Session overview
- Kyoto Protocol ratification dominated the opening exchanges, with Opposition Leader Stephen Harper pressing the government on why it refused to guarantee provinces financial protection from adverse economic impacts of Kyoto policies, while Minister David Anderson deflected by contesting Harper's characterization of the plan as 'made in Kyoto' rather than 'made in Canada.'
- Bloc Québécois members mounted a sustained challenge on fiscal imbalance, arguing that federal departmental spending grew 21.7% since 1994 compared to Quebec's 7.3% outside health, and that ballooning projected surpluses confirm the federal tax field is too broad relative to federal obligations.
- GST fraud was the subject of multiple exchanges, with Canadian Alliance and PC members alleging over $1 billion in losses, claiming a dedicated fraud squad was shut down in 1995, and questioning whether a simple form entry in box 106 with no documentation could yield a government cheque; Minister Elinor Caplan defended a 1,000-person investigations unit and pre-screening measures.
- The tainted blood scandal resurfaced after RCMP laid charges against four doctors, the Red Cross, and an American pharmaceutical company; both Joe Clark and Judy Wasylycia-Leis pressed for compensation beyond the 1986–1990 window consistent with the Krever report recommendations, but Minister Anne McLellan flatly refused to reconsider the government's position.
- Terrorism and security concerns arose over the benevolent international fund of Canada, identified by the United States and Great Britain as part of a fundraising network linked to al-Qaeda; Parliamentary Secretary Aileen Carroll indicated Canada would act once the United Nations listing was triggered, drawing criticism from Stockwell Day that Canada was relying on other nations to do its intelligence work.
- National defence questions focused on the failure to complete the expansion of JTF2, the reduced ability to deploy CF-18s compared to the Kosovo campaign, and the absence of a timeline for the maritime helicopter project to replace the Sea Kings.
Minister Anne McLellan gave an unambiguous 'no' — the government would not reconsider limiting tainted blood compensation to the 1986–1990 period — which, while a refusal, was a concrete and publicly significant statement of government policy in the direct wake of new RCMP criminal charges.
Clark precisely references the Krever report recommendation, the 1998 government decision limiting compensation to the 1986–1990 window, and new RCMP charges reaching before 1986, asking a clear and specific yes/no accountability question.
Asked whether the government would allow a House debate and vote on Canadian participation in a potential war against Iraq — a direct constitutional and democratic accountability question — Boudria entirely avoided the substance and redirected Ms. Lalonde to raise the matter at a House leaders' meeting.
Outstanding questions
- Stephen Harper (Exchanges 1–3) never received an answer to why the federal government would not commit to bearing the financial risks of Kyoto's adverse impacts on provincial economies, given the government's stated confidence that those costs would be small.
- Stockwell Day (Exchange 4–5) did not receive a clear explanation of why Canada had not independently moved to shut down the benevolent international fund of Canada given publicly available court documents linking its founder to Osama bin Laden, rather than waiting for a United Nations listing triggered by the United States.
- Vic Toews (Exchanges 22–23) never received an answer identifying which cultural groups the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind when she said 'social and cultural differences' were a reason not to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.
- Libby Davies (Exchange 26) did not receive a commitment from the Solicitor General to implement needle exchanges in federal prisons as recommended by his own committee in 1999, despite a reported 35% increase in HIV-AIDS cases over four years.
- Francine Lalonde (Exchange 38) received no answer on whether the government would allow the House of Commons to debate and vote on Canadian participation in a potential military operation against Iraq, as Tony Blair had done in Great Britain.
Harper asks why the federal government objects to taking full financial responsibility for the adverse impacts of Kyoto policies it is imposing without provincial consent.
Harper cites a specific Monday statement by the minister and poses a pointed question about why the federal government would not take financial responsibility for adverse impacts of its own Kyoto policies imposed without provincial consent.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of the Environment told the House that he could not agree to all the principles put forth by the provinces for support of Kyoto. He specifically singled out his objection to provincial demands for federal funding of any adverse impacts of Kyoto policies. Could he tell the House what he finds objectionable about the federal government taking full responsibility for actions it takes without the consent of the provinces?
Anderson argues that whether provinces will approve is uncertain and that Harper has inserted a precondition into his own question, without addressing the financial responsibility issue.
Anderson deflects by quibbling over the word 'consent' and suggesting the question answers itself, without addressing the specific objection to covering adverse financial impacts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has answered his own question. He talks about lack of approval of the provinces. We do not know whether there will or will not be such approval. Therefore, he has already put a condition in which is exactly the type of thing that we would like to clarify before we go in and have an agreement with them on these other points that are in dispute.
Harper asks why the government will not agree to the provincial demand that the federal government bear the financial risks of its own Kyoto commitments.
Harper sharpens the ask — why will the government not put its money where its mouth is and bear the financial risks — but frames it with partisan rhetoric about a 'made in Kyoto adventure.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure any of us understood that. The Kyoto deal is being driven by this government over the objection of the provinces. Not surprisingly, the provinces are asking for assurances that the costs of the Prime Minister's made in Kyoto adventure will be covered by the federal government. If the government is so convinced of the benefits of Kyoto, why will it not put its money where its mouth is and agree to the provincial demand that the federal government bear the financial risks of its own commitments?
Anderson defends the plan as 'made in Canada' based on five years of consultations with provinces, territories, and industry, without addressing the financial guarantee question.
Anderson ignores the financial-guarantee question entirely and instead corrects Harper's characterisation of the plan as not 'made in Canada,' offering process history rather than any substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the first mistake the hon. Leader of the Opposition made in his presentation and his preamble was to describe the plan for implementing and achieving the Canadian decision of minus 6% of 1990 levels as not being a made in Canada plan. Let me assure him that it is the result of five full years of discussion with the provinces and territories, with industry, with environmental groups and, shortly, it will have the benefit of a few hours and days of debate in the House. Therefore, it is very much a made in Canada plan.
Harper asks why the government will not provide financial guarantees to the provinces if it genuinely believes Kyoto's costs are small.
Harper makes a logical argument — if costs are small, guarantees cost nothing — and asks why Canadians are being asked for a blank cheque, but the framing remains rhetorical with compound asks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not answered my question. He just keeps insisting he could ask better questions himself. The provinces are simply asking for a guarantee that their economies will not be unduly affected by this plan. If the government really believes its own claim that the costs of Kyoto are small, it would have no hesitation in providing financial guarantees to the provinces. If the Liberal government does not believe the costs are small, why is it asking Canadians to go on blind faith? Why is it asking Canadians for a blank cheque on Kyoto?
Anderson dismisses 'unduly' as a weasel word and challenges Harper to define it to everyone's satisfaction, without addressing the guarantee question.
