Session overview
- The Groupaction sponsorship affair dominated Question Period, with opposition members pressing the Minister of Public Works and Government Services on whether the auditor general's mandate was broad enough to investigate all dubious contract-awarding practices, not just Groupaction.
- The government's appointment of Alfonso Gagliano as ambassador to Denmark was challenged repeatedly, with the Canadian Alliance and NDP questioning whether the Prime Minister used patronage to shield Gagliano from scrutiny, and whether the appointment would be reconsidered if the auditor general's report turned up wrongdoing.
- Conflict-of-interest concerns around Liberal leadership campaigns arose, focused on Jim Palmer of Calgary, who held a $75,000 contract with the Department of Finance while simultaneously fundraising for the finance minister's leadership campaign; the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed the matter was referred to the ethics counsellor and corrective action taken.
- Softwood lumber negotiations with the United States were actively ongoing, with the Minister for International Trade personally in Washington; the Deputy Prime Minister gave a firm commitment that Canadian sovereignty would not be yielded to U.S. officials or their political representatives.
- Foreign overfishing off Newfoundland was raised, with a Russian vessel, the Olga, under Icelandic control, arrested for polluting Canadian waters and reportedly carrying 70 to 80 tonnes of mature breeding cod under moratorium; a sister ship, the Otto, was reported to have changed course toward Iceland.
- The Kyoto Protocol and clean energy export credits were debated, with the Minister of the Environment acknowledging that Canada faces an uphill battle to persuade other nations to accept clean energy exports as a credit mechanism, and confirming that the first Kyoto period from 2008 to 2012 would be followed by subsequent actions.
Don Boudria confirmed on the record that neither he nor the department ever had the Groupaction report in their possession — directly contradicting any suggestion that officials had reviewed it — and stated that this is precisely why he did not table it, which is the most concrete factual revelation of the session.
Clark asks specifically whether Gagliano will be fully accessible to the auditor general for interview and whether anything will prevent her from doing so, grounding it in the concrete issue of political or ministerial involvement in paying $575,000 for what he describes as a photocopy of an already-held study.
Paradis responded to a specific question about why the Department of Foreign Affairs solicited intelligence debriefings from individuals its own trade commissioner had warned against by simply saying he would 'take note of the questions and answer in the coming days,' offering no information whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Vic Toews asked whether the minister would assure the House that the auditor general would look into the entire system of giving lucrative advertising contracts to the most generous Liberal donators — the minister cited the auditor general's general mandate without committing to any system-wide review.
- Mr. Joe Clark asked whether the auditor general would have full access to Alfonso Gagliano for a full interview — the minister repeated the five-point mandate without confirming or denying that Gagliano would be made available.
- Mr. Bill Blaikie asked for a specific commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister that if the auditor general's report turned up untoward activities on the watch of the former minister, the government would reconsider Gagliano's ambassadorial appointment — no such commitment was given.
- Mr. Randy White asked the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that no other minister had given contracts or appointments to any of their leadership teams — the Deputy Prime Minister declined to give that confirmation.
- Mr. Keith Martin asked why the Department of Foreign Affairs, against the advice of its own trade commissioner, solicited intelligence information from Ari Ben-Menashe and Alex Legault, and whether the government would extradite them to the United States on outstanding fraud charges — Denis Paradis gave no substantive answer to either question.
Toews asks whether the Minister of Public Works and Government Services will assure the House that the auditor general will look into the entire system of giving lucrative advertising contracts to the most generous Liberal donators.
Cites the Groupaction recycled-document scandal and draws a parallel to the Pierre Corbeil kickback scheme, asking a specific question about auditor general involvement, though the ask is framed rhetorically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Groupaction tried to pass off a recycled document as a $550,000 original. The document is not the only thing that seems to have been copied. The entire Gagliano-Groupaction affair is a carbon copy of the kickback scheme run by Pierre Corbeil which led to influence peddling charges. Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services assure the House that the auditor general will look into the entire system of giving lucrative advertising contracts to the most generous Liberal donators?
Boudria states that the Auditor General of Canada already has a mandate to inquire into any Government of Canada activity, implying no special referral is needed.
Rather than addressing whether he would ask the auditor general to investigate, Boudria dismisses the question by noting the auditor general already has a general mandate, deflecting without any substantive commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Auditor General of Canada has a mandate to inquire into any activity in which the Government of Canada is involved. If he does not, I am confident his colleague, the chairman of the committee dealing with public accounts, could brief him on that at the earliest opportunity.
Toews asks the minister to clear the air by requesting the auditor general investigate Charles Guité's handling of all sponsorship contracts while he was head of advertising at public works, noting Guité's company Oro Communications was a top donor to the minister's re-election campaign.
Names Charles Guité specifically, identifies his company Oro Communications as a top donor to the current minister's re-election campaign, and makes a specific ask about investigating Guité's handling of all sponsorship contracts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the contracts for the phoney reports and all the sponsorship contracts were signed off by Charles Guité who left public works and is now a lobbyist for the ad industry. Today we learned that Mr. Guité's private company, Oro Communications, was one of the top donators to the re-election campaign of the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Will the minister clear the air by asking the auditor general to investigate Mr. Guité's handling of all sponsorship contracts while he was head of advertising at public works?
Boudria sidesteps the question by noting he has only been minister for four weeks and there has been no election in that time, implying the donation allegation is misdirected.
Boudria deflects entirely by quibbling that he has only been minister four weeks and there has been no election since then, completely ignoring the substance of the donation allegation and the request for an investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if this person contributed to the re-election of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, he must have done it very recently. I have only been in the position four weeks and there has not been an election since then as far as I know.
Toews asks whether the minister will request the auditor general to investigate if favouritism was shown to Groupaction and Groupe Everest, citing that ex-minister Gagliano's son was director of marketing for a company working for both firms.
References the specific role of ex-minister Gagliano's son as director of marketing for a company working for Groupaction and Groupe Everest and asks whether the auditor general will investigate favouritism toward those two firms, though the question is cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that it was a donation to his campaign. Last year we learned that the son of ex-minister Gagliano was the director of marketing for a company that was working for Groupaction and Groupe Everest, the two biggest recipients of federal sponsorship contracts. The government's handpicked ethics lapdog accepted that this was simply coincidence. This matter needs to be re-opened. Will the minister ask the auditor general to investigate whether any favouritism was shown to Groupaction and Groupe Everest--
Boudria outlines the five-point mandate given to the auditor general, including reviewing contract requirements, comparing deliverables, reviewing the payment approval process, conducting any other necessary audit procedures, and providing key findings and recommendations.
