any investigation or prosecution.
- Alexa McDonough asked the Minister of Industry what he was doing right now to defend the Canadian steel industry against offshore dumping and whether the government would put safeguards in place before the March 4 Bush administration decision — the Secretary of State committed only to awareness and awaiting an industry submission.
- Lynne Yelich asked what federal policy, regulation, or law determined that a foreign sex offender deported from the United States should be eligible for refugee status in Canada — the minister declined to answer on the grounds he could not comment on specific cases, but the question was about general policy.
- Joe Clark asked what exactly caused the considerable amount of unease among cabinet ministers, referenced publicly in the Senate by the leader of the government in the Senate, regarding JTF2 operations in Afghanistan — the minister speculated it may have related to the detainees controversy without directly addressing the cabinet unease.
Reynolds asked whether the Minister of National Defence changed JTF2 briefing procedures to exclude the PCO and other civilian agencies, citing the minister's own February 4 statement.
Cites a specific February 4 quote from the minister and asks a single direct factual question about whether briefing procedures for JTF2 have been changed to exclude the PCO and other civilian agencies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, joint task force 2 must be accountable to parliament, not treated as a secret army. On February 4 the minister said in the House: There is a frequent flow of information that goes to the PCO, the PMO and foreign affairs...The one exception to be made to that is the JTF2...That just comes to me. Today we learned that the Privy Council Office has been frequently briefed on joint task force operations in the past. Has the Minister of National Defence changed briefing procedures on the JTF2 to exclude the PCO and other civilian agencies?
Eggleton described the JTF2 protocol running from the JTF2 commander to the chief of defence staff to himself, and stated that this is government policy, without confirming or denying a change.
The minister describes the existing protocol in general terms but does not directly confirm or deny whether briefing procedures were changed to exclude the PCO, instead restating the chain of command without addressing the contradiction raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the protocol involving the JTF2 is different from the balance of the Canadian forces because of the nature of the work that it carries out in stealth or covert fashion and the need for security for its operations and security for its personnel. What I have previously reported in the House is exactly the procedure of that protocol which comes from the JTF2 commander to the chief of defence staff to me. If there is any diversion from government policy then I would consult the Prime Minister on the matter. That is what is in fact government policy and the JTF2 follows government policy.
Reynolds asked Eggleton to confirm the existence of a secret memo he signed that changed the JTF2 briefing policy to exclude civilian agencies, noting the contradiction with his earlier refusal to table the chain of command on security grounds.
Cites a specific February 4 statement by the minister refusing to table the chain of command, references a leaked document reported in the media, and asks a single direct question about confirming the existence of a secret memo signed by the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is what the minister says today. On February 4 the minister said also in the House that for reasons of national security he would not table the chain of command for JTF2. But apparently national security was not compromised by a self-serving leak to the media. Yesterday it was reported from a leaked document that the JTF2 chain of command has been changed by a secret memo signed by the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister confirm the existence of this document which changes the briefing policy on JTF2 to exclude civilian agencies of the government?
Eggleton asserted that he is a civilian accountable to the Prime Minister, the House, parliament, and the people of Canada, without addressing the existence of the document.
The minister deflects by asserting his civilian status and accountability in abstract terms, never confirming or denying the existence of the document changing JTF2 briefing policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am a civilian. I am a civilian who is accountable for the actions of the JTF2. I am a civilian who is accountable to the Prime Minister, to the House, to parliament and to the people of Canada. I take that accountability very seriously as does the Prime Minister. The JTF2 operates within government policy and within Canadian law and will continue to do so.
Reynolds asked the minister to table the JTF2 chain of command, citing a military expert's concern that secret arrangements with the chief of the defence staff constitute a disregard for parliament.
Quotes a named expert from the Royal Canadian Military Institute and makes a specific ask to table the JTF2 chain of command, though the rhetorical framing around Somalia somewhat dilutes the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I could probably get a better answer from Warren Kinsella. It may not be as polite, but I would probably get a better answer. Military experts are alarmed by the use of JTF2 as a secret army. I quote the director of the Royal Canadian Military Institute. He said: When you have secret deals with the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister, that seems to be a smack in the face of parliament. I would think that after the whole outcry over Somalia there would be a clear-cut chain of command with clear-cut reporting. Will the minister table the JTF2 chain of command to allow the House to know how this vital element of our military is accountable to civilian authorities and to parliament?
Eggleton refused to table the document on grounds of cabinet confidence, then read a letter from Alliance MP for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca urging the government not to make JTF2 information public.
The minister avoids tabling the document by citing cabinet confidence, then deflects entirely by reading out a letter from an Alliance MP urging secrecy, answering a different question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the documentation that the hon. member refers to is a cabinet document and holds the confidence of the cabinet, as do any other policies of that kind. Let me talk about a document. It is a document that comes from a member of the House. It says “As a matter of record, I sincerely hope your department and the government do not make the identity, whereabouts and actions of the joint task force 2 and our military a matter of public knowledge other than in vague terms”. It is signed by an Alliance member, the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
Gallant asked whether the leak of the JTF2 chain of command to the media was a criminal act or whether the minister was hiding information from the House that parliament has a right to see.
Poses a pointed binary question — either the leak was criminal or the minister is withholding information — which creates a clear accountability dilemma, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if it is acceptable for the Liberals to leak this kind of information to the media, surely the minister can reveal the JTF2 chain of command to parliament. Either this leak was a criminal act or the minister is hiding information from the House that we have a right to see. Which one is it?
Eggleton denied that the government made any leak, characterized the document as a cabinet confidence, and stated he had tried to be as open as possible while maintaining security.
The minister denies any government leak and invokes cabinet confidence, but does not address the either/or dilemma posed by the question, offering only a partial tangential response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no leak that the government has made with respect to this matter. This particular document is a cabinet confidence document, like many other cabinet policies are, and there is nothing unusual about that. The JTF2 for the security of its people and the security of its operations in fact operates in the same way as do special forces of many other countries in the world. I have tried to be as open as possible about this organization while maintaining the necessary security for its operations and its people.
Gallant asked whether the minister would seek to find and prosecute the person responsible for leaking the sensitive JTF2 document, on the grounds that it breached national security.
Asks a specific and actionable question — whether the minister will seek to find and prosecute the person responsible for the leak — building on an unanswered question from the previous day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister whether the senior source who leaked the contents of this memo had breached official secrets but the minister refused to answer the question. I ask the minister, since this leak of this sensitive document breached national security, will the minister seek to find and prosecute the person responsible for this leak?
Eggleton said he is disturbed by leaks, noted that the source appeared not to have had the document itself but only knew of its existence, and characterized it as a matter of cabinet confidence.
The minister expresses disturbance about leaks and suggests the source may not have had the document itself, but does not commit to or rule out prosecution, leaving the specific ask unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am as disturbed about leaks as anybody else is in terms of information that is in cabinet confidence. I do not know what the source of that was. They do not appear to have had the document, from what I read in the media report, but seemed to be aware that a document exists. However, the document is part of cabinet confidence. It is clearly the policy under which JTF2 operates and it is one that this government is responsible for.
Duceppe asked whether the Minister of the Environment realizes that applying the polluters pay principle without accounting for past emissions means Quebec pays for the poor performance of Canada's biggest polluting provinces.
Raises a substantive policy concern about the polluters pay principle being applied without historical context, but the ask is implicit rather than a single direct question, and the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment explained to the House the twisted logic that he is using at the expense of Quebec regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The minister says that he wants to respect the polluters pay principle, but he refuses to take the past into consideration. Does the Minister of the Environment realize that applying the polluters pay principle while ignoring the past is tantamount to making Quebec pay for the bad performance of those Canadian provinces that are the biggest polluters?