Anderson attacks the word 'unduly' as a 'weasel word' and challenges Harper to define it, entirely deflecting from the substance of providing financial guarantees to provinces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the level of questioning would improve if the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his friends would let them be phrased on this side of the House. That aside, the problem that he outlined is exactly in that weasel word he used, unduly. What does unduly mean? A weasel word. If he would explain that to the satisfaction of the provinces, the territories and the federal government, perhaps we would be further ahead as to what we could accept.
Day asks why Canada is apparently doing nothing to shut down the Canadian arm of the benevolent international fund of Canada, identified as part of a network helping al-Qaeda, when Great Britain and the United States have already acted.
Day cites a specific contemporaneous event — the international shutdown of the benevolent international fund of Canada — names the organisation, notes the foreign affairs minister's office confirmed no plans to act, and asks a clear accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday an international fundraising network was shut down by Great Britain and the United States. The benevolent international fund of Canada is also named as part of this network which reportedly helps al-Qaeda to buy weapons and plan their murders. Today the office of the foreign affairs minister informed my office that it is unaware of any plans to shut down the Canadian arm of this fundraising network. Other nations take clear steps to protect their citizens and others from this particular network. Why is Canada apparently doing nothing to shut this network down?
Yes, keep your shirt on, please.
Oh, oh.
Carroll says Canada has listed 366 organisations and explains that the US listed this organisation only yesterday; once the UN acts, Canadian legislation will automatically trigger a listing.
Carroll provides relevant context — 366 listed organisations, the US listing only happened yesterday, and the UN trigger mechanism — but the parliamentary secretary's closing remark undercuts the substance and she does not fully address why Canada has not acted independently.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has acted just as decisively as other nations. We have listed 366 organizations and are currently sharing that information with our international allies. The United States just listed this organization yesterday. It has submitted the name to the United Nations. When the United Nations responds, we also will quickly trigger into our legislation exactly what it has done. I would suggest that the hon. member keep his shirt on.
Day asks why the Solicitor General will not take steps to protect Canadians given court documents showing a close relationship between Osama bin Laden and the founder of this Canadian charity.
Day references court documents and specific details — pen pal letters and photo opportunities with Osama bin Laden — to support his claim, but his question broadens to the Solicitor General rather than remaining focused on the specific organisation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they can joke about it but it is a very serious issue. Why do other countries have to do the intelligence work for our government? We have court documents. They are already available. They reveal a close relationship between Osama bin Laden and the founder of this Canadian so-called charity that includes pen pal letters to Osama bin Laden and fuzzy photo opportunities with Osama bin Laden. This is not a laughing matter. Charity begins at home. Why will the Solicitor General not take steps to protect Canadians?
Carroll corrects Day by saying there are no court documents but only a newspaper article, and reiterates that the US triggered the listing yesterday and the UN process will automatically trigger a Canadian listing.
Carroll clarifies that what exists is a newspaper article rather than court documents, explains the US-UN-Canada trigger sequence, and partially addresses the urgency, but does not explain why Canada cannot act independently.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first I was referring to the hon. member's haste rather than to the substance of the matter. We take the substance of this very seriously. We do not have court documents. We have a newspaper article. According to what we can ascertain, the fact of the matter is the Americans triggered this just yesterday, and the United Nations is immediately acting on it. When they list, this automatically triggers a Canadian listing. I do not think we can do more than that at this time.
Duceppe asks whether the federal government will admit that its tax field is much too broad in relation to its obligations, citing the Prime Minister's own words and 37,000 additional public servants since 1999.
Duceppe quotes the Prime Minister directly and cites the figure of 37,000 additional public servants since 1999, asking a pointed if broad question about whether the federal tax field is too broad relative to obligations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, even the Prime Minister, who denies the existence of a fiscal imbalance while his government rakes in enormous surpluses, wrongly assumes that, and I quote, “if the financial situation of the Canadian government is better, it is because in recent years management in Ottawa has been better than that in Quebec”. The reality—instead of blindly applauding, they should listen and look at the reality—is that there are 37,000 more public servants today than in 1999 because of these enormous surpluses. Will the federal government finally admit that, compared to Quebec, its tax field is much too broad in relation to its obligations?
Robillard claims that there are still fewer public servants today than before program review and that the public service is appropriately sized to deliver programs and quality services.
Robillard counters with a claim that public servant numbers are still lower than before program review, but does not engage with the fiscal imbalance question or the 37,000-public-servant figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at present, in the public service per se, there are still fewer public servants today than before the program review. That having been said, we are asked on a daily basis to invest more in certain areas and to provide our fellow citizens with higher quality services. It follows that we have an appropriate size public service to deliver these programs and quality services to all the people of Canada, including in Quebec.
Duceppe asks whether the federal government will admit that federal departmental expenditures grew by 21.7% since 1994 compared to only 7.3% in Quebec, and that it is collecting more taxes than its level of responsibility warrants.
Duceppe provides a specific comparative statistic — Quebec departmental spending up 7.3% vs. federal up 21.7% since 1994 — and asks whether the government will admit it is collecting more taxes than its responsibilities warrant.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the programs. Outside of health, departmental expenditures in Quebec have increased by 7.3% since 1994, while federal departmental expenditures increased by 21.7% over the same period. That is three times more. Exactly three times more. Will the federal government admit that, by collecting more taxes than its level of responsibility warrants, it is managing abundance while, in Quebec, there is a shortfall?
Robillard deflects by saying the government has eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt, and lowered taxes, and notes voters re-elected the government as proof of good management.
Robillard does not engage with the 21.7% vs. 7.3% figures at all, instead characterising the question as accusing the government of good management and pivoting to electoral success.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, never before have I heard such a thing: a government being accused of good management. Look at what we have done since 1993, at the fact that we have eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt and lowered taxes, and cut program spending. Then, they blame us for having managed the country's finances well. The proof is in the pudding: the people of Canada voted for us again last time, and I think they will do so again next time around.
Paquette asks whether the federal government will admit that its 21.7% departmental expenditure increase shows it did not make a genuine management effort, compared to Quebec's 7.3%.
Paquette reiterates the 21.7% vs. 7.3% spending comparison and poses a direct question about whether the federal government will admit it did not make a real management effort, grounding the question in specific figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the same period, the expenditures of the federal departments increased by 21.7%, while those of the Quebec government, with the exception of health, increased by only 7.3%. When we compare the results of the two levels of governments, we can see which one really made an effort to manage properly. Will the federal government admit that, by letting its departments' expenditures increase by 21.7%, it is obviously not, in spite of its claims to the contrary, the one that really made an effort?
Robillard cites the decline in program spending as a share of GDP from 17% to 11.6% and asserts the government has provided good government, without addressing the departmental expenditure comparison.
