Session overview
- Iraq dominated Question Period on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion, with exchanges centring on whether Canada's decision to stay out without a UN Security Council resolution was principled foreign policy or a failure of alliance solidarity.
- The government's position on Canadian Forces in the gulf was challenged repeatedly: the Prime Minister insisted personnel were there solely for Operation Apollo, while the NDP and BQ pressed for clarity on rules of engagement and the status of soldiers embedded with U.S. and British combat units.
- The Bloc Québécois pushed the government to invoke Resolution 377 (Uniting for Peace) and bring the Iraq crisis before the UN General Assembly; the government acknowledged other countries were pursuing this avenue but declined to commit Canada to leading the effort.
- Canada-U.S. relations came under scrutiny as the Alliance argued Canada's refusal to support the coalition was damaging trade and border relations, while the government maintained its Iraq decision and tightened U.S. border security measures were entirely separate matters.
- The aging Sea King helicopters were again questioned, with the opposition claiming inadequate night-vision sensors were forcing crews into dangerous proximity to unidentified ships; the Minister of National Defence disputed the factual premise and said night-vision equipment was being upgraded.
- A procedural dispute arose over the Ontario government's plan to deliver its provincial budget in a TV studio rather than in the legislature; the NDP sought unanimous consent for a motion of condemnation, which was blocked by the PC Party on grounds of non-interference in provincial affairs.
The Minister of National Defence confirmed for the first time the specific command arrangement for embedded troops: when soldiers are with British or American forces they fall under British or American control, but ultimately remain under the authority of the Government of Canada.
Wayne cites a specific memo from a named lawyer (David Lutz, Hampton, New Brunswick) explicitly linking a Justice Department contract to Liberal Party membership, and asks a directly answerable question about government contracting policy.
When asked the substantive question of whether Canada expected allied troops to remain indefinitely on Iraq's border to sustain containment, the Prime Minister responded only with a quip about the opposition's drop in the popular vote, providing no policy answer whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Bill Blaikie asked who speaks for the government on Canadian Forces participation in Iraq operations â the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence â and whether new rules of engagement had been issued; no specific rules of engagement were disclosed.
- Mr. Stephen Harper asked whether the Prime Minister genuinely expected allied troops to remain at Iraq's border indefinitely to sustain containment, and if the containment strategy was working why Canada was not participating in it; the question received no substantive answer.
- Mr. Brian Masse asked whether the federal government would provide financial support to municipalities facing increased costs from emergency measures triggered by tightened U.S. border security; the Minister of National Revenue provided border delay statistics but did not address the funding question.
- Mr. Grant Hill asked twice why the Health Canada contract was routed through an auto restoration company rather than directly to JM Enterprises; the Minister of Health gave no explanation, citing an ongoing internal fact-gathering process.
- Mr. Joe Clark asked the Prime Minister whether there are any circumstances under which Canada would change the Iraq policy announced on Monday, given the Foreign Minister's statements that the policy must 'reflect the reality on the ground at any one time'; no clear answer was given about what conditions, if any, would trigger a policy change.
Harper quotes the Prime Minister's statement that 'it is for the local people to change the government' and asks whether Chrétien genuinely expects Saddam Hussein to hold a truly democratic election.
The question cites the Prime Minister's own words from the previous day and poses a pointed accountability challenge, but the ask ('does he expect Saddam Hussein to have a truly democratic election?') is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister to concede that the only way now to avoid war and for the good of Iraq and everyone else, Saddam Hussein should leave office before the deadline. Instead the Prime Minister defended Saddam Hussein's right to power. He said, âIn the present system, it is for the local people to change the governmentâ. I do not know what the Prime Minister has in mind. Does he expect Saddam Hussein to have a truly democratic election?
Chrétien argues the UN debate was about disarmament, not regime change, drawing a parallel with Kosovo where Milosevic was removed by his own people after an election, not by external force.
Chrétien distinguishes the debate over disarmament from regime change and invokes the Kosovo precedent, engaging the topic substantively but not directly answering whether he expects a democratic election in Iraq.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the debate has been on elimination of the armament of massive destruction. The resolution of the United Nations was on that too. It was not for a regime change. When we went to Kosovo, it was not for a regime change. It was to stop the genocide. Milosevic was replaced by his own people when he was defeated at the election. Therefore the debate is about disarming Saddam Hussein. The process was working. The Americans felt that it was not working fast enough. We disagreed with them and we took action in consequence.
Harper points out that Milosevic fell only after bombing began, notes that Saddam Hussein has killed tens of thousands of his own people, and asks whether the Prime Minister believes Saddam Hussein is a threat to the people of all of Iraq.
Harper grounds his question in concrete facts â Milosevic's removal timing, Saddam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds, and the absence of a UN resolution for Kosovo â and poses a direct yes/no accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Milosevic was removed, as the Prime Minister knows, only after bombs started falling on his country. Saddam Hussein kills all opponents, both individually and through genocide. The Prime Minister knows he authorized military action in Kosovo without a United Nations resolution. He said it was to stop genocide. He said it was for humanitarian purposes. Saddam Hussein has killed tens of thousands of his own people. Does the Prime Minister not believe that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the people of all of Iraq?
Chrétien concedes Saddam used chemical weapons against Kurds but argues the situation is different now and questions why the logic of regime change would not apply universally, e.g. to North Korea.
Chrétien partially engages by acknowledging the chemical weapons use against Kurds but deflects by questioning why the world would not then change every authoritarian regime, never answering whether Saddam is a threat to all Iraqis.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not think at this moment it is the same situation because the question of when he committed genocide against the Kurds with chemical armament at one time, it was at the beginning of the 1990s. I am going back. I said the United Nations has never debated the change of regime. Why not change the regime in North Korea? Why not change the regime elsewhere? We will never stop. The question is that--
Harper asks whether the Prime Minister genuinely believes containment is sustainable given that it requires a quarter of a million allied troops at Iraq's doorstep, and why Canada was not participating in the strategy if it was working.
The question contains a factual premise â that containment depends on a quarter-million allied troops at Iraq's border â and asks two related accountability questions about sustainability and Canadian participation, though it is partially obscured by partisan banter.
Source text
All I can say about that kind of answer, Mr. Speaker, is we cannot change the regime here in Canada quickly enough. Yesterday the Prime Minister said--
Oh, oh.
Well, the Liberal members want a change.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, I got that line from the member for LaSalleâĂmard. The Prime Minister has said that Saddam is currently contained and that this containment is working. He knows that Saddam is contained by a quarter of a million allied troops, British, American and Australian, at his doorstep. Does the Prime Minister really expect these troops to stay there indefinitely and if this strategy was working, why was his government not participating in it?
Chrétien deflects entirely with a partisan jab about the Canadian Alliance's decline in popular vote from 25% to 9%.
Chrétien's response is a pure partisan jibe about the Canadian Alliance's drop in popular vote and has no connection whatsoever to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, talking about change of regime, they did that in the opposition and they went from 25% to 9% in the popular vote.
Harper makes a quip that his caucus did not force him to resign; there is no policy question.
There is no real question; the exchange is pure crosstalk and partisan banter with no substantive ask.