Anderson accused the Bloc of reversing its position on Kyoto ratification within 48 hours and asked Duceppe to explain the Bloc's own plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The minister misrepresents the Bloc's position as opposing Kyoto ratification and turns the question back on Duceppe, deflecting entirely from the substance of the polluters pay principle argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday I was somewhat encouraged by the Bloc Québécois being in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Now, 48 hours later, we get the impression that it does not want to do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that everything has been taken care of, and nothing more needs to be done to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am not familiar with the Bloc Québécois' policy, but perhaps the hon. leader of the Bloc could tell us about its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Duceppe cited specific emissions growth figures for Quebec versus British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan from 1990 to 1999, arguing the minister is defending the biggest polluters and making Quebec pay despite its efforts.
Provides specific comparative emissions data (Quebec 1.8%, British Columbia 20%, Alberta 26%, Saskatchewan 32% from 1990–1999) to support the argument, though the question is implicit and amounts to a statement of grievance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have explained it. Between 1990 and 1999, greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec increased by only 1.8%, while in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, they shot up by 20%, 26% and 32% respectively over the same period. Now, the minister would have Quebec pay for what the others did not do. The minister wants to pretend to be implementing the Kyoto agreement while he is defending the biggest polluters. The minister wants to make Quebec pay, even though our province has already taken action in this area and effectively reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Anderson said the government wants to discuss the figures submitted today with the provinces, including emission increases during the 1990s, and noted that decisions should come from federal-provincial consultations rather than unilaterally.
The minister acknowledges the figures and the need for provincial consultations but deflects responsibility by saying no decision has been made, partially engaging the substance without addressing the fairness concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what this government wants to do is to discuss these things, with the provinces, including the rate by which greenhouse gas emissions increased during the nineties 1990s. We want to have consultations on the figures that were submitted to us today. The issue is not that I made a decision. They are the ones who keep asking me to make decisions which, in fact, under the Canadian constitution, should stem from discussions between the provinces and the federal government.
Bigras asked whether the minister is aware that his sectoral rather than territorial approach to greenhouse gas reductions puts Quebec at a disadvantage and makes Quebec pay twice.
Identifies a specific methodological choice — sectoral versus territorial approach — and asks whether the minister is aware it disadvantages Quebec, though the ask is somewhat implicit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in order to get Quebec to pay, the Minister of the Environment is taking a sectoral approach, rather than territorial, in other words, by province. Is the minister aware that the sectoral approach puts Quebec at a disadvantage, and that by taking such an approach, the government is making Quebec pay twice rather than once?
Anderson said these are exactly the issues — including population-based, emission-rate-based, or increase-based formulas — that need to be frankly discussed with provinces, territories, and other interested parties.
The minister acknowledges the methodological options including population-based and emission-rate-based formulas, and commits to discussing them with provinces, but does not directly answer whether he is aware the sectoral approach disadvantages Quebec.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the issues the Bloc mentioned a few moments ago. These are exactly the issues we must discuss with the provinces. We can use a formula based on population, for example, or based on emission rates, or their increase in the 1990s. These are the issues and details that we need to discuss frankly with the provinces, the territories and other interested parties.
Bigras asked why Quebec, which held its greenhouse gas emissions to 1.8%, should pay for Alberta, which increased its emissions by 26% while maintaining no sales tax and stockpiling billions in a heritage fund.
Provides specific comparative fiscal data about Alberta's zero sales tax and heritage fund alongside Quebec's 1.8% emissions growth to make a fairness argument, though the ask is framed rhetorically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Alberta was increasing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%, it maintained its zero sales tax and plowed money into its heritage fund. At the same time, Quebec was restricting its greenhouse gas emissions to a mere 1.8%. Can the Minister of the Environment explain why Quebec, after all of the efforts it has made, should still have to pay for Alberta, a province that has no sales tax, that has billions of dollars stockpiled in a heritage fund, and that brags about having the lowest taxes in Canada?
Anderson suggested Bigras should have run for the Parti Québécois rather than the Bloc Québécois, and said the figures he cited would be discussed with provinces to find a formula that does not too heavily burden any one region.
The minister dismisses the question by suggesting Bigras should have run as a Parti Québécois MNA rather than a federal MP, which is a personal attack deflecting entirely from the substance of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to have this sort of discussion, I am surprised that he ran for the Bloc Québécois as a federal member of parliament, rather than as a MNA for the Parti Québécois. He is giving us figures, details and points that we will discuss with the provinces in order to agree on a common position, which, I repeat, will be a good formula for all of Canada, where no one region will be too heavily burdened.
McDonough asked what the Minister of Industry is doing right now to defend the Canadian steel industry and protect Canadian jobs against offshore dumping, noting that steelworker representatives were in Ottawa that day.
Identifies a specific national crisis, notes steelworker representatives in Ottawa that day, and asks a direct question about what the Minister of Industry is doing right now, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs in Canada's steel industry are in jeopardy because of an unprecedented flood of unfairly priced imports. Offshore dumping is causing a national steel crisis. Steelworker representatives are in Ottawa today to plead for decisive government action before it is too late. What is the Minister of Industry doing right now to defend the Canadian steel industry and to protect Canadian jobs against offshore dumping?
McCallum said the government has been in constant consultation with all stakeholders in the steel industry, is acutely aware of the diversion risk from U.S. actions, and will respond quickly once an industry submission is received.
McCallum acknowledges consultations with stakeholders and awareness of the diversion threat from U.S. actions, but provides no specific measures being taken, only a promise to respond quickly upon receiving an industry submission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has been in constant consultation with all stakeholders in the steel industry. We are acutely aware of the problems facing the industry owing to certain actions taken in the United States and the possibility of diversion. As soon as we receive a submission from the industry, we will respond very quickly.
McDonough asked whether the minister will commit to putting safeguards in place against offshore steel being diverted into Canada before the March 4 Bush administration decision on steel duties.
Specifies a hard deadline — the March 4 Bush administration decision — and makes a concrete ask for safeguards against diversion of offshore steel into Canada, with factual context about years of industry advocacy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the steel industry has been begging for action for a couple of years and the Canadian steel industry is getting hammered while the government talks about awareness. On March 4 the Bush administration will decide whether to hit steel products originating in Canada with extra duties, further damaging steel jobs in the industry. We need the government to stand up to the threat of offshore steel being diverted from U.S. ports of entry and dumped into Canada. Will the minister commit today to put those necessary safeguards in place?
McCallum reiterated that the government is highly aware and in constant touch with stakeholders, and said it cannot make a submission before receiving one from the industry, which had not yet arrived.
McCallum repeats that the government is highly aware and in constant touch with stakeholders, and conditions any action on receiving an industry submission, which does not commit to the specific safeguards requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I just explained, the government is highly aware of the situation and is in constant touch with the stakeholders in the steel industry. It is very hard for us to make any submission ourselves before we receive the submission from the industry which we have not yet received.
Clark asked whether JTF2 went beyond its mandate in any action during its Afghanistan deployment between December 5, 2001, and January 30, 2002, citing the Senate government leader's suggestion that there was a question about whether JTF2 exceeded its mandate.
Quotes directly from a cabinet minister in the Senate raising the possibility that JTF2 exceeded its mandate, and asks a single precise factual yes/no question about whether JTF2 went beyond its mandate between specific dates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the leader of the government in the Senate raised the possibility that JTF2 exceeded its mandate in Afghanistan. That minister of the government said: Where it became critical for a (defence) minister to inform the Prime Minister...is that there seemed to be some question about whether the incident in question went beyond the mandate of (JTF2). Between December 5, 2001, and January 30, 2002, has JTF2 gone beyond its mandate in any action during its deployment in Afghanistan?