Robillard pivots to GDP-based spending ratios (17% to 11.6%) without directly engaging with the departmental expenditure comparison, and ends with a general claim of good government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the level of public satisfaction with our government. Let us look at the figures. We can toss numbers around. We can always interpret figures the way we want and use the approach we want. Based on the gross domestic product, spending went from 17% at the time, in 1993, to 11.6% now, which is unprecedented. We also reduced public expenditures. More importantly, we have provided good government to the citizens of this country, and Quebeckers recognize that.
Paquette asks whether the government will admit that its only real effort was cutting transfers to the provinces and benefits for the unemployed while collecting large surpluses.
Paquette's question is largely rhetorical — asserting the government made no real management effort and only cut transfers — with only a weak implicit ask about whether anyone can claim a good balance sheet in such circumstances.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see: the federal government has made no effort in terms of management. The federal machine has a life of its own and the only real effort it has made has been to cut transfers to the provinces and to cut benefits for the unemployed, while the government keeps on raking in the money. Will the government admit that, in this context, anyone can claim to have a good balance sheet and to be a good manager?
Oh, oh.
Dion counters by asking the Bloc Québécois to explain why Quebec has taxes 40% higher than the provincial average and one of the largest provincial debts.
Dion deflects entirely by redirecting to Quebec's own fiscal record — taxes 40% higher than the average and a large provincial debt — without addressing the federal management question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if we want to compare what is comparable, let us compare Quebec with the other provinces. Let the Bloc Quebecois explain why taxes in Quebec are 40% higher than the average, and why Quebec is one of the provinces with the largest debt, if not because it is run by a government that should take a good hard look at what it is doing, instead of always blaming the federal government.
McDonough asks whether the government's position on expanding NAFTA chapter 11 investor-state provisions is now 'the sky is the limit,' based on a cabinet memo leaked to Le Devoir.
McDonough cites a specific leaked memo to cabinet reported in Le Devoir and asks whether the government's position on expanding chapter 11 is now 'the sky is the limit,' tying the question to a reported policy reversal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to a memo to cabinet leaked to Le Devoir , the government is changing its position on NAFTA chapter 11. That investor-state provision protects investors' rights to make money over environmental and labour standards. The government used to say that it opposed it. Now this leaked cabinet memo says that it wants to expand it. Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that when it comes to expanding chapter 11 the government's position now is the sky is the limit?
O'Brien says the government does not support simple replication of chapter 11, but notes that with $389 billion of Canadian funds invested overseas, protecting such investment is important.
O'Brien partially addresses the question by reiterating that the government does not support simple replication of chapter 11, but then pivots to justifying investment protection for Canadian funds abroad, without directly addressing the alleged cabinet memo or the claimed policy shift.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess the leader of the NDP has not been in the House when the Minister for International Trade repeatedly made it quite clear that the government does not support simple replication of chapter 11. Having said that, with some $389 billion of Canadian funds invested overseas, obviously we want to protect such investment.
Lill asks what steps the Minister of Canadian Heritage will take to stop the sell off of the book publishing industry and put teeth back into the Investment Canada Act, citing Canadian heritage approval of Amazon.com's entry and the Distican sale to Simon and Schuster.
Lill cites two specific decisions — allowing Amazon.com to enter the Canadian market and approving the sale of Distican to Simon and Schuster — and asks what steps the minister will take to stop the sell off and put teeth back into the Investment Canada Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today, as we applaud the winners of the Governor General awards, our government continues to undermine our book publishing industry. This summer Canadian heritage allowed Amazon.com to enter the Canadian market. Today we learned that Distican has been sold to Simon and Schuster with Canadian heritage approval. The heritage department is responsible for the Investment Canada Act as it pertains to the cultural sector. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House what steps she will take to stop the sell off of our book publishing industry and put teeth back into the Investment Canada Act?
Copps praises the success of Canadian book publishing, citing three Canadian Booker Prize nominations and the diverse authors present, without addressing the specific transactions or the Investment Canada Act.
Copps ignores both specific transactions and the Investment Canada Act question entirely, instead praising the success of Canadian book publishing by citing Booker Prize nominations and the authors present in the audience.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the proof of the success of the Canadian book publishing policy is that this year for the first time we have actually had three Canadians nominated for the prestigious Booker Prize. If we look at the incredible authors who are here in the audience today, they are from diverse backgrounds and diverse parts of the country. It is probably the healthiest industry of its kind in a country of similar size. I think we should applaud book publishers and especially the authors.
Clark asks whether the government is prepared to reconsider its 1998 decision to limit tainted blood compensation to victims infected between 1986 and 1990, given new RCMP charges that reach back before 1986.
Clark precisely references the Krever report recommendation, the 1998 government decision limiting compensation to the 1986–1990 window, and new RCMP charges reaching before 1986, asking a clear and specific yes/no accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Krever report recommended that all hepatitis C victims be compensated. In 1998 the government rejected that advice and limited compensation to those who were infected between 1986 and 1990. The RCMP has now laid charges against four doctors, the Red Cross and an American pharmaceutical company in the tainted blood scandal. Those charges reach back before 1986. Is the government prepared to reconsider its decision to limit compensation and will it now help all the victims of the tainted blood scandal?
McLellan answers directly that no, the government will not reconsider its position, and says it would be singularly inappropriate to comment further as charges have been laid and the matters will be dealt with before the courts.
McLellan gives a direct 'no' answer and explains the rationale — charges have been laid and the matter is before the courts — which substantively addresses the question even if the answer is unwelcome.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no, we are not going to reconsider our position. It would be singularly inappropriate for anyone to comment at this point. Charges have been laid. These matters will be dealt with before the courts. Obviously we need to await the outcome of that litigation.
Clark asks why the Minister of Finance has not agreed to appear before the Senate banking committee when he was the one who sent it the task of reviewing bank merger rules.
Clark raises a specific accountability issue — the minister not appearing before the Senate banking committee after asking it to review bank merger rules — but frames it with a rhetorical compound insult about 'fouling up Canadian security.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, she will await the outcome but her answer is no. Earlier this fall the Minister of Finance asked both the House of Commons finance committee and the banking committee of the other place to review the current rules on bank mergers. Obviously, to do their work effectively, the committees need to hear from the minister who sent them their task. So far the minister has not agreed to come before the committee in the other place. Is that because the government has no position on bank mergers or is the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the minister for fouling up Canadian security just too busy to attend committees of the House of Commons and the Senate?
Manley says he already appeared before the House of Commons finance committee two weeks ago and has told the Senate committee chairman he would be happy to make himself available at an appropriate time.