Source text
My caucus did not force me to resign.
Oh, oh.
Chrétien declines to reply, stating the opposition does not want an answer.
Chrétien explicitly refuses to reply, making this a complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they do not want to have an answer, so I will not reply.
Day quotes Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal comparing inaction against Saddam to inaction against Hitler and asks why the Prime Minister seems obsessed with not offending Saddam Hussein and leaving him in power.
Day cites a named source (Simon Wiesenthal) and his statement about weapons of mass destruction and genocide, but the concluding ask â why the Prime Minister is 'obsessed with not offending Saddam Hussein' â is framed rhetorically rather than as a precise policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Holocaust survivor and renowned human rights activist, Simon Wiesenthal recently said the following: [The allies] do not seek to conquer Iraq but rather Iraq but rather to confront a dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction and committed genocide against his own people...Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, but for six years the world did not act. Has he been taken seriously then, the lives of innocent millions may have been spared. Why does the Prime Minister seem so obsessed with not offending Saddam Hussein and leaving him in power?
Chrétien reaffirms that the debate was about disarmament under Resolution 1441, not regime change, and that Canada supported disarmament but required UN Security Council approval before joining military action.
Chrétien reiterates his disarmament-vs-regime-change distinction and references Resolution 1441, offering a coherent policy rationale, though he does not directly address the 'obsessed with not offending Saddam Hussein' framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the opposition wants to have a different debate than the real debate. The debate was to disarm Saddam Hussein. We think he has to be disarmed. Resolution 1441 was not on a change of regime. It was on disarmament. The process was on its way to being realized. The Americans decided that it was not proceeding fast enough. They decided to go. We said that we would not to be there unless there was an approval by the United Nations. There was not such a thing. We said that a year ago and we repeated the same thing on Monday.
Day argues that Canada's decision places it alongside Libya, Syria, Iran, communist China, and Cuba rather than its historic allies, and asks why the Prime Minister believes this serves Canada's economic and strategic interests.
Day frames a geopolitical argument listing specific allied and non-allied countries, but the question about Canada's 'economic and strategic interests' being enhanced by being on the 'wrong side' is largely rhetorical and polemical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of disarmament the world is witnessing a global realignment of nations, a new geopolitical divide. The Prime Minister's decision to not support UN resolution 1441 puts us in the camp of nations like Libya, Syria, Iran, communist China and Cuba, and not on the side of our historic allies like Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States, Spain and the new democracies of the new Europe. Why does the Prime Minister think that the economic and strategic interests of Canada will be enhanced by clearly placing us on the wrong side of this new divide?
Chrétien states only that Canada is an independent country that made a decision on behalf of all Canadians, without addressing the economic or strategic interest question.
ChrĂ©tien's one-sentence response â that Canada is an independent country that made a decision on behalf of all Canadians â is boilerplate that does not engage with the specific economic or strategic interests raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is an independent country and Canada made a decision on behalf of all Canadians.
Duceppe asks whether the Prime Minister has instructed the Canadian ambassador to the UN to immediately request that the General Assembly address the Iraqi crisis, referencing the Bloc Québécois proposal.
Duceppe asks a specific, actionable question â whether the Prime Minister instructed the Canadian ambassador to the UN to immediately ask the General Assembly to address the Iraqi crisis â grounded in a concrete BQ proposal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the work of the Canadian government is not finished as regards the Iraqi issue. The Prime Minister made the right decision when he announced that Canada would not participate in the war against Iraq, but he must go further. In this sense, his commitment to review the proposal made by the Bloc Quebecois is encouraging. Since time is of the essence, I want to know if the Prime Minister instructed the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations to immediately ask the UN General Assembly to address the Iraqi crisis?
Chrétien says the Security Council met that morning and it is pointless to submit that proposal now, as it is up to the Security Council to decide whether to refer the matter to the General Assembly.
ChrĂ©tien explains why the proposal is not being pursued at this moment â the Security Council is in session and it is the Security Council's prerogative to refer the matter â which is a substantive if incomplete answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Security Council met this morning. It is pointless, at this time, to submit that proposal. The Security Council is aware of the problem and it is up to it to decide whether or not it wants to refer the matter to the General Assembly.
Duceppe invokes Resolution 377 and the Suez precedent, notes the Security Council impasse, and asks whether Canada could play a constructive role by requesting the General Assembly to act as a second line after the Security Council.
Duceppe cites Resolution 377 and a historical precedent (the Suez conflict) to argue the Security Council is deadlocked, and asks a specific policy question about whether Canada could play a constructive role by requesting General Assembly action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Security Council is deadlocked. Resolution 377 was used for the first time when the Suez conflict had already begun and France and Great Britain were present on the theatre of operations. I believe it is the United States that used it. Should we not do the same thing now? Considering that there is this impasse, even if the war began in 12 hours, could Canada not play a constructive role for peace by asking the General Assembly to act as the second line, after the Security Council, in the promotion of peace?
Chrétien says Canada worked very hard over the past three weeks and that the Security Council, currently in session, should decide whether to refer the matter to the General Assembly given the existing impasse.
Chrétien acknowledges Canada worked harder than any other country over three weeks and defers to the Security Council currently in session, engaging the substance but not committing Canada to the specific course of action proposed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks, we have worked very hard, harder than any other country, to try to solve this issue. We did everything we could. As I said, right now, the Security Council is in session. At least it was this morning, and it is up to it to decide, given the existing impasse, whether it should refer the matter to the General Assembly.
Lalonde quotes Lester B. Pearson's support for the Uniting for Peace resolution 377 and asks whether the Prime Minister considers the current situation serious enough to invoke that 'second line of defense.'
Lalonde cites a specific historical precedent â Lester B. Pearson's statement supporting Resolution 377 â and asks a direct question about whether the situation warrants recourse to that 'second line of defense.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in expressing support for the Uniting for Peace resolution 377, Lester B. Pearson said the following on behalf of Canada: It has always been the view of our delegation that the Assembly should be a second line of defense for the security of members of the UN. Does the Prime Minister not think that the situation is sufficiently serious to require recourse to that âsecond line of defenseâ?
Graham says the matter is in the Security Council's hands but that Canada will participate if it goes before the General Assembly, and that Canada is continuing its efforts toward peace even that day.
Graham says Canada will go before the General Assembly and continue efforts toward peace, partially addressing the question but not directly saying whether Canada will actively invoke or support invoking Resolution 377.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, the matter is now in the hands of the Security Council. Some of the countries in New York are seeking to bring the matter before the General Assembly. Canada will do its job. It will go before the General Assembly. It will participate. We will continue our efforts toward securing peace, if that is possible. Even today, we are continuing our efforts.
Lalonde cites the Philadelphia Inquirer's characterization of Iraq as a test case for a new Bush Doctrine and asks whether the Prime Minister feels it is urgent for UN member countries to address the crisis.
Lalonde cites the Philadelphia Inquirer on the Bush Doctrine and asks an urgency question, but it is largely rhetorical and does not pose a precise actionable ask beyond general UN engagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we want to urge the government to address this matter more rapidly. According to yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer : Iraq is a test case for a new Bush Doctrine to police the world and remake it in our image. Does the Prime Minister not feel it is urgent for the countries of the world joined together by the United Nations to address this crisis?