Boudria provides the five-point mandate given to the auditor general in detail, which is substantively responsive, though it does not directly confirm whether the scope covers favouritism toward Groupaction and Groupe Everest specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that question is a little more serious than the previous two, not that it could be much worse. The mandate of the auditor general, in addition to the general mandate that she has, is: one, to review the requirements of contracts given to Groupaction relative to the reports produced; two, analyze and compare the deliverables and determine if the deliverables met contract requirements; three, review payment approval process; four, conduct any other audit procedures necessary; and five, provide key findings and recommendations. That is pretty complete.
Pallister asks why the Prime Minister does not realize it is an insult to Canadians to appoint someone to represent their values abroad who has not lived by his or her values at home, framing Gagliano's ambassadorship as rewarding the same patronage behaviour he is accused of.
Framed almost entirely as partisan rhetoric comparing Gagliano to a prince of patronage and the Prime Minister to a king, with no specific evidence cited; the ask is unanswerable as posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano might be the prince of patronage but the king is the Prime Minister. It is ironic that the behaviour that we find so reprehensible from Mr. Gagliano, that of placing the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of Canadians, is the same behaviour we see from this Prime Minister. It is even more ironic that in order to help his minister escape charges of patronage, the Prime Minister would use patronage to send him to Copenhagen. Why will the Prime Minister not realize that it is an insult to Canadians to appoint someone to represent their values abroad who has not lived by his or her values at home?
Manley says it does not represent Canadian values to make decisions based on a groundless smear campaign and asserts that no evidence has been given of wrongdoing by Mr. Gagliano.
Manley deflects by characterizing the allegations as a groundless smear campaign without addressing the specific patronage appointment, providing no factual engagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it does not represent Canadian values to make decisions based on a groundless smear campaign. Quite frankly, the hon. member has not given us any evidence that at all implicates wrongdoing on behalf of Mr. Gagliano who served in the House with great respect.
Pallister states that in 1993 the RCMP advised the Prime Minister against appointing Gagliano to cabinet based on his shady record, and asks whether the Prime Minister will immediately suspend Gagliano's ambassadorial appointment given that an investigation may necessitate his recall.
Cites the 1993 RCMP advice to the Prime Minister against appointing Gagliano and makes a specific ask about suspending the ambassadorial appointment pending investigation, grounded in a factual claim.
Source text
Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gagliano's record stands by itself. In 1993 the RCMP advised the Prime Minister against appointing Mr. Gagliano to cabinet based on his shady record. The PM ignored that advice and the questionable behaviour continued. Only in the mind of this Prime Minister should such a record be rewarded. Given that an investigation may well necessitate the recall of Mr. Gagliano, will the Prime Minister immediately suspend his unjustifiable ambassadorial appointment?
Manley challenges Pallister to step outside the House of Commons and make his allegations without the protection of parliamentary privilege, calling them groundless, pointless and without evidence.
Manley does not address the RCMP advice claim or the request to suspend the appointment, instead challenging Pallister to make his allegations outside the House without parliamentary privilege — a pure attack with no substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see is the hon. member to stop cowering under the protection of parliamentary privilege, to step outside the House of Commons and to make the kind of allegation that he makes in here; groundless, pointless and without any evidence to back him up.
Duceppe asks whether the government will leave the auditor general free to decide the scope of her own mandate rather than limiting her investigation to Groupaction, noting that the minister asked for an audit limited to Groupaction contracts while the Prime Minister wants her to determine only whether there are one or two reports.
Duceppe identifies a specific tension between the minister's stated scope for the audit and the auditor general's independence, asking a pointed question about whether the government will let her determine the scope of her own mandate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is sending clear signals to the auditor general that she limit her investigation to Groupaction. In fact, the minister of public works asked that the audit be limited to the contracts awarded to Groupaction, while the Prime Minister wants the auditor general to content herself with determining whether there are one or two reports. Instead of telling the auditor general what to do and undermining her independence, could the government leave her free to decide on the scope of her mandate so that she can get to the bottom of all public works' dubious contract awarding practices?
Boudria directs Duceppe to read section 11 of the Auditor General Act, which clearly states that the auditor may inquire into any matter.
Boudria cites section 11 of the Auditor General Act to claim she already has broad authority, but does not address the specific allegation that the government was signalling she should limit herself to Groupaction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to inform the member that he should first read section 11 of the Auditor General Act, which clearly states that the auditor may inquire into any matter. The member opposite should know this, and perhaps already does, or so I should hope.
Duceppe asks why the minister bothered to limit the mandate to Groupaction if the auditor general already has full authority, alleging it was to avoid involving Lafleur Communications and Groupe Everest, which gave $77,000 to the Liberal Party after obtaining $56 million in contracts.
Duceppe names specific firms — Lafleur Communications and Groupe Everest — and cites a concrete figure ($77,000 in donations after obtaining $56 million in contracts), pressing on why the minister limited the mandate if he knows the auditor general already has broad powers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he has certainly read the auditor general's mandate. Why, then, is he taking the trouble to limit her mandate to Groupaction? Is that not the same thing? The reason is that he wanted to avoid involving Lafleur Communications, avoid involving Groupe Everest, which gave $77,000 to the Liberal Party after obtaining $56 million in contracts. Could it not take in all the dubious practices of this minister, of his predecessor, of this shady government?
Boudria restates the five-point mandate and emphasizes that it is in addition to the auditor general's authority under section 11, not instead of it.
Boudria repeats the five-point mandate and clarifies the phrase 'in addition to' rather than 'instead of' her existing authority, partially addressing the scope question but not responding to the specific figures or firms named.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the questions are getting worse instead of better. The member opposite should know that the auditor general's mandate is, as I said earlier, “to review the requirements of contracts, analyze and compare the deliverables, review the approval process, conduct any other audit procedures necessary, and provide key findings and recommendations, in addition to her authority under section 11”, not “instead of”.
Lebel asks how the minister can explain that no one in his department noticed the similarity between the two reports when the opposition saw through the subterfuge in three hours, given that the minister had the reports for a long time.
Lebel asks a specific and pointed question about why no one in the department noticed the similarity between the 1998 and 1999 reports when the opposition did so in three hours, grounding it in the known timeline of the affair.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing and surprising thing about this entire affair is that the opposition took one morning to realize the similarity between the 1998 and 1999 reports, whereas the minister had his hands on them for a long time. How can the minister explain that no one in his department, not the departmental staff, nor himself, realized the similarity of the two reports, when it took the opposition three hours to see through the subterfuge?
Boudria clarifies that the department still does not have the original report, that they received the company-provided version only the previous week, and that he has personally asked the auditor general to investigate.