Manley directly addresses the specific allegation by noting he appeared before the House of Commons committee two weeks ago and has indicated willingness to appear before the Senate committee at an appropriate time.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have already been to the committee of the House of Commons. I was there just two weeks ago. I have asked the committees, both in the House and the Senate, for their advice. I presume they do not need my advice to give me their advice. In any event, I have indicated to the chairman of the committee that I would be happy to make myself available to the Senate committee at an appropriate time. In the meantime, in helping fill out the scope of the public interest considerations related to possible mergers of financial institutions, I think that is a committee well qualified to give us advice without any further input from me.
Penson asks why the government sat idly by while criminals exploited GST fraud, citing New Zealand's early warning and the government's own knowledge of over $10 million in fraud by 1995 before the 1996 GST legislation revamp.
Penson cites New Zealand's warning to Canadian officials, the government's awareness of over $10 million in GST fraud by 1995, and the failure to add safeguards in the 1996 GST legislation revamp, asking a clear accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, New Zealand warned Canadian officials about the potential for GST fraud at the very beginning, yet the barn door was left open. By 1995 the Liberal government knew it had lost over $10 million to GST fraud, yet it failed to include safeguards when it revamped the GST legislation in 1996. My question to the minister is quite simple: Why did the government sit idly by while criminals and con artists helped themselves to millions of dollars of taxpayers money?
Caplan rejects the premise by saying warnings were heeded and cites 13 successful prosecutions, 14 additional prosecutions before the court, and 20 more under investigation.
Caplan directly contests Penson's premise by saying warnings were heeded, and provides specific figures — 13 successful prosecutions, 14 before the courts, and 20 under investigation — but does not address the 1996 legislative failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong when he says that we did not heed the warnings. In fact, we did. We have taken very significant action that has resulted in 13 successful prosecutions, 14 additional prosecutions that are before the court today and 20 more that are under investigation.
Penson asks when the government will do something concrete to stop the flow of free money to criminals and con artists, arguing that GST fraud may have cost Canadians over $1 billion and that loopholes have not been closed.
Penson asserts fraud may have cost over $1 billion and criticises the government for talking about auditing and investigating rather than closing loopholes, but the question becomes rhetorical and the ask — 'do something concrete' — is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is simply no excuse for this. The government was warned repeatedly about the dangers of GST fraud, yet it failed to plug those loopholes. Even today the Liberals talk about auditing, investigating and prosecuting instead of closing the loopholes that led to these scams in the first place. What we are talking about is fraud that may have cost Canadians over $1 billion. That buys a lot of Sea Kings and a lot of hospital beds. When will the government do something concrete to stop the flow of free money to criminals and con artists?
Caplan says the government is dealing with import tax credits rather than loopholes, and mentions upfront screening for GST rebate applications and a 1,000-person investigation team that prosecutes fraud.
Caplan reframes the issue as involving income tax credits rather than loopholes and mentions upfront screening and a 1,000-person investigation team, but does not address the core claim about loopholes remaining open or the $1 billion figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about loopholes, we are talking about income tax credits, which are a very important instrument for business to remain competitive internationally. If this member and his party are calling for an end to import tax credits, he will hear loud and clear from some of his own constituents. What I can tell the hon. member is that we are talking about fraud. We have upfront screening in place right now for those who apply for GST rebates. We also have a very effective 1,000 person investigation team doing a good job ensuring that where we find fraud we prosecute.
Gauthier asks whether the federal government can deny that, without corrective action, over $71 billion in surplus will accumulate by 2007-08, confirming that Ottawa's tax field is too broad for its obligations.
Cites a specific projection ($71 billion accumulated by 2007-08) and makes an implicit claim about fiscal imbalance, but the ask is more of an assertion than a single clear answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the studies indicate that the federal government surplus is going to reach as yet unattained heights in the years to come. By 2007-08, for example, barring corrective action, over $71 billion will have been accumulated. Can the federal government deny that, without any particular effort, those in charge of the Government of Canada in five years will find they have astronomical sums available to them? This indeed confirms that, unfortunately, its tax field is too broad for its obligations.
Manley points to the $100 billion in federal tax reductions announced in 2000 and argues it is unfair to assume no further tax relief or spending increases will occur.
Manley references the $100 billion tax reduction announcement from 2000 but does not address the specific surplus projection cited, instead offering a hypothetical about future spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, in the year 2000 we announced federal tax reductions totalling $100 billion. It is unfair to suggest that there will be no other tax breaks or increases in federal government spending on federal programs or transfer payments to the provinces.
Gauthier demands that the government admit there is a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, arguing taxpayers are tired of having their money mismanaged federally while provinces struggle to fund services.
The question is largely rhetorical, calling on the government to 'admit' fiscal imbalance and framing taxpayers as victims of sloppy management, with no specific data or single answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through its Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, ought to admit that there is indeed a fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the governments of all the Canadian provinces. The taxpayers are tired of having half their tax dollars being sloppily managed by the federal government, while the provinces are being forced to pinch every penny and are having a tough time funding the services they are required to provide. Is this so hard to understand?
Manley counters with two facts: provincial debt is half the federal debt, and there were 25 federal deficits over the past 30 years, implying the fiscal imbalance argument is inconsistent.
Dion offers two concrete counter-facts—provincial debt load is half the federal debt load, and there were 25 federal deficits over 30 years—which tangentially engage the fiscal imbalance claim but do not directly answer whether the government acknowledges a fiscal imbalance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand. There are two facts: first of all, the provincial debt load is half the federal debt load. Second, over the past 30 years there have been 25 federal deficits. Was there always a fiscal imbalance when these deficits took place? I do not think the hon. member will admit that there was.
Strahl asks why the government shut down the dedicated GST fraud squad in 1995, arguing that the agency has only recovered $10 million of an estimated $1 billion fraud.
Strahl cites a specific figure ($1 billion still outstanding vs. $10 million found) and points to a specific 1995 government action—shutting down the dedicated GST fraud squad—with a clear single question about why that was done.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue says that there is adequate screening in place to detect a GST fraud. That is simply not the case. The agency may have found $10 million but there is $1 billion still out there. I will tell the House why that is. It is, at least in part, because in 1995 the government shut down the fraud squad that was dedicated to detecting this fraud in the GST system. Why, in 1995, did it shut down the one team that was doing the work?
Caplan denies the premise, citing a 1,000-person investigation directorate and double the number of prosecutions compared to 1995, without addressing the specific claim about the fraud squad.
Caplan flatly denies the premise ('Wrong again') and offers a counter-statistic (1,000-person investigation directorate, double the prosecutions since 1995) but does not address the specific claim about the fraud squad being shut down in 1995.
Source text
Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. We have an investigation directorate of 1,000 persons and the result is that we are doing double the number of prosecutions today than we were in 1995.
