Session overview
- Multiple exchanges focused on the U.S. announcement of a northern command and what role, if any, Canada played in that decision, with the government maintaining that Norad's bi-national status was preserved and Canadian sovereignty unaffected.
- The 20th anniversary of the unilateral patriation of the constitution dominated BQ questioning, with Bloc members arguing that the federal approach of 1982 continues to override Quebec's consent on matters ranging from young offenders to fiscal transfers and parental leave.
- The Auditor General's findings on foundations holding over $7 billion in accounts and on contracting irregularities at Health Canada prompted challenges to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health over accountability and parliamentary scrutiny.
- Opposition members pressed the government over the purchase of new Challenger jets, disputing the cost breakdown — particularly the $8.2 million listed for pilot training and miscellaneous items — while the Minister of National Defence offered to table a detailed cost breakdown.
- Health Canada's handling of lead levels in imported raisins and the Canada Health Network contracting problems were raised as evidence of departmental mismanagement, with the Minister of Health defending both files by citing risk assessments and corrective action already taken.
- The Minister of the Environment expressed confidence that the U.S. Senate would reject drilling on the 1002 lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, underscoring Canada's sustained opposition to protect the Porcupine River caribou herd and the Gwich'in people.
The Minister of National Defence concretely committed to tabling a detailed breakdown of the $8.2 million figure and disclosed for the first time that it included ground support equipment and satellite communication systems beyond pilot training costs.
Highly specific: cites Bombardier's per-pilot certification cost of $47,800, notes four pilots are certified for free in the purchase, and challenges the government to account for the remainder of the $8.2 million.
Rather than addressing the specific question of whether Canada's military underfunding caused it to be excluded from the northern command, Eggleton dismissed the premise with a partisan attack on the Alliance Party and offered no substantive information.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. John Reynolds asked what specific input the Government of Canada had into Secretary Rumsfeld's northern command decision before it was announced — the minister described ongoing discussions but never confirmed whether Canada was consulted before the announcement or merely informed of it.
- Mr. Leon Benoit asked whether Canada was ever invited to participate in the northern command and, if not, why not — the minister explained the command's structure but did not directly answer whether an invitation was extended or withheld.
- Mr. John Williams asked how many foundations there actually are and how much money is sitting in their accounts — the Minister of Finance called it a matter of public record but provided no figures in response.
- Mr. Loyola Hearn asked whether the Prime Minister would step in and exert his power to convince international countries to live by the rules or declare custodial management over the total continental shelf — the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans gave no direct answer on custodial management.
- Mr. Gerry Ritz asked whether the Minister of Public Works had any proof that the March 31, 1998 telecommunications training contract — requiring completion on the same day it was signed — was ever actually delivered; the minister defended contracting procedures but provided no evidence of delivery.
Reynolds asks what consultations Canada had with the United States prior to Rumsfeld's announcement of the northern command.
Cites a specific same-day announcement by Secretary Rumsfeld and asks a clear, single question about prior consultations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this morning U.S. secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, announced that the United States is forming a northern command for the U.S. military. The command will have responsibility for the defence of the United States, Alaska, the Caribbean and Canada. What consultations did Canada have with the United States prior to this announcement?
Eggleton says discussions have been ongoing since last fall, focused on preserving Norad as a bi-national command and exploring further co-operation on terrorist threats.
Confirms ongoing discussions since last fall and the preservation of Norad as a bi-national command, but does not specify the nature or depth of consultations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing discussions since last fall. Initially we wanted to ensure the preservation of our bi-national command, Norad. That has been preserved in terms of this announcement. In addition to that, we have engaged in discussions with our counterparts in United States with respect to how we can further co-operate in practical ways dealing with terrorist threats. These are all things that are in the exploration stage.
Reynolds asks what input Canada had into Rumsfeld's announcement, whether Canada knew about it, and whether Canada is part of North American security planning.
Asks multiple related but distinct questions about Canada's input, foreknowledge, and role in the northern command decision, reducing sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of National Defence to be very clear to the House. This is crucially important to Canadian sovereignty. What input did the Government of Canada have into the decision announced today by Secretary Rumsfeld in the United States? What part did we take in that decision? Did we know about it? Are we part of this whole North American security?
Eggleton says not all details are worked out, that Canada sought to ensure Norad remained a bi-national command, and that this has been maintained in today's announcement.
Confirms Canada sought input to preserve Norad's bi-national status and that the plan reflects that, but does not directly answer whether Canada knew in advance or what specific part it played.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not all the details have been worked out on this plan. Essentially, it is a change with respect to the United States military command structure. We wanted to make sure that we had input into that matter inasmuch as there are common issues of concern in the defence of our respective countries. We wanted to make sure that Norad's high level as a bi-national command was maintained. It has been maintained with this announcement today. We will continue to explore ways that we can co-operate together in terms of our mutual interests in defence of the people of our country as they work in defence of the people of their country.
Reynolds quotes the then-Liberal opposition leader's 1991 remark about Mulroney's friendship with Bush and asks the Prime Minister to assure the House that Canada will work with the U.S. on a unified North American command.
Leads with a 1991 partisan quote about the Prime Minister and frames the ask rhetorically, making the actual question about friendly relations with Bush and a unified command more of a political jab than a specific accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the Minister of National Defence read that in the New York Times . Let me quote from a story in the Toronto Star dated January 12, 1991 about the gulf war and Canada's involvement. It quoted the then Liberal leader of the opposition as saying: Mulroney has committed our troops there because he likes to be friends with George Bush...I don't want to be friends with George Bush. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he is friendly with this George Bush Jr. and that Canada will work with the United States to make sure that North America has one command working together, not separate from the United States?
Eggleton says Canada and the U.S. are two sovereign countries that will work together in a co-ordinated fashion in their mutual interests while Canadian forces remain under Canadian command.
Addresses the sovereignty and co-ordination aspect of the question but does not engage with the Toronto Star quote or the framing about the Prime Minister's relationship with Bush.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are two sovereign countries. We will continue to act in ways that are in our mutual interests. The command of Canadian forces will be under the command of the government, under the command of the chain of command, but we will work together in a co-ordinated fashion for what is in our mutual interests for the safety and security of our citizens in Canada, their citizens in the United States and in our shared continent.
Benoit asks whether Canada was ever invited to participate in the northern command and, if not, why not.
Asks a specific, direct yes/no question about whether Canada was invited to participate in the northern command and, if not, why not.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canada has been left out of this unprecedented military command structure that affects our country as well as the entire continent. I want to ask the minister this. Was Canada ever invited to participate in the northern command and, if not, why not?
Eggleton explains the northern command is a U.S. military command but that the commander is double-hatted with Norad, preserving the bi-national command arrangement Canada sought.
