Session overview
- Opposition members (Canadian Alliance and BQ) pressed the government repeatedly on whether the former finance minister's staff improperly influenced OSFI's handling of the Voyageur Colonial pension fund deficit, citing access-to-information documents showing ministerial aides attended meetings and that portions of OSFI minutes were whited out.
- The BSE crisis dominated agricultural exchanges, with opposition members from three parties criticizing the government's handling of the border closure, the absence of the agriculture minister when farmers gathered on Parliament Hill, and the lack of a plan for cull cattle over 30 months of age.
- BQ members challenged the Minister of Finance on tax havens—particularly the role of Barbados as a destination for Canadian corporate investment—the excise tax on gasoline retained after deficit elimination, and the siphoning of the employment insurance fund.
- The Minister of Justice confirmed government support for Bill C-250, which would add sexual orientation to hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code while protecting religious beliefs and texts.
- The NDP raised the case of Maher Arar, noting the absence of a Canadian ambassador in Syria, the government's backtracking on funding his legal counsel, and demanding an account of what the Prime Minister had done after promising to do everything he could for the Arar family.
- Accountability concerns extended to expense claims at Canadian Heritage, where the opposition questioned $28,000 in dining expenses by the former executive assistant to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and linked this to the minister's own $180,000 in unreceipted claims.
The Minister of Justice made a concrete, on-the-record commitment that the government supports Bill C-250 as amended, specifying that it will add sexual orientation to the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code while simultaneously protecting religious beliefs and texts such as the Bible, the Koran, and the Torah.
Cites specific access to information documents showing senior political aides were briefed and attended meetings on the Voyageur pension file, and asks a precise, focused question about whether OSFI closed the file at the former finance minister's direction.
Manley's entire response to a specific question about whether OSFI closed the Voyageur pension file at the former finance minister's direction was a single word — 'No' — with no explanation of whether the government had investigated the matter or on what basis the denial rested.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Stephen Harper asked what political pressure the former finance minister applied to OSFI regarding the Voyageur pension deficit, and why the portion of OSFI minutes addressing that question was whited out — the government never answered either part.
- Mr. Monte Solberg asked why the finance minister refused to investigate what appears to be a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor in the Voyageur pension file, specifically given that the OSFI audit was allegedly altered after the former minister's staff met with OSFI — no investigation was announced or explained.
- Mr. Howard Hilstrom asked what the government's plan is for the disposal of excess cull cattle over 30 months of age that cannot be sold to cover transportation and selling costs — the minister referenced a beef round table but announced no concrete plan or funding.
- Mr. Peter MacKay asked whether the government was willing to participate in a non-partisan delegation to Washington with stakeholders to get the border open for Canadian cattle — the Deputy Prime Minister described past efforts but made no commitment to such a delegation.
- Ms. Alexa McDonough asked specifically what the Prime Minister had done to protect Maher Arar's rights, given the absence of a Canadian ambassador in Syria and the government's backtracking on paying for his legal counsel — the minister described ongoing contact with Syria but enumerated no specific actions taken by the Prime Minister.
Harper asked why OSFI allowed the former finance minister to leave Voyageur Colonial bus drivers with a $2.5 million pension deficit and up to a 30% cut in their pensions, given that OSFI was under his ministerial responsibility.
Cites a specific dollar figure ($2.5 million deficit, 30% pension cut), names the specific agency (OSFI), and asks a clear accountability question about the former finance minister's responsibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the former finance minister sold Voyageur Colonial bus lines. In doing so he left the employees with a $2.5 million deficit in their pension plan and up to a 30% cut in their pensions. This is a pension plan that was supposed to have been protected by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, an office for which the former finance minister was responsible at the time. Why did OSFI allow the former finance minister to shortchange his own retired bus drivers?
Manley stated that OSFI operates as an independent agency in which the minister plays no direct role, and therefore there would be no conflict.
Addresses the structural independence of OSFI but does not engage with the specific allegation that the former finance minister had oversight responsibility, nor explain why OSFI allowed the shortfall.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions operates as an independent agency. His watchdog role is one in which the minister plays no direct role. Consequently, there would be no conflict.
Harper cited access to information documents showing the former finance minister's senior staff had direct contact with OSFI and attended meetings on the Voyageur pension deficit, and asked whether OSFI closed the file because the former finance minister wanted it to.
Cites specific access to information documents showing senior political aides were briefed and attended meetings on the Voyageur pension file, and asks a precise, focused question about whether OSFI closed the file at the former finance minister's direction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer. That is the way it is supposed to work. However access to information documents that we have show that the former finance minister's senior staff had direct contact with OSFI. At least two senior political aides were briefed on the file. His own staff attended regular meetings to discuss the closing of the file on the Voyageur pension deficit. My question is this. Is it true, is it possible, does the government know whether OSFI closed the books on the Voyageur employees because the former finance minister wanted it to?
Manley answered only 'No' without any elaboration.
A single-word denial ('No') without any elaboration, context, or clarification of whether the 'no' means the government investigated and found nothing or simply does not know.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker.
Harper cited OSFI meeting minutes obtained via access to information in which the answer to a question about political pressure on OSFI was whited out, and asked what the government is hiding and what political pressure the former finance minister applied.
Cites specific access to information minutes containing a whited-out response to a question about political pressure on OSFI, making a concrete, document-grounded ask about what is being hidden.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether no means they do not know or they have investigated and know the answer. Let me give the minister some additional information. In the minutes we have obtained from access to information an OSFI official was asked point blank, “What political pressure has been put on OSFI?” The response is blank. The answer has been whited out. What is the government hiding? What political pressure did the former finance minister apply?
Manley explained that blanked-out information in access to information responses is reviewed by the information commissioner, who reports independently to Parliament, and that one cannot conclude what the information was from the fact that it was not disclosed.
Explains the general access to information review process and the role of the information commissioner but does not address what the blanked-out information was or whether political pressure was applied.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, items that are blanked out in response to access to information are reviewed by the appropriate officers of the information commissioner. He reports independently to parliament. He is an officer of the House. Consequently, there is no basis on the fact that information was not disclosed to conclude what that information was.