Eggleton answered simply 'No.'
Eggleton answers directly with a clear 'No,' which is the most direct possible response to the yes/no question asked, though the brevity provides no supporting detail or explanation.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker.
Clark asked what caused the 'considerable amount of unease among a number of ministers' about JTF2 in Afghanistan, as described by the Senate government leader, and why parliament and Canadians are not being told what went wrong.
Quotes the Senate government leader directly on 'considerable unease among a number of ministers' and asks specifically what caused that unease and why parliament and Canadians are not told the story.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote again the minister's colleague, the leader of the government in the Senate. She told the Senate yesterday “there was a considerable amount of unease among a number of ministers who learned for the first time” what had happened with JTF2 in Afghanistan. What exactly caused that considerable amount of unease referred to in public, in the Senate by his cabinet colleague? What went wrong that upset the cabinet and why are parliament and Canadians not told the story?
Eggleton called the question unreasonable, denied JTF2 had done anything outside government policy, and speculated that the Senate leader may have been referring to the general controversy over detainee treatment, which he said had been resolved by President Bush's comments.
Eggleton dismisses the question as unreasonable, denies any breach of government policy, and suggests the Senate leader may have been referring to the detainee controversy — a speculative deflection that does not explain what caused ministerial unease.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member is getting far beyond what is reasonable here. There is nothing that the JTF2 has done that is outside government policy. Perhaps the hon. leader of the Senate was referring to the general controversy on detainees and the American treatment of detainees, which I think has been put to rest with the comments of President Bush that in fact they will all be treated in accordance with humane treatment as provided for in the Geneva conventions.
Pallister asked what evidence the government has that Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 1998, noting Canada participated in military action then to enforce UN resolutions on weapons inspections.
References Canada's 1998 military action and asks what evidence shows Iraq is less of a threat today, providing a factual anchor, but the question is broad and lends itself to a general policy response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadian foreign policy must be built on Canadian interests and it is not in Canada's interests to allow Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction. Three years ago Canada participated in military action to enforce the United Nations security council resolution which demanded Iraq to comply with weapons inspections, but Iraq has not. Today the government seems to be backtracking on our commitment to work with our allies to eliminate this threat. What evidence does the government have that Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 1998?
Graham said the government continues to work within the United Nations system and the sanctions regime to enforce them, strengthen them, and prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction while avoiding punishment of innocent civilians.
Graham confirms the government continues to work within the United Nations system and the sanctions regime to prevent Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, partially engaging the substance but not addressing the specific evidence question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is extremely concerned with the position of Iraq. As I said in the House on repeated occasions to the hon. member, we continue to do exactly what we did, as he referred to in the past, and that is work within the United Nations system and the sanctions regime of the UN to enforce them, to strengthen them and to apply them to the government of Iraq, and to avoid punishing innocent civilians. That is what we continue to do and we will continue to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not acquired by Saddam Hussein and used to disturb the peace of the world.
Pallister cited the Prime Minister's 1998 statement warning of Saddam Hussein's atrocities and studies indicating Iraq has expanded biological and chemical weapons production, asking why the government's response is weaker if the threat is stronger.
Cites the Prime Minister's own 1998 statement about Saddam Hussein and references studies by academics, journalists, and intelligence agencies on expanded biological and chemical weapons production, asking why the government's response is weaker despite a stronger threat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government seems to see a greater threat in its own backbenchers than it does in Saddam Hussein. In 1998 the Prime Minister said “inaction will encourage Saddam Hussein to commit other atrocities, to prolong his reign of terror over his own people, his neighbours and the entire world”. Since then every study by academics, journalists and intelligence agencies has said that Iraq has expanded its production of biological and chemical weapons. The threat posed by Iraq is stronger than it was three years ago. Why is the government's response weaker?
Graham rejected the premise, said the government continues to monitor the situation and work through the UN system, and mocked the Alliance's internal disputes.
Graham rejects the premise, claims the response is not weaker, and deflects with a partisan jab about the Alliance's internal disputes rather than addressing the specific evidence about expanded weapons production.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the question. As I said, the government's response is not weaker. We are continuing to monitor this. We are continuing to work through the UN system. We will continue to ensure not only that we have the support of the world community in what we do, but the support of our backbenchers while his backbenchers continue the internecine dispute which they are presently in.
Gauthier asks how the minister can claim negotiations are open when he has already set parameters — rejecting the past and favouring a sectoral approach — that disadvantage Quebec.
Cites specific statements made in the House earlier in the week and identifies a concrete contradiction between the minister's stated parameters (sectoral over territorial, no past credit) and his claimed openness, with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in connection with implementing the Kyoto protocol, the Minister of the Environment said in the House at the beginning of the week that he would not take the past into account, that he clearly favoured a sectoral, rather than a territorial approach. He has just said that he wants to see costs shared so that no one region has to pay more than another. How can he tell the House today that everything is open, that he is going to talk with the provincial ministers, when he himself has very clearly set the parameters for those talks, none of which are to Quebec's advantage?
Anderson clarifies that he said the past must be taken into account but with limits, using the example that decisions by Robert Bourassa may not have related to greenhouse gases.
The minister partially addresses the 'past' parameter by clarifying his position but does not engage with the sectoral vs. territorial framing or explain how his stated parameters are not prejudicial to Quebec.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exaggerating. I clearly said that the past must be taken into account, but there are limits. The decisions made by Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa may not have had anything to do with greenhouse gases. So, we are going to take the past into consideration, but there comes a point when the past has very little to do with what is going on now.
Gauthier asks whether the minister has deliberately chosen parameters unfavourable to Quebec — which reduced CO2 emissions — to protect his own region, which increased emissions by 20%.
Grounds the question in a factual comparison — Quebec reduced emissions while British Columbia increased by 20% — and poses a pointed accountability question about whether the minister is protecting his own region.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once a province, such as Quebec, has introduced two plans to limit greenhouse gases, reducing its rate of emission of CO 2 into the atmosphere, while other provinces, including the one from which the minister hails, have increased their emissions by 20%, is one not entitled to wonder whether the minister has not deliberately chosen parameters that are not in Quebec's interests in order to protect his own region?
Anderson assures that credit for early action is being discussed at both international and domestic levels and that appropriate credit will be given.
Anderson addresses the substance of credit for early action and commits to appropriate credit both domestically and internationally, which is responsive, though without specific detail on how Quebec's record would be recognized.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that both at the international level and at the domestic level we spend a lot of time discussing credit for early action, which is exactly what he has put forward here. I can assure him that there will be appropriate credit given for early action both domestically and on the international plain.
Mills asks the minister to provide his estimate of enforcement costs of the species at risk bill for property owners and what compensation is planned.
Raises a specific and dual ask — estimated cost of enforcing the species at risk bill for property owners and planned compensation — with factual grounding in the bill's effects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the species at risk bill transfers most of the costs of protecting endangered species on to the backs of farmers and other landowners. Some property values will drop, use of land will be restricted and even forbidden in some cases and extra compliance costs will be imposed. Will the Minister of the Environment please provide the House with what he estimates the cost will be of enforcing the species at risk bill for property owners and what sort of compensation does he plan to provide them?
Anderson references the $45 million a year made available by the Minister of Finance, promises a full breakdown in due course, and asserts the bill is designed to be rural Canada friendly.