Explains that the northern command is a U.S. military command and that the same commander is double-hatted for Norad, preserving the bi-national arrangement, which addresses the participation question though not the 'why not' if uninvited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the northern command is a United States military command. The same person will be double hatted as the commander of Norad. That is the same as it is now except that person has another command, the space command, under his or her control. This is a very similar kind of situation. Norad will continue to be a bi-national command reporting to both countries. When I saw Mr. Rumsfeld last fall I indicated to him that we should continue to have that arrangement. That arrangement in fact is in the plan today that has been unveiled.
Benoit argues that inadequate military investment led to Canada being excluded from the northern command and asks whether the real threat to Canadian sovereignty is the erosion of the military.
The question is largely rhetorical and argumentative, framing the northern command as a threat to sovereignty caused by underinvestment, with no specific ask beyond a leading assertion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the government had cleaned up its act and made a serious investment in our military we would have been offered a role in the northern command instead of having the U.S. in our backyard doing it for us. We have heard continuous warnings from the U.S. ambassador, the NATO secretary general and countless Canadians that our military is in crisis. I ask the minister this. Does not the real threat to Canadian sovereignty come from the erosion of our military because of what the government has not provided them?
Eggleton says the only crisis is in the Alliance Party and asserts that Canada is working with the U.S. to co-ordinate defence while maintaining sovereignty.
Eggleton dismisses the premise and attacks the Alliance Party rather than addressing the argument about military erosion and sovereignty.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only crisis around here is in the Alliance Party. It is certainly not the case with this government or its forces. We have sent a team of people to work and to talk with them about ways we can best co-ordinate our efforts in terms of defence of our respective countries. We can do that while maintaining all of the sovereignty that is important to be maintained by Canada.
Duceppe notes the anniversary of unilateral patriation and asks the Prime Minister to admit that almost one-quarter of the population's government, Quebec, will never sign the Canadian constitution.
Cites the historical context of the 1982 patriation and asks whether the Prime Minister admits a specific political reality, but the ask is more rhetorical acknowledgment than an accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for most Quebecers, April 17 is the sad anniversary of the unilateral patriation of the constitution, a constitution which was imposed on Quebec and which all Quebec governments have refused to sign. And this will continue to be the case, because no Quebec government will ever deny the existence of the Quebec nation. Given this state of affairs, will the Prime Minister admit that he is the head of a country in which almost one-quarter of the population will not allow their government, the government of Quebec, to sign the Canadian constitution?
Chrétien says he is proud Canada is no longer legally a colony of Great Britain and that the constitution serves all Canadians, including himself as a Quebecer.
Chrétien expresses pride in patriation and frames it as ending colonial status, but does not admit or address the specific assertion that one-quarter of the population's government has not signed the constitution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian constitution is a Canadian law which used to be a British law. I am very proud that we are no longer legally a colony of Great Britain and that we are here, in Canada, in a country which has its own constitution, which was approved by the Parliament of Canada and which serves all Canadian citizens, myself as a citizen of Quebec included.
Duceppe cites the Prime Minister's alleged 1963 proposal to build a constitution between two nations and asks whether he admits to having deviated from that task since unilateral patriation.
Cites a specific historical claim about the Prime Minister's 1963 nomination meeting and asks whether he has deviated from his stated goal since patriation, grounding the question in a specific prior commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a nation and, in this connection, I would like to offer the opinion of a Quebec politician who proposed as a solution to Canada's ills that the constitution be drawn up anew, not among ten provinces, but between two nations. This proposal was made by the current Prime Minister during his first nomination meeting in 1963. Since the Canadian constitution recognizes the existence of one nation only, the Canadian nation, will the Prime Minister admit that, since the unilateral patriation, he has deviated from the task he assigned himself in 1963?
Chrétien says he entered federal politics to give francophones from Quebec a place in the Canadian government and that he is proud to be francophone, from Quebec, and Canadian.
Chrétien speaks to his personal motivation for entering federal politics and his francophone identity but does not address whether he has deviated from the two-nation proposal he allegedly made in 1963.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when I ran for parliament, it was because I wanted us, francophones from Quebec, and the other francophones throughout Canada, to have a place in the Canadian government. I left the province of Quebec at the age of 29 to work for and represent the people of the riding of Saint-Maurice, to make sure that all citizens in my riding were well represented in the Parliament of Canada. I think that they are not sorry I did so. I am very proud of the fact that I am a francophone, that I come from the province of Quebec, and I am very proud to be a Canadian.
Marceau cites the Quebec Liberal Party's continued refusal to sign the 1982 constitution and asks how the Prime Minister explains the fact that no Quebec political party has signed it.
Cites a current-day statement from the Quebec Liberal Party as evidence and asks the Prime Minister to explain why no Quebec political party has signed the 1982 constitution, but the ask is more of a rhetorical challenge than a precise question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may well harbour illusions, shut his eyes and claim that the 1982 unilateral patriation does not pose any problem. How does he explain the fact then that no political party in Quebec signed the 1982 Constitution and that even the very federalist Quebec Liberal Party maintained this morning again that it would not sign it?
Dion says Quebecers are looking to the future and celebrating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects their rights, rather than living in the past like the Bloc Québécois.
Dion pivots to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an achievement for Quebecers rather than addressing why no Quebec party has signed the constitution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois may well be living in the past, but Quebecers are looking to the future. And for the future, Quebecers realize how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which we owe to the current Prime Minister and to former Prime Minister Trudeau, is an achievement of which they, along with all Canadians, can be proud. The charter will protect their rights in the future, as it has for the past 20 years. This is what Quebecers are celebrating today.
Marceau asks whether the Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that Quebec premiers refuse to sign the constitution because Canada is being built increasingly at the expense of Quebec's specificity.
The question is largely a rhetorical assertion that Canada is being built at Quebec's expense, with an implicit ask about whether the ministers recognize this, lacking specific factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the future indeed. Do the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that if all Quebec premiers since 1982 have refused and continue to refuse to sign the constitution, it is because in time we are realizing that the building of Canada is increasingly, and at an ever faster rate, being achieved at the expense of Quebec's specificity? This is what the future holds.
Hear, hear.
Dion challenges the Bloc to find a single Supreme Court judgment against Quebecers' interests and says Quebecers have made progress within the federation over the past 20 years.
Dion challenges the Bloc to find a single Supreme Court judgment against Quebecers' interests, which is a substantive counter-argument, though it does not directly address the claim about Quebec's specificity being eroded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Bloc Quebecois to find a single supreme court judgment that goes against Quebecers' interests. Over the past 20 years, Quebecers have made progress within the context of a federation with other Canadians, because their rights were strengthened. And they are proud of that. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why more of them vote for the Liberal Party of Canada than for the Bloc Quebecois.