Ritz asked when the agriculture minister would accept the industry's recommendations and announce phase two along with the budget to implement it.
Asks a reasonably specific question about when the minister will announce phase two and its budget, grounded in the presence of farmers on Parliament Hill, but wrapped in significant partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary for agriculture said that with the border open a crack the crisis is over. The agriculture minister thinks since he threw around a few dollars livestock producers are saved. Guess what, both of them are wrong and both need new jobs. Farmers are on Parliament Hill today to ask questions of their AWOL minister. When will he accept the industry's recommendations and announce phase two and the budget to implement it? When will the minister do that?
Vanclief highlighted that over $300 million had been provided shortly after the crisis began, that hundreds of millions more remain available, and that the goal is to use those funds before determining further needs, while continuing to work on border openings.
Provides some figures ($300 million, hundreds of millions more available) and indicates the sequencing logic (use existing funds first), but does not answer when phase two will be announced or what its budget will be.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Canadians and all the members in the House for supporting the beef industry this summer. We know the situation that has been created in the beef industry. I also want to say and point out to the hon. member that it was only a very few weeks after the situation that the government came forward with over $300 million. There are hundreds of millions of dollars more available to producers. Let us use that up and then we will see what more money we need after that. That is the goal that I have. Unfortunately, there has to be agreements to allow that to flow. We will do that. Meanwhile we will continue to work on opening the borders more than they are open at the present time.
Ritz accused the minister of ignoring farm and ranch families and asked why he puts his political agenda ahead of producing families.
Purely rhetorical — asks why the minister puts his own political agenda ahead of farm families, with no factual basis or specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister stays true to form. He always ignores the victims in this. He is forgetting about the farm and ranch families, the real folks out there, and the livestock producers. The primary producers are left hanging out to dry. Why does the minister always put his own political agenda ahead of these producing families?
Vanclief cited $560 million in combined federal-provincial spending since June, noted that additional funds await signatures to flow, and highlighted progress by the United States and other countries in reopening their borders.
Provides concrete figures ($560 million combined federal-provincial spending), explains the conditions for further payments, and notes progress on border openings, though not directly responding to the political-agenda accusation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have spent $560 million between the federal government and the provincial governments since June. There are hundreds of millions of dollars available in the programs that we have for the farmers. That money can flow to the farmers in interim payments as soon as the signatures are there to allow it to flow. The United States, Mexico and other countries have recognized the food safety system that we have in Canada. These countries have begun to open their borders. The United States is expediting the process to open its border to live cattle under 30 months of age. We will continue working with all those countries.
Duceppe asked whether the Minister of Finance would concoct his budget in secret with the next Prime Minister or welcome the member for LaSalle—Émard's comments through the pre-budget consultation process, given that Liberal committee members blocked the member from appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance.
Combines a factual premise (the finance minister acknowledged he cannot prepare a budget without knowing the next PM's views, and Liberal committee members blocked the member for LaSalle—Émard from appearing) with a question about transparency vs. secrecy in budget preparation, but the ask is compound and rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister of Finance acknowledged that he cannot start preparing his next budget without knowing the next Prime Minister's point of view, the Liberal members who dominate the Standing Committee on Finance objected to the member for LaSalle—Émard appearing before the committee. The minister prefers to speak to business people anyway. In his words, that is the democratic deficit. In this context, will the Minister of Finance prefer to concoct his budget in secret with the next Prime Minister, or will he be transparent and welcome his comments as part of the pre-budget consultation process?
Manley noted that the Standing Committee on Finance had already begun pre-budget meetings and that he would present programs and the state of finances later in the fall, with the Department of Finance ready to table a budget in the winter or earlier if necessary.
Notes the Standing Committee on Finance has begun pre-budget work and that the minister will present programs and the state of finances in the fall, but does not address whether the member for LaSalle—Émard will be invited or the democratic-deficit concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the meetings that began this week, the Standing Committee on Finance has already started preparing for the next budget. Furthermore, later this fall, as usual, I will present the programs and the state of our finances. The Department of Finance will be ready to table a budget in the winter or earlier, if necessary.
Duceppe asked whether the Minister of Finance would consult the member for LaSalle—Émard to find out if he agrees with the current Prime Minister's recommendation to invest heavily in Quebec jurisdictions, which Duceppe characterized as an encroachment strategy made possible by the former finance minister's cuts.
Grounds the question in a specific recommendation (heavy federal investment in Quebec jurisdictions) and references the history of cuts by the former finance minister, but the ask about consulting the 'future boss' is rhetorically framed and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the budget, the current Prime Minister is recommending that the federal government invest heavily, especially in Quebec jurisdictions. Will the Minister of Finance consult his future boss to find out whether he agrees with such an encroachment strategy, which has been made possible by the massive cuts imposed on Quebec and the provinces by the former Minister of Finance and next Prime Minister?
Dion asserted that the Government of Canada is very respectful of provincial jurisdictions and challenged Duceppe to provide a single example of encroachment.
Dion simply asserts the Government of Canada is respectful of provincial jurisdictions and challenges the member to give a single example of encroachment, without engaging with the budget consultation question or the encroachment strategy allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very respectful of provincial jurisdictions. The hon. member would not be able to give a single example of encroachment.
Paquette cited that Barbados became the third-ranking destination for direct Canadian investments abroad at over $23 billion under the former finance minister, and asked whether the current Minister of Finance plans to allow corporations to continue using tax shelters like the five major banks that avoided $2 billion in taxes, or will put an end to these tax dodges.
Cites a specific figure ($23 billion in Canadian investments to Barbados) and a specific consequence ($2 billion in avoided bank taxes), and poses a clear either/or question about whether the minister will continue laissez-faire on tax havens.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the reign of the last finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the well-known tax haven of Barbados became the third ranking destination, just behind the United States and the United Kingdom, for direct Canadian investments abroad, at over $23 billion. Does the Minister of Finance plan to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and allow Canadian corporations to continue to take advantage of tax shelters, like the five major banks that have thus avoided having to pay some $2 billion in taxes, or will he put an end to the use of these tax dodges so that all taxpayers are treated fairly?
Manley stated that the government reduced the burden on the taxpayer by $100 billion over five years and that all Canadians benefited.