Anderson mentions the $45 million a year figure but declines to provide the full cost breakdown requested, promising it 'in due course,' and deflects the compensation question with a general claim about the bill being 'rural Canada friendly.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, before the committee examining the bill, of which the hon. member is a member, we went into some detail on the $45 million a year which the Minister of Finance generously made available for species at risk activity. This was done two years ago. It is ramping up. We are getting there now. I will give a full breakdown to the hon. member in due course, if he wishes, as we see how this legislation works when it comes into being. On his preamble, I can assure him that the very basis of our bill is to ensure we have the most rural Canada friendly bill that we can possibly put forth.
Mills asks why the minister cannot accept that compensation is essential when both the Sierra Club and the mining association have agreed it is, citing their joint position from the environment committee.
Cites a specific jointly held position by both industry and environmental representatives — including the Sierra Club and mining association — that compensation is essential, creating a focused accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, had the minister paid any attention at all to the environment committee, he would know that protecting endangered species requires the co-operation of property owners. For example, both industry and environmental representatives begged the minister to recognize that “provision for compensation helps to balance the effect of effort to protect species at risk”. If the Sierra Club and the mining association can agree that compensation is essential, why can the minister not?
Anderson praises co-operation with rural land users but suggests the mining association wants unlimited compensation it should not receive, without addressing the joint consensus on the necessity of compensation.
Anderson praises co-operation with rural workers but then deflects by suggesting the mining association wants 'unlimited compensation' for things they should not do, never engaging with the cited consensus that compensation is essential.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me yet again the opportunity of pointing out how much I value co-operation with people who work on the land, trappers, farmers, ranchers, and with people who work in the woods or fishermen. These are the people who are at the forefront of the battle to protect endangered species and they are the people we want co-operating with the governments, federal and provincial. With respect to the mining association, I am sure that it would like to have unlimited compensation for many things that we think it should not do. We do not think that when it operates on crown land that it has given the right to eliminate endangered species. We think that is something that should not be in--
Bourgeois asks whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made representations to the government of Nigeria to prevent the stoning sentence against Safiya Husseini under the charia law of Sokoto.
Identifies a specific individual case (Safiya Husseini), a specific Nigerian state (Sokoto), and a specific legal context (charia), and asks a concrete question about whether representations have been made to the Nigerian government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Nigeria, a young woman, Safiya Husseini, stands accused of having sexual relations outside of marriage. According to the charia, the Islamic law enforced in the Nigerian state of Sokoto, the sentence for such an offence is stoning. This situation is totally unacceptable. With such a barbaric act about to take place, has the Minister of Foreign Affairs made representations to the government of Nigeria to prevent such an atrocity?
Paradis states that Canada is very concerned, opposes the death penalty, and is continuing to pressure all countries via the UN, noting that Nigeria is a signatory to human rights treaties.
Paradis confirms Canada is concerned and is exercising pressure via the UN and citing Nigeria's human rights treaty obligations, which is responsive in general terms, but does not confirm whether direct representations to Nigeria's government have been made as specifically asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is very concerned about these sentences of death by stoning. The Canadian government's position on the death penalty is well known. We continue to exercise pressure on all countries, via the UN, for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. This is totally contrary to the human rights treaty of which Nigeria is a signatory. We are therefore going to continue to put pressure on the Nigerian government in order to make it see reason.
Bourgeois calls on the government to commit to summoning the Nigerian High Commissioner to Canada and to intervene with Nigeria's Commonwealth partners to oppose the execution of Safiya Husseini.
Makes two specific requests — summoning the Nigerian High Commissioner and intervening with Nigeria's Commonwealth partners — which are concrete and actionable, though framed somewhat as demands rather than a question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government must do everything in its power to save this young woman. What we are calling upon the government to do is to make a commitment to summon the Nigerian High Commissioner to Canada in order to make our formal objections to this execution known to him, as well as to intervene with Nigeria's Commonwealth partners in order to enlist their support.
Paradis says Canada will continue to bring pressure to ensure the application of international conventions and notes that some members of the Nigerian federal government have spoken out against this type of sentence.
Paradis commits only to continuing general pressure and notes some Nigerian federal officials have spoken out, but does not address either of the two specific requests made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we will continue to bring pressure to bear in order to ensure the application of these international conventions of which Nigeria is a signatory. We are, however, pleased that certain members of the Nigerian federal government have spoken out against this type of sentence. We shall continue with our pressure.
Yelich asks how the minister can explain that a violent sex offender deported from the United States for sexual assault and drug trafficking convictions was granted refugee status in Canada while in Toronto Police custody.
Describes a specific case with factual details (US deportation for sexual assault and drug trafficking, refugee status granted in Toronto Police custody) and asks how the minister can explain allowing criminal sex offenders to claim refugee status, though the rhetorical framing somewhat undercuts specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a violent sex offender with a lengthy criminal record was deported from the United States. He was granted refugee status after slipping into Canada. This individual was deported from the United States for convictions that included sexual assault and drug trafficking, yet he received refugee status while in Toronto Police custody. Refugee status should be for people fleeing persecution not sex offenders fleeing prosecution. How can the minister explain to Canadians that he has allowed criminal sex offenders to claim refugee status?
Coderre says he cannot comment on specific cases because of the Privacy Act and that he is taking note of the matter.
Coderre declines to comment citing the Privacy Act and simply says he is 'taking note,' providing no substantive engagement with either the case or the policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of the Privacy Act, I cannot comment on specific cases but I am taking note of it.
Yelich asks what specific federal policy, regulation, or law determined that a foreign sex offender deported from the United States should have been eligible for refugee status in Canada.
Explicitly moves beyond the specific case to ask a policy-level question — what federal policy, regulation, or law made a foreign sex offender deported from the United States eligible for refugee status — which is a clear and answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to examine the specifics of this case to find out what went wrong with refugee policy in Canada. What federal policy, what regulation, what law determined that a foreign sex offender deported from the United States should have been eligible for refugee status in Canada?
Coderre declines to comment specifically, praises the standing committee process created by his predecessor, and asks the member to give him her proposition.
Coderre again declines to comment specifically, then pivots to praising his predecessor's committee process and asks the member to submit her proposition, without addressing the policy question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I will not comment specifically. However, my predecessor created a tremendous process that I fully support, which is through the standing committee. We look through all the regulations. The hon. member is part of that. She should give me her proposition.
LeBlanc asks the President of the Treasury Board to explain the impact of the new alternative service delivery policy on Canadians and on linguistic minorities.
A government-backbench softball asking the President of the Treasury Board to explain a policy she herself just announced, with no critical accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today the President of the Treasury Board announced a new policy to create alternative service delivery arrangements. Could she explain to the House what kind of impact this new policy will have on Canadians, and on linguistic minorities in particular?
Robillard explains that departments must consult official language minority communities and file an impact study with the Treasury Board before adopting alternative service delivery, ensuring continued bilingual services.
Robillard provides substantive details about the new policy, including the requirement for departments to consult official language minority communities and file an impact study with the Treasury Board before adopting alternative service delivery.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this new policy will encourage innovation in service delivery, while maintaining quality and public interest criteria. Guiding principles have also been added to strengthen the government's commitment to the Official Languages Act. Prior to adopting an alternative method of service delivery, all departments will be required to consult with official language minority communities and file an impact study with the Treasury Board. This will ensure that we continue to provide services in English and in French to our minority communities.
Comartin asks the Deputy Prime Minister to commit to allowing the environment committee's amendments to the species at risk act to stand and be voted on by the House as is, citing 60,000 petition signatories and extensive stakeholder input.