Boudria provides a relevant factual clarification — that the department did not have the original report and only received the company-provided version the previous week — which partially addresses the question, though it does not explain the broader oversight failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims we had the report ahead of time. In fact, as we speak, we still do not have the original of the report. If we had it, the hon. member would not even be asking a question today. This is not the report we had initially. We got it—at least the one provided by the company—last week. We are dissatisfied with it, and I have personally asked the auditor general to investigate this.
Lebel asks how the minister can explain that no one realized for three years that three copies of the $550,000 report had been lost, and whether the auditor general's mandate includes clarifying those circumstances.
Lebel cites the $550,000 cost of the report and asks a specific question about whether the auditor general's mandate includes clarifying how three copies were lost over three years, though the opening attribution is factually incorrect.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that he was very satisfied with the report and that it is paid for, moreover. How can the minister explain that, for three years, no one realized that the three copies of the report, a report that cost us $550,000, had been lost? Can the minister confirm that the mandate given to the auditor general is also to clarify the circumstances under which the three copies of the report were lost?
Boudria refers Lebel to point four of the already-stated mandate — 'conduct any other audit procedures necessary' — saying 'any other' is an inclusive expression.
Boudria deflects by noting the question was presumably prepared in advance and pointing to point four of the mandate ('conduct any other audit procedures necessary'), which is a tangential rather than direct answer to the specific question about lost copies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know that the question may have been prepared in advance, but I would refer the hon. member to section 4 of what I have already read: “conduct any other audit procedures necessary”. “Any other” is an inclusive expression.
Blaikie asks whether the government would be prepared to reconsider Gagliano's appointment as ambassador to Denmark if the auditor general's report turns up untoward activities in the department under his watch.
Blaikie asks a precise conditional question — will the government reconsider Gagliano's appointment if the auditor general's report turns up untoward activities — clearly framed and answerable with a yes or no.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, without prejudice to the culpability of Mr. Gagliano in any of this, whether or not the government could say at this point that if the auditor general's report does turn up untoward activities in the department under Mr. Gagliano's watch, that the government would then be prepared to reconsider his appointment as ambassador to Denmark.
Manley says the matter has been referred to the auditor general and that they should let her do her work, without making any commitment about reconsidering the appointment.
Manley acknowledges the point is important but avoids making any commitment, saying only that they should let the auditor general do her work, which is tangential to the specific conditional commitment requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes an important point, the matter has been referred to the auditor general and we should let her do her work.
Blaikie asks the Deputy Prime Minister for a commitment that the government will act if the auditor general finds something untoward on the former minister's watch, and also asks whether the government is reviewing other departments to ensure similar conflicts of interest with leadership candidates are not occurring.
Blaikie presses for a specific commitment about acting on the auditor general's findings and raises a second distinct question about whether other departments are being reviewed following the Calgary lawyer resignation, making it a compound but substantive ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it would be important for the Deputy Prime Minister to say that if the auditor general does do her work and she does turn up something untoward on the watch of the former minister, that the government would then act accordingly. It would be important for Canadians to have that commitment, so I ask him for that commitment. I also ask him, with respect to the Calgary lawyer who has now resigned as Liberal fundraiser, and given that this apparent conflict of interest turned up accidentally or unintentionally, whether the Deputy Prime Minister and the government are having a review of other departments to make sure this kind of activity is not happening with other leadership candidates.
Manley notes that the minister has undertaken to table the auditor general's results in the House of Commons, which will give members and the public the opportunity to review her findings and urge additional action, but makes no specific commitment to act.
Manley references the minister's commitment to table the auditor general's results in the House, which partially addresses the accountability question, but does not address the specific request for a commitment to act or the review of other departments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there are any leadership candidates. Clearly the effort the minister has asked the auditor general to undertake is a serious one. He has undertaken to make the results of her investigation public by tabling them in the House of Commons. That will provide not only members of the House but the public the opportunity to review her findings and consider whether they believe that the government should be urged to take any additional action.
Clark asks whether the auditor general's investigation will be a legal investigation and whether she will be allowed to determine if fraud has been committed, requesting a yes or no answer.
Clark asks a sharp, binary yes-or-no question about whether the auditor general's mandate will include determining if fraud has been committed, making it highly specific and directly answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister of public works regarding the mandate given to the auditor general in the Groupaction reports affair. Will this be a legal investigation and will he allow her to determine if fraud has been committed, if fraud there is? Yes or no?
Boudria states that the Auditor General of Canada has full authority to exercise her mandate based on all sections of the Auditor General Act, in addition to the five-point mandate the government has asked her to undertake.
Boudria refers to the Auditor General Act and her full authority under it but does not directly say yes or no on whether the investigation covers fraud determination, leaving the specific ask unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the powers of the Auditor General of Canada are based on the Auditor General Act. She has full authority to exercise her mandate based on all of the sections of the act. In addition to that authority, we have also asked her to review the five points that I listed in response to several previous questions.
Clark asks the Deputy Prime Minister whether the auditor general will have full access to Mr. Gagliano for a full interview to determine the nature of political or ministerial involvement in any decision to pay an extra $575,000 for what he characterizes as a photocopy of a study the government already had.
Clark asks specifically whether Gagliano will be fully accessible to the auditor general for interview and whether anything will prevent her from doing so, grounding it in the concrete issue of political or ministerial involvement in paying $575,000 for what he describes as a photocopy of an already-held study.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the auditor general have full access to the former minister of public works, Mr. Gagliano, in her investigation of the Groupaction reports? Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that nothing will prevent the auditor general from conducting a full interview with Mr. Gagliano to determine the nature of political or ministerial involvement in any decision to pay an extra $575,000 for a photocopy of a study of which the government already had a copy?
Boudria notes Clark's change of focus from the previous day and recites the five-point mandate given to the auditor general without addressing the specific question of Gagliano's accessibility.
Boudria deflects by commenting on the change of focus from Clark's previous question and then recites the five-point mandate again without addressing whether Gagliano will be accessible to the auditor general.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the change of focus of the right hon. member from the question he asked yesterday. The House will no doubt want to hear why. The mandate given to the auditor general is quite clear. There are five points in addition to all of those that she already has. They are to review the requirements of the contract, analyze and compare the deliverables, review the payment approval process, conduct any other audit procedure necessary and provide the findings and recommendations. That is pretty inclusive and pretty clear to the rest of us.
White asks the Deputy Prime Minister to assure Canadians that the finance minister is the only leadership contender giving patronage contracts funded by Canadian taxpayers to his fundraising team, citing Jim Palmer of Calgary as a specific example.