Manley's response about a $100 billion taxpayer burden reduction over five years is entirely unrelated to the specific question about tax havens and corporate tax avoidance through Barbados.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that we have reduced the burden on the taxpayer by $100 billion over five years. All Canadians have benefited from that decision.
Paquette asked whether the current Minister of Finance plans to perpetuate his predecessor's laissez-faire attitude on tax havens or will side with the Auditor General, who has spoken out against the erosion of the tax base resulting from the use of these tax havens.
Sharpens the earlier question by invoking the Auditor General's specific concern about erosion of the tax base and contrasting the former finance minister's inaction with his personal companies' use of tax havens, though the ask remains binary and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister had a lot to say about tax havens but did nothing about them. His companies, however, used them to great advantage. Does the present finance minister plan to perpetuate this laissez-faire attitude or does he plan to side with the Auditor General, who has spoken out against the erosion of the tax base, a direct result of the use of these tax havens?
Manley noted that the question had been answered previously, referenced treaties with other countries affecting taxation levels, and stated that measures aimed at reducing taxes and protecting taxation levels on Canadian companies with foreign connections had been introduced since 1993.
Manley refers vaguely to treaties and measures since 1993 without addressing the Auditor General's specific concern about tax-base erosion or explaining what is being done about Barbados-style tax havens.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have answered this question on a number of occasions here in this House. It is clear that we have treaties with other countries that affect taxation levels. This has been studied often. Since 1993 we have introduced measures aimed at reducing taxes. We also have treaties to protect the levels of taxation on Canadian companies with connections to these other countries.
MacKay asked, noting it had been 120 days since the BSE crisis began and the government had been unable to get the border open, whether the government is willing to participate in a non-partisan effort to send a delegation to Washington with stakeholders to open the border for Canadian cattle.
Grounds the question in a specific timeline (120 days since the BSE crisis began), characterizes the government's efforts as ineffective, and makes a concrete, actionable proposal (a non-partisan delegation to Washington with stakeholders).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there should be no greater priority in the country right now for the government than addressing the BSE crisis and getting the border open. It has been 120 days since the nightmare began. The government has been ineffective and unable to get the border open. I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister if the government is willing to participate in a non-partisan effort to send a delegation to Washington with stakeholders to get the border open for Canadian cattle.
Manley agreed the BSE crisis was the top priority, clarified that it is the borders of trading partners that are closed rather than Canada's, and stated that the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, himself, and other colleagues have engaged counterparts at every level with some success, and they will not rest until the border is open.
Manley acknowledges the priority, clarifies that it is trading partners' borders rather than Canada's that are closed, and confirms engagement at multiple levels of government, but does not address the specific proposal of a non-partisan delegation to Washington.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that there has been no priority of greater significance to the government. Since the outbreak of BSE we have been trying to deal with the crisis that was created. Let us understand that it is not the Canadian border that is closed. The Canadian border is open. It is the borders of our partners in trade that are closed. At every level of the government, the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, myself and other counter-colleagues have dealt with our counterparts again and again. We have met with some success but more is sought. We will not rest until the border is open.
MacKay asked where the Deputy Prime Minister, House leader, Prime Minister, and agriculture minister were when Ottawa Valley farmers gathered on Parliament Hill a few hours earlier, and why no Liberal representatives were present to answer to the people they represent.
Raises a concrete accountability point about the absence of Liberal representatives when Ottawa Valley farmers gathered on Parliament Hill, and asks what the plan is and why no one showed up, but the question is multi-part and partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, where was the Deputy Prime Minister, where was the House leader, where was the Prime Minister and where was the agriculture minister a few hours ago when farmers from the Ottawa valley gathered on the front lawn of Parliament? They wanted to hear from their representatives. They wanted to hear from the government. What exactly is the plan? What is being done to open the border? Why were there no representatives of the Liberal Party on the steps of Parliament to answer to the people they are supposed to represent?
Vanclief said the group had been told the previous day that the rural caucus and himself would meet with them that afternoon, defended Canada's food safety achievements, and noted it was the first time a non-BSE country had opened to product from a BSE country.
Vanclief acknowledges a planned afternoon meeting with the group and the rural caucus, defends Canada's food safety record, and notes the historic nature of non-BSE countries opening to BSE-country product, but does not specifically explain why no representatives were present earlier.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Liberal Party was nor where we will be. We told that group yesterday that we would meet with them, the rural caucus and myself, this afternoon. We will meet with representatives later this afternoon. We have done that all along and we will continue. As far as opening the border, the hon. member should recognize what our industry has done, what our food inspection agency has done and what members on all sides of the House have done. They have pointed out to the United States, and Canadians have said, that Canadian beef is safe. It is the first time in history that any non-BSE country has opened up to a product from a BSE country. I guess they forgot that.
Blaikie accused the Minister of Agriculture of being a no-show all summer for the cattle industry and asked when the government is going to do something for farmers instead of just resting until the border is open.
Primarily rhetorical — characterizes the minister as a 'no-show all summer' without specific evidence and asks a vague question about when the government will 'do something for farmers instead of just resting until the border is open.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the mark of a good Minister of Agriculture is that we should be able to find a certain substance on his boots, not in what he said when he gets up in the House of Commons. The fact is that the Minister of Agriculture was a no-show today and has been a no-show all summer for the people in the cattle industry. Therefore I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. When is the government going to get it and do something for farmers instead of just resting until the border is open?
Vanclief cited $300 million in support plus hundreds of millions more available pending legal authority to flow, and noted that Canada, Mexico, and other countries had partially opened their borders, while emphasizing science had been shown to those whose borders remain closed.
Vanclief cites the $300 million figure plus additional hundreds of millions available, explains the legal authority requirement for funds to flow, and notes partial border openings, providing substantive if incomplete context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is saying that $300 million on top of the other support that is there for Canadian farmers is a small amount of money. Certainly we know they would like more. There are hundreds of millions of dollars more that the government wants to move to Canadian farmers but we must have the legal authority to do so. I have had the signing authority since April to do that for the provinces and for the producers in the provinces. Let us use that money up. We have partially opened the borders to Canada and Mexico and some other countries. Their borders are closed and they are the ones that need to open them. We have shown them the science and they are reacting.