Blaikie asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to having himself or the Minister of Foreign Affairs make a full statement to the House on the Canadian government's position on the northern command in a timely fashion.
Asks for a specific procedural commitment — that the Prime Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs make a full statement to the House on the northern command — which is a clear and answerable ask, though not deeply fact-based.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I was here 20 years ago and I remember 74 out of 75 Quebec MPs voting for the charter. It did not look to me like there was no support in Quebec for the charter of rights and freedoms.
Hear, hear.
Hon. members can relax. I was not even going to ask a question about that. Quiet.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it has to do with the announcement by the United States of the setting up of the northern command. It seems to me that obviously there are a number of concerns here which even the government may have about the implications of this northern command. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would commit in a timely fashion, as the Minister of Health likes to say, that he or the Minister of Foreign Affairs will come before the House and make a full statement as to the Canadian government's position on the northern command.
Chrétien states categorically that the U.S. decision about its own defence is its own business and that the defence of Canada will be assured by the Canadian government, without committing to a formal statement.
Chrétien makes a categorical statement about U.S. sovereignty over its own defence and Canadian responsibility for Canadian defence but does not commit to making a full statement before the House as requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very categorically that the decision the American administration made about its own defence is its own business. The defence of Canada will be assured by the Canadian government and not by the American government.
Blaikie argues that U.S. actions inevitably affect Canada and asks the Prime Minister to commit to parliamentary hearings on the Canadian response to the northern command.
Pushes back on the Prime Minister's framing and asks a specific procedural question about whether there will be parliamentary hearings on Canada's response to the northern command.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nothing the Americans do, being so large and being our neighbour, is just their business. Obviously it has implications for us. Will the Prime Minister commit, for example, to parliamentary hearings as to what the Canadian response should be to the northern command and how we can act appropriately in the circumstances?
Chrétien says Canada and the U.S. have communal interests and work together through Norad, affirms Canadian sovereignty cannot be taken away by a U.S. decision, and says he has no objection if the foreign affairs committee wants to look into the matter.
Chrétien acknowledges mutual interests, references Norad, affirms Canadian sovereignty, and says he has no objection if the foreign affairs committee wants to examine the issue, which partially addresses the ask about hearings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. We have a lot of communal interests with them. They are our neighbours and we have to work with them. It is why we are part of Norad where we have a joint command to address these problems. We have to do that but the sovereignty of Canada cannot be taken away by a decision made by the administration of the United States. If the foreign affairs committee wants to look into the question, fine. We have committees for that and part of their mandate is to look at problems that might affect Canada. If the committee wants to look into that I have no objection.
Brison cites a report to the chief of defence staff recommending against Challenger fleet modernization and asks why the finance minister did not block the $100 million purchase.
References a specific report recommending against fleet modernization and asks why the finance minister did not block the purchase, but the highly rhetorical language and punning framing significantly undercuts the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister. A report to the chief of defence staff concerning the Challengers recommended “that remedial action such as fleet modernization or replacement is not warranted”. Why did the finance minister, as the Liberal's pasha of prudence, not pull the $100 million flying carpets out from under the sultan of Shawinigan? Why did the Prime Minister's old challenger not just say no to the Prime Minister's new Challengers?
Eggleton says the new Challengers are more efficient, can travel longer distances on shorter runways, are more fuel efficient, and have the same appointments as the current ones, replacing two older aircraft with two newer ones.
Eggleton defends the purchase on efficiency grounds but does not address the specific report cited nor why the finance minister did not intervene.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times before, these are more efficient aircraft. They can go longer distances. They can go on shorter runways. They are more fuel efficient. They are not luxurious. They have the same appointments as the current Challengers. We are replacing two older Challengers with two newer Challengers to ensure that the government has the ability to travel as expeditiously as possible to deal with the government's business.
Brison invokes the Prime Minister's cancellation of the EH-101 contract and asks the finance minister to tell the Prime Minister to cancel the Challenger contract as well.
Largely rhetorical, using colourful language about Taj Mahals and ripping up contracts; cites the EH-101 cancellation for partisan framing rather than building a fact-based accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the Prime Minister said that he would rip up the EH-101 contract and write zero helicopters. He did, and today the Canadian armed forces are flying in old, decrepit helicopters while the old, decrepit cabinet wants to be flying in new jets. Will the finance minister tell the Prime Minister to rip up the Challenger contract and write zero new flying Taj Mahals for cabinet?
Eggleton defends the EH-101 cancellation as saving over $1 billion and providing a more suitable helicopter, and notes Sea Kings are performing well in the Arabian Gulf.
Eggleton defends the EH-101 cancellation as saving over $1 billion and says Sea Kings are performing well in the Arabian Gulf but does not address the Challenger contract question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the EH-101, which that party put in place, was a bad deal for Canada. What we are doing right now will save over $1 billion and we will get a helicopter that is more suitable for today's needs. Meanwhile, we have in fact invested some $50 million into the current Sea Kings. They are performing extremely well in the Arabian Gulf in support of the campaign against terrorism.
Hill cites the government's claim of $8.2 million for pilot certification against an actual cost of $570,000 and asks why the government fudged the figures for pilot training on the Challengers.
Cites specific figures — $8.2 million claimed for pilot certification versus an actual cost of $570,000 — making a precise numerical discrepancy accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have squandered $101 million for luxury jets. They claim that $8.2 million of that is earmarked for pilot certification. The actual cost of pilot certification is $570,000. Why did the Liberals fudge the figures for pilot training on these luxury Gucci jets?
Eggleton offers to table a detailed list, says approximately $1 million is for training 16 pilots, and notes various other details make up the account.
Eggleton offers to table a detailed breakdown and clarifies the $8.2 million includes more than training, saying approximately $1 million is for training 16 pilots, but does not reconcile the specific $570,000 versus $8.2 million discrepancy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to table a detailed list of what makes up the training and miscellaneous accounts. It is approximately $1 million for training. There are some 16 pilots involved. There are various other details involved in the program as well. However, as I said, at the end of the day we will get a product that is more efficient and more effective in helping the government do its job.
Hill cites Bombardier's certification cost of $47,800 per pilot plus four free in the purchase and asks the government to account for the remainder of the $8.2 million beyond pilot training.
Highly specific: cites Bombardier's per-pilot certification cost of $47,800, notes four pilots are certified for free in the purchase, and challenges the government to account for the remainder of the $8.2 million.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our 16 pilots are top gun military pilots and they have experience on planes that are very similar. Bombardier let me know that to certify a pilot costs $47,800. We get four certified for nothing in the purchase. That does not add up to $8.2 million. Where are they hiding the rest of that money?