Strahl asks again why the government shut down the GST fraud squad in 1995, arguing the current system makes it trivially easy—requiring only a numbered company, an anonymous post office box, and a word processor—to defraud the government of millions.
Strahl repeats the 1995 fraud squad axing claim and adds a colourful description of how easy the fraud is, but the dual question and rhetorical framing dilute the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government is satisfied with collecting about one cent on the dollar but we are not. The GST fraud squad was axed in 1995 so now the system works like this: all people need is a numbered company, an anonymous post office box and a word processor to get millions of dollars from the government. Why did the government shut down the GST fraud squad that was at least able to pick up when someone was ripping off the government? Why is it picking on the legitimate business owners instead of picking up on the fraud artist?
Caplan calls the comparison insulting, dismisses Strahl's numbers as unsubstantiated, and asserts that the agency's people are working diligently and that criminals are being successfully prosecuted.
Caplan attacks the member's characterisation as 'insulting,' dismisses his numbers as unsubstantiated, and references criminals in jail, without addressing why the GST fraud squad was shut down or how the current system detects fraud.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is insulting to compare legitimate business people to people who are being successfully prosecuted for criminal activity like fraud. Second, the member opposite is throwing around all kinds of unsubstantiated numbers. I would say to him that the numbers he is using are not based on any fact. Our people are very aware of these issues and we are working very diligently to ensure that we collect as much as we possibly can from the criminals who in fact are sitting in jail. He should ask those in jail if they think we are doing a good job.
Loubier asks whether the government can deny that its main concern is finding new areas to spend its surplus rather than returning the excess money to the provinces, who provide real services to the public.
The question is largely rhetorical, characterising the federal surplus as 'enormous' and 'effortless' without citing specific data, and the ask—should the surplus go to the provinces?—is a broad policy position rather than a specific answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the enormous federal surplus has ballooned effortlessly and it is so sizeable that the federal government's only worry is to figure out where to spend it in order to justify itself. Can the government deny that its main concern is finding new areas in which to spend its surplus, and that it should give this excess money—which it keeps taking from the pockets of taxpayers—to the provinces, who are the ones who provide real services to the public?
Dion argues that cabinet always has more worthy projects than money to fund them and challenges Loubier to name a federal program he would cut, asserting there is nothing frivolous about federal spending.
Dion deflects by describing the difficulty of prioritising spending and challenges Loubier to name a program he would cut, which does not address the specific question about transferring surplus funds to provinces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the years, there have been a great many investment projects for Canadians that have come before cabinet. And I can assure the member that it breaks our hearts every time we realize that we do not have the money to implement them all. There is nothing frivolous about the Government of Canada's spending, and if the member thinks there is, I would ask him to name one program that he would like to see cut by the federal government.
Loubier asks whether the government can deny that it is interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction—urban affairs, training, pharmacare, home care, early childhood support—because it no longer knows what to do with its surplus.
Loubier lists specific policy areas—urban affairs, training, pharmacare, home care, early childhood support—as examples of provincial jurisdiction, giving the question some factual grounding, though the overall ask remains rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we want is for the federal government to mind its own business and respect the provinces. The fact of the matter is that the upcoming initiatives fall under provincial jurisdiction, a few examples being urban affairs, training, pharmacare, home care, early childhood support. Can the government deny that it is interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction because it no longer knows what to do with the surplus taken from the pockets of taxpayers?
Dion denies the allegations as false and argues that no modern state government would consider urban housing, transit, city quality of life, and immigration outside its purview, pledging to work with the provinces.
Dion denies the premise and argues that urban housing, transit, and immigration are legitimate federal concerns, referencing a Liberal caucus report, but does not address the specific listed areas or the surplus transfer question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member asked if we can deny erroneous statements. Of course we can deny them, they are false. Is the member aware of any single government of a modern state in the world that would say that urban housing does not concern them; that urban transit is none of their business; that quality of life in cities or immigration or how newcomers are welcomed into big cities is not their concern? Obviously this concerns us, and we will work together with the provinces, as mentioned dozens of times in the excellent report just released by the Liberal caucus.
Toews asks the minister to specify what cultures in Canada would voice concern about raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16, following the Parliamentary Secretary's November 5 statement invoking 'social and cultural differences.'
Toews cites a specific date (November 5, 2002), the exact speaker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice), and the precise quote about 'social and cultural differences,' then asks a single, sharply focused question about which cultures would object to raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 2002, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said in this House, with respect to the age of sexual consent, “There are many social and cultural differences that have to be reflected in the law”. Yesterday the minister inaccurately suggested this had not been said in the House. I repeat, what cultures in Canada would voice concern about raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age?
Cauchon says he does not understand why the member keeps returning to the parliamentary secretary's statement, calls child protection a serious matter, and says there is no consensus on raising the age of consent.
Cauchon acknowledges the parliamentary secretary's statement, says the matter is serious, and mentions ongoing discussion about raising the age of consent with no consensus, but never answers which cultures were being referenced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member keeps going back to what was said. That was a statement made by the parliamentary secretary. I believe it is a very serious matter, the question of protecting our children in this country. We have been discussing the question of raising the age of consent. There is no consensus. What we would like to achieve is to offer much better protection for our children. Maybe we can achieve that through other means, or other offences within the Criminal Code.
Toews asks the minister to name the specific cultural group that would object to raising the age of sexual consent, arguing that unless pedophiles now constitute a culture, the government is hiding behind a 'cultural slander' to justify inaction.
Toews sharpens the question by reducing it to a binary—either a named cultural group objects or only pedophiles do—which is a pointed accountability ask, though the rhetorical framing lowers the score somewhat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unless pedophiles are a culture now in Canada, why will the minister not give an answer to that question? He continues to hide behind this cultural slander to do nothing on the issue. Why will the minister not specify what cultural group would voice objection to this, other than pedophiles?
Cauchon says the government takes action on child protection, references past Criminal Code amendments, and announces that new child pornography legislation will be tabled before Christmas.
Cauchon pivots entirely to past Criminal Code amendments and the forthcoming child pornography legislation, never addressing which cultural group the parliamentary secretary had in mind.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House when it comes to talking about the protection of our children, we talk about action. We took some action in the past in order to amend the Criminal Code. As the House will soon see, before Christmas we will table new legislation with regard to the question of child pornography and protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. This is good action. This will make a difference in our society.
Reed asks what steps have been taken in the creation of the Africa investment fund, referencing the Prime Minister's $100 million investment fund announcement to end Africa's marginalization.
This is a government-backbench softball: Reed references the Prime Minister's $100 million investment fund announcement and asks what steps have been taken, a setup question for a ministerial announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation. The new economic plan for African development is to be based on the principle of responsible partnership among African nations and between Africa and the international community. The Prime Minister has announced a $100 million investment fund to end Africa's marginalization. Since Africa receives only 1% of global investments, what steps have been taken so far in the creation of the Africa investment fund?