Graham says the government has been working within the UN context to avoid war and attacks the Canadian Alliance for wanting to rush into war, without directly addressing the urgency question.
Graham claims the government has been working within the UN context and pivots to attacking the Canadian Alliance for rushing into war, which is deflection rather than a substantive answer to the urgency question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has guided us in recent weeks. The Prime Minister and the entire government have been working precisely to that end: to work within the UN context and with other countries in the world in an attempt to avoid war if at all possible. Contrary to the wishes of the Canadian Alliance, which was absolutely intent on rushing into war, we have presented a proposal. We have presented a proposal to avoid war, and we are continuing our efforts to that end.
Blaikie asks who speaks for the government â the Prime Minister who said Canadian Forces would not participate in the war on Iraq, or the Minister of National Defence who reportedly said Canadian warships will escort vessels sailing to wage that war.
Blaikie identifies a specific contradiction between the Prime Minister's stated policy the previous day and reported statements by the Minister of National Defence about Canadian warships escorting vessels to wage war on Iraq, posing a clear accountability question about who speaks for the government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was very clear when he said to the House that Canadian Forces personnel in the gulf would not participate in the war on Iraq, and yet it appears that the Minister of National Defence may have another opinion because he is reported to have said that Canadian warships will escort U.S. and British vessels sailing up to the northern edge of the Persian Gulf to wage the war on Iraq. Could the Prime Minister tell us who is speaking for the government? Is it the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister when he was so very clear yesterday?
Chrétien says the ships are operating under Operation Apollo to protect the circulation of vessels in support of the Afghanistan mission and that their presence has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Chrétien explains the Operation Apollo mandate for the ships but does not directly address the contradiction with the Minister of National Defence's reported statement or clarify the rules of engagement for the specific escort mission described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ships that are there have a task in relation to the Operation Apollo program. They are there to protect the circulation of ships in that part of the world so the Canadian troops that are in Afghanistan or that will be going to Afghanistan, and other people who want to deliver goods and services to the people operating in Afghanistan, can go to a port in that area. Our troops are there and will remain there to help in the Apollo program for the good of the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Blaikie asks the Prime Minister to have the Minister of National Defence reveal what the new rules of engagement are to ensure Canadian Forces personnel in the gulf do not participate in the war as the Prime Minister said they would not.
Blaikie asks a specific and pointed question about the new rules of engagement to ensure Canadian Forces do not act contrary to what the Prime Minister said, which is a concrete accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many people applaud the Prime Minister's decision but they will not be applauding if they find out that the Prime Minister is trying to have it both ways. Could the Prime Minister ask the Minister of National Defence to tell us what the new rules of engagement are to make sure that Canadian Forces personnel in the gulf do not do what the Prime Minister has said they will not do?
Chrétien says rules of engagement were established months ago and are clear, without disclosing what they are or how they address the specific concern raised.
Chrétien says the rules of engagement were established months ago and are already clear, but does not state what those rules actually are or how they prevent the scenario Blaikie describes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they have their rules of engagement, which we have given them, to do exactly what they are doing. We did that months ago and we do not have to change what is already clear.
Clark asks how many bombs must fall before Canada uses its influence to put the United Nations in a position to lead reconstruction efforts in Iraq, criticizing the Prime Minister's reported approach of waiting for war to start.
Clark invokes the 1995 referendum and a reported statement about reconstruction to frame a question about post-war UN leadership, but the ask is somewhat broad and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the 1995 referendum campaign in Quebec, the Prime Minister said âdon't worry, don't prepare, waitâ, and then he nearly lost the country. Yesterday, with a war hours away, this head-in-the-sand Prime Minister said âbefore working on reconstruction wait for the war to startâ. Other countries are not waiting. The Canadian Red Cross is not waiting. How many bombs must fall? How many Iraqis must die before Canada uses our undoubted influence to put the United Nations in a position to lead any reconstruction efforts?
Chrétien says Canada is always one of the first to act on such programs and that the Canadian delegation at the UN is already talking with authorities about participating in reconstruction when the need arises.
Chrétien offers a partial answer, saying Canada is already talking with UN authorities about participating in reconstruction programs when the need arises, which addresses the gist of the question though without specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on these programs Canada is always one of the first to move. Already at the United Nations the Canadian delegation is talking with the authorities to make sure that we will be participating in the program when the need arises.
Clark cites successive foreign minister statements â 'that is Canada's policy at this time' and 'our position has to reflect the reality on the ground at any one time' â and asks whether there are circumstances in which Canada would change the position announced Monday.
Clark cites three specific and chronologically ordered public statements by the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to argue the policy is shifting, and asks a precise yes/no question about whether circumstances could change Canada's stated position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is some progress from yesterday. On Monday afternoon the Prime Minister finally announced a policy on Iraq. Monday night the foreign minister said âthat is Canada's policy at this timeâ. Yesterday the minister said âOur position has to reflect the reality on the ground at any one timeâ. That can only mean that the government is prepared to change its policy again. Will the Prime Minister tell the House if there are circumstances in which Canada would change the position the Prime Minister stated on Monday and, if not, then why is the foreign minister saying that this is a policy only for this moment, this time?
ChrĂ©tien insists the policy has been clear and consistent since spring of last year â no participation without Security Council approval â and dismisses Clark as always confused, without addressing the possibility of a policy change.
Chrétien insists the policy has been consistent since spring of the previous year and dismisses Clark as 'always confused,' but does not address whether circumstances could lead to a policy change as the foreign minister's statements implied.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will not be this time. For me we have a policy. Our policy is so clear that we were the first ones in the spring of last year to say that we would not participate in a war in Iraq without the approbation of the Security Council. We have been very clear from the beginning. It is the leader of the fifth party who is always confused.
Kenney contrasts Canada's 1998 refusal to let a Russian veto stop action in Kosovo with the current deference to a threatened French veto on Resolution 1441, and asks whether it is now Canada's position that it will never again act to protect international security if a veto is threatened by a permanent member.
Kenney draws a factual contrast between Canada's 1998 Kosovo action (without a UN resolution) and the current position, and poses a pointed follow-up question about whether Canada will never again act if a veto is threatened, though the framing is somewhat polemical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1998 Canada asserted the independence of our foreign policy when we refused to allow a Russian veto at the UN to stop us from acting in Kosovo. However, today the government has sacrificed the independence of our foreign policy to a threatened French veto against implementing 1441. How exactly can Canada still claim to have an independent foreign policy when we allow the Elysée Palace in Paris to dictate our actions? Is it now the position of the government that Canada will never again act to protect international security if a veto is threatened by a permanent member?
Chrétien says it would be presumptuous for Canada to tell the Americans, French, Russians, Chinese, or British whether to use their veto, as those countries make their own decisions.
ChrĂ©tien responds by noting Canada cannot tell permanent members whether to use their veto, which is tangential â it deflects from the question of whether Canada's foreign policy is now constrained by a threatened French veto.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit presumptuous to say that Canada will go and tell the Americans to use or not use their veto, the French to use or not use their veto, the Russians to use or not use their veto, the Chinese to use or not use their veto or the British to use or not use their veto. It would be very different if we had that power but, unfortunately, we do not have that power. Usually they make their own decisions.