Blaikie asked the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, whether he agrees with the Prime Minister's advice to invest in cities and whether we can expect something from this current Minister of Finance for cities.
Asks whether the Minister of Finance agrees with the Prime Minister's advice to invest in cities and whether something concrete can be expected, but the framing around the 'future prime minister' and 'boss' is indirect and the ask is not sharply defined.
Source text
What we hear when we do not have a shovel, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with the advice that his boss, the Prime Minister, is giving to the future prime minister with respect to cities and the need to invest in cities. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Finance and successor to the former minister of finance whether he agrees with the advice that the Prime Minister is giving to the future prime minister and, if so, can we expect to see something from this current Minister of Finance for cities?
Manley cited the municipal infrastructure program beginning in 1994, the $3 billion increase in municipal infrastructure support in the last budget, and more money for housing, indicating continued and growing support for cities.
Manley provides specific information — the municipal infrastructure program starting in 1994, the $3 billion increase in the last budget, and additional housing funding — demonstrating a record of city support, though not directly committing to future action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only do we expect to continue to support the cities in the future but we have been supporting the cities and municipalities in the past, starting with the municipal infrastructure program in 1994, building on it year after year, up to and including the last budget which included a $3 billion increase in the amount of support for municipal infrastructure in Canada; more money for housing, more money to support cities in the necessities that they face in providing services to their people on a daily basis.
Solberg cited OSFI's own description of the Voyageur failure as 'the first failure of a federally-supervised pension plan involving significant loss' in history and asked why the finance minister refused to investigate what appears to be a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor.
Cites OSFI's own characterization of the Voyageur failure as 'the first failure of a federally-supervised pension plan involving significant loss' in history, establishes the human impact (hundreds of bus drivers shortchanged), and asks a clear question about why the minister refused to investigate a direct conflict of interest.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like the finance minister to think very carefully before he answers these questions. According to OSFI, the failure of the Voyageur pension plan was “the first failure of a federally-supervised pension plan involving significant loss” in history. Hundreds of bus drivers have been shortchanged by this disaster. I would say that the former finance minister obviously has some explaining to do but, for now, I want to ask this finance minister the following question. Why has he refused to investigate what appears to be a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor?
Manley questioned the substantiveness of the question, restated OSFI's independence as granted by Parliament, and asserted it is never appropriate for the finance minister to comment on any individual pension plan.
Manley dismisses the question as insubstantial, restates OSFI's independence, and notes the minister should never comment on individual pension plans, but does not explain why he refused to investigate the apparent conflict of interest.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member has recently returned to the front bench as critic for finance and I welcome him there, but I hope that he can find more substantial questions than that to pose. OSFI is an independent entity. It deals with pension plans under authority given to it by Parliament. It is never appropriate for the finance minister to comment on any individual pension plan. The duty of OSFI is to protect the interest of pensioners and it does it independently.
Solberg stated that OSFI ordered an audit of the Voyageur pension plan but the audit was secretly altered after the former finance minister's staff met with OSFI, and asked again why the finance minister refuses to investigate what has the appearance of a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor.
Cites a specific and alarming fact — that OSFI ordered an audit of the pension plan but the audit was secretly altered after the former finance minister's staff met with OSFI — and asks specifically why the minister refuses to investigate the appearance of a direct conflict of interest.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the finance minister that this question goes right to the integrity of the government. It goes to the integrity of the former finance minister. It is very relevant. These are the facts. OSFI ordered an audit of the pension plan but after the former finance minister's staff met with OSFI the audit was secretly altered. Why has the finance minister refused to investigate what has the appearance of a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor? What is the problem?
Manley called the allegations groundless, asserted that OSFI's independence is founded in legislation and not subject to a finance minister's whim, and directed the member to raise concerns about the superintendent's conduct in the appropriate parliamentary committee.
Manley dismisses the allegations as groundless and says OSFI's independence is founded in legislation, but does not engage with the specific claim about the secretly altered audit, and deflects by suggesting the member raise it in parliamentary committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is making groundless allegations. He is attempting to create a scandal where none exists. The fact is that the independence of OSFI is not something that is subject to the whim of a finance minister. The independence of OSFI is founded in legislation. If he has a problem with how the superintendent of financial institutions has conducted his responsibilities, then let him take it up in the appropriate parliamentary committee.
Picard asks whether the Minister of Finance will eliminate the 1.5¢ excise tax on gasoline, originally designed to eliminate the deficit, now that the deficit is gone and the tax has generated at least $2.8 billion.
Cites specific figures ($250 million tax reduction for oil companies, 1.5¢ excise tax, $2.8 billion collected) and asks a clear yes/no policy question about eliminating the gasoline excise tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the finance minister's predecessor reduced the tax burden of oil companies by more than $250 million while, on the other hand, maintaining the 1.5¢ increase in the excise tax on gasoline, which was designed to eliminate the deficit. The fact is that since the deficit was eliminated, this tax has allowed the government to rake in at least $2.8 billion. Now that the deficit is gone, will the Minister of Finance eliminate this tax for which there is no longer any justification, or does he plan to maintain it and go along with a strategy put in place by his predecessor?
Manley notes the public debt from accumulated deficits still exists and points to the $100 billion tax cut announced in 2000, implying other taxes would be maintained.
Manley deflects to the public debt rationale and the $100 billion tax cut package without directly addressing whether the 1.5¢ excise tax will be eliminated.
Source text
First, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that the public debt is made up of accumulated deficits. That still exists. Second, in 2000, we made a decision as a government to reduce the tax burden by $100 billion. This was a very significant tax cut. At the time, it was clear that the other taxes would be maintained. So, there was a tax cut. We have to accept that. We supported the decision to cut income taxes.
Picard asks whether the Minister of Finance will continue his predecessor's policy of reducing tax liabilities for oil companies instead of helping consumers facing repeated gasoline price increases.
The question is largely rhetorical, framing the minister as siding with major oil companies over consumers, with only a vague ask about continuing the predecessor's policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister chose to reduce the tax liabilities of oil companies instead of helping consumers, who are being hit with one gasoline price hike after another. Is the Minister of Finance going to maintain the policy developed by his predecessor, who was more concerned with the major oil companies than with consumers and the disadvantaged?