Eggleton says the $8.2 million includes ground support equipment and satellite communication systems for each aircraft in addition to training, and offers to table the figures.
Eggleton specifically explains that the $8.2 million includes ground support equipment and satellite communication systems beyond training costs and offers to table the figures, substantively addressing the discrepancy though not line by line.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no hiding. I am happy to table this. The $8.2 million makes up more than training. There are other costs such as ground support equipment and satellite communication systems that go in each aircraft which are equivalent to what already exists in current aircraft. They are all part of the $8.2 million. I am happy to table the figures so the hon. member can study them and find out that we are being quite efficient in how taxpayer money will spent.
St-Hilaire asked the Prime Minister to admit that the millennium scholarships, the social union, and the young offenders legislation contradict Quebec's vision and illustrate that Canada is building itself without respect for that vision.
The question bundles three distinct policy examples under a broad constitutional grievance, making the ask vague and compound rather than specific and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the building of Canada, dating back to the unilateral patriation of the constitution in 1982, is in total contradiction to the very vision of Quebec. Will the Prime Minister admit that the millennium scholarships, the social union and the young offenders legislation are all initiatives that run contrary to the consensus in Quebec and clearly illustrate that Canada is building itself without any respect for the vision of Quebec?
Chrétien claimed Quebecers are pleased to receive the benefits of the programs and expressed surprise that the Bloc wants to reopen the constitutional issue.
Chrétien pivots to claiming Quebecers are happy with the programs and deflects by accusing the Bloc of wanting to reopen the constitutional issue, never addressing whether those initiatives contradict Quebec's vision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will answer this question because Quebecers are very pleased to receive the benefits of these programs. At this time, I am very surprised that the Bloc Quebecois would want to reopen the constitutional issue. Quebecers are so happy that this government has decided to say no more about the constitution and to address instead the real problems affecting the people.
St-Hilaire asked the Prime Minister to explain why he has never used the distinct society resolution to have Quebec's point of view respected in connection with the millennium scholarships, young offenders, and the social union.
The question is more pointed than the first, citing the specific distinct society resolution passed in the House and asking a concrete follow-up about why it was never applied to the named policy areas.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in order to assuage his conscience and remedy his 1982 error as far as Quebec is concerned, the Prime Minister had a resolution, the distinct society resolution, passed here in this House. How can the Prime Minister explain today that he has never made use of that resolution in order to have Quebec's point of view respected, particularly in connection with millennium scholarships, young offenders and the social union?
Chrétien noted that the Bloc Quebecois voted against the distinct society resolution en masse and accused them of gall for criticizing the government's non-use of something they opposed.
Chrétien deflects entirely by noting that the Bloc Quebecois voted against the distinct society resolution, attacking their credibility rather than explaining why the resolution was not used.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party and the government introduced the distinct society resolution in the House of Commons, the Bloc Quebecois voted against it en masse. Now they have the gall to stand up in this House and fault us for not using something they themselves were against. What a disgrace.
Williams asked the Minister of Finance how many foundations there actually are and how much money is sitting in bank accounts, referencing the auditor general's report.
Williams references the auditor general's report and frames a specific ask about the number of foundations and amounts held, but the 'slush funds gone mad' and 'buy votes' framing is heavily partisan and weakens the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general blew the whistle yesterday that there are so many foundations out there and more money in secret bank accounts than what the government even knows is there. It sounds like slush funds gone mad to me. My question is for the Minister of Finance. Could he tell us how many foundations there actually are? How much is sitting in secret bank accounts waiting for the Liberals to buy votes at the next election?
Martin stated the number of foundations is a matter of public record, denied the existence of secret bank accounts, and said all foundations provide annual public reports and that every grant is publicly recorded.
Martin directly contests the characterization of 'secret bank accounts,' asserts the number of foundations is public record, and states all foundations produce annual public reports, though he does not supply the actual number asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the number of foundations is a matter of public record. There are no secret bank accounts. All the foundations provide annual public reports that are available. Every time one of the foundations makes a grant, it is a matter of public record. The fact is the whole operation of foundations is done in a very open and very transparent way.
Williams cited the auditor general's finding of over $7 billion in bank accounts outside the sight of the auditor general and parliament, and asked the Minister of Finance to commit to getting that money back to pay down the debt.
Williams cites the auditor general's specific figure of over $7 billion and the equivalent of $5,000 per Canadian family, then asks a concrete commitment about returning the money to pay down the debt.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I only wish that were true but the auditor general says it is not. There is over $7 billion sitting in bank accounts and we do not know what the government intends to do with it. That is $5,000 per Canadian family that has been socked away out of sight of the auditor general, out of sight of parliament and out of sight of everybody but the Liberal Party. My question for the Minister of Finance is this. Will he make a commitment today to get that money back on behalf of taxpayers, pay down the debt and use it for something other than buying Liberal votes?
Martin stated that parliamentary committees can call foundation representatives to appear and cited the Canadian Foundation for Innovation's 11 appearances before committees, then accused the Alliance of not supporting investment in Canada's future.
Martin provides a partial answer by explaining parliamentary committee access and citing the Canadian Foundation for Innovation's 11 appearances before committees, but does not address the specific ask to return the money or pay down the debt, instead pivoting to attacking the Alliance's stance on investment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, not only does each of these foundations provide an annual report, but if parliamentary committees desire to have representatives of these foundations appear in front of them, they can. I will give the member one example. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation was set up five years ago in 1997. Representatives of that foundation have appeared 11 times before diverse parliamentary committees of the House and are prepared to do so in the future. If the hon. member is saying that investing in the future of Canada, investing in research and development, investing in the future of our children and investing in our universities is not worthwhile, that certainly says where they stand on Canada's future.
Bellehumeur asked the Prime Minister to admit that the same unilateral approach used in 1982 with the patriation of the constitution was used again to force Quebec to abandon its proven rehabilitation approach with young offenders.
Bellehumeur draws a parallel between 1982 unilateral patriation and the young offenders legislation but the ask is rhetorical and the framing conflates two distinct constitutional and policy issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1982, the Prime Minister and his colleagues set the tone for the future by giving themselves the right to change fundamental things without Quebec's consent. The same thing happened again 20 years later regarding young offenders, when the federal government imposed its repressive approach on Quebec, ignoring the Quebec consensus. Will the Prime Minister admit that the approach that prevailed in 1982 with the unilateral patriation of the constitution is the same one that forced Quebec to abandon a rehabilitation approach that had proven successful with young offenders?