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for International Cooperation jointly announced the first step in creating the Africa investment fund. This fund is expected to be operational and financing projects in Africa within the next year. It will help Africans seek out new capital, take advantage of business opportunities, earn income, invest and create jobs. The Africa investment fund is a concrete example of Canada's clear commitment to help Africa enter the global economy.
Jennings announces that the Ministers of International Trade and International Cooperation jointly announced the first step today, with the fund expected to be operational and financing projects in Africa within the next year.
Jennings provides substantive information—the Ministers of International Trade and International Cooperation jointly announced the first step today, the fund is expected to be operational within a year, and its purposes are described—making this a reasonably informative answer.
Wasylycia-Leis asks whether the health minister will end the government's denial of its responsibilities, comply with the Krever recommendations, and ensure full and fair compensation for all victims of the tainted blood tragedy, in light of RCMP criminal negligence charges laid that day.
Wasylycia-Leis grounds the question in the RCMP criminal negligence charges laid that same day, references the Krever recommendations by name, and asks a specific policy question about extending compensation to all victims beyond the 1986-90 period.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like the health minister to think carefully about her response to the charges of criminal negligence laid today by the RCMP in the tainted blood tragedy which saw thousands of lives lost and destroyed. It is now clear that the negligence of the federal government extended beyond the 1986-90 period for which the government has compensated victims. Will the health minister today end the government's stubborn denial of its responsibilities, comply with the Krever recommendations and ensure full and fair compensation for all victims of the tainted blood tragedy?
McLellan cautions against prejudging trial outcomes and states that the government has committed approximately $525 million to assist hep C victims who are post-1990 and pre-1986, without addressing the Krever recommendations.
McLellan warns against prejudging trial outcomes and references approximately $525 million committed for pre-1986 and post-1990 hep C victims, partially engaging the compensation issue but not addressing compliance with the Krever recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find it very troubling and disturbing that a member of the House would presume to prejudge the outcome of any trial. In fact, charges were laid today but it would be singularly inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of the trials that will take place. As the hon. member should be aware, the government has in fact taken action in relation to hep C victims who are post-1990 and pre-1986. The government has committed approximately $525 million to assist with the care of those people.
Davies asks the Solicitor General to commit today to implement needle exchanges and other basic health measures as recommended by his own committee in 1999, citing a report showing HIV-AIDS cases in prisons increased over 35% in four years.
Davies cites a specific report ('Too Little, Too Late?'), a specific statistic (cases increased over 35% in four years), a specific prior recommendation (from CSC's own committee in 1999), and makes a concrete ask: commit today to implement needle exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today's report “Too Little, Too Late?” is a damning indictment of CSC's failure to deal with the HIV-AIDS crisis in Canada's prisons. Cases have increased over 35% in four years and still prisoners are denied access to basic HIV prevention measures. CSC has a legal responsibility here. I ask the Solicitor General, will he commit today to implement needle exchanges and other basic health measures as recommended by his own committee in 1999? Any further delay would be reprehensible and cowardly. Will he implement those recommendations and needle exchanges?
Easter says he toured a CSC health care facility last Friday, acknowledges the problem is serious, and states that prevention and treatment have improved, without committing to needle exchanges or the 1999 recommendations.
Easter says he toured a CSC facility the previous Friday, acknowledges the problem is serious, and says prevention and treatment have improved, but makes no commitment on needle exchanges or the 1999 committee recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to tour a facility last Friday and in the health care section see what kind of work they are doing at CSC in terms of the problem the hon. member raised. Yes indeed it is a serious problem. We have improved our prevention and our treatment. We are using a number of measures to ensure that the health matters of inmates are handled in the best possible way.
Casey asks whether Revenue Canada would send a cheque for $30,000 to a company that submitted a GST reporting form with a fraudulent $30,000 input tax credit claim in box 106 backed by no receipts, documents, or paperwork.
Casey poses a highly specific hypothetical—a company claims a $30,000 fraudulent input tax credit in box 106 with no receipts or documents—and asks a single, concrete, directly answerable question about whether Revenue Canada would issue the cheque.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. If a company registered for the GST, sent in the GST reporting form which included a fraudulent input tax credit entry in box 106 for $30,000 with no amount collected, no receipts, no documents, no paperwork to back up the claim, would Revenue Canada send that person a cheque for $30,000?
Caplan says the pre-screening put in place over the past year would 'likely' identify such an application for audit, and references the 1,000-person investigations unit's expertise.
Caplan says pre-screening introduced over the past year would 'likely' flag such a claim for audit and references the 1,000-person investigations unit, but the qualified 'likely' does not give a definitive answer and does not address the core system vulnerability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, likely the pre-screening that we have had in place over the past year by our agency would result in an application like that being identified for audit. I want to say as well to the member opposite that we have a very extensive investigations unit of 1,000 people who are experienced in these matters. It is because of their work that we are so successful with prosecutions.
Casey asks when the minister will implement a documentation process that provides at least a minimum of accountability for GST input tax credit claims, arguing the current form is effectively just an order form for a government cheque.
Casey presses with a concrete policy ask—implement a documentation process for GST claims—and characterises the current form as merely 'an order form for a government cheque,' giving the question some specificity, though it repeats the prior exchange's theme.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is why there are millions and millions of dollars worth of abuse. The form is really just an order form for a government cheque. People could just pencil in the amount they want and wait; $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, no paperwork involved, no documentation required, and a cheque will be in the mail. When will the minister implement a documentation process that will even allow a minimum of accountability on these claims for government money?
Caplan says the member is wrong, citing 5,000 auditors (up 20%), an investigations unit up 25%, and a pre-screening of all registrant claims introduced a year ago, describing Canada's practices as among the best in the world.
Caplan lists specific numbers—5,000 auditors, 20% increase over two years, 25% increase in the investigations unit, pre-screening of all registrant claims—but does not address whether a documentation requirement will be implemented.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong and he was not listening. We have in place today 5,000 auditors. We began as of two years ago to increase those by some 20%. We also have an investigations unit who are experts in these fields. Two years ago we began and continue to increase that by 25%. A year ago we put in place a pre-screening of all registrant claims. Our best practices are among the best in the world.
Cadman asks why the RCMP and the auto theft task force did not know about the two-year-old deportation order against Laszlo Adorjan, who was arrested for allegedly running the biggest auto theft ring in B.C. history and is wanted by Interpol for armed robbery and suspicion of murder.