Names Jim Palmer of Calgary specifically, identifies that he was simultaneously on contract with the minister's department and raising money for the Liberal Party and the finance minister's leadership campaign, and asks whether the finance minister is the only leadership contender doing this — a reasonably specific ask, though framed with rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the issue of one of the finance minister's bagmen, Mr. Jim Palmer of Calgary. He was on contract with the minister's department at the same time as he was raising money for the Liberal Party and the minister's leadership campaign. Mr. Palmer said every leadership candidate is raising money, but I wonder if every leadership fundraiser is on contract with the government. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure Canadians that the finance minister is the only leadership contender who is giving patronage pork that is Canadian taxpayers' dollars to his fundraising team?
Manley states that the matter raised has been referred to the ethics counsellor, that corrective action has been taken, and that the matter should rest there, without confirming whether other leadership candidates have done the same.
Manley notes the matter has been referred to the ethics counsellor and that corrective action has been taken, but does not address the specific ask about whether other leadership contenders are similarly giving contracts to their fundraising teams.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, really I am not sure to whom the hon. member may be referring as leadership candidates. There are leadership candidates of course on the other side of the House and there is some confusion about who exactly is supporting whom. The matter the hon. member has raised has been referred to the ethics counsellor. Corrective action has been taken and the matter should rest there.
White asks the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that no other minister has given contracts or appointments to any of their leadership teams, citing rumours that the ministries of industry, heritage, finance and the Deputy Prime Minister all have fundraising teams in place.
White names the $75,000 contract, identifies specific ministries rumoured to have fundraising teams (industry, heritage, finance, and the Deputy Prime Minister), and asks a direct question about whether any other minister has given contracts or appointments to their leadership teams.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this guy's $75,000 contract for giving advice sure takes on a new meaning here does it not? The ministries of industry, heritage, finance and the Deputy Prime Minister are all rumoured to have fundraising teams in place. Even the government's ethics lapdog saw the obvious conflict and asked Mr. Palmer to sever his ties with the Department of Finance. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that no other minister has given contracts or appointments to any of their leadership teams?
Manley comments on the importance of maintaining a high degree of probity and notes that anyone seeking higher office will be expected to live to a very high standard, without confirming or denying the specific allegation about other ministers.
Manley restates general principles about probity and high standards expected of those seeking higher office without confirming or denying whether other ministers have given contracts or appointments to their leadership teams.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the comments the ethics counsellor made were quite clear. The importance of maintaining a high degree of probity is one which would be apparent to anyone in public life quite frankly, but anyone seeking higher office likewise is going to be expected to live to a very high standard. The event in question itself illustrates the importance of that principle.
Duceppe asked why the minister paid $575,000 for a Groupaction report that, by the minister's own admission, he never had in his hands.
Duceppe pins the minister to a specific logical contradiction — paying $575,000 for a report he never held — making it a sharp, single, answerable accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Chambly, the public works minister said that he could not compare Groupaction's two reports, since he never had the other report in his hands, he only had one. He is signalling to me that this is true. I have a simple question for him. If he never had that report, why did he pay $575,000 for it? Could he explain this to me? He does not need the auditor general to do so.
Boudria said the report was not there when he took over the department one month ago, which is why he did not table it, repeating that he refuses to table reports he does not have.
Boudria explains he did not have the report when he took over the department one month ago, but does not address why payment was made for a report apparently not received, deflecting to the tabling issue instead.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may remember his own question from last week—otherwise he can read it in theHouse of Commons Debates—when he asked if I had the report. No, the report was not there. It was not there when I took over the department one month ago. This is why I did not table it. I did not table the report, because I did not have it. The right hon. leader of the Conservative Party asked me why I was not tabling a report that I did not have. I told him that I refused to table reports that I do not have. I am saying the same thing to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Duceppe asked why the predecessor paid for a Groupaction report that was never received, and why that predecessor was then appointed to Denmark.
Duceppe sharpens the accountability ask — why was payment made for something never received — and adds a pointed secondary question about why the predecessor was appointed to Denmark, grounding both in the public record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand why the minister is refusing to table a report he does not have. This is easy to understand. What I do not understand is that he is paying for reports that he did not received. I would like the minister to explain this to me. Earlier, he said “It is not me, it is my predecessor”. Could I know why his predecessor was appointed to Denmark? Will his predecessor pay for things that he never received in Denmark? I want to know why he paid for the report, if he did not get it.
Hear, hear.
Boudria said that affidavits were signed under the Financial Administration Act by a senior official confirming the report had been ordered, prepared and received.
Boudria references signed affidavits under the Financial Administration Act as the basis for payment, which partially addresses the 'why pay' question, but does not address the Denmark appointment or the apparent gap between the affidavit and the missing report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, some members opposite applaud for no reason. The hon. member is well aware that affidavits were signed under the Financial Administration Act by a senior official, to the effect that the report had been ordered, that it was prepared and that it was received. I said that too, the other day. If the hon. member does not remember, he can, as with his question, read it in the House of Commons Debates .
Duncan asked whether the minister would insist that Canadian sovereignty not be sold out, given the U.S. demand that Canadian forestry policy be approved by U.S. congressional committees.
Duncan identifies a specific U.S. demand — Canadian forestry policy approved by U.S. congressional committees — and asks a clear yes/no sovereignty question, though it is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian softwood lumber negotiators left the table when it became apparent that the U.S. was not prepared to make a moderated counter-offer. One U.S. demand is that Canadian forestry policy be approved by U.S. congressional committees. Will the minister insist that Canadian sovereignty will not be sold out?
Manley gave an unequivocal assurance that Canadian sovereignty will not be yielded to U.S. officials or their political representatives.
Manley gives a direct and unambiguous commitment that Canadian sovereignty will not be yielded to U.S. officials or their political representatives, addressing the core ask, though without operational detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I suspect there are some interests in the United States that like the way the women's Olympic hockey game was refereed. I can assure the hon. member that is not the principle upon which important trade issues will be resolved. Canadian sovereignty will not be yielded to U.S. officials or their political representatives.
Duncan asked why the minister had not asked the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Export Development Canada or EI to develop a contingency plan in the event a softwood lumber deal is not made.
Duncan makes a specific claim that the minister has not asked the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Export Development Canada or EI to develop a contingency plan, and asks a direct 'why not' question grounded in weeks of prior requests.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite not wanting to, the U.S. department of commerce may very well be forced to announce its determinations this week if no deal is cut. We have been asking the minister for weeks to prepare a contingency plan to backstop Canadian forestry workers and lumber exporters. The minister has not asked the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Export Development Canada or EI to develop a contingency plan in the event a deal is not made. Why not?