Manley argues that the $100 billion tax cut over five years benefits all taxpayers and is the most significant tax cut in the country's history.
Manley repeats the $100 billion tax cut talking point without addressing the specific charge that the policy favoured oil companies over consumers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the hon. member does not get it. A $100 billion cut over five years applies to everyone. It benefits all taxpayers. This is the most significant tax cut in the history of this country. So, everyone benefits from this tax cut.
Williams asks why the Minister of Canadian Heritage approved $28,000 in fine dining expenses for her executive assistant Charles Boyer at taxpayers' expense.
Williams cites specific figures (Charles Boyer, $28,000 on meals, 65 dining occasions, $7,500 at one restaurant, less than two years) and asks a single clear accountability question directed at the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if you thought George Radwanski was over the top on his expense account then listen to this. Charles Boyer, the former executive assistant to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, spent $28,000 on meals in less than two years. We know he dined out 65 times and spent over $7,500 at the same restaurant, and the taxpayer paid. My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why did she approve $28,000 of fine dining for her assistant at the taxpayers' expense?
Allard states all reimbursements were made in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines and that the minister has asked for all claims to be reviewed again for compliance.
The parliamentary secretary states reimbursements complied with Treasury Board guidelines and that the minister has ordered a review, but does not explain how such spending was approved or justified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform this House that all the reimbursements were made in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. However, for greater certainty, the minister has asked that all claims be reviewed again to ensure that they were made in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Williams asks why the minister allowed her assistant to spend $28,000 on dining without identifying who he dined with, especially given the minister's own record of $180,000 in claims without receipts.
Williams raises the additional specific fact that receipts or guest lists were not provided, references the minister's own $180,000 with no receipts, and asks a pointed accountability question, though it includes rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know they did not comply with the guidelines because it did not tell us who he took for dinner. There is problem number one. This is the minister who spent $180,000 and did not provide one receipt for the money she claimed from the government. Now her assistant is eating at the trough and we do not know who he is eating with. Why did the minister allow her assistant to treat the government and his job as an all you can eat buffet and stick the taxpayer with a $28,000 bill?
Allard states she must rely on what officials tell her, namely that all reimbursements were made in accordance with Treasury Board rules.
Allard simply repeats that she has been told reimbursements complied with Treasury Board rules and offers nothing new, essentially admitting she has no independent knowledge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since I am told that all the reimbursements were made in accordance with Treasury Board rules, I have to rely on what officials tell me.
Tremblay asks whether the Minister of Finance intends to continue his predecessor's policy of taking billions from the employment insurance fund while reducing benefits, leaving only 33% of women and 44% of men eligible for EI.
Tremblay cites the specific figure of $45 billion siphoned from the employment insurance fund, the statistics that only 33% of women and 44% of men are entitled to EI, and the projected $3 billion transfer this year, making a pointed accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the previous minister of finance siphoned $45 billion from the employment insurance fund, while reducing benefits, so that today, only 33% of women and 44% of men out of work are entitled to EI. Does the Minister of Finance, who is going to help himself to another $3 billion from the employment insurance fund again this year, intend to continue his predecessor's policy of systematic pillaging for much longer?
Manley states that the budget again reduced EI premiums and that revenues will be very nearly equal to program expenditures going forward.
Manley addresses EI premium reductions and projected balance between revenues and expenditures, which is relevant context but does not directly address the charge of systematic pillaging or the low eligibility rates cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that in this year's budget we have again reduced employment insurance premiums and will do so again next year, as announced. With these reductions, the revenues for the EI fund will be very nearly equal to the program's expenditures. That will continue with a balanced budget.
Tremblay asks whether the minister intends to continue a policy under which EI provides benefits to less than half of contributing men and women who lose their jobs, making it effectively a disguised tax on employment.
Tremblay sharpens the argument that EI now benefits less than half of contributors, effectively making it a disguised tax on employment, and asks if the minister will continue this policy, though the framing remains partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. minister that he listen to the question before he answers this time. The EI program is now providing benefits to less than half of the men and women contributors who lose their jobs, which means that, for all intents and purposes, this so-called employment insurance plan is nothing more than a disguised tax on employment. Does the minister intend to continue his predecessor's irresponsible policy?
Manley states only that EI premiums have been reduced each year since 1993 and that revenues will be approximately equal to expenditures for the coming year.
Manley repeats the premium reduction talking point and revenue-expenditure balance claim without addressing the eligibility rate problem or the characterization of EI as a disguised tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add. We have reduced employment insurance premiums each year since 1993. Now, for the coming year, we can say that revenues will be approximately equal to expenditures.
Hilstrom asks what the government's plan is for the disposal of the roughly 400,000 excess cull animals over 30 months of age that cannot be exported or fully consumed domestically due to the BSE situation.
Hilstrom provides specific numbers (800,000 cull animals annually, domestic consumption of half) and identifies a concrete unresolved problem, asking for the government's specific plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, roughly 800,000 cows and bulls over 30 months of age are normally culled and sent to slaughter every year. We can consume about one-half of them domestically. We cannot export the other half. Disposal of these excess animals is a major unresolved problem. What is the government's plan for disposal of these excess animals?
Vanclief references a beef round table with industry, processor, and consumer participants that is meeting to find beneficial uses for the meat, and urges moving existing funds to assist producers.
Vanclief references the beef round table and a general commitment to work with industry but provides no concrete plan or timeline for disposal of the excess animals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, some time ago, even before the BSE situation, I put in place a beef round table. It has participants from the industry, from the processors and from the consumers. They have been meeting on a regular basis and have spent considerable time with provincial, federal and industry people recently, talking about the ways which we can develop to use this good meat in a beneficial way. We will be working with the industry to do that. In the meantime, again I say, let us move the money that we have there in order to assist our producers until we further assess all this and develop the programs and products in order to use this good quality meat.
Hilstrom asks why, four months into the BSE economic crisis, the government has done absolutely nothing to help ranchers who cannot sell or afford to feed cull animals and may be forced to shoot and bury them.