Cauchon accused the Bloc of a misinformation campaign, asserted that Bill C-7 meets Quebec's aspirations and reflects Quebec's techniques and approach, and noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been useful to Quebec on language and signs.
Cauchon contests the premise by asserting Bill C-7 meets Quebec's aspirations and reflects Quebec's techniques, and pivots to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but does not address the specific claim that the federal approach was imposed against a Quebec consensus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to see that, once again, the Bloc Quebecois is continuing its misinformation campaign in Quebec. Bill C-7 on young offenders meets the aspirations of Quebec and reflects the techniques and approach developed in Quebec. As for the constitution, it includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been widely used across the country and in a flexible manner. The charter has proven very useful to Quebec regarding many issues, including language and signs.
Bellehumeur argued that the Canadian young offenders approach does not reflect Quebec's reality and asked whether Canada's imposition of its centralizing views on Quebec is the legacy of 1982.
Bellehumeur makes a pointed argument that the young offenders legislation denies Quebec's distinct reality and that Canada cannot accommodate diversity, ending in a rhetorical question about 1982's legacy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the minister had come to Quebec before the bill was passed, he would have seen that the Canadian approach with young offenders does not reflect the reality in our province. Worse still, it denies this reality by not allowing Quebec to do things differently. While Quebec recognizes—and accepts— the different Canadian approach with young offenders, Canada just cannot live with such diversity and imposes its centralizing views on Quebecers. Is this the legacy of 1982?
You sold out!
Oh, oh.
Oh, oh.
Cauchon accused the Bloc of refusing to work constructively in Parliament and lamented being called a sellout, but did not address the substance of the question about the young offenders legislation and Quebec's diversity.
Cauchon's answer dissolved into disorder with interjections of 'You sold out,' and the minister spent most of his response complaining about being called a sellout rather than addressing the substance of the question about the young offenders approach and Quebec's diversity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Bloc Quebecois, ever since it first came here, is that it refuses to work here—
Mr. Speaker, people are saying I sold out. The Bloc Quebecois refuses to work here in a constructive and positive fashion. Look at the impact of the charter—
Mr. Speaker, they talk about democracy on the other side, but they are saying I sold out. I find it unfortunate that, in a democratic country, I am described as having sold out when I try to exercise my freedom of expression and my right to speak. These are fellow Quebecers. This is a disgrace.
Anders cited figures showing the military has lost 31,500 troops and gained only 14,700 since the government was elected, and asked the Minister of National Defence why twice as many troops have been lost as brought in.
Anders cites specific figures — 31,500 troops lost and 14,700 gained — to ground a clear and answerable question about why the government has lost twice as many troops as it has recruited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since the government was first elected our military has lost twice as many troops as it has brought in. National defence has lost 31,500 troops and only gained 14,700. That is a scary number. That is a lot of engineers, a lot of pilots and a lot of doctors. The problem will only get worse. My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Why has the government lost twice as many troops as it has brought in?
Eggleton stated that recruitment reached approximately 10,000 people, about 50% higher than the previous year, and that the attrition rate has lowered by some 20% in the last year.
Eggleton provides relevant figures on recruitment — 50% higher numbers, approximately 10,000 recruited — and mentions an attrition rate reduction of 20%, which partially addresses the question but does not directly reconcile with the numbers Anders cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time hearing all the question. We have had a very solid recruitment program in the last year. We have reached about 50% higher numbers than the year before, successfully recruiting some 10,000 people. We are working on certain occupation groups, such as engineers, to attract more of them into the system; more flexible terms of reference and various other means of attracting people that we need, as well as retention. Our retention is working quite well because our attrition rate has substantially lowered some 20% in the last year. We are on our way to resolving the problem.
Anders cited the auditor general's finding that problems date back to 1990, that recruiting centres were short of recruiters, and that the government missed its goal of 4,800 new soldiers by almost 25%, asking why the minister has not given the department the resources it needs.
Anders invokes the auditor general's report, cites a specific shortfall of nearly 25% below the 4,800 new soldiers target, and notes recruiting centres were short of recruiters, making a sharp accountability ask about resources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actually the truth speaks something else. The auditor general has reported that these problems go all the way back to 1990. What has happened? More Liberal cuts and Liberal mismanagement. The truth is in the numbers, and the auditor general reported that even the recruiting centres were short of recruiters, which is probably why they missed their goal of 4,800 new soldiers by almost 25%. These shortages are a direct result of the government cuts in the mid-nineties and it will take 30 years to recover. Why has the minister not given the department the resources it needs to do the job?
Eggleton stated that the government has given resources for recruitment and that since the audit a considerable number of people have been recruited, bettering the target in many occupations, while acknowledging more work is needed for engineers, doctors, and various trades.
Eggleton asserts resources were provided and that since the audit the target was bettered in many occupations, but does not address the specific 25% shortfall figure or the 30-year recovery timeline, and acknowledges remaining gaps in engineers, doctors, and trades.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has given the resources to the Canadian forces on recruitment. The auditor general went in last fall to do the audit before the recruitment year. Since then we have recruited a considerable number of people and have bettered the target in many different occupations. We still have more to do in terms of engineers, doctors and various other trades. We are working on those areas.
Cullen asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs what the government is doing to support the peace process in Somalia and how the large Somali diaspora in Canada can contribute to the dialogue.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking what the government is doing to support peace in Somalia and how the Somali diaspora can contribute, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The people of Somalia are most anxious for peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. What is our government doing to support the peace process in Somalia and how can the large Somali diaspora in Canada contribute to this dialogue?
Graham stated the government is providing substantial humanitarian aid to address the drought and humanitarian crisis, noted positive results in Eritrea and Ethiopia as a model, and urged Somalian-Canadian citizens to tell their colleagues in Somalia to work for a peaceful solution.
Graham provides substantive context about humanitarian aid, references positive results in Eritrea and Ethiopia, and directly encourages the Somalian-Canadian diaspora to participate in a peaceful solution, offering real information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are obviously tremendous problems in Somalia but we can take some comfort in the fact that there have been positive results in Eritrea and Ethiopia next door. We would like to replicate that. We are working with the Somalis on this. We have been providing substantial humanitarian aid to enable a better environment to deal with the drought and to deal with the humanitarian crisis and we urge our Somalian-Canadian citizens of whom many are represented here in the House to do their work, the diaspora, and to tell their colleagues in Somalia to work for a peaceful solution to this. We can do this if we work together, and I thank the member because I know that he has many constituents who want to be helpful in this area of the world.
Nystrom noted that $7.1 billion has been transferred to foundations with no parliamentary scrutiny and asked the Minister of Finance to allow the auditor general to audit each foundation and make it mandatory that foundations be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Nystrom cites the specific figure of $7.1 billion transferred to foundations, characterizes the accountability gap clearly, and poses two direct asks: allow the auditor general to audit the foundations and make parliamentary scrutiny mandatory.