References specific factual context — nine months of environment committee work, dozens of groups, and 60,000 Canadians signing petitions — but the ask about whether the Deputy Prime Minister will 'commit to allow those amendments to stand' is partly rhetorical and conflates procedural and political questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the finance committee we saw the type of contempt that we get from the government as far as the democratic process. Even worse is the contempt it has shown for the work the environment committee has done over the last nine months on the species at risk act, the contempt it has shown for the input of dozens of environmental groups, business organizations and stakeholders, and the contempt it has shown for 60,000 Canadians who signed petitions supporting those amendments. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit today to allow those amendments to stand and let the House vote on them as is?
Anderson argues that the House and Senate, not committees or petitions, are the deciding bodies for democracy in Canada.
Anderson lectures on constitutional law and the role of the House and Senate versus committees and petitions, but does not address the specific ask about allowing the committee amendments to stand for a House vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I had always understood, given my knowledge of constitutional law, that it was the House and the Senate that were the deciding body for democracy in Canada. It was not committees, not 60,000 people who signed a petition and not pressure groups. It is the House and the Senate, of course with Her Majesty's or her representative's signature. That is how we make laws. I suggest that the hon. member goes back and looks at the books.
Comartin asks whether the minister will commit to allowing Liberal Party members who want to vote in favour of the committee-passed amendments to do so without being punished by the government.
Asks a specific procedural-political question about whether Liberal members who support committee amendments will be free to vote for them without being punished by the government, which is a concrete and answerable accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if he really believes that, will he commit today to allow Liberal Party members who want to vote in favour of those amendments passed by the committee to stand without being punished by the government if they do so?
Anderson says the government is fulfilling its duty from its red book and throne speech promises and that bringing forward the species at risk act is government policy.
Anderson pivots entirely to defending the government's mandate from red book and throne speech promises, never addressing whether Liberal members will face consequences for supporting the committee amendments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not too long ago we had an election in the country, another example of the democratic process. This party went on record to put forward a species at risk act and told the public what would be there. We are fulfilling our duty as a government from our red book promises to our throne speech promises. That is what we are doing. It is this government's policy that we are bringing forward and that is why his suggestion is ridiculous.
Strahl cites access to information documents showing that Technology Partnerships Canada projects for Bombardier ($96 million), Ballard Power Systems ($30 million), and CAE Electronics were announced months before cabinet approval, and asks when cabinet actually approved these projects.
Cites specific access to information documents with precise figures ($96 million for Bombardier, $30 million for Ballard Power Systems, CAE Electronics), specific announcement dates, and specific cabinet approval dates, asking a precise factual question about when cabinet actually approved the projects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession access to information documents revealing three Technology Partnerships Canada projects that were announced before they were approved by cabinet. It was announced that Bombardier would get $96 million in October 1996 yet cabinet approval was not received until March 1997. It was announced that Ballard Power Systems would receive $30 million in November 1996 but that cabinet did not approve that until March of the following year. The same thing goes for CAE Electronics. Could the minister tell the House just when the cabinet did approve these projects?
Rock asserts that cabinet approval was in place before any of these investments were announced and cites two auditor general reviews finding due diligence was exercised.
Rock directly contradicts the premise by claiming cabinet approval was in place before announcements and cites auditor general reviews finding due diligence, but provides no specific approval dates as asked and essentially restates his position from the previous day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I made it clear yesterday that in each one of these projects cabinet approval was in place before any of these investments were announced. I also made clear yesterday that on two occasions in the last few years the auditor general has looked into Technology Partnerships Canada and, on each occasions, found that we had used due diligence before making investments and fulfilled our responsibilities as a government. This program is good for Canada, good for innovation and it creates jobs. It has been a success and will continue.
Strahl asks what guidelines were in place to prevent conflicts of interest on the Technology Partnerships Canada advisory board, noting that six of fourteen board members are associated with companies that received nearly half a billion dollars in TPC funds.
Presents specific data — 14 board members, 6 with companies receiving grants, nearly half a billion dollars out of $947 million total — and asks a precise question about what conflict of interest guidelines were in place for the advisory board.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has to look into it because the minister will not table the annual reports. The Technology Partnerships Canada advisory board was formed in September 1996 and had 14 members. Now it appears as though six of the board members are with companies that have received grants from TPC. In fact, the companies associated with these six board members have received just shy of half a billion dollars in TPC funds. That is nearly half of the $947 million that was doled out under this program. Could the industry minister tell us exactly what guidelines were in place to make sure that there was no conflict of interest on the advisory board?
Rock quotes the auditor general's finding of due diligence and defends the program as good for job creation and economic growth.
Rock quotes the auditor general on due diligence and pivots to describing the program's purpose and success without addressing what specific conflict of interest guidelines existed for advisory board members.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than to quote the auditor general who found that we had exercised due diligence before making investment decisions, and to stress to the House that program is intended to provide pre-competitive research and development funding to allow opportunities to be pursued in the country which would otherwise be lost, creating jobs, economic growth and prosperity. It is a program of which we are very proud.
Williams asks the Deputy Prime Minister whether the government has given up on democracy, openness and transparency, citing blocked expense reports and 12-year-old salary information hidden behind cabinet secrecy claims.
References specific examples (blocked expense reports, 12-year-old salary information blocked by cabinet secrecy) but closes with a compound and largely rhetorical ask about whether the government has 'given up on democracy, openness and transparency' or has 'something to hide.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the minister of defence claimed cabinet secrecy and the document is already in the Globe and Mail . Last week the government was blocking the release of expense reports under the Access to Information Act when they should be made public. In the Post today it is blocking 12 year old salary information by claiming cabinet secrecy. The Langevin Block is getting more like the Kremlin every day. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the government given up on democracy, openness and transparency, or does it really have something to hide?
Manley makes a political quip about the government having won three majority governments in a row and questions whether the Alliance might want to give up on democracy.
Manley's response is a pure political quip about winning three majority governments, with no connection whatsoever to the access to information questions raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we sit here enjoying our third majority government in a row. One wonders whether the Alliance might want to give up on democracy.
Williams asks whether the Prime Minister is hiding something in his expense accounts, citing the government's changed interpretation of the Access to Information Act based on a 1997 court decision applied four years late, coinciding with the shawinigate scandal.
Identifies a specific factual claim — that the government changed its interpretation of the Access to Information Act based on a 1997 court decision but only acted four years later, during the shawinigate scandal — and asks whether the Prime Minister is hiding something in his expense accounts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a debate on that one. The government arbitrarily changed its interpretation of the Access to Information Act to hide the expense accounts of ministers and their political staff based on the flimsiest excuse: based on a court decision in 1997, four years late but right in the middle of the shawinigate scandal. Is the Prime Minister hiding something in his expense accounts?
Cauchon states that the interpretation is based on the DAGG case of the Supreme Court of Canada and that a balanced approach is needed between access to information and privacy.
Cauchon names the specific DAGG case of the Supreme Court of Canada as the basis for the interpretation and invokes the need to balance access to information with privacy, which is partially responsive to the legal interpretation question but does not address whether the Prime Minister is hiding something.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is talking about is the interpretation of the Access to Information Act. The interpretation is based on the DAGG case of the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course we need a balanced approach regarding the Access to Information Act, as well as the privacy issue. When we look at what we are doing, we are meeting the exact criteria of the DAGG case of the Supreme Court of Canada .
What duties did Robert Charest perform for the Canada Lands Company, given that the RCMP has now launched an investigation into the matter?
Cites a specific RCMP investigation and names Robert Charest, asking a clear factual question about duties performed, though it carries some rhetorical framing about the Deputy Prime Minister's prior dismissal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that our questions concerning Robert Charest were ridiculous. However, we just learned that the RCMP has launched an investigation into the matter. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what duties were performed by Robert Charest for the Canada Lands Company?
Manley said only that Charest's contract was terminated by the corporation, without addressing what duties he performed.