Hilstrom describes the immediate on-the-ground crisis of ranchers facing the fall roundup and unable to sell or feed cull animals, and asks a pointed question about four months of government inaction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, more failure by the minister. The fall roundup is starting right now. Cull animals are being separated out every day. They cannot be sold for enough to cover transportation and selling costs. Ranchers cannot afford to feed them. The government's lack of action will force the ranchers to shoot and bury them on the ranch rather than feed them. Why, four months into this economic crisis, this social crisis, has the government done absolutely nothing?
Vanclief points to the increase in weekly slaughter volumes from 23,000–25,000 to 73,000 animals as evidence of progress in finding markets and uses for Canadian beef.
Vanclief cites the increase in weekly slaughter from 23,000–25,000 to 73,000 animals as evidence of action, which is relevant data, but does not address the specific problem of cull animals that cannot be sold or the risk of ranchers shooting and burying them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to point to out to the hon. member, to the House and to all Canadians that because of the efforts of everybody, of governments, individual Canadians and organizations and our food chains, grocery stores and retailers in Canada, in the first two or three weeks after the one animal was found, we only slaughtered about 23,000 to 25,000 animals a week in Canada. In the last week in August we moved that up to 73,000 animals a week, which is more than we were slaughtering before the situation occurred back in May. That is the approach that we will continue to take to find markets and uses for the good Canadian beef that has been recognized by all Canadians and that is being recognized by our customers in the world.
Telegdi asks the Minister of Justice to confirm support for Bill C-250 and confirm that the Liberal amendment protects religious freedoms and texts such as the Bible, the Koran, and the Torah.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to confirm support for Bill C-250 and affirm that religious freedoms are protected, designed to allow the minister to announce a position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Violent hate crimes targeting gays and lesbians are all too common in Canada. Today the House will vote on the inclusion of sexual orientation and hate propaganda laws along with existing grounds of race, colour, religion and ethnic origin. Will the minister confirm his support for Bill C-250 and confirm as well that particularly with the Liberal amendment passed in the House earlier this year, the bill fully protects religious freedoms and religious texts such as the Bible, the Koran or the Torah?
Cauchon confirms the government supports Bill C-250 as amended, stating it will include sexual orientation in the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code while protecting religious beliefs, opinions, and texts.
Cauchon directly confirms government support for the bill as amended, explains it adds sexual orientation to hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code, and confirms protection of religious beliefs, opinions, and texts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question. It is a very important topic in Bill C-250. I would like to tell the House that indeed we support the bill as amended. Of course when it is looked at, it is consistent with the government's position and policy. That bill will include sexual orientation in the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code while protecting at the same time religious beliefs, that is to say, opinions and texts as well.
Wayne asks whether the government will do the right thing and make the approximately 28,000 widows of veterans immediately eligible for the veterans independence program so they can remain in their homes.
Wayne identifies the specific issue of 28,000 widows denied access to the veterans independence program and asks both the current and incoming prime ministers to make widows eligible immediately, though the dual-addressee framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is once again ignoring the seniors and insulting the veterans. On Monday the veterans affairs minister confirmed that as many as 28,000 widows would be denied access to the veterans independence program. These women were not only the wives of heroes, many were the backbone of the war effort here at home. Will either of the two prime ministers, the present one or the future one, do the right thing and give these brave Canadian widows the help and support they deserve so they can remain in their homes? Will they make them eligible immediately for the veterans independence program?
Grose states the government has seven programs to increase veterans benefits, that budget constraints prevented doing everything desired, and that 10,000 spouses will receive the VIP under new regulations at a cost of $65 million.
Grose acknowledges budget constraints and provides the specific figure of 10,000 additional spouses receiving VIP at a cost of $65 million under new regulations, which is partially responsive but does not address the 28,000 widows still excluded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this question has been answered before in this House but nevertheless I will take a run at it. We have seven programs to increase veterans benefits. We had a budget to operate with. We did not have enough money in the budget to do everything we wanted to do. I would like to point out to the hon. member opposite that 10,000 spouses will receive the VIP under our new regulations that would not have received it under the old regulations, at a cost of $65 million.
Keddy asks how the Prime Minister justifies Denise Tremblay's $158,000 in personal expenses on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board while widows of veterans are refused less than $100 a month.
Keddy contrasts the denial of benefits to widows with the specific figure of $158,000 in personal expenses by Denise Tremblay, identified as a Veterans Review and Appeal Board member and the Prime Minister's former constituency secretary, creating a concrete accountability contrast.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the government to say it does not have enough money for widows is an insult. The government has a record of being unwilling to extend benefits to the widows of the veterans. Meanwhile, Denise Tremblay, a member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and the Prime Minister's former constituency secretary in Saint-Maurice, Quebec, spent more than $158,000 on personal expenses. How does the Prime Minister justify these extravagant expenses when widows are refused less than $100 a month?
Grose acknowledges it is an excellent question but states he does not have an excellent answer and will get back to the member as soon as possible.
Grose openly admits he does not have an answer and promises to get back to the member, which while honest, provides no substantive response whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am afraid I do not have an excellent answer, but I will get back to the member as soon as I possibly can.
McDonough asks what the Prime Minister has actually done to protect Maher Arar's rights given that Syria may subject him to a trial, there is no Canadian ambassador in Syria, and the government has backtracked on paying for his legal counsel.
McDonough identifies four specific deficiencies (no clear charges, no transparency, no Canadian ambassador in Syria, no government support for legal counsel) and directly invokes the Prime Minister's public promise to do everything he could for the Arar family.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indications are that Syria is about to subject Maher Arar to a trial. To add to that nightmare, there is no Canadian ambassador in Syria at the moment and the Canadian government has backtracked from its promise to pay for Mr. Arar's legal counsel. With no clear charges, no transparency, no Canadian ambassador, and no government support of legal counsel, how are the rights of this Canadian citizen to be protected? The Prime Minister promised the Arar family that he would do everything that he could. What has he done?
Graham states Canada has been in regular contact with Syria, that representations have helped Arar's position as he himself acknowledged to the ambassador, and that Canada's position is that Syria must release him to Canada despite him being a Syrian national under Syrian law.