Kenney asked whether the Prime Minister denies that Saddam's regime is a humanitarian disaster and that Kurds and Shiites face imminent danger without U.S. and U.K. military action.
The question cites a specific figure (100,000 killed) and references the no fly zones, but the ask is compound and rhetorically framed as a triple negative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1998, and we ignored them, rightly, but today Saddam's Baath regime in Iraq has killed more than 100,000 of his own citizens. He would have killed thousands more were it not for the no fly zones being operated by U.S. and U.K. forces without a UN mandate. Is the Prime Minister telling us that Saddam's regime is not a humanitarian disaster, does not pose an immediate threat to the Kurd and Shiite population and that they would face imminent disaster were it not for U.S. and U.K. military action today?
Graham acknowledged that many governments act unacceptably but said Canada has a principled, institution-based position justifying non-intervention and dismissed the question as a false analogy.
Graham does not address the humanitarian specifics or the no fly zone point, instead pivoting to a general defence of Canada's principled position and dismissing the question as false analogies.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker. The government's policy has always been clear. Many governments around the world do not conduct themselves in ways in which we approve. We have fundamental disagreements with many governments around the world. I can name many in the House, Zimbabwe for one and others. We have mentioned them in the House. What the Prime Minister has clearly said and what the government has said is that we have created an institution to manage these relationships. We have created a world system that justifies intervention in certain circumstances. We chose not to intervene in these circumstances because we have a principled position and conditions which justify it. We will stick by our position and not be driven off by these false analogies.
Bachand asked why Canada, which opposes the U.S. action, has troops and equipment in the region while Spain, which supports it, does not, and whether Canada should withdraw like Greece.
Bachand draws a pointed factual contrast between Spain (supports U.S., sends no troops) and Canada (opposes war, has troops deployed), and cites Greece's frigate withdrawal as a concrete precedent, making the ask reasonably grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Spain, which supports the U.S., is not sending any combat forces to Iraq. Oddly, Canada, which refuses to support the U.S. in its unilateral decision, has sent troops and military equipment. It makes no sense. Should Canada not try to be consistent like Greece, which is withdrawing its frigate, and withdraw its troops and equipment from the region?
McCallum said Canada disagrees with the U.S. on Iraq but remains an ally on continental defence and the war against terrorism, and said Canada is proud to be in the gulf fighting terrorism.
McCallum does not address the logical inconsistency raised or explain why Canada will not follow Greece's lead, instead pivoting to the alliance relationship and Canada's pride in fighting terrorism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, just explained, it is clear that Canada does not agree with the U.S. when it comes to Iraq. The Bloc Quebecois needs to understand that on other issues, the U.S. remains Canada's friend and ally. We have an agreement on the joint defence of the continent, on the war against terrorism, and this war is also taking place overseas. The Bloc Quebecois needs to understand that Canada is proud to be in the gulf to fight terrorism with its ships.
Bachand argued that Canadian ships escorting war-bound foreign vessels makes Canada's presence non-neutral, and asked why Canada will not withdraw its ships and troops as Greece did.
Bachand sharpens the previous question by pointing out that Canadian ships will escort foreign ships headed to war, directly challenging the government's claim of neutrality, and repeats a specific ask about withdrawal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister keep saying that Canada's military resources are being used in the fight against terrorism. Yet some of the foreign ships that will be escorted by Canadian ships are in the region to go to war. No matter what the Prime Minister says, Canada's presence is not neutral. What is Canada waiting for to follow Greece's lead and withdraw its ships and troops?
McCallum noted that France is part of the anti-terrorism naval group and said Canada is proud to work with France and other countries on this important goal.
McCallum does not address the escort-of-war-bound-ships point or the neutrality challenge, instead noting France's participation and reaffirming pride in anti-terrorism efforts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to forget that France is part of this group of ships against terrorism. Furthermore, we are proud to be part of this defence against terrorism here or anywhere. We are working with France and other countries to achieve this goal, which is very important for Canada.
Meredith asked why the government is jeopardizing millions of Canadian jobs dependent on U.S. exports by siding with France over the U.S. on Iraq, citing new U.S. entrance and exit requirements at southern Ontario borders.
Meredith references a specific U.S. border security measure announced the previous day but conflates two distinct policy issues and the accountability ask is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have decided to stand with France regarding the situation in Iraq instead of with our largest trading partner. Yesterday the U.S. increased its domestic security by advising the Canadian government that it was going to immediately implement the entrance and exit requirements at all the southern Ontario borders. Why is the government jeopardizing millions of Canadian jobs that depend on exports to the United States?
Graham argued that the U.S. border security announcement was unrelated to Canada's position on Iraq and accused the opposition of cheap politics by conflating the two issues.
Graham correctly separates the border security decision from the Iraq position, which is substantively responsive, but does not address the jobs concern or the specific border measure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the American government announced that in terms of its own national security. Whether we had joined them or not in an action in Iraq would have made no difference in that decision. That decision is in relation to who goes across the border or not. These are two completely separate issues. An attempt by the opposition to confuse the Canadian people in a way that makes it look as if we are losing influence with our American colleagues is just playing into their hands. It is cheap politics in an attempt to disparage the government instead of looking at the real interests of our country.
Meredith asked how many more Canadian jobs the government is prepared to lose because of its anti-American policies, citing defence suppliers transferring production to the United States.
The question is largely rhetorical, using the characterization anti-American to frame a vague ask about job losses without citing specific data on defence supplier transfers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has constantly antagonized the current American administration with its anti-American comments and policies. Defence suppliers are being asked to transfer production to the United States because of Canada's opposition and the potential delays at the border. How many more Canadian jobs is the government prepared to lose because of its anti-American policies?
Chrétien cited Canada's creation of more than 560,000 new jobs last year compared to 200,000 American job losses as evidence the country is doing well economically.
Chrétien does not address defence supplier transfers or job losses from the border dispute, instead pivoting to Canada's job creation record (560,000 new jobs) versus U.S. losses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pretends that we are not doing well in terms of jobs in Canada. She has given me the opportunity to say that Canada created more than 560,000 new jobs last year while the Americans lost 200,000.
Gauthier asked why the government withdrew officers from the unified command in Qatar to avoid involvement in Iraq combat while leaving soldiers integrated with American and British combat units still in place.
Gauthier identifies a specific and concrete inconsistency in the government's announced withdrawal of officers from Qatar while soldiers remain embedded in combat units, making for a sharp and answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence announced yesterday that he would be withdrawing officers from the unified command in Qatar because they could possibly take part in the conflict in Iraq and that he did not want that. However, the soldiers that are integrated with both American and British combat units will be directly involved in combat. Why remove officers so that they are not involved in combat, and let soldiers remain involved in combat?
McCallum said Canada is not sending an army, aircraft, or other forces for the war, and that the roughly 30 personnel remaining are in non-combat roles as part of a decades-old exchange tradition with allies.