Cadman names a specific individual (Laszlo Adorjan), references a two-year-old deportation order, cites Interpol involvement for armed robbery and suspicion of murder, and asks a specific question about why the RCMP and auto theft task force were unaware of the deportation order.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two years after being ordered deported as a failed refugee claimant, Laszlo Adorjan has been arrested for allegedly running the biggest auto theft ring in B.C. history. Interpol wants him for armed robbery and suspicion of murder. Police watched him for months, but did not even know about the deportation order. The government is so inept at removing internationally wanted criminals from Canada that it does not even know it has them when it finds them. Why did the RCMP and the auto theft task force not know about the deportation order against this guy?
Easter says he cannot confirm or deny what the RCMP and CSIS know in this matter and that it would be wrong to get into operational policy in a particular case.
Easter says he cannot confirm or deny what the RCMP and CSIS know and declines to comment on operational matters, providing no substantive response to the specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm or deny what CSIS and the RCMP know on this matter. I cannot get into the operational policy matters in this particular case. That would be wrong for me to do.
Cadman asks how it possibly took nearly two years for officials to determine that Adorjan's marriage—where he paid a woman $500, her sister-in-law two doors away knew nothing of it, and the spouse herself said she 'just bumped into him'—was a marriage of convenience.
Cadman provides specific details—$500 payment, abandoned refugee claim, arrest warrant, the spouse's contradictory statements, and the sister-in-law's ignorance two doors away—and asks a specific question about why it took nearly two years to determine the marriage was bogus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2000 Adorjan secretly married a woman after paying her $500 to sponsor him. In doing so, he abandoned his refugee claim and was ordered deported. An arrest warrant was issued. Last week his so-called spouse said she did not know when they met. In her words she just bumped into him one day. Her sister-in-law, living two doors away, knew nothing of the marriage, yet it took until earlier this year for officials to determine that the marriage was bogus. Could the minister explain just how it possibly can take the best part of two years to come to such an obvious conclusion that the marriage was a marriage of convenience?
Easter says the government believes in due diligence of the law, asserts that the RCMP and CSIS cooperate with international agencies, and declines to comment on the individual aspects of the case.
Easter invokes 'due diligence of the law,' says the RCMP and CSIS cooperate with international agencies, and declines to comment on individual case aspects, giving no explanation for the two-year delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be into some kind of case work. We believe on this side that there is due diligence of the law and people should have a right to the due diligence of the law. I can tell the member that the RCMP and CSIS cooperate with other agencies around the world. I know they are doing their job. I cannot comment on the individual aspects of any case.
Will the Minister of Finance respect the Quebec consensus and assure the House he will not proceed with establishing a Canadian securities commission, which the member characterizes as violating exclusive provincial jurisdictions?
References the MacKay report and Quebec National Assembly consensus with a clear yes/no ask, but frames it with loaded language like 'doomed project' and 'violate the exclusive jurisdictions.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the MacKay report tabled yesterday again raises the spectre of creating a Canadian securities commission. In Quebec, the National Assembly and the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec are opposed to the creation of a central agency. Will the Minister of Finance respect the Quebec consensus and assure us that he will not go ahead with the doomed project of establishing a Canadian securities commission, which would violate the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?
Manley notes that MacKay is a Saskatchewan lawyer who did good work, and that under the proposed models provincial participation would be voluntary, with no coercion.
Engages the report and explains that provincial participation would be voluntary under MacKay's model, but does not directly commit to respecting Quebec's opposition or address the jurisdictional argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that Mr. MacKay, who is a lawyer from Saskatchewan, did a very good job. We have received his report, which is now available. Mr. MacKay indicated that if one of the models that he proposed were adopted, it would up to the provinces whether or not they participated. There is no question of forcing the provinces to do anything. If they want to continue to have a limited market in their province, it is up to them.
Does the minister realize that the threat of this doomed project adversely affects the harmonization work securities experts have begun and is therefore detrimental to small shareholders?
The question links the 'doomed project' to harm to harmonization work and small shareholders, but relies more on assertion than evidence and the ask is implicit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that the threat of this doomed project adversely affects the harmonization work that securities experts have already begun and is therefore detrimental to small shareholders?
Manley says he does not think that is the case, noting that MacKay's work was well received by several provinces and expressing hope all provinces will participate in improving securities regulation.
Manley disagrees with the premise and expresses hope for provincial participation but provides no facts or data to substantiate his disagreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that is the case. I think that the work done by Mr. MacKay was requested by interested groups and was well received by several provinces. I hope that all the provinces will participate in finding ways to improve securities regulation in Canada.
Why has the government failed to complete the expansion of JTF2 as promised, given a looming potential conflict in Iraq and a US request for those forces?
Cites a specific government promise to double JTF2, acknowledges the department's own admission of non-fulfillment, and raises a US request for JTF2 in Iraq, making it reasonably grounded, though laced with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the United States is requesting our JTF2 forces be sent over to Iraq, as they were in Afghanistan. The government announced last year it would double JTF2. Unfortunately, even the department admits this is just another unfulfilled promise. A potential conflict in Iraq is looming large and the government is clearly unprepared to handle it. Why has the government failed to complete the expansion of Canada's top counterterrorism force?
O'Reilly says it is premature to discuss any US request because the United States has not formally asked Canada yet.
O'Reilly sidesteps the question about the unfulfilled JTF2 expansion entirely, pivoting only to the claim that any US request would be premature to discuss.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, any request by the United States for us to take part in any operation would be very premature to talk about because the United States has not asked us yet.
How can the government claim things are improving when Canada contributed 18 CF-18s and flew 678 combat sorties in Kosovo but could only send two war planes today?
Cites specific figures — 18 CF-18s and 678 combat sorties in Kosovo versus two war planes today — giving it factual grounding, though the rhetorical 'force/farce' framing weakens accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. The Liberal record of neglect and mismanagement continues. In the Kosovo air campaign, Canada contributed 18 CF-18s and flew a total of 678 combat sorties. Today Canada would only be able to send two war planes and our army could not even last six months. Canada used to be a force, now it is simply a farce. How can the government pretend that things are improving when three years ago we sent 18 planes and now we are down to only two?
O'Reilly says Anders is poorly informed, that the CF-18s are being refitted and are capable aircraft, and that Canada always responds professionally to international calls for action.
O'Reilly dismisses the statistics by saying the member is poorly informed and that CF-18s are being refitted, but does not address the specific numerical contrast Anders raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the member is very poorly informed. Our CF-18s are being refitted. They are very capable aircraft. Any time that the government is asked to respond to international terrorism or to war, whether it is Kosovo, Bosnia or anywhere, we respond with professional people and do a job that the world thanks us for.
What is the Minister of Canadian Heritage doing to preserve and enhance cultural communities in Canada at a time of increasing globalization?