O'Brien said the Minister for International Trade is in Washington taking stock personally of the negotiations and that the consensus remains very strong to agree on a good long-term deal.
O'Brien says the Minister for International Trade is in Washington meeting with the team Canada negotiators and pursuing a long-term deal, entirely ignoring the specific question about contingency planning through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Export Development Canada or EI.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade is in Washington to take stock personally of the negotiations. He has met with the team Canada negotiators. The consensus remains very strong. They are sparing no effort to agree on a good long term deal and that will mean guaranteed market access for Canadian softwood lumber to the United States.
Gauthier asked how it was that for two years not one person in the department of public works noticed that what they had received was a copy of the other Groupaction report.
Gauthier asks a precise operational question — how did no one in the department notice for two years that what they received was a copy of the other report — grounded in the minister's own just-stated affidavit claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works just told us that there was a signed affidavit to the effect that the report had been ordered, prepared and received. Given that all of this occurred, the question from my colleague, the hon. member for Chambly, has still not been answered? How is it that for two years, not one person from the department of public works noticed that what they had received was a copy of the other report? That is what we would like to know.
Boudria said Gauthier was making an allegation and that the auditor general is on site to determine if the 1998 report and the 1999 report are substantially the same, noting the report generated from a computer was for all intents and purposes the same as the other one.
Boudria clarifies that whether the 1998 and 1999 reports are substantially the same is precisely what the auditor general is investigating, and that the report generated for him from a computer was for all intents and purposes the same as the other one, which partially engages the question without fully explaining the two-year oversight failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making an allegation, not stating a fact. This is not known. This, incidentally, is why the auditor general is on site to see if the 1998 report and the 1999 report are substantially the same. The report that was generated for me last week from a computer was for all intents and purposes the same as the other one. This we do know. The member himself made the allegation. This prompted me to ask the auditor general to investigate. It remains to be seen if this is the right report and if the company has another one. The auditor general will tell us.
Gauthier questioned whether the minister truly needed the auditor general to confirm that the second report is 98% the same as the first, and argued the auditor general is needed to find out the truth about what is going on in the department.
Gauthier makes a pointed observation about the minister having tabled what turned out to be 98% the same report and demanding an apology, but the underlying question — does he need the auditor general for something so obvious — is more rhetorical than a clear answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, you will understand my amazement, and even more so that of the poor folks who are listening to us, who paid half a million dollars for a report, at being told such a thing. The second report, the one that was tabled by the minister of public works as being the missing report—following which he asked the Bloc Quebecois to apologize for having denounced such a situation—once we put it right under his nose, he said “Yes, in the end, 98% of it is the same”. Does he need the auditor general to find out if the second report is the same? No. We need the auditor general to find out the truth about what is going on in his department.
Boudria commended Gauthier for quoting his press release verbatim and confirmed that the auditor general has the mandate she needs to find out the truth.
Boudria's response is largely self-congratulatory, quoting his own press release and commending Gauthier for quoting him verbatim, without substantively addressing the implied absurdity of needing the auditor general to confirm two nearly identical reports.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for having read my press release yesterday, because that is indeed exactly what I said, “We need the auditor general to find out the truth”. That is what I said. He is quoting me verbatim. I commend him. Never has the truth been spoken more eloquently. With respect to the auditor general's report, she has the mandate she needs to do her work. She will prepare her report, and then we will find out the truth, to quote myself from my press release of yesterday.
Skelton asked why the minister did not change the act after receiving a secret memo in April 2001 warning that existing EI rules may result in disproportionately large overpayments compared to the amount of undeclared earnings.
Skelton cites a specific April 2001 secret memo, quotes it directly regarding disproportionately large overpayments compared to the amount of undeclared earnings, and asks a clear accountability question about why the minister did not change the act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in April 2001 the Minister of Human Resources Development received a memo marked secret. It referred to the government's unjust EI law. I quote: In some cases, the existing rules may result in disproportionately large overpayments compared to the amount of undeclared earnings.... This is clearly a disproportionate response-- The minister knew all about the problems. Why did she not change the act that caused them?
Stewart quoted Skelton's own press release of March 12 saying the principle of overpayment is a good one and that Canadians who receive benefits to which they are not entitled should pay them back.
Stewart does not address the secret memo or the failure to change the act, instead pivoting to quote Skelton's own press release of March 12 to suggest agreement on the principle of overpayment recovery, which entirely avoids the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could give the hon. member the same answer I gave her colleague yesterday on this question. Perhaps rather what I will do is quote her own press release of March 12 where she said: The principle of overpayment is a good one. If Canadians receive government benefits to which they are not entitled, they should pay them back. This is one of the rare occasions when I would agree with the hon. member. In fact, this is all we have ever done.
Skelton cited a late-2000 monitoring report describing a nightmarish situation where it is impossible to come up with a reasonable and legal decision, implying the minister allowed the nightmare to continue.
Skelton quotes a specific monitoring report from late 2000 describing a nightmarish situation where it is impossible to come up with a reasonable and legal decision, directly implicating the minister in allowing the nightmare to continue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my press release. If people take--
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, the money was unlawfully taken from EI people. A monitoring report from late 2000, a year and a half ago, states: The monitoring has shown that the legislative and regulatory provisions have created a nightmarish situation where it is...impossible to come up with a reasonable and legal decision. The minister allowed the nightmare--
Stewart explained that pre or post regulatory change the amount of the overpayment would have been the same, that only undeclared earnings are recovered, and that the government made administrative changes to better and more fairly collect on overpayments.
Stewart provides a substantive explanation — that pre or post regulatory change the amount of the overpayment would have been the same and that only undeclared earnings are recovered — and notes the government made administrative changes, partially engaging the question though not addressing the 'nightmarish situation' quote directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me explain again to the hon. member that pre or post regulatory change, the amount of the overpayment would have been the same. In these circumstances it is only the undeclared earnings that are recovered from an employment insurance benefits recipient. I would also point out to the hon. member that it is this government that made the administrative changes to better and more fairly collect on these overpayments. I would also reconfirm my commitment to the hon. member that if there are individual cases that she would like me to review, I would be happy to do that.
McKay asked the Solicitor General whether he would use his jurisdiction to compel the RCMP to comply with a directive from the Privacy Commissioner regarding surveillance cameras in Kelowna.