McCallum explains the rationale for reducing Qatar numbers and identifies the 30 personnel in non-combat exchange roles, but does not fully resolve the logical inconsistency Gauthier raised about those soldiers' oversight.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reason we are reducing the number of persons we have in Qatar is because Canada will not be sending an army, or aircraft or other forces for the war because we are not taking part in this war, as the Prime Minister said. The reason there is a small number, some 30 personnel, in non-combat roles is because there is a decades-old tradition of exchanges with our allies, and this will continue.
Gauthier asked how the minister can justify leaving soldiers in combat units with no Canadian officers responsible for them, placing them solely under American and British authority.
Gauthier presses the oversight gap created by the withdrawal of officers, asking a specific follow-up about who is responsible for the remaining soldiers â a coherent and answerable accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances are exceptional. The officers who leave the unified command will no longer be there, in a way, for the Canadian soldiers that have been integrated with combat units. My question for the minister is as follows: since he believed it was wise to withdraw the officers, how then, using his own logic, can he explain leaving soldiers there, with no one responsible for them, and under the sole authority of American and British officers? That is the problem his decision has created.
McCallum explained that soldiers on exchange with British or American troops are under British or American control according to decades of practice, and that they remain ultimately under the control of the Government of Canada.
McCallum addresses the chain-of-command question directly by explaining that exchanged soldiers are under British or American control and ultimately under the Government of Canada, though the tension Gauthier identified is not fully resolved.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think it is the member opposite's logic that leaves something to be desired. For decades now, we have taken part in exchanges with our allies, Britain, the United States and others. When these soldiers are with British troops or American troops, they are under British or American control. Therefore, there is no need for Canadian officers. However, ultimately, these soldiers are under the control of the Government of Canada.
Grey cited a military report stating that 40-year-old Sea Kings lacked appropriate night vision sensors, leaving them unable to complete missions and excluded from night operations with the U.S. navy, and asked why the government continues to send them on missions they cannot perform.
Grey cites a specific military report about Sea Kings lacking night vision sensors, mentions concrete operational consequences (exclusion from night operations), and frames a clear accountability ask, though the closing rhetorical flourish weakens it slightly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is cold comfort to those people. A military report last night has stated that our 40 year old Sea Kings lacked the appropriate night vision sensors required for their missions. Consequently, they have been unable to complete their given tasks while enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq and during Operation Apollo. In fact, our Sea Kings have even been excluded from participating in night operations with the U.S. navy. I would appreciate it if maybe the minister could focus his dim vision on this problem right now. Why does the Liberal government continue to send our Sea Kings into missions it knows they simply cannot perform? Is it bad judgment or simply bad politics?
Oh, oh.
McCallum said the Sea Kings have performed admirably, carrying out 2,000 missions in Operation Apollo and performing roughly half of hailings and boardings despite representing only 10â15% of assets in the region.
McCallum responds with specific figures â 2,000 missions in Operation Apollo, approximately 10â15% of assets performing roughly half of hailings and boardings â directly addressing Sea King performance, though not the night vision sensor deficiency specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Sea Kings have performed admirably in the region. They have carried out 2,000 missions in Operation Apollo in the gulf. As I have said a number of times, they have done approximately one-half of the hailings--
Mr. Speaker, as I was attempting to say, we have approximately 10% to 15% of the assets including helicopters in the region and we have done literally half of the hailings which are done by helicopters, and the boardings which are done by sailors from ships. I would say that our navy including the helicopters have performed in an exemplary fashion.
Grey claimed that Sea Kings' inadequate sensors force crews to fly close enough to unidentified ships to read the writings on their sides, exposing them to being shot down, and asked when the Prime Minister will admit this could cost military lives.
Grey makes a specific claim about operational procedures (flying close enough to read markings on ships) that constitutes a factual challenge tied to crew safety, though the question drifts into political rhetoric about the Prime Minister's face-saving.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that those are dangerous missions and they simply are not equipped. Because of the Sea Kings' inadequate sensors, our choppers have to fly close enough to unidentified ships to read the writings on their sides. This leaves our crews wide open to being shot down. It is high time the Prime Minister read the writing on the wall in great big letters. He had the opportunity to replace the Sea Kings 10 years ago. When will he admit that trying to save his political face could cost military lives?
McCallum disputed Grey's claim by stating pilots stay always within five miles of ships rather than moving close, and said night vision equipment is in the process of being upgraded, referencing a conversation with three helicopter pilots that morning.
McCallum directly disputes Grey's factual claim by stating pilots stay within five miles of ships and notes night vision equipment is being upgraded, citing a morning conversation with three helicopter pilots, which is substantively responsive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the lives of our helicopter pilots are extremely important to the government and to Canadians, so it would be a good idea if the hon. member would get her facts straight. They do not move close to the ships as she claimed. They stay always within five miles from the ships. Indeed, their night vision equipment is in the process of being upgraded. This morning I had the opportunity to speak to three helicopter pilots who explained to me these procedures and how their operations were indeed entirely safe.
Peric asked what steps the government is taking to address concerns raised by associations advocating for persons with disabilities regarding access to the disability tax credit.
This is a government-backbench softball asking what steps the government is taking to address concerns about the disability tax credit, with no specific challenge or document cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Leading associations advocating for persons with disabilities and their families have been raising concerns about access to the disability tax credit. What steps is the government taking to address the serious concerns of Canadians with disabilities?
Bevilacqua cited the budget more than doubling annual tax relief for persons with disabilities from $600 million to $1.3 billion, a new child disability benefit of $1,600 for over 40,000 families, and the establishment of a technical advisory committee to review tax measures.
Bevilacqua provides specific figures â tax relief doubling from $600 million in 1996 to $1.3 billion annually, a new child disability benefit of $1,600 helping over 40,000 families â and mentions the technical advisory committee, offering real information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has an attitude of gratitude for those individuals who contribute to the public policy process of the government. The budget more than doubles, from $600 million in 1996 to $1.3 billion, annually the tax relief for persons with disabilities. We have a new child disability benefit of $1,600, which will help over 40,000 families with children who are disabled. As well, we have established a technical advisory committee to review tax measures for persons with disabilities. It is clear to me that the government not only listens but also acts.
Masse asked whether the Prime Minister will financially support municipalities that will incur costs implementing emergency measure plans due to tightened U.S. border security measures causing traffic tie-ups and delays.
Masse identifies a specific and timely problem (border delays threatening businesses and municipalities) and cites the Deputy Prime Minister's own statement about uncertainty, but the ask â will the Prime Minister financially support municipalities â is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the situation at American-Canadian border crossings is getting worse with the tightened security measures from the United States. We are seeing traffic tie-ups and delays threatening businesses and putting municipalities in very tenuous situations. We know right now that the Deputy Prime Minister said we are entering a period of some uncertainty. The municipalities are already reacting by putting emergency measure plans in place. What we do know for certain is that they will be incurring more costs. The government does not have a good record with municipalities, but will it show leadership right now and will the Prime Minister support financially those municipalities that will have to face the cost coverages for these emergency measure plans?
Caplan provided specific delay data: 15-minute delays at Ambassador Bridge yesterday versus consistent 120-minute delays today, and noted the government is working closely with Americans to keep commerce moving.