Graham states Canada has been in regular contact with Syria, that representations have aided Arar's position (citing Arar's own words to the ambassador), and that Canada's position is that Syria must release him to Canada, but does not address the specific points about the absent ambassador or the backtrack on legal counsel funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as do other members of the House, we have been in regular contact with the government of Syria. In fact when our ambassador last visited Mr. Arar, he specifically said that our representations had aided his position, had helped him. He was very grateful for the fact that his position had improved there. Obviously this is a matter of Mr. Arar being a Syrian national as well as a Canadian national. The Syrian authorities are saying they are going to press charges against him. We have taken the position that they must release him to Canada. We seek to get his release but obviously we must deal with the Syrian authorities in dealing with a Syrian national under Syrian law. We are using all efforts we can to make sure Mr. Arar is well and we get him out--
Godin asks whether the Minister of the Environment will intervene in the New Brunswick Premier's approval of a toxic waste incinerator in Belledune, built without an independent environmental impact study, given Canada's signing of the Kyoto protocol.
Godin identifies a specific project (toxic waste incinerator in Belledune), cites the absence of an independent environmental impact study, and asks whether the minister will intervene, referencing the Kyoto protocol as context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier of New Brunswick approved the construction of a toxic waste incinerator in Belledune, in northeast New Brunswick. This was done without any independent environmental impact study. In the meantime, the people of northeast New Brunswick and the Gaspé are opposed to this plan if there is no independent study. My question is for the Minister of the Environment. With the signing of the Kyoto protocol, is the minister prepared to intervene in the New Brunswick Premier's decision, in order to protect the environment and the people of Chaleur Bay?
Anderson explains that federal intervention under environmental assessment legislation requires a federal trigger, that no such trigger exists in this instance, and therefore the matter is left to the province of New Brunswick.
Anderson directly explains the legal threshold for federal intervention under environmental assessment legislation (the trigger requirement), states that no such trigger exists in this case, and concludes the matter is left to the province of New Brunswick.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the federal government to intervene under the environmental assessment legislation there has to be federal involvement, which is called a trigger, for the legislation to take effect. As I understand it, in this particular instance there is no such trigger. Therefore, it will be left to the province of New Brunswick to handle this particular instance.
Strahl asks why deputy superintendent Nick LePan personally contacted Terrie O'Leary in the finance minister's office about the Voyageur pension problem when the minister was an owner of Voyageur and therefore in a conflict of interest.
Strahl cites a specific date (October 1997), names a specific official (Nick LePan, deputy superintendent of OSFI), names the minister's staff contact (Terrie O'Leary), and identifies the specific conflict-of-interest concern about the Voyageur pension plan, forming a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apparently the finance minister would not recognize questionable behaviour if it ran over him in a bus because in October 1997 the deputy superintendent of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Nick LePan, personally contacted Terrie O'Leary in the minister's office to tell her about the Voyageur problem. Why would the deputy superintendent contact the minister's office when he knew the minister was an owner of Voyageur and therefore in a conflict of interest over this pension plan?
Manley states that normal practice involves informing the minister's office of arising issues with a fund, while the minister himself should not be involved in evaluating the fund or determining corrective steps, which are left to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
Manley describes normal practice of informing the minister's office about arising issues and states the minister should not involve himself in evaluation of the fund, which is tangentially relevant but does not address why LePan specifically contacted the minister's office given the minister's ownership stake in Voyageur.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the normal practice what happens is that the minister's office is informed where there is an issue that is arising with respect to a fund. Obviously it is not in the minister's purview to involve himself in the evaluation of a fund or in the steps that should be required by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in order to rectify any problems that exist in a fund. If there are other questions, they may wish to raise them with OSFI directly.
Strahl asks why ministerial staff and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions were working together in the back rooms on the Voyageur file, citing Karl Littler's attendance at meetings and OSFI writing communication packages to selected MPs at the minister's staff's request, instead of protecting pensioners.
Strahl names specific individuals (Karl Littler as the minister's Ontario campaign organizer), identifies specific actions (OSFI writing communication packages to selected MPs at the minister's staff's request), and frames a pointed question about why ministerial staff and OSFI were working together instead of protecting pensioners.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is more than just a casual contact between offices. The former minister's tire tracks are all over this file. Karl Littler, the minister's Ontario campaign organizer, attended meetings on this issue. The deputy superintendent contacted the minister's office directly and spoke to the minister's staff. OSFI went so far as to write communication packages to selected members of Parliament over there at their request. They are supposed to be there to protect the pensioners, not the minister's reputation. Why is the ministerial staff and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions working the back rooms instead of working to protect the working guy's pension plan?
Manley asserts that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is independent with respect to evaluation and corrective action on funds, and dismisses the opposition's allegations as 'all sound and fury, signifying nothing.'
Manley asserts OSFI's independence and dismisses the allegations as 'all sound and fury, signifying nothing' without addressing any of the specific named individuals or actions cited by Strahl.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is independent with respect to the evaluation and the functioning of the fund, as well as with respect to any action, corrective or otherwise, that needs to be taken with respect to the fund. I think that the hon. member has done nothing, nor has his colleague, except to try to cast aspersions based on nothing, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Will the Minister of Finance heed Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister Benoît Pelletier's warning about fiscal imbalance, or follow the former finance minister's path of denying its existence?
The question cites a specific Quebec minister's warning about fiscal imbalance and asks a reasonably clear policy question, but the framing is heavily rhetorical with the 'father of fiscal imbalance' label.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the current Prime Minister of Canada revealed his successor's game plan by suggesting that Ottawa get even more heavily involved in social housing, early childhood and education, all of which fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec. Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, feels that such action by the federal government would just be one more illustration of fiscal imbalance. Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he intends to heed this warning by the Quebec minister, or will he instead follow the path laid out by the father of fiscal imbalance, the former finance minister and future prime minister, who claims there is no such thing as fiscal imbalance?
Dion noted Quebec was among the first provinces to sign the affordable housing agreement and claimed the government respects provincial jurisdiction in all areas mentioned.