Source text
Back to the Minister of Finance and the auditor general's report, Mr. Speaker. The government has transferred some $7.1 billion to foundations with no parliamentary scrutiny, no accountability and they bypass parliament. In other words, it is a benevolent dictatorship that has gone too far. Would the Minister of Finance agree to allow the auditor general to audit each of these individual foundations and would he make it mandatory that the foundations be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?
Martin again referenced parliamentary committees' ability to summon foundation representatives and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation's 11 appearances before committees, but did not commit to making auditor general audits or parliamentary scrutiny mandatory.
Martin repeats his earlier response about parliamentary committees being able to call foundation representatives and cites the Canadian Foundation for Innovation's 11 appearances, but does not address the specific ask of making auditor general audits mandatory or parliamentary scrutiny mandatory, and ends with a dismissive personal jab.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to an earlier question, if any parliamentary committee wants to ask the heads or the representatives of one of these foundations to appear in front of it, it can do so. Every one of those foundations produces an annual report. Then I said that the Canadian Foundation for Innovation in the last five years alone had appeared 11 times in front of various parliamentary committees. The answer to the hon. member's question is; it is happening. He should go to committee occasionally.
Wasylycia-Leis asked when the Health Minister will stop calling concerns about dangerous levels of lead in imported raisins fearmongering and get to work cleaning up a department that fails to warn Canadian parents of health risks.
Wasylycia-Leis raises a concrete health and safety issue about dangerous levels of lead in imported raisins and Health Canada's failure to warn parents, but frames the ask in rhetorical terms about the minister 'cleaning up' the department rather than posing a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, another glaring example of Health Canada's failure to protect Canadians has come to light. For years Health Canada has failed to warn Canadians of dangerous levels of lead in certain imported raisins or to stop product sales. It chose, consciously chose, not to warn Canadian parents that they could be feeding their children a devastating neuro-toxin instead of a nourishing substitute for candy. When will the Health Minister stop defending the indefensible with calls of fearmongering and get to work cleaning up a department that is itself feared by many Canadians?
McLellan stated that a risk assessment on raisins began in 1992 and concluded there was no unreasonable risk to health, that a very strict lead level was established as of 1995, and that no raisins imported since November 1995 have exceeded that level.
McLellan directly addresses the raisins issue with specific facts: a risk assessment began in 1992, concluded there was no unreasonable risk, a strict lead level was established as of 1995, and no raisins exceeding that level have been imported since November 1995.
Source text
Mr Speaker, yet again the hon. member does not have the facts right. A risk assessment was undertaken by the Department of Health in relation to raisins beginning in 1992. The conclusion of that risk assessment was that there was no unreasonable risk to health. That is why no consumer alert was issued. Let me reassure the hon. member, as of 1995, a very strict level for lead in raisins has been established and there have been no raisins imported into this country since November 1995 that exceeded that established level.
Hearn noted that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has only one surveillance vessel for the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, and asked whether the minister has requested money from the $100 million being spent on Challengers for new surveillance vessels.
Hearn identifies a specific operational gap — only one surveillance vessel for the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap — and asks a concrete question about whether the minister has requested money from the Challenger aircraft funds for new vessels.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has only one surveillance vessel to cover the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. No wonder so many abuses are taking place. In light of the fact that $100 million is being wasted on Challengers we do not need, has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requested some of that money for new surveillance vessels that are really needed?
Thibault said surveillance of the 200-mile limit is carried out with the military Aurora, contracted aircraft, the surveillance vessel, and observers on all vessels, and that within NAFO the government works on a diplomatic international solution.
Thibault describes the suite of surveillance methods used — military Aurora, contracted aircraft, the surveillance vessel, and observers — but does not directly answer whether the minister has requested funds from the Challenger budget for new surveillance vessels.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member makes light of what I think is a very serious matter. Surveillance of our 200 mile limit is very important to the government. We do not do it with ministerial aircraft. We do it with the military Aurora. We do it with contracted aircraft with other companies. We do it with our surveillance vessel as well as with observers on all the vessels. That is what we do within NAFO. We work on a diplomatic international solution to an international problem.
Hearn asked whether the Prime Minister will step into the fisheries issue and exert his power to convince international countries to live by the rules or else declare custodial management over the total continental shelf.
Hearn draws a parallel to the softwood lumber file where the Prime Minister intervened and poses a specific ask about whether the PM will exert his power to compel compliance with rules or declare custodial management over the total continental shelf.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister as well as I know all of this has been a complete and total flop. When the Minister for International Trade dropped the ball on the softwood lumber file, the Prime Minister stepped in. Will the Prime Minister now step into this very important issue and exert his power to convince international countries to live by the rules or else declare custodial management over the total continental shelf?
Thibault defended the government's record since the mid-nineties, argued the previous government failed to resolve international problems when it had the chance, and claimed the current government is now taking charge.
Thibault deflects to partisan history, claiming the previous government failed to resolve international problems when it had the chance, and does not address whether the Prime Minister will intervene or whether custodial management is under consideration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not a flop. It had been at one time. When we took over government in the early nineties it was not governed at all, not regulated. In 1995 we took serious action. We would have thought it would have been resolved because the member, who has been a member from Atlantic Canada and whose party leader was Minister of Foreign Affairs, had ample chances to solve all the international problems on the nose and the tail and he failed to do so. Now we are taking charge.
Merrifield cited the auditor general's finding that contracting rules were ignored for $25 million spent on a new website and that expensive high tech equipment sits unused, and asked what the minister is doing to discipline those responsible.
Merrifield cites the auditor general's finding about $25 million spent on a website with contracting rules ignored and expensive equipment sitting unused, and poses a specific ask about what the minister is doing to discipline those responsible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, mismanagement continues to flourish at Health Canada. Yesterday the auditor general found that contracting rules were ignored for $25 million spent on a new website. Expensive high tech equipment now sits unused in a warehouse. The money would have been much better spent on MRIs or frontline nurses. What is the minister doing to discipline those responsible for this debacle?
McLellan confirmed the auditor general identified contracting problems around the Canada Health Network, stated those problems have been dealt with and the CHN is now managed in-house, and noted much of the equipment is now being used and the website receives five million hits a month.
McLellan confirms the auditor general identified contracting problems around the Canada Health Network, states the problems have been dealt with working with the auditor general, that the CHN is now managed in-house, much of the equipment is now being used, and cites five million hits a month, but does not address the specific ask about discipline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed, the auditor general identified contracting problems around the Canada Health Network. Let me reassure the hon. member that, working with the auditor general, those problems have been dealt with. We are now managing the CHN in-house. Much of the equipment that was identified is now being used. Let me reassure the hon. member that this website receives five million hits a month, which speaks to the desire on the part of Canadians to have access to credible information about their health.