Manley does not answer what duties Robert Charest performed; he deflects entirely to the fact that the contract was terminated, which sidesteps the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the real question is; what action was taken regarding Mr. Charest? The answer is clear; his contract was terminated by the corporation.
How could the Canada Lands Company sell a property with a $9 million municipal assessment for only $4 million, other than because the buyer Mr. Lépine was a close friend of the Liberal Party?
Cites specific figures — a $4 million sale price versus a $9 million municipal assessment and $15 million market value — and names the buyer Mr. Lépine, making it a factually grounded question, though the partisan conclusion about Liberal Party connections weakens it slightly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, still on the issue of the Canada Lands Company, the media reported in January that, in 1999, the corporation sold a property belonging to the Department of National Defence which was located at the intersection of Atwater and Sherbrooke streets in Montreal. That property was sold for $4 million, while the municipal assessment was $9 million and the market value somewhere around $15 million. How could a lot valued at $9 million be sold for $4 million, if not because the buyer, Mr. Lépine, was a close friend of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Manley said it is not always possible to find a buyer willing to pay the assessed value and that one must accept the available offer, without addressing the specific price gap.
Manley offers only a vague general comment that properties cannot always be sold at assessed value, without addressing the specific $4 million versus $9 million discrepancy or the allegation regarding Mr. Lépine.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we can certainly sell lots at the best available price. It is impossible to always find someone who is prepared to pay exactly the assessed value, particularly on the municipal assessment.
So, I do not know if there is other information, but it is necessary to get an offer that is accepted.
When will the government backstop exporters with an affective program to cover tariff requirements while the softwood lumber dispute continues?
References the minister of trade's prior public statement about requiring a written proposal and raises the specific policy ask of backstopping exporters with an affective program, but the question is compound and the wording imprecise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister of trade said that softwood talks were not on unless the U.S. came with a written proposal. Now it has come without a proposal and he is making excuses for them. Meanwhile, continuing U.S. harassment is taking a toll on Canadian forest companies. Covering tariff requirements until we can repeal them is essential. When will the government fight this continuing harassment by backstopping exporters with an affective program?
O'Brien said deputy-level talks took place in Ottawa with progress made, and that Canada will likely re-engage with the Americans next week, but did not address the backstopping program.
O'Brien provides some relevant context about deputy-level talks and the prospect of re-engaging with Americans next week, but does not address the specific ask about backstopping exporters with a program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the highest level of talks among officials took place here in Ottawa at the deputy level. The deputy minister has indicated that there was progress made. He now wants to reflect on and continue the team Canada approach, consult widely, as he has been doing, with the minister, with the provinces and with industry. More than likely we will re-engage with the Americans next week. Progress has been made but there is no doubt that we are not at a solution yet.
Will the minister tell the U.S. an unequivocal no to its demand for unrestricted market access to Canadian raw logs without offering unrestricted access to U.S. lumber markets?
Asks a specific, direct yes/no policy question — will the minister tell the U.S. an unequivocal no to unrestricted raw log access without reciprocal lumber market access — grounded in an identified U.S. demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is at least the third time I have asked that question and not received an answer. U.S. trade officials are asking for unrestricted market access to Canadian raw logs but they are not willing to offer unrestricted access to U.S. lumber markets. Will the minister tell the U.S. an unequivocal no?
O'Brien stated that guaranteed market access is a sine qua non for the government and that no deal will be reached without it, effectively confirming Canada's firm position.
O'Brien effectively answers that guaranteed market access is a sine qua non for a deal, which constitutes a substantive if indirect 'no' to the U.S. position, though he does not use the word 'unequivocal no' explicitly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is finally tuning into this issue. The minister has said repeatedly in the House and in the media, and it was made crystal clear yesterday that unless we have guaranteed market access we will not reach a deal. That is a sine qua non for the government. It has been said repeatedly. I do not know why the member has not got the message yet.
Could the Minister for International Cooperation update the House on Canada's continued efforts to assist Afghan women?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on Canada's efforts to assist Afghan women, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, given the ongoing humanitarian and education needs in Afghanistan, could the Minister for International Cooperation please update the House of Commons on Canada's continued efforts to assist Afghan women?
Whelan noted Canada's $100 million pledge for Afghan reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, a $25,000 contribution to the Afghan women's leadership and governance training program at the University of York, and an upcoming visit by Afghan women leaders to Ottawa.
Whelan provides specific figures — $100 million pledged, $25,000 to the Afghan women's leadership and governance training program at the University of York — and mentions concrete activities, making it a substantively informative answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has pledged $100 million toward the reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan. While we continue to investigate ways to provide program support to Dr. Sima Samar, the minister of women's affairs in Afghanistan, we are also contributing here at home. We are providing $25,000 to the Afghan women's leadership and governance training program to be implemented by the University of York. It is a project that will enhance leadership skills among women of Afghan origin in Canada and link them with Canadian women parliamentarians when they visit Ottawa on Monday.
Will the minister right the wrong of her predecessor and compensate every victim of hepatitis C who contracted it through tainted blood?
Cites a specific 1997 parliamentary vote, quotes the former health minister's words, and asks a clear yes/no accountability question about compensating all hepatitis C victims of tainted blood.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the federal government ordered the backbenchers to vote against compensating all Canadians who had contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood. For four years the former health minister stubbornly refused to change his mind. He said that the country could not afford it. He said “It will be the end of publicly financed health care”. Will the minister right the wrong of her predecessor and compensate every victim of hep C through tainted blood?
McLellan said no, that the policy of the government has been and remains clear.
McLellan gives a direct 'no' and states the government policy is clear, which technically answers the yes/no question, but provides no substantive explanation or engagement with the factual framing of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no we will not. The policy of the government has been clear and is clear.
Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not immediately sign the memoranda of agreement submitted by the government of Quebec for highways 175, 185, 30, 35 and 50, given the Minister of Justice's commitment?
Names five specific highways (175, 185, 30, 35 and 50) and references a specific commitment made by the Minister of Justice, making a targeted demand to sign the memoranda of agreement, though it is framed partly as a demand rather than a question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Justice said that the commitments made by his colleagues to improve Quebec's highways would be respected. Since the Minister of Justice has given his word, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not sign the memoranda of agreement submitted by the government of Quebec for highways 175, 185, 30, 35 and 50 immediately? He should stop evading the question and sign.
Collenette said there is an infrastructure program but Quebec disagrees with the current agreement, and that he will meet with his Quebec counterpart Mr. Ménard on Thursday in hopes of making progress.
Collenette acknowledges the impasse with Quebec, notes a specific meeting planned for Thursday with his counterpart Mr. Ménard, but does not explain why the memoranda have not been signed or commit to signing them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have an infrastructure program, and unfortunately the government of Quebec does not agree with the current agreement. On Thursday I am going to meet with Mr. Ménard, my counterpart in Quebec, and perhaps there will be some progress on this issue.
Why has the minister gutted the environment committee's amendments to the species at risk bill, ignoring a consensus reached by environmentalists and industry, and why did it take eight years to produce such a poor bill?
Raises two distinct issues — the finance committee chair election and the species at risk bill amendments — and the question is largely rhetorical and compound, though it references a consensus among environmentalists and industry and an eight-year wait for the bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has no respect for parliament nor parliamentary committees. Yesterday the government whip hijacked the election of the finance committee chair. Now the environment minister is gutting the environment committee's amendments to the species at risk bill. The minister never had the provinces or landowners on side prior to tabling Bill C-5 and has now gutted provisions that they support. Worse still, he shamelessly ignored a consensus that was reached in advance by environmentalists and industry. Why is it we had to wait eight years for such a poor bill, and why is the minister showing such arrogance for the committee process?