This is a government-backbench exchange where McKay sets up the minister with a policy framing question about RCMP surveillance cameras and privacy, a classic softball with a built-in directive ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner, an officer of parliament, appeared before the justice committee last month. He described the surveillance cameras in Kelowna as having a police officer sitting on people's shoulders as they go about their ordinary business. He was very upset with the RCMP's reaction to his intervention on this important privacy issue. Privacy is a fundamental right. The recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner cannot be summarily dismissed by the national police force. Mr. Solicitor General, you have the jurisdiction to compel the RCMP to comply with a directive from an officer of parliament. Will you do so?
MacAulay confirmed he met the Privacy Commissioner personally on the issue, received a letter from him last Friday which he is reviewing, and noted the RCMP has acted on a number of the recommendations.
MacAulay provides genuinely informative detail — confirming he met the Privacy Commissioner personally, received a letter last Friday, is reviewing it, and noting the RCMP has acted on a number of recommendations — going beyond boilerplate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my hon. colleague from Scarborough East. I am aware of the Privacy Commissioner's concern. In fact I met him personally on the issue. I received a letter from him last Friday and I am reviewing it and will respond to it. I can assure the member also that the RCMP has reviewed the report and has acted on a number of the recommendations. It is always a government's problem of finding the right balance between a privacy issue and the proper protection for Canadians. That is what we are doing.
Robinson asked when the government would lift the economic sanctions against Iraq, which he characterized as genocidal sanctions that have killed over 500,000 innocent children.
Robinson's question is heavily rhetorical, invoking Margaret Atwood, David Suzuki, Anton Kuerti and Archbishop Desmond Tutu and characterizing sanctions as genocidal, with a vague ask about when the government will act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today, hundreds of people from around the world, including Canadians like Margaret Atwood, David Suzuki and Anton Kuerti, got together to call for the immediate lifting of the economic sanctions against Iraq and to denounce the so-called smart sanctions. When is this government going to listen to the increasingly insistent voices of people from around the world who, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, are calling for the lifting of the genocidal sanctions which, so far, have killed over 500,000 innocent children? When is the government going to act?
Manley said it is very easy for Iraq to get the sanctions lifted — all that is needed is for Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspections.
Manley addresses the sanctions question directly by stating the condition for lifting them — allowing UN inspections — which is substantively relevant but does not engage the humanitarian framing or the specific voices Robinson cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for Iraq to get the sanctions lifted. All that is needed is for Saddam Hussein to allow inspections. We are all concerned about the creation of weapons of mass destruction. All that is needed is for UN inspectors to be allowed to enter Iraq and to conduct inspections.
Martin asked the minister to assure Manitoba first nations leadership that framework agreement negotiations committed to since 1994 will continue until concluded, and that nothing in the FNGA will diminish or inhibit the obligation to conclude those negotiations.
Martin asks a specific double commitment — maintain framework agreement negotiations until concluded and ensure nothing in the FNGA will diminish or inhibit those negotiations — grounded in a commitment the government has held since 1994 in Manitoba.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders are boycotting the consultations on the first nations governance initiative because they suspect this is really nothing more than the 1969 white paper revisited, just another way to diminish or even extinguish inherent treaty rights. This feeling is especially true in my home province of Manitoba. Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development assure Manitoba first nations leadership that he will maintain the framework agreement negotiations that his government has committed to since 1994 until all such self-government negotiations are concluded in that province and that nothing in the FNGA will diminish or inhibit his obligation to conclude those negotiations?
Nault cited over 450 consultations across the country, over 200 in first nations communities, and described the governance initiative as dealing with accountability and modern tools of governance, without addressing the specific framework agreement or non-diminishment commitments.
Nault dismisses the premise by citing over 450 consultations including over 200 in first nations communities, but does not address either specific commitment Martin requested regarding framework agreement negotiations or non-diminishment of inherent treaty rights.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member has not been at his desk and at work. We have had over 450 consultations across the country and over 200 of them were in first nations communities, working side by side with first nations chiefs and their communities. I wonder which particular community he is suggesting is not participating and/or not engaged in governance. It is a very important initiative dealing with accountability and dealing with modern tools of governance. The debate is now starting. There will be another consultation phase when the bill is introduced. I hope all leaders will participate.
Hearn asked whether the minister had asked his officials to deal with the arrest of the Russian vessel Olga, which allegedly had 70 to 80 tonnes of mature breeding cod under moratorium in its hold.
Hearn cites a specific recent incident — the arrest of the Russian vessel Olga under Icelandic control with 70 to 80 tonnes of mature breeding cod under moratorium — and asks a direct question about whether the minister has asked officials to deal with it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has just returned from Newfoundland, where members witnessed the devastation caused by foreign overfishing. Yesterday a Russian vessel, the Olga , under Icelandic control, was arrested for polluting Canadian waters. The boat, according to confirmed reports, has 70 to 80 tonnes of mature breeding cod in its hold. This species is under moratorium. Has the minister asked his officials to deal with this blatant abuse of regulations?
Thibault said the matter is currently under investigation making it unfair to give details, and assured the member that the government takes overfishing and unregulated harvesting on the nose and the tail of the Banks very seriously.
Thibault acknowledges the question as pertinent and confirms the matter is under investigation, but declines to give details on that basis and pivots to general policy statements about taking overfishing seriously, without confirming whether he has specifically asked his officials to deal with this blatant abuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this very pertinent question. As this matter is currently under investigation, it would be unfair to give out details, but I can tell the member that this government, like the member himself, takes matters of overfishing and unregulated harvesting on the nose and the tail of the Banks very seriously. We will work with the provinces concerned, with the industry and with the international community to bring all fisheries under proper, good jurisdiction and management.
Hearn asked whether the minister would see that the sister ship Otto, which has suspiciously changed direction toward Iceland, be boarded and checked before the catch disappears.
Hearn identifies a specific second vessel, the Otto, that has suspiciously changed direction toward Iceland, and asks a timely and operationally concrete question about boarding and checking it before the catch disappears.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the words under advisement and under investigation. It is time we took it on the chin. A sister ship, the Otto , which was also headed for Newfoundland, has now suspiciously changed direction and is headed for Iceland. Will the minister see that this vessel is boarded and checked, because if he does not do it soon we know what is going to happen to the catch?
Thibault assured the member that DFO and all government departments will do their utmost to ensure regulations and laws are followed, and that vessels not following NAFO and Canadian regulations will be turned away.
Thibault gives only a general assurance that the government and DFO will do their utmost to ensure regulations and laws are followed and that vessels not following NAFO and Canadian regulations are happy to be turned away, without addressing the specific Otto or the urgency of the situation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again I can assure the member that the government and officials of DFO and all government departments will do the best we can, our utmost, to ensure that regulations and laws are followed. If those countries and vessels do not want to follow the regulations of NAFO and the Canadian regulations, then we are happy to have them turned away.