Merrifield cited a pattern of management problems at Health Canada including the Virginia Fontaine, CIPRO, drug safety, and the raisins issues, and asked whether the minister can assure Canadians that Health Canada is not a danger to their health.
Merrifield strings together several disparate scandals — Virginia Fontaine, CIPRO, drug safety, raisins — without citing specific facts for most of them, and the ask is whether the minister can assure Canadians that Health Canada is not a danger to their health, which is essentially unanswerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, management problems at Health Canada are nothing new. There is the Virginia Fontaine. There is the purchase of CIPRO. There is drug safety. Today we learn that Health Canada has failed to take action on raisins covered in lead, putting the lives of children at risk. Could the minister assure Canadians that Health Canada is not the danger to their health?
McLellan called it irresponsible to irrationally raise the fears of Canadians and gave brief reassurances that the government took action on raisins and the Canadian Health Network, without addressing the other named issues.
McLellan accuses the member of irrationally raising fears and gives only vague reassurances that the government took action on raisins and the Canadian Health Network, without addressing the other named issues or the broader governance question.
Source text
In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I have encouraged other members in the House, I think it is irresponsible to irrationally raise the fears of Canadians in relation to their safety and health. Let me reassure the hon. member, as it relates to raisins, we took action. As it relates to the Canadian Health Network, we took action.
Loubier asks whether the federal government is using fiscal imbalance as a second political tool — after the 1982 constitutional patriation — to impose its economic and social vision on Quebec.
The question frames fiscal imbalance as a deliberate political tool to impose federal will on Quebec, but the ask is vague and rhetorical rather than a specific factual inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, by unilaterally imposing its constitution after the 1982 power grab, the federal government gave itself the first political tool needed to impose its will on Quebec. Is the government not in the process of giving itself a second tool, fiscal imbalance, which it needed to impose, yet again, its economic and social vision on Quebec?
Martin argues that according to the conference board projections used by the Séguin commission, there is no fiscal imbalance, and the projections over both 5 and 15 years support the Government of Canada's position.
Martin directly invokes the conference board projections used by the Séguin commission to contest the premise of fiscal imbalance, providing relevant factual grounding though without fully engaging the political argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that according to the conference board projections used by the Séguin commission, there is no fiscal imbalance. The projections demonstrate quite clearly that there will not be an exorbitant surplus in the next five years. If we look at the basic assumptions for the next 15 years, they still support the position of the Government of Canada.
Loubier asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that maintaining fiscal imbalance gives the federal government economic power to limit Quebec's ability to act as it pleases.
The question is largely rhetorical, framing Ottawa as treating provinces 'like slaves' and asking a leading question about federal economic power over Quebec rather than making a specific factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since 1982, the Canadian federalist approach has not changed. Political decisions are made in Ottawa and the provinces merely carry them out like slaves. Will the Prime Minister admit that by maintaining this fiscal imbalance, the federal government has giving itself the economic power that it lacked, and that with this power, it will be able to limit as it pleases Quebec's ability to act?
Dion states that federal spending is around 12% of GDP — the lowest since 1948 — and that Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world, then attacks the Bloc Québécois's conduct in parliament.
Dion offers some factual context on federal spending as a share of GDP and decentralization, but pivots to attacking the Bloc Québécois's behaviour and references the charter anniversary, largely deflecting the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, spending on Government of Canada programs is around 12% of the GDP. This is the lowest level since 1948. Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world, and it is even more decentralized than in 1982. Quebecers will remember, particularly today, when we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the charter, the shameful behaviour of the Bloc Quebecois in parliament. The way the member insulted the Minister of Justice is not worthy of Quebecers.
Ritz asks how the minister of public works can justify paying a $300,000 contract for telecommunications training that was supposedly completed in a single day, as flagged by the auditor general.
The question cites the auditor general's report, a specific $300,000 contract signed on March 31, 1998 requiring same-day completion, and asks a clear accountable question about justification for payment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general reported that Health Canada accepted a $300,000 bid to supply telecommunications training. The contract, which was signed on March 31, 1998, stipulated that the training must be completed the very same day. Despite the fact that Health Canada could never explain how this training could be accomplished in one day, public works paid the bill. How can the minister of public works justify this outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money?
Boudria asserts that there was no abuse of taxpayers' money and that the department of public works followed the rules closely regarding contracting and processing of payments.
Boudria simply asserts that policies were followed closely without providing any evidence that the training was actually delivered or addressing the auditor general's findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there has been no so-called outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money. The department of public works followed very closely the rules in this regard both in relation to contracting and the processing of the payments and the final payments made in regard to these invoices.
Ritz quotes the auditor general saying the Health Canada program 'does not address the requirement to properly control and manage government assets' and asks whether the minister has any proof the March madness training was ever delivered.
Ritz quotes directly from the auditor general's report and asks a specific, answerable factual question: does the minister have proof the training was ever delivered?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general sees it a little differently. She says this Health Canada program “does not address the requirement to properly control and manage government assets”. Again I ask the minister of public works, does he have any proof that this March madness training was ever delivered?
Boudria states that approved policies were followed using advanced contract award notices and that there was no overpayment, without providing any proof of training delivery.
Boudria states that policies were followed using advanced contract award notices and claims there was no overpayment, but never addresses whether proof of delivery exists, which was the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not going to try here to make allegations that are incorrect. In regard to the contract in question, policies have been followed very closely. My department has followed the approved policy using the advanced contract award notices. In fact, in addition, and perhaps this is the most important, there has been no overpayment in this regard.
Bagnell asks whether the Minister of the Environment can guarantee Canada will continue fighting against the Murkowski amendment to allow drilling in ANWR until the U.S. senate vote tomorrow.
This is a government-backbench softball that recites government achievements on ANWR and asks the minister to guarantee the fight will continue — essentially an invitation to promote government policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, given that United States senator Frank Murkowski has just added an amendment to the energy bill that would allow drilling in ANWAR, given that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have fought against this for years, given that the Ministers of the Environment and Foreign Affairs have fought to protect the Gwich'in people of northern Canada, and given that the Porcupine caribou herd is threatened, could the Minister of the Environment guarantee to us that Canada will keep up this fight until the vote in the U.S. senate tomorrow?
Anderson confirms Canada expects a clear rejection by the United States senate of the proposal to drill on the 1002 lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, citing risks to the Porcupine River caribou herd and the Gwich'in people, and notes ongoing government advocacy.