Caplan provides specific delay data at Ambassador Bridge and Windsor-Detroit tunnel but does not address the question about financial support for municipalities facing emergency measure plan costs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have some information that I would like to share with the member regarding the situation at the border. Ambassador Bridge is one of our busiest and very important commercial border crossings. He might want to know, and the members of the House might want to know, that at the Ambassador Bridge there were 15-minute delays yesterday and there was a consistent 120-minute delay all day today. At the Windsor-Detroit tunnel there was a 5-minute delay yesterday evening, 45-minute delays at 8 a.m., and 30-minute delays since then. We have been working very closely with the Americans to ensure that commerce keeps moving as best it can during this stressful and difficult time.
Davies asked why the Canadian government is not standing up for Canadians facing harassment, racial profiling registration, new U.S. visa requirements, and interrogation by Canadian officials upon return, and called for making clear that state sanctioned racial profiling will not be tolerated.
Davies raises specific issues â racial profiling registration, new visa requirements, and interrogation of Canadian citizens returning from daily U.S. work â but the ask is broadly framed as standing up for rights without a specific policy demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not reply at all to the member's question. Not only are border communities facing enormous difficulties, but individual Canadians are facing harassment, racial profiling registration, and now the new visa requirements by the U.S. Even Canadian citizens who cross the border daily to go to work in the U.S. are facing interrogation when they return by Canadian officials no less. I want to ask the Prime Minister: Why is the Canadian government not standing up for the rights of these Canadians and making it clear that we will not tolerate state sanctioned racial profiling and harassment of Canadian citizens and residents?
Graham said Canada has the best relationship with the American government of any country in the world and that ministers at every level are working with their American counterparts to reduce delays and friction at the border.
Graham does not address racial profiling, new visa requirements, or the interrogation of returning Canadian citizens, instead offering general assurances about ministerial contacts with American counterparts and reducing border friction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Revenue pointed out, these are stressful times. The point is that we work in stressful times together with our American colleagues to solve these problems. At every level of government, whether it is the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary Ridge, Secretary Powell and myself, or any other of our counterparts, every minister in the government works with his or her counterpart in the American administration. We are reducing delays and friction at the border. We have the best relationship with the American government than any other country in the world. We will continue to work on that and we will assure it for the benefit of Canadians.
Wayne cited a memo from David Lutz, a Hampton New Brunswick lawyer, instructing staff to become Liberal Party members to protect his firm's lucrative contract with the federal Department of Justice, and asked whether it is the Prime Minister's policy to award contracts based on party involvement.
Wayne cites a specific memo from a named lawyer (David Lutz, Hampton, New Brunswick) explicitly linking a Justice Department contract to Liberal Party membership, and asks a directly answerable question about government contracting policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last February, David Lutz, a Hampton, New Brunswick, lawyer told all his staff to become members of the Liberal Party to protect his firm's lucrative contract with the federal Department of Justice. In a memo to staff, of which I have a copy, Mr. Lutz wrote: ...our number one client here is the Federal Department of Justice. We keep this business as long as John and I maintain high profiles in party activities. I ask the Prime Minister: Is it his policy for the government to award contracts based on party involvement and not on who can or has the ability to do the job?
Cauchon said Justice Canada has outside counsel across the country and follows an established policy based on quality of services and expertise of the law firm and lawyers involved.
Cauchon outlines general criteria for awarding Justice Canada outside counsel mandates (quality, expertise) but does not address the specific Lutz memo or deny its contents, leaving the core allegation unaddressed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Justice Canada has outside counsel, not only in that part of the country but across the country. We have an established policy. We look at the quality of the services, the expertise of the law firm, and the lawyers involved in the case. We then proceed to give out those mandates.
Casey asked how the Prime Minister can oppose regime change while media reports state Canada is spearheading a plan for a regime change of President Aristide in Haiti with a deadline of January 1, 2004.
Casey identifies a direct and specific contradiction between the Prime Minister's stated opposition to regime change and media reports that Canada is spearheading a plan for regime change in Haiti with a January 1, 2004 deadline, making for a sharp and factually grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today in the House, the Prime Minister made it very clear that changing regimes in different countries is not a policy that is desirable at any time. However, at the same time, media reports state that the Canadian government is spearheading a plan for a regime change of President Aristide in Haiti and even set the deadline of January 1, 2004. If the government supports regime change in Haiti, how can the Prime Minister say the government does not support regime change?
Graham said the Canadian embassy in Haiti issued a clarification making clear Canada is not engaged in trying to change the regime there, and that Canada's actual engagement is in working for democracy, human rights, and order in the Caribbean.
Graham directly addresses the Haiti media report by stating the Canadian embassy issued a clarification denying involvement in regime change, and explains Canada's actual goals in Haiti, though the specific deadline allegation is not addressed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there was a newspaper report concerning a meeting that took place. Our embassy in Haiti issued a clarification and made it very clear we are not engaged in any way in trying to change the regime in Haiti. However, we are engaged in what we always have been in Haiti: working for democracy, working for human rights, working for the betterment of the Haitian citizens, and working for a way in which we can restore a semblance of order in the Caribbean for the benefit of Caribbeans and Canadians. We will continue those efforts.
Ritz cited Assistant Auditor General Hugh McRoberts urging DND to base the long delayed maritime helicopter replacement on best value, and asked the minister to confirm the department will use best value rather than simply buying the cheapest option.
Ritz cites a specific official (Assistant Auditor General Hugh McRoberts) who took the extraordinary step of urging DND to base its long delayed maritime helicopter replacement on best value, and asks for a direct commitment on procurement criteria.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Assistant Auditor General Hugh McRoberts has taken the extraordinary step of urging DND to base its long delayed maritime helicopter replacement on best value. Apparently he is concerned that political interests will again trump proper procedures here. Will the Minister of National Defence confirm today that his department will use best value, not just buy the cheapest thing that comes along?
McCallum corrected an NDP leader's misquotation and said the government is speeding up helicopter delivery by moving from a two contract system to a one contract system, but did not directly confirm the best value criterion.
McCallum's answer is largely non-responsive, opening with a correction to the NDP leader about a misquotation before briefly noting the shift from a two contract system to a one contract system to speed delivery, without confirming the best value criterion McRoberts urged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since I have already answered that question a thousand and one times, perhaps I might clarify to the leader of the NDP that he misquoted me. What I in fact said was that when we are defending the ships of our allies in the region there might not be time to ask the commanders of the ships what their destination was when those ships were under attack and we were coming to their defence. The answer to the question is that the government has been engaged in speeding up the delivery of the helicopter by moving from a two contract system to a one contract system. Indeed we are doing everything we can to make that delivery as--
The member asks the public works minister to guarantee that the Sea King replacement contract will be awarded on best value rather than downgraded political requirements.
The question raises a specific concern about downgraded requirements in the Sea King replacement contract and asks the public works minister to guarantee best-value criteria, but is wrapped in rhetorical jabs that dilute the accountability focus.