A government-backbench softball with no specific ask, no data, and no accountability dimension — simply inviting the minister to highlight her file.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Internationally, Canada has been leading a movement to preserve and enhance national cultures at a time of increasing globalization. What is the Minister of Canadian Heritage doing to preserve and enhance cultural communities in our own country?
Copps highlights that the International Network on Cultural Policy founded by Canada will host an important meeting in Croatia next year, linking cultural diversity internationally and domestically.
Copps references the International Network on Cultural Policy and an upcoming meeting in Croatia, providing some real informational content though not deeply substantive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Cambridge for his particular interest in this issue. I would like to underscore that the International Network on Cultural Policy founded by Canada will be hosting a very important meeting next year in Croatia. I know the member, with his unique interest in the Croatian community in Canada, will also make sure that the message on cultural diversity includes Canadian diversity and not simply international diversity.
Is it the position of the government that the Coast Guard lacks a mandate for maritime security, as stated in a briefing document prepared earlier this year for the minister?
Cites a specific briefing document prepared for the minister stating that the Coast Guard does not have a mandate for maritime security, and asks a precise yes/no policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a briefing document prepared earlier this year for the minister responsible for the Coast Guard advised: The Coast Guard does not have a mandate for maritime security and the events of September 11 have not altered this. Is it the position of the government that the Coast Guard lacks a mandate for maritime security?
Thibault says the government's position is that the Coast Guard works with Transport, National Defence, the RCMP, the CCRA, and other agencies on a very appropriate level of national security.
Thibault does not confirm or deny the briefing document's statement and instead asserts that the Coast Guard works cooperatively with other agencies on national security, without addressing the mandate question directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the position of the government that the Coast Guard works for the Department of Transport, with National Defence, the RCMP, the CCRA, and all other government agencies, on a very appropriate level of national security.
How can the Coast Guard contribute to maritime security when it has no fuel for its ships and no uniforms for its crews, leaving ships and crews unable to put to sea?
Raises specific operational claims — no fuel for ships and no uniforms for crews — as concrete evidence that the Coast Guard cannot fulfill a maritime security role, though verification sourcing is absent.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a mandate to me. A mandate means resources to do the job. The Coast Guard has less resources today than it did when the memo was written. Today there is no fuel for its ships and no uniforms for the crews. How can the Coast Guard contribute to maritime security when its ships and crews cannot put to sea?
Thibault says the Coast Guard is fully fuelled and capable of going to sea if needed, that curtailing unnecessary movements is a responsible budget measure, and that primary maritime security responsibility lies with the Minister of Transport.
Thibault directly disputes the factual claims, asserting the Coast Guard is fully fuelled and capable of going to sea, and clarifies that curtailing unnecessary movements is a budget measure, but does not address the uniforms claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again he continues in his comedy of errors. The Coast Guard is fully fuelled. It is capable of going to sea if needed. In an effort to save expenses, to be responsible with our budget, we have asked that it curtail unnecessary movements. The primary responsibility for maritime security is with the Minister of Transport. We support it, as well as the RCMP, the military and all other agencies.
Given that the United States has officially asked Canada to contribute to the war effort in Iraq, does the minister not believe — as Tony Blair decided in Great Britain — that a matter as serious as a war warrants a debate and vote in the House?
References Colin Powell's diplomatic representations and a US official request as grounding facts and draws a pointed comparison to Tony Blair's decision, but the question is cut off before fully articulating the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, American pressure on Canada to join a coalition to attack Iraq is mounting. After the diplomatic representations by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell last week, the United States has now officially asked Canada to contribute to the war effort. While the government feels that the ratification of Kyoto is a matter worth debating and voting on in the House, and we agree, does the minister not believe, as does Tony Blair who just made a decision to that effect in Great Britain, that a matter as serious as a war—
Boudria says House leaders meet weekly to suggest debate themes and urges the member's House leader to raise Iraq as a theme for debate at those meetings.
Boudria completely sidesteps the substance about Iraq and a potential war vote, pivoting entirely to procedural advice about raising topics at House leaders' meetings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are having regular meetings, on a weekly basis, of House leaders, at which time various themes for debate are suggested, among other things. I sincerely urge the hon. member to discuss this issue with the House leader for her party. In my opinion, he is doing a fine job and could represent these views at the House leaders' meeting about having this as a theme for debate, if the wish is there.
Could federal funds be made available under the Canada strategic infrastructure fund to accelerate the four laning of Highway 69 in northern Ontario?
A government-backbench softball that identifies a specific project (four lanes on Highway 69) but is plainly designed to invite the minister to announce federal funding, not to hold government to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and the minister responsible for infrastructure. As the minister knows, my constituents in the communities of northern Ontario are pressing for the completion of the four lanes on Highway 69. It is a matter of health and safety for travellers and of economic development for the region. Could the minister tell the House whether federal funds could be made available under the Canada strategic infrastructure fund to accelerate the four lanes on Highway 69?
Rock says federal funding would require Ontario to identify the project as a priority, agree to an accelerated timetable, and commit matching funds, but the Ontario government has not yet signalled its priorities under the strategic infrastructure fund.
Rock gives a substantive conditional answer, specifying that Ontario would need to identify it as a priority, agree to an accelerated timetable, and commit matching funds — and notes no such signal has been received.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in order for such a thing to happen we would need to have the Ontario government identify such a project as a priority for that government, agree to an accelerated timetable and commit the matching funds to make it happen. We have not heard that it is a priority for the Government of Ontario. In fact, we have not heard yet from the Ontario government at all with respect to its priorities under the strategic infrastructure fund.
Given that the maritime helicopter project website set an October 2002 deadline for new bids but the defence minister now says there is no timeline, when will the new deadline for bids be set?
Cites the maritime helicopter project website's stated October 2002 deadline, contrasts it with the defence minister's statement in the Hill Times that there is no timeline, and asks a specific question about when a new deadline will be set.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the maritime helicopter project website claims that the deadline for accepting new bids to replace our Sea Kings was to be October 2002, but in this week's Hill Times , however, the defence minister states that his department has no timeline whatsoever. Will the minister tell the House what he is going to do to get that contract back on track? When will the new deadline for the bids be set? We have the safety of men and women in our Sea Kings at stake.
O'Reilly says approximately $80 million has been invested in major upgrades to the Sea Kings, that they presently fly very safely, and that nothing flies in the military that is not safe.
O'Reilly does not address the contradictory timelines or set any new deadline, instead pivoting to the $80 million invested in Sea King upgrades and an assertion that nothing in the military flies unless it is safe.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has invested approximately $80 million in major upgrades to enhance our Sea Kings, and they presently fly very safely and are doing a good job for our country. I remind members that nothing flies in the military that is not safe. That is the commitment we make to our men and women of the forces: that their safety comes first.
The Speaker acknowledged the presence of guests in the gallery, and members expressed their approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.