Mills asked whether the government would delay its Kyoto ratification decision until after the credit scheme for clean energy exports is in place, citing the chief scientist on the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change as saying Canada would not get credit for exporting clean energy to the U.S.
Mills cites a specific source — the chief scientist on the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change — and raises a concrete contradiction between that scientist's position on clean energy credits and the government's position, then asks whether ratification will be delayed until the credit scheme is in place.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the chief scientist on the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change has been quoted as saying that Canada would not get credit for exporting clean energy to the U.S. since the Americans have rejected Kyoto, yet the government tells us exactly the opposite. How can we believe anything the government says about Kyoto when it makes such stupid assumptions? Will the government delay its ratification decision until after the credit scheme is in place?
Anderson said the government has consistently acknowledged having an uphill battle to persuade other nations to accept clean energy exports, cited the Calgary meeting as very successful and noted an upcoming Whistler meeting in May for the same purpose.
Anderson corrects Mills by confirming the government has consistently said it has an uphill battle to persuade other nations to accept clean energy exports, cites the Calgary meeting and the upcoming Whistler meeting, and acknowledges work remains to be done, partially addressing the contradiction but not the ratification delay question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. We have said consistently that we have an uphill battle to persuade other nations to accept the concept of clean energy exports. That is why we had the meeting in Calgary some months ago, which, I might add, was very successful and where the international committee was surprised at how good the case is for clean energy exports, and it is why we will have another meeting in Whistler in May for exactly the same purpose. However, he is certainly correct that we have work to do to persuade the international community that clean energy exports are an important part of meeting the goal of--
Mills asked where the government is taking Canada and whether it plans to impose even more greenhouse gas treaties once beyond Kyoto, citing the chief scientist's warning that Kyoto will have little impact unless followed by many more such treaties.
Mills raises the chief scientist's point that Kyoto will have little impact unless followed by many more such treaties and asks where the government is taking Canada, but the question about wreaking havoc on the entire Canadian economy is highly rhetorical and the ask is compound and vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is not part of Kyoto. How can we get credit for somebody that is not part of it? The same chief scientist told us that Kyoto will have little impact on greenhouse gas levels unless it is followed by many more such treaties. Such a prospect is rather frightening. My question for the Minister of the Environment is this: Where is the government taking us? Is it planning to wreak havoc on the entire Canadian economy by imposing even more greenhouse gas treaties once we get beyond Kyoto?
Anderson confirmed that the first Kyoto period from 2008 to 2012 is just the first period and that dealing effectively with climate change will require subsequent actions and subsequent periods of measures to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Anderson confirms that subsequent actions and subsequent periods will be needed beyond the first Kyoto period from 2008 to 2012, which directly engages the premise about more treaties being needed, though without addressing the economic impact concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member, who has in fact gone to one of the conferences of parties, one of the international meetings on climate change, missed the point that in fact the first Kyoto period, from 2008 to 2012 is just that, the first Kyoto period. Of course for us to deal effectively with climate change, as the distinguished scientist who was speaking yesterday made perfectly clear, it will have to be followed by subsequent actions and subsequent periods where we also take measures to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that a mere reduction in countervailing duties will not be presented as a victory, and that the only acceptable solution is a full return to free trade?
Cites specific figure of 37% countervailing duties and references ongoing negotiations, with a clear ask about whether a reduction in duties would be presented as a victory versus full free trade, though framed partly rhetorically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are only a few loose ends to wrap up for the Prime Minister to conclude a softwood lumber agreement. The Minister for International Trade is in Washington, and a Canadian representative has said that the minister would certainly not come to witness a failure. Despite this optimism, there is talk of countervailing duties of 37% and there are still no guarantees of access to the U.S. market. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that there is no question of presenting as a victory a possible reduction in countervailing duties and that the only acceptable solution is a full return to free trade?
The parliamentary secretary confirmed free trade is the long-term goal, noting that free trade existed when the softwood lumber agreement expired, and expressed hope for a successful conclusion to negotiations.
Acknowledges free trade as the long-term goal but deflects the core question about not presenting a partial reduction as victory, offering only general optimism about negotiations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course it is so. When the softwood lumber agreement ran out a year ago we then had free trade in softwood lumber, and if the United States had not taken its very punitive and petty action against Canada we would have softwood lumber free trade right now and the member would not even be posing his question. Of course that is the long term goal, but I do not think there is any point in speculating. The minister is there, he is personally in charge of the negotiations and we are very hopeful that we will have a successful conclusion.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think it is time to introduce a plan to provide assistance to the softwood lumber industry and its workers?
Asks a reasonably specific question about whether the government will introduce an assistance plan for the softwood lumber industry and workers, though it is partly framed as a rhetorical challenge to the deputy prime minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is not setting our minds at rest. He is still talking about long term objectives. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think that it is time to introduce a plan to provide assistance to the softwood lumber industry and its workers in order to show that the Canadian government is serious about wanting to go back to free trade?
The parliamentary secretary noted that the Minister for International Trade met with Secretary of Commerce Evans and expressed hope for a successful deal, using a hockey analogy about winning the gold medal.
The answer ignores the question about an assistance plan entirely, pivoting to a sports metaphor about the women's hockey gold medal and reiterating that the minister is personally in charge of negotiations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade met this morning with Secretary of Commerce Evans in Washington. He is personally in charge of the negotiations. We are very hopeful that there will be a successful deal. As the Deputy Prime Minister noted, even with the biased referee in the women's hockey we won the gold medal, and if necessary we will win the gold medal again in softwood lumber at the WTO.
Why did the Department of Foreign Affairs solicit intelligence information from Ari Ben-Menashe and Alex Legault, against the advice of the department's own trade commissioner?
Names specific individuals (Ari Ben-Menashe and Alex Legault), cites the trade commissioner's warning, and asks a pointed question about why Foreign Affairs solicited intelligence from known fraud artists despite that advice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Montrealers Ari Ben-Menashe and Alex Legault are the two men involved in the questionable treason charges against Zimbabwe's Morgan Tsvangirai. These two men have a long history of international fraud. Our Department of Foreign Affairs was warned not to deal with them, but despite that the department has solicited regular debriefings from these two individuals. My question is simple. Why did the Department of Foreign Affairs, against the advice of our own trade commissioner, solicit intelligence information from known fraud artists Ari Ben-Menashe and Alex Legault?
Denis Paradis said only that he would take note of the questions and answer in the coming days.
The secretary of state provided no information whatsoever, simply stating he would take note of the questions and answer in the coming days.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the questions and I would be happy to answer in the coming days.