Source text
You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. What the heck was that? He is always one step behind, now he confirmed it. The only thing the minister has confirmed here today is that when a Sea King dumps onto the deck of the Iroquois it is called hailing. After 10 years of claiming it is a Liberal priority, the only movement we have seen on that file is downgrading of the requirements to the point that the 40 year old Sea Kings we have would qualify as a winning tender. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. Would the public works minister guarantee that the contract he signs off on will be one based on best value, not on these cheap political requirements?
The minister says the government is working hard to move the matter forward and expects further steps this week and next, without addressing the best-value guarantee.
The minister confirms movement is expected 'this week and next week' and references the bundling issue but provides no specific commitment on best-value criteria, which was the direct ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is working particularly hard to move this matter forward. The Minister of National Defence took some very important steps at the end of last year with respect to the bundling issue. We are waiting for further steps to be taken this week and next week. We are anxious to move this forward rapidly and to achieve the very best possible result for Canadians.
The member asks the Minister of Agriculture to share the findings of the task force on supply management that was promised at the federal Liberal caucus in Saguenay seven months ago.
The question cites a specific public meeting of 400 producers, names three concrete policy issues, references a specific ministerial promise made at a named event seven months earlier, and asks for the task force's findings â a clear, fact-grounded ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week, more than 400 producers from Lac-Saint-JeanâSaguenay met in Alma to demand concrete action by the federal government, which has abandoned them. Dairy substance imports, the discontinuation of subsidies and the low increase in milk prices have resulted in dropping incomes for them. Last summer, at the federal Liberal caucus in Saguenay, the Minister of Agriculture promised to set up a task force on supply management. Seven months later, can the minister share with the House the task force's findings?
The minister confirms the task force was set up, that the report was received a few days ago, and that decisions will be announced soon, but does not share any findings.
The minister confirms the task force existed, that a report was received a few days ago, and that decisions will soon be announced, engaging the substance but not disclosing any findings as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during our caucus in Saguenay last August, the Minister of Agriculture and myself did set up a task force in conjunction with the dairy producers and the departments of Agriculture and International Trade. Working meetings have taken place between our officials and milk producers. We received the report a few days ago. I have already had a working meeting with the Minister of Agriculture, and we will soon let make our decisions known. Milk producers know full well that this government has always defended the supply management system and that it will continue to defend the interests of milk producers, who greatly benefit from an excellent system that we have put inâ
The member asks what the minister is waiting for to take action so that milk producers can have a decent standard of living, given that revenues do not cover production costs for half of them.
The follow-up notes that revenues don't cover production costs for half of milk producers but the ask â 'what is the minister waiting for' â is vague and rhetorical rather than a precise policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister must understand that for half of the milk producers, revenues are not enough to cover production costs. What is the minister waiting for to take action to allow producers to have a decent standard of living?
The minister defends the supply management system that the government introduced 30 years ago and states it will continue to promote it, without announcing any new action.
The minister pivots to defending the supply management system's history and Quebec's quota share without addressing what specific action will be taken or when.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in all the meetings we have had with them, milk producers have told us that what matters most to them is to have a supply management system, a system that this government introduced some 30 years ago. More than half of the quotas are held by Quebec milk producers, who benefit from the system we have put in place. We will continue to defend and promote it, because it is also in the best interests of consumers.
The member asks why the government has failed to stop Charles Lam, a former Toronto resident who set up 190 bogus companies to collect GST money and has since escaped to Hong Kong.
The question names a specific individual, Charles Lam, cites 190 bogus companies and a specific geography, but the ask â 'why has the government failed to adequately stop Charles Lam' â is more rhetorical than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, another GST fraud revelation gives a new meaning to being on the lam. A former Toronto resident, Charles Lam, has escaped to a life of luxury in Hong Kong after setting up 190 bogus companies to collect hundreds of thousands in GST money. His ability to move in and out of the country and commit crimes within Canada shows how the government treats security threats and tax fraud. Why has the government failed to adequately stop Charles Lam in his tracks?
The minister notes the fraud occurred between 1992 and 1994, states that extradition laws can be used even when someone has left the country, and says the government continually tries to recover defrauded funds.
The minister notes the fraud dates to 1992â1994, references extradition laws, and claims ongoing improvement, but does not address why Lam has not been caught or extradited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the case that the member opposite refers to dates back to between 1992 and 1994. By the way, that was at the time when his friends in the fifth party had actually just brought in the regime, which we have since that time significantly improved, I would say. I can tell the member opposite that even if a person has left the country we are able to use extradition laws to pursue them, and we continually improve, and try to regain any of the funds that anyone defrauds from the Canadian government.
The member asks the minister to commit CCRA to reporting GST fraud in the public accounts as losses and not write-offs, and challenges her claim of willingness to appear before the public accounts committee.
The member asks a specific procedural and policy question â whether the minister will commit CCRA to reporting GST fraud in the public accounts as losses and not write-offs â and challenges her committee attendance, making it a reasonably sharp ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 10 years later the government has still not been able to catch this guy or do anything about it. That is just incredible. The truth is, Charles Lam continues to live the high life on taxpayers' money and the minister's utter failure to stop him and other cases of GST fraud is atrocious. Her unwillingness to do anything about it shows she just does not care. In fact, her appearance later today at the public accounts committee comes only with her kicking and screaming. Will the minister finally commit CCRA to reporting GST fraud in the public accounts as losses and not write-offs?
The minister objects that the question is inaccurate and insulting, noting she is appearing before the committee that day, and does not address the losses-versus-write-offs ask.
The minister responds entirely by objecting to the tone of the question and defending her willingness to appear before committee, without addressing the specific ask about reporting GST fraud as losses rather than write-offs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members of the House are supposed to be accurate in what they say. The member opposite cannot on one occasion show where I have not said that I would be happy to appear before a committee of the House. I have always been forthcoming in answering questions from the member opposite, and frankly, I think it is unbecoming of him on this day when I am appearing before committee happily to answer his questions for him to ask a question which frankly is insulting.
The member asks why Joanne Meyer's contract was channelled through a Ferrari restoration company rather than directly through JM Enterprises, her own contracting entity.
The question cites a specific named individual (Joanne Meyer), a specific named company vehicle (Ferrari restoration company), and a specific contractual entity (JM Enterprises), asking a precise procedural question about why the contract was routed through the auto restoration company.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the former health minister tried to justify hiring Joanne Meyer through a Ferrari restoration company on the basis that she was the best person for the job. That reminded me of the former solicitor general and we all know where he is sitting now. My question for the former health minister is, since Joanne Meyer had a contract as JM Enterprises, why did she not get that contract directly rather than through this auto restoration company?
The minister states that Health Canada officials are gathering the facts in relation to the contract in question and she looks forward to receiving those facts.
The minister says Health Canada officials are gathering the facts and she looks forward to receiving them, but provides no substantive answer to the specific routing question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I have been advised that no one is questioning the quality of the work done. As I have said before in response to the hon. member's questions, Health Canada officials are gathering the facts in relation to the contract in question. I look forward to receiving those facts when that work is finished.
The member repeats his question asking why Joanne Meyer received the contract through an auto restoration company rather than directly through JM Enterprises.