Anderson argued that lobbyists, whether environmentalists or industry, do not run the country, and that while committees are valuable, the House retains ultimate decision-making authority to bring committee decisions into accord with the House.
Anderson addresses the committee process question in principle, arguing that elected members — not lobbyists — make ultimate decisions and that the House can correct committee decisions, but does not address the specific allegations about gutting amendments or the consensus claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that lobbyists, whether they are environmentalists or they are from industry, are not the people who run this country, nor should they be. It should be people elected by the people of Canada, namely the people in this Chamber. That is the critical factor which the hon. member does not understand. He should also understand that committees of the House are enormously valuable to us but ultimate decision making is made by the members. If a committee for any reason does not reflect the views of the House, it is appropriate that the House take measures to make sure that the decisions are brought in accord with the House.
Why did the government decide to have the youth criminal justice legislation take effect in April 2003 rather than sooner?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to explain the rationale for the April 2003 coming-into-force date for the youth criminal justice act, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the act in respect of criminal justice for young persons received royal assent. This act is a key component of the measures which allow the government to deliver on its commitment to renew the justice system for young people in order to make it fairer and more effective. It is my understanding that the government wants to have the legislation take effect in April 2003. Will the minister tell the House what lay behind such a decision?
Cauchon explained that all provinces and territories agreed at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting to postpone the coming into force until April 2003 so they could make the necessary preparations.
Cauchon provides substantive context — a federal-provincial-territorial meeting, broad consensus among all provinces and territories for more preparation time, and the specific April 2003 date — making it an informative answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for her excellent question. Bill C-7 did indeed receive royal assent yesterday. It is normal for a certain period of time to go by before legislation takes effect. I would simply like to say that the bill was the subject of many discussions, particularly last week at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting. Because of the broad consensus for more time, which has been repeatedly expressed for quite a while now, all the provinces and territories have agreed with me to postpone the coming into force of this legislation until April 2003, so that they can make the necessary preparations and go ahead with an excellent bill.
Given that $900 million remains in the hepatitis C compensation fund and publicly funded health care has not ended, will the minister commit to extending compensation to all hepatitis C victims of tainted blood?
Cites the specific figure of $900 million remaining in the hepatitis C compensation fund to directly rebut the former minister's stated rationale, making a sharp and factually grounded follow-up ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is $900 million left in the hepatitis C compensation fund. The former minister was clearly mistaken. It is not the end of public health care and there is plenty of money for all of the victims. Why will the minister not commit to extend compensation to the hepatitis C victims of tainted blood?
McLellan said only that the government policy is clear and will be implemented, without addressing the $900 million figure or offering any reasoning.
McLellan repeats only that the government policy is clear and will be implemented, providing no engagement with the $900 million figure or any substantive reasoning.
Source text
Because, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is clear, it continues to be clear, and we will implement that policy.
Will the minister commit to moving the March 31, 2003 deadline forward so that organizations helping the homeless can receive and use their full amounts of funding?
Identifies a specific administrative problem — organizations unable to spend funding within the March 31, 2003 deadline due to late announcements — and makes a clear, single ask to move the deadline forward.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the homeless has a problem. She has taken so long in announcing funding that certain organizations will not be able to spend the funding received within the time limit set. If they are not able to meet the deadline, these funds are likely to end up back in the government's consolidated fund. Can the minister make a commitment to move the March 31, 2003, deadline forward so that these organizations involved in helping the homeless may receive and use their full amounts of funding?
Bradshaw announced that the deadline has been extended to September 2004, directly addressing the concern raised.
Bradshaw directly announces an extension of the deadline to September 2004, fully and specifically answering the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a number of organizations have shared with me their concerns about the date. I would like to announce today that I have addressed this, in conjunction with the staff of my department, and the deadline will now be September 2004.
Will the Minister of Justice commit to working with the justice committee to ensure legislation dealing with criminal responsibility in Westray-type situations is in place by the tenth anniversary of the Westray disaster?
References the tenth anniversary of the Westray coal mine disaster and a specific private member's bill by the member for Churchill referred to the justice committee, and asks for a commitment on legislation by year's end, though the question is cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Pretty soon 10 years will have passed since the Westray coal mine disaster, which many regard not only as a tragedy but a criminal event. Yet 10 years down the road we still have no legislation dealing with criminal responsibility in these kinds of situations. The Minister of Justice will be aware that yesterday the subject matter of a private member's bill by the member for Churchill was referred to the justice committee. I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will commit now to working with the committee to make sure that by the expiry of this year in which we have the tenth anniversary of that disaster we have legislation dealing with the--
Cauchon said he is aware of the matter, will work with the committee, and wants to hear from stakeholders, but made no commitment to a specific timeline.
Cauchon commits to working with the committee and consulting stakeholders, which partially addresses the ask, but does not commit to a specific timeline or confirm legislation will be ready within the anniversary year.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know of the matter and of course I will be working with the committee. I want to hear from stakeholders, from people all across the country, in order to see what we are going to have to do. Therefore, I do understand that the matter is under study and I will fully co-operate with the committee.
Mr. Reynolds (Canadian Alliance) rose on a question of privilege, alleging that the chief government whip intimidated opposition staff and members during the election of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, and was supported by Mr. Nystrom (NDP) and Mr. Brison (PC/DR) who described similar incidents. The government House leader asked for time to consider the allegations, while the chief government whip, Ms. Catterall, categorically denied the quote attributed to her and also requested time to prepare a response.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. John Reynolds
- Some hon. members
- NDP Lorne Nystrom
- PC/DR Mr. Scott Brison
- Lib Ralph Goodale
- Lib Ms. Marlene Catterall
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the chief government whip with contempt of the House for intimidation and harassment of our members through a staff member of the official opposition whip. While it troubles me to bring this issue forward, I feel I must do so in order to protect the right of members and their staff to work in an environment free from the threat of intimidation.
Oh, oh.
Talk to Mr. Kinsella. He's threatening your guys. I am talking about here. The question of privilege is resulting from an incident involving yesterday's election of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. The first vote for the chair of the committee was nullified because of a counting error by the committee clerk. Before the second vote was taken, the chief government whip approached our whip's staffer and uttered the following “We phoned R.J. and told him who we wanted. If one of your guys doesn't vote for Sue there will be consequences”. This sort of goonish misconduct displayed by the chief government whip cannot be tolerated in any venue, let alone the Parliament of Canada. Page 84 of Marleau and Montpetit states: Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference. On September 19, 1973, Otto Jelinek, the member for High Park--Humber Valley, rose on a question of privilege claiming that an employee of the CBC, in telephone conversations with the member, had advised Mr. Jelinek to stop asking questions about television coverage of the Olympic games during question period or else it would be alleged that the member had a contract with CTV and it was a conflict of interest. Mr. Jelinek claimed it was an attempt to intimidate him. As the member did not know the name of the caller no specific charge could be made and therefore there was no prima facie question of privilege. While there was no prima facie case of privilege, Speaker Lamoureux had, and I quote him: ...no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation. While the chief government whip may feel free to threaten and co-opt government members in such a way, I will not accept her threatening opposition members or their staff in such a way. This staffer works on behalf of the official opposition whip and performs valuable functions that could affect the votable status of opposition members. This intimidation occurred while our staffer was attempting to perform a parliamentary function on behalf of the opposition whip. Parliament must send a clear message to all members by using its powers to condemn such conduct and call it contempt like it is. Mr. Speaker, should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add a word in support of the suggestion before the House today. I too was involved in the finance committee yesterday. At one stage before the committee meeting started, when there were going to be two candidates for the chairmanship of that committee, the member for Etobicoke North and the member for London West, I was called out by one of the staff of the chief government whip to see the chief government whip, at which time she asked me how I was voting. I told her I would be supporting the member for Etobicoke North. She told me that was not the government's choice, that the government's choice was the member for London West. I implied I had made up my mind to support the member for Etobicoke North. She said to me at that time “if that happens and if he wins the chairmanship, I may have to remove him from the finance committee”. I think that is a heavy handed approach to be used by a government whip. Also, during a recess at committee one of the parliamentary secretaries was at the committee and the parliamentary secretary spoke to the chief government whip, came in from speaking to the chief government whip and was talking to some Liberal members from the government side of the House. Two of those Liberal members, or two of those government members, said to me that the parliamentary secretary had the whip say to her or imply to her that if she did not vote the right way, she needed to worry about her parliamentary secretaryship.This is what I heard from two government members of the finance committee. There was also a great deal of confusion at the committee. I am led to believe that committees should be masters of their own destiny. That certainly was not the case. The chief government whip was also a member of the committee at that time, the only time she has ever been a member of the finance committee. I think for these reasons and others, and I could go on at length, I support the suggestion put forth today in the House by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this point. Yesterday at the same finance committee meeting the chief government whip asked me to join her outside, at which point she informed me that I should be voting for the hon. member for London West, at which point I informed her that she was not my whip and that I was supporting the member for Etobicoke North. Clearly for the whip of the government to be trying to run roughshod over the rights of opposition members of parliament is offensive and steps all over the basic notion of the independence of committees as a cornerstone of the parliamentary system.