Will the government extradite Ari Ben-Menashe and Alex Legault to the United States on fraud charges, or will it coddle them within Canada?
Adds factual context about fraud charges in the United States and asks a specific question about extradition, though the rhetorical framing ('coddle them') reduces precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could edify the hon. member. These two individuals are wanted on fraud charges all over the world. Our own trade commissioner warned the Department of Foreign Affairs not to deal with these individuals. They are wanted on fraud charges, for example, in the United States for bilking millions of dollars out of innocent people. Will the hon. member extradite these people to the United States for the fraud charges that they are up against or will he coddle them within our own country?
Denis Paradis stated he would inquire of the Department of Foreign Affairs and get back to the member in the next few days.
The secretary of state again committed only to inquiring of the Department of Foreign Affairs and getting back to the member, providing no substantive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of the Department of Foreign Affairs and get back to the member on this in the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, last week we witnessed a 36 hour fast and a peaceful demonstration on Parliament Hill by Canadian Falun Gong practitioners attempting to bring attention to the alleged abuse of fellow practitioners in China. Could the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific inform the House what actions his government has taken to encourage and promote greater respect for human rights in all parts of China?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has spoken out about the human rights situation, both at the UN human rights commission and in Beijing, and will continue to do so. On many occasions we have raised our concerns directly with senior Chinese officials, both in Beijing and here in Ottawa. Canada would very much like China to end the suppression of freedom of religious expression and spiritual practice and to ratify the two human rights conventions that China has already ratified at the UN.
When will the minister create a drug safety agency that includes health care stakeholders and the public, given the track record including Vanessa Young's death and the $100 million class action suit over Prepulsid?
Cites the specific case of Vanessa Young, the $100 million class action suit, and the Prepulsid issue, and asks when the minister will create a drug safety agency that includes health care stakeholders and the public.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the health minister announced a new monitoring agency for adverse drug reactions, to be housed within Health Canada. Let us review the Liberals' track record on the area of drug safety. The government has known for years that there was a problem. While Health Canada and Janssen-Ortho haggled over the wording of a warning letter, 15 year old Vanessa Young died. Many now believe Vanessa's case is the tip of a Prepulsid iceberg in Canada. The government is currently facing a $100 million class action suit. When will the minister create a drug safety agency that includes health care stakeholders and the public?
The minister noted that post-market surveillance is a serious issue being addressed by Canada as well as the FDA and European Union, and described steps being taken including a new directorate and allocation of additional resources within Health Canada.
The minister acknowledged the seriousness of post-market surveillance and mentioned new steps including a new directorate, additional resources, and new procedures, but did not address the specific ask about including health care stakeholders and the public.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the whole area of post-market surveillance of drugs, the issue around adverse reactions, is a very serious and important one. Not only are we dealing with it here, but the FDA and the European Union's commission are struggling with how we encourage and receive the best information possible in relation to adverse reactions so that then we can act to protect the public. As I mentioned yesterday, we are taking steps within the Department of Health Canada, including the creation of a new directorate and many other new procedures and the allocation of additional resources--
Given the Prime Minister's February 25 commitment and Quebec's confirmed $225 million program, when will the federal government announce its investment in highway 185 before the March 31 deadline?
Cites a specific February 25 exchange with the Prime Minister, a $225 million Quebec program, a page in the Journal de Québec, and a March 31 deadline, asking when the federal government will announce its investment in highway 185.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on February 25, the Prime Minister responded as follows to my question on the upgrading of highway 185: “If the government of Quebec feels that the stretch between Rivière-du-Loup and the New Brunswick border is a priority, I will be very pleased to agree”. Quebec has indeed confirmed a $225 million program and the work is under way. Today, the region has taken out an entire page in the Journal de Québec to voice its desperate appeal. If the Deputy Prime Minister waits until after March 31, his leeway will disappear and, thanks to his inaction, highway 185 will continue to be as much a killer strip as ever. When does he plan to announce the federal government's investment?
The minister said he had already answered the question the previous day and that the government is prepared to discuss any highway improvements anywhere in the country, Quebec included.
The minister gave a one-sentence non-answer referring to a previous day's response and offering only a generic willingness to discuss highway improvements anywhere in Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I already answered that yesterday. We are prepared to discuss any highway improvements anywhere in the country, Quebec included.
If the final report on land use regulations at Lake Louise was produced by her department and not by Olsen and Olsen, why did she pay $56,000 to that company for something that was never done?
References a specific $56,000 contract with Olsen and Olsen and a contradictory departmental account of whether a final report exists, with a pointed ask about why money was paid for work not done, though the rhetorical flourishes reduce precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us see today if the heritage minister can tell us if there is a final report regarding land use regulations at Lake Louise? She paid $56,000 to Olsen and Olsen to produce one. Her department first said that the company only produced a “draft document”. Now the department says that there is a final document, poof. Maybe the minister can just jump up out of her seat today, perhaps jump over it, and tell us what the actual truth is. The question is, if the final report was actually produced by her department and not by Olsen and Olsen, why did she hand out such huge gobs of cash for something that was never done?
The minister invited the member to make her statement outside the House where the Olsen company could take the appropriate action, providing no substantive answer.
The minister did not address the question at all, instead inviting the member to repeat her statement outside the House so the Olsen company could take appropriate action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to make that statement outside the House where the Olsen company can take the appropriate action.
Could the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development provide the rationale for the use of a sliding scale in the allocation of the $200 million indirect funds program?
A government-backbench softball setup that references specific programs (CFI, research chairs, $200 million indirect funds program) but asks merely for a rationale for a sliding scale, providing the minister an opportunity to promote government policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has increased its spending on R and D--
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has increased its spending on R and D in recent years to the CFI, the research chairs program and with increases in the research granting councils. However, these increases have forced Canadian universities to bear the indirect costs associated with that research, resulting in the $200 million indirect funds program announced last fall. Could the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development provide the rationale for the use of a sliding scale in the allocation of these funds?
The secretary of state explained that the sliding scale addresses the special circumstances and concerns of both large and small universities, and noted that the government is undergoing an innovation consultation process.
The secretary of state explained that the sliding scale was designed to address the special circumstances of both large and small universities, and mentioned the ongoing innovation consultation process, providing some real information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fredericton for his excellent question and his excellent work on behalf of Canadian universities. Through the allocation of $200 million for indirect costs of research and the use of the sliding scale, it is clear that the government appreciates the special circumstances and concerns of large universities as well as small universities. The government is presently undergoing the innovation consultation process and we encourage Canadians to participate.
This entry contains only a procedural acclamation ('Hear, hear') with no question or substantive response recorded.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.