The follow-up sharpens the same specific question about why the contract was routed through an auto restoration company rather than JM Enterprises, and explicitly calls it a simple question requiring a simple answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I seem to be able to gather the information quite quickly. I just wonder, with the thousands of employees in the Department of Health, why they cannot look at the old ministerial budget of the former health minister. I ask the question again. Since this individual had a contract under JM Enterprises, why did she not get the contract directly there rather than through an auto restoration company? It is a simple question. We need a simple answer.
The minister again says officials are gathering the necessary facts around the administration of the contract and she looks forward to receiving those details.
The minister repeats the identical non-answer from Exchange 36 â officials are gathering facts â without providing any new information or addressing the routing question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me give a simple answer, and an answer that I have given before in the House, which is very simply that my officials are gathering the necessary facts around the administration of the contract in question. I look forward to receiving those details.
The member asks how the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can justify the Canadian Coast Guard's decision to stop paying for dredging of the St. Lawrence while continuing to pay for dredging in the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, and the Fraser River.
The question identifies a specific Coast Guard dredging policy, contrasts St. Lawrence treatment with the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, and the Fraser River, and asks the minister to justify differential treatment â a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard has decided to stop paying to have the St. Lawrence dredged, although it continues to pay to dredge the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and the Fraser River in the Canadian north. How can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans justify such a decision that treats Quebec differently and is extremely detrimental to Quebec's ports?
The minister explains that the Coast Guard no longer pays for dredging except where an international treaty exists, that on the St. Lawrence costs were borne by the shipping industry under an agreement, and that a new agreement is being negotiated.
The minister explains the policy rationale (international treaty exception), clarifies the St. Lawrence cost-sharing arrangement with the shipping industry, and notes a new agreement is being negotiated, partially but not fully addressing the differential-treatment concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada decided some time ago that the Coast Guard would no longer be responsible for dredging, except where an international treaty exists, as in the two cases referred to by the hon. member. With regard to the St. Lawrence, under an agreement with the shipping industry we are the main contractor, but the costs were being borne by the industry. A new agreement is currently being negotiated.
The member asks what the correction issued regarding the accusation that Canada was leading an effort to overthrow President Aristide actually said, and whether the minister will table the minutes of the meeting in question.
The question asks two precise and related things: the content of a specific correction and whether the minister will table the minutes of a named meeting â both clear, answerable requests tied to a prior statement in the same QP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs just said that a correction was issued to the very clear accusation that Canada was leading an effort to overthrow President Aristide. What did the correction say and will he table the minutes of the meeting that was held?
The minister deflects the minutes and correction questions to the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa but offers to table in the House the statement issued by the Canadian embassy in Haiti.
The minister deflects the first ask (content of the correction) by referring the member to the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, but does commit to tabling the statement issued by the embassy in Haiti, partially responding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since that matter was a matter that was presided over by the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I think it would be more proper for the member to address his question to him as to what took place at the meeting, but I would be quite happy to table in the House the statement issued by our embassy in Haiti.
Members acknowledged the presence of guests in the gallery with applause.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Secretary of State Bevilacqua tabled a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled on February 18, 2003, along with explanatory notes, and requested that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
- Lib Maurizio Bevilacqua
Source text
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion respecting an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003. I am also tabling explanatory notes. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
Mr. Blaikie (NDP) raised a point of order calling on the Speaker to send a message on behalf of all members defending parliamentary tradition, in response to the Ontario government's proposal to deliver its budget in a TV studio rather than in the Ontario legislature, citing the former clerk of the House of Commons Monsieur Marleau's characterization of the plan as an act of colonial arrogance. The Speaker ruled the matter outside his jurisdiction, Minister Boudria agreed it was an outrage but not a point of order, and Mr. Adams urged the Speaker to examine the Ontario legislature's sitting record.
- NDP Mr. Bill Blaikie
- Lib Don Boudria
- Lib Mr. Peter Adams
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with something which you may or may not find to be within your jurisdiction to comment on, but I claim that wherever parliamentary traditions and the legitimacy of Parliament are threatened this House of Commons should be concerned, and you, Mr. Speaker, as our servant and representative in many ways, should also be concerned. I am speaking of a situation that has developed in Canada recently where parliamentary institutions are being called into question. A concern has been expressed by none other than the former clerk of the House of Commons, Monsieur Marleau, and it has to do with the fact that the Ontario government is proposing to release its budget not in the Ontario legislature but in a TV studio. The former clerk of the House of Commons who, as we all know, co-authored the book Marleau and Montpetit, is quoted in the paper as saying that what is being done in Ontario is âan act of colonial arrogance, of a kind without precedent and not seen in the history of Canada, since the 1838-39 rebellionâ. Our former clerk then went on to say that this TV budget âwould be illegitimate in the parliamentary senseâ and that the government there âdoes not understand the gravity of the course they've chosenâ. Mr. Speaker, I would call on you in the course of this point of order, and I would be interested to hear what members of other parties have to say on this, to speak on our behalf, to send a message on behalf of all members of Parliament here who value parliamentary tradition and the role of Parliament. What would we think, and I say this to all members of Parliament here, if any federal government chose to deliver the budget in a TV studio to a hand-picked audience instead of the House of Commons where it should properly deliver the budget? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us, to send a message to the Ontario legislature and to send a message of support to the Ontario Speaker, who is speaking up against this outrage. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to do this on behalf of all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say that I too agree that this is an outrage, which it is, but it is not a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague in the NDP had to say and to the remarks of our former clerk. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, in considering the point that he makes, to look at the sitting record for the last 10 or 12 years of the legislature of Ontario. I think you will find that this is only the latest sign of disrespect of the authority of a parliament in Canada. For example, Mr. Speaker, you will discover that last year that legislature, which represents the largest province in Canada, sat for only 67 days, I believe. The previous year, I believe it sat for 61 days. There was a time not long ago when that legislature sat for as many days as we do, but gradually the premier of that province has been taking away the powers of that legislature, and he now feels that he does not need to consult the legislature on the budget. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the sitting statistics of the Ontario legislature.
Mr. Blaikie (NDP) sought unanimous consent to propose a motion about what is going on in the Ontario legislature, but Mr. Clark (PC) denied consent on the grounds that it would be an intrusion in the affairs of another legislature. Separately, Mrs. Wayne (PC) sought consent to table a letter she had referenced during question period, which was also denied.
- NDP Mr. Bill Blaikie
- PC Right Hon. Joe Clark
- PC Mrs. Elsie Wayne
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what you had to say. On that basis, I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion to the House having to do with what is going on in the Ontario legislature, or for that matter what is not going on in the Ontario legislature. Do I have the unanimous consent of the House? Of course that is a question you have to ask, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to seek that unanimous consent.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the games that are being played here. I applaud the ingenuity of both the member for WinnipegâTranscona and, if I may say so, the loquacity of the Chair on this matter. However, I would regard this as an intrusion in the affairs of another legislature which we would profoundly resent were it to occur from a provincial House. Consequently, if a motion of that kind were put, I would deny unanimous consent.
Where does the member stand on it?
Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the Tories and the Alliance refused to take the opportunity to condemn what is going on in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, during question period I referred to a letter of which I have a copy. I now seek the agreement of the House of Commons to table this document in the House.
No.