Mr. Speaker, the government became aware a few minutes ago just before the end of question period that the Leader of the Opposition intended to raise this point. It is a point upon which we will want to reflect, having just heard what various members of the opposition have said, but let me just say that we would like to take some time to consider what has been said here. In listening very carefully, I heard a number of allegations. I heard the transmission of hearsay evidence. I heard reflection upon the proceedings in the committee, but I did not hear a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, what I would like is an opportunity to examine all of the allegations that have been made and ask that you would return to this matter at a later time after we have had a chance to reflect upon it.
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, I regret very much that the leader of the official opposition chose not to inform me personally and directly that he would be raising this issue.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the criticisms and I would appreciate the same respect. I regret that the leader of the official opposition chose not to inform me directly and personally of the point he would be raising and of the points he would be making in raising it. I respect totally the role of the House and of each member of parliament, and your role, Mr. Speaker, and certainly that of any of the House officers, who have very difficult responsibilities in the House. Out of respect I would like to give a response to the issues that have been raised, if that is your decision. Not knowing ahead of time what would be raised, not having had the opportunity or chance to speak to any of the members who have raised these issues, I really would appreciate the opportunity to prepare and respond at a later date. I would like to, however, categorically deny the quote attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Duncan (Canadian Alliance) rose on a question of privilege, arguing that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had briefed industry officials and the media on the softwood lumber dispute on February 19 before briefing members of parliament, thereby doing an end run around parliament. The government House leader said he was hearing of the matter for the first time and asked for time to inquire into it.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. John Duncan
- Lib Ralph Goodale
- Lib Mr. Geoff Regan
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade departmental briefing that took place on February 19 at 5 p.m. with industry officials and separately with the media concerning discussions about the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. As a member of parliament I was excluded from the meeting and told the briefing of members of parliament would have to wait until February 20. In order to discharge my responsibilities as an opposition member of parliament and our party's critic for international trade I must be made aware of information concerning issues such as the softwood lumber dispute in a timely manner. The dispute has been the subject of an emergency debate in parliament as well as the topic of numerous discussions in committees of both houses of parliament. Yesterday's briefing was the subject of numerous questions in question period. Surely the questions should be responded to in parliament prior to being made available to the media. Any resolution to the debate will undoubtedly lead to an agreement subject to parliamentary scrutiny and possibly some form of parliamentary approval. The department deliberately did an end run around parliament by briefing members of the media prior to members of parliament. I will quote the response of former Speaker Parent to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley on October 29, 1997, concerning a government news release announcing the membership of the nominating committee for the proposed Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. He said: This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. Speaker Parent said members should be briefed on any progress toward settlement of disputes that may need parliamentary ratification prior to being released to the media. Anything less is contempt of parliament. This is part of a continuing pattern coming from the government. The media gets favourable treatment compared to members of parliament from all parties. Mr. Speaker, should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, as with the previous question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition, this is the first I have heard of it. I would be happy to inquire into the matter to see what the flow of events was and take into account the remarks made by the member for Vancouver Island North. I hope you might invite further comments on the subject at a later stage, perhaps tomorrow or the day after, so the item could be properly pursued.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member raised a question of privilege concerning an article written by the legal counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Mr. Speaker, you indicated at the time that it was your first inclination that the committee should deal with the issue and then perhaps come back to the House if need be. I urge upon you that view, Mr. Speaker. It makes sense to me. It would be the appropriate approach. Having had an opportunity to review the article it seems to me the counsel was not so much defending the government or one side or the other but was defending the committee itself. On the other hand, perhaps the counsel did not have the authority of the committee to do that. I submit that for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cummins (Canadian Alliance) responded to the Speaker's questions from the previous day regarding his question of privilege about the scrutiny of regulations committee and the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations, arguing that the committee's legal counsel Mr. Bernier had not merely corrected errors in the public record but had taken a position contrary to the opposition's argument that the committee had engaged in inexcusable delays in acting on its 1997 finding that the regulations were illegal. No government response was given in this exchange.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. John Cummins
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will reply to your questions from yesterday. My argument and that of other opposition members on the committee was that the scrutiny of regulations committee had made a finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal. I argued that the committee and the department of fisheries had engaged in inexcusable delays in acting on the finding and that after five years the only remaining issue to be decided was the date of the tabling of the disallowance report. Of late the committee has been taking about twice as long as in the past to table its disallowance reports. It was argued in committee that the honour of the crown is at stake when fishermen are prosecuted under admittedly illegal regulations and when the committee dithers not about the illegality of the regulations but about when they should be revoked. Mr. Bernier has taken a contrary position. He says the committee is highly effective in carrying out its responsibilities. He says its handling of the aboriginal communal fishing licences regulations has been in order. That of course is the position of the government majority on the committee. Mr. Bernier claims to be merely setting the record straight or correcting errors in the public record. If Mr. Bernier were correct I would not only not have a question of privilege. I and other members of the opposition would have no issue with either the committee's handling of its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal or the timing of the tabling of the disallowance report. Mr. Bernier's claim that the committee is working effectively and efficiently with regard to the fishing regulations goes to the very heart of the argument before the committee and in a February 11 Hill Times story entitled “Opposition parties say regulatory feet-dragging hurting fishing industry”. Mr. Speaker, you asked if Mr. Bernier was merely correcting errors in the public record as contained in the regulatory foot dragging story, a story which chronicles government foot dragging and blocking of action in the scrutiny of regulations committee to prevent tabling of a disallowance report on the illegal fishing regulations. The answer is an emphatic no. Mr. Bernier does not correct errors. I will be specific. Mr. Bernier wrote that the committee did not first look at the issue in January 1997. He said it did not do so until November 1997. The fact is, the committee's general counsel was directed to review the fishing regulations on January 3, 1997. The general counsel's legal analysis that the regulations were illegal was dated March 20, 1997. What did occur in November 1997 was that the committee adopted the position that the regulations were illegal and decided to advise the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of its finding. Mr. Bernier then goes on to other dates where he disagrees with my position in committee and the regulatory foot dragging--