Anderson provides a substantive and specific answer, expressing confidence in a clear rejection by the United States senate tomorrow, explaining the rationale concerning the Porcupine River caribou herd and the Gwich'in people, and confirming ongoing advocacy.
Source text
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, and I should add that the Government of Canada expects that tomorrow we will have a clear rejection by the United States senate of the proposal to drill on the 1002 lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The protection of the Porcupine River caribou herd is critical to the culture of the Gwich'in people and drilling in the calving grounds of this herd would pose risks to that herd and would be a serious mistake. I should add that this position had been made to the government of the United States and to individual legislatures of the United States by members of the government, the member for Yukon and many others at every possible occasion.
Moore quotes the government's own independent adviser Debra Ward saying the security fee could negatively affect decisions to fly and recommending reducing or eliminating fees, and asks the minister to listen to that advice.
Moore quotes directly from Ms. Debra Ward's third interim report calling for reducing or eliminating fees and taxes on the airline sector, making a reasonably specific ask grounded in the government's own adviser's recommendation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in her third interim report, Ms. Debra Ward, the government's adviser on airline restructuring, said: Much has been said recently about the “hidden” costs of flying---user fees that are piled on passengers. The most recent, the security fee, is being seen by some as the last straw and could negatively affect people's decisions to fly. To stimulate travel, government could consider reducing or eliminating some of the fees and taxes it is currently imposing on the airline sector. Given that the government's own independent adviser is calling for a tax cut on flying, will the minister please listen for once?
Collenette pivots to the government's record on the balanced budget, asserts that user charges in the airline industry have been accepted by all parties, and claims the travelling public supports the government's policy.
Collenette deflects entirely, pivoting to the Alliance's balanced budget record and asserting user charges have been accepted by all parties, without engaging Ward's recommendation or addressing the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the Alliance. These are the people who believe in a balanced budget. Guess who delivered a balanced budget? It was this government. The fact is, the user charges in the airline industry have been accepted by all parties in the House. The system has worked extremely well in covering all of the various expenditures. I believe the travelling public supports the government's policy.
Moore asks why the transport minister will not move up the date of the security tax cut to before summer, given that the tax is generating a huge surplus and air carriers need summer profits to survive.
Moore references specific struggling carriers — Air Alma, CanJet, Tango, WestJet — and asks a concrete question about moving up the date of a tax cut before summer, though the framing includes rhetorical flourishes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to save the minister more time. He could write our campaign commercials for us. Air Alma has just died, CanJet is trying to fly again, Tango is struggling, WestJet is trying to expand and regionals are struggling to survive under the might of the taxes of the government. Given that he knows this tax is going to bring in a huge surplus, why will the transport minister not move up the date when he is going to cut the tax to before the summer? If air carriers do not make a profit in the summer they do not make it at all. Will he move up the tax cut, cut the tax right now, so that the air carriers can fly? Will he do it?
Collenette notes that I.M.P. has announced CanJet will resume flying this summer and that Skyservice has partnered with the largest charter operation in the country, and asserts that government policy is now working again.
Collenette mentions CanJet resuming flying and Skyservice's partnership but does not address the specific ask about moving up the date of the tax cut, instead asserting government policy is working.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I always point out that the hon. member does not do his homework. I know he has been otherwise engaged in the last few weeks, but perhaps he missed it yesterday that I.M.P. has announced that CanJet will resume flying this summer. Perhaps he has missed the fact that Skyservice has hooked up with the largest charter operation in the country. What he obviously does not understand is that the policy of the government, which was working before September 11 and was adversely affected by the events of September 11, is now working once again. Why will he not recognize that?
Picard asks whether the Prime Minister will deny that the attitude toward Quebec from the 1982 unilateral patriation continues today in fiscal matters — keeping money in Ottawa and imposing Ottawa's views on Quebec.
Picard's question is largely rhetorical, drawing a parallel between 1982 constitutional patriation and current fiscal policy on parental leave, with a vague ask about whether the Prime Minister will deny a broad characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the message sent back in 1982 was that from now on the federal government can act without Quebec's consent. For example, with the parental leave, instead of giving back to Quebec the taxes collected from its people, the federal government continues to want to impose a single vision, namely its own. Can the Prime Minister deny that the attitude which prevailed toward Quebec in 1982 when the constitution was unilaterally patriated continues to prevail today as far as finances are concerned, and that this approach consists in keeping the money in Ottawa while imposing Ottawa's views on Quebec?
Dion states that Quebec can easily add its parental leave program to the federal one in a decentralized federation, and cites 1982 polling showing 48% of Quebecers disapproved of the Lévesque government's attitude and 49% considered the Constitution Act a good thing.
Dion addresses the parental leave point by saying Quebec can add its program to the federal one, and offers polling data from 1982 to contest the Bloc's framing, but does not substantively address the fiscal federalism argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is getting all in an uproar over nothing. As far as parental leave is concerned, the province of Quebec can very easily add its program to ours. In a decentralized federation, that is how things are done. SInce they insist on bringing up the past, however, must I remind them that, in March 1982, 48% of Quebecers disapproved of the Lévesque government's attitude to the constitutional agreement, and only 32% approved. As well, 49% of them considered the Constitution Act a good thing and only 16% thought the contrary. The Quebecers of 1982 were right.
Cullen asks the parliamentary secretary for an update on the status of the trade mission to India from April 22 to 26, noting India's robust economic growth and the interest of his Etobicoke North constituents.
This is a government-backbench softball asking for an update on a forthcoming trade mission, serving primarily as a platform for the government to announce its activities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade will be leading a trade mission to India from April 22 to April 26. Economic growth in India during the past decade has been robust, making the world's largest democracy an ideal market for Canadian exports. Given the large number of constituents in my riding of Etobicoke North who are keenly interested in this project, would the parliamentary secretary give us an update on the status of this trade mission?
Mr. Speaker, India has the twelfth largest economy in the world. It has had a 30% growth in its GDP over the past five years, so obviously it is a very important market for Canada. A hundred companies are part of this trip, with some 130 delegates, which makes it the largest ministerial trade trip ever. We will be highlighting such Canadian sectors as agrifood, building products and services, education, environment, financial services and IT, to mention some of them.
O'Brien states that India has the twelfth largest economy in the world with 30% GDP growth over five years, and that 100 companies and 130 delegates will participate in the largest ministerial trade trip ever, covering sectors including agrifood, education, environment, financial services, and IT.
O'Brien provides concrete details: India has the twelfth largest economy in the world, 30% GDP growth over five years, 100 companies and 130 delegates participating in the largest ministerial trade trip ever, with specific sectors highlighted.
The Speaker drew the attention of the House to guests in the gallery and members acknowledged their presence.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.