Dion pivots to the affordable housing agreement and general federation talking points, never addressing the fiscal imbalance concern raised by Benoît Pelletier.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that, in connection with affordable housing, Quebec was one of the first provinces to sign the agreement. That was under the previous government. In all areas to which he has referred, we have managed to play our role while fully respecting provincial jurisdiction. This is one of the strengths of our great federation, which will remain united.
Will the Minister of Finance follow his predecessor's lead and invade the municipal level, or will he respect that area as solely Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction?
The question sharpens the ask — will the minister bow to his predecessor's approach and invade the municipal level — but remains largely rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that those comments were made by Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, a Liberal. I am merely reporting them. Will the Minister of Finance bow to the opinion of his predecessor, the father of fiscal imbalance, and invade the municipal level, or will he instead respect this area of jurisdiction as being solely that of Quebec and the provinces?
Dion suggested Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister would ensure jurisdictions are respected and that cooperation with the federal government is a favourable sign for the coming election.
Dion does not address the municipal jurisdiction question at all, instead pivoting to a vague statement about cooperation and a coming federal election.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is certain that Quebec's present intergovernmental affairs minister will ensure that his areas of jurisdiction are respected, and that he will cooperate with the Government of Canada, because we are all working to build the same country—quite a change from the situation in the past. This is a favourable sign for the coming federal election.
Given that Voyageur Colonial shortchanged its employees' pension fund by $2.4 million while the member for LaSalle—Émard received an $82.5 million pension surplus from Canada Steamship Lines, when will those employees be compensated?
The question cites specific figures ($2.4 million pension shortfall, $82.5 million CSL surplus) and identifies the Voyageur Colonial employees as the affected party, with a clear ask about compensation, though the rhetorical framing somewhat dilutes it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard is on a bumpy road to 24 Sussex. Voyageur Colonial bus lines, in which he had a 50% share, shortchanged its employees' pension fund by $2.4 million. Meanwhile, the member across the way received a windfall of a pension surplus from Canada Steamship Lines for $82.5 million. You can call me a “Greyhound” if you like, Mr. Speaker, but I want to know, when will these people be compensated for their fair share of what is owed them?
Manley stated that federally regulated pensions are the responsibility of the independent Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and that OSFI conducted itself in the appropriate fashion to protect the integrity of that fund.
Manley identifies OSFI as the responsible independent body and states it conducted itself appropriately, but does not address the specific $2.4 million shortfall or compensation for employees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the hon. member is showing so much interest in pensions. I thought she had put that behind her. The integrity of federally regulated pensions are the responsibility of an independent federal agent in the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. In this case, OSFI conducted itself in the appropriate fashion to do its utmost in order to protect the integrity of that fund.
Given that OSFI allegedly allowed the minister's staff into meetings and altered an official audit, will the government announce new investigations to get to the bottom of this and help the Voyageur bus drivers?
Grey raises a specific allegation — that OSFI allowed ministerial staff into meetings and tinkered with an official audit — and asks for new investigations, giving the question some factual grounding, but the framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. These bus drivers deserve a pension and the government just laughs them off. Here is a little riddle. Let us try this one on. When is an audit not quite an audit? When it is altered by OSFI of course, Mr. Speaker. It had no business letting minister's staff in on these meetings and then tinkering with an official audit. But it is just another Liberal scandal. Hardly anyone notices it is happening. Voyageur's bus drivers and employees got nothing more than a ticket to ride. When will the government stand up and announce new investigations and get to the bottom of this and help these drivers?
Manley repeated that OSFI operates on an independent basis and conducts its investigations based on information readily available to it.
Manley simply restates that OSFI operates independently without addressing the specific allegation that its audit was altered or that ministerial staff were improperly involved.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, OSFI operates on an independent basis. It has done so and will continue to do so. It is independent from the government and it conducts its investigations based on information which is readily available and accessible to them.
Will the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa and the Francophonie report on the results of the Francophonie ministerial conference on the information society held in Morocco on September 4 and 5?
This is a government-backbench softball inviting the secretary of state to report on a conference he attended, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa and the Francophonie attended the Francophonie ministerial conference on the information society, which was held in Morocco on September 4 and 5. Will the secretary of state report to the House on the results of this conference?
Paradis reported that the conference laid groundwork for the World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in December, that he promoted Canadian information technology initiatives, and announced support for young French-speaking Canadians and Africans to participate in that summit.
Paradis provides substantive content: the purpose of the Francophonie ministerial conference, Canada's promotion of its information technology initiatives, and the announcement of support for young French-speaking Canadians and Africans at the upcoming Geneva summit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the new member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on his great interest in Francophonie issues. The purpose of the ministerial conference was to lay the groundwork for the World Summit on Information Society that will take place in Geneva in December. Naturally, I took the opportunity to promote Canadian information technology initiatives and to demonstrate Canada's leadership in that field. I also took the opportunity to announce that we will be helping young French-speaking Canadians and Africans participate in that summit.
Given that the Canadian Labour Congress received $2.1 million in foreign aid — roughly the same as the Christian Children's Fund of Canada, UNICEF Canada, Oxfam and Aga Khan Foundation combined — will the minister commit to using foreign aid dollars to fight poverty rather than giving them to Liberal friends?
The question cites a specific figure ($2.1 million to the Canadian Labour Congress) and compares it to named NGOs, giving it factual grounding, but the 'Liberal friends and cronies' framing is heavily partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to foreign aid centres around giving money to friends and supporters. The Canadian Labour Congress received $2.1 million in foreign aid, roughly the same amount as the Christian Children's Fund of Canada, UNICEF Canada, Oxfam and Aga Khan Foundation. These genuine NGOs, unlike the Canadian Labour Congress, have solid track records for helping the poor. Will the minister tell Canadians today that foreign aid dollars will be used to fight poverty and not be given away to Liberal friends and cronies?
Whelan pointed to CIDA's policy statement on strengthening aid effectiveness and stated that all partners go through a very scrupulous process to receive money and work with CIDA to help the poor.
Whelan references CIDA's policy statement on strengthening aid effectiveness and describes a scrupulous process for partners, but does not address the specific $2.1 million figure or explain why the Canadian Labour Congress received that amount.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not read CIDA's policy statement on strengthening aid effectiveness. The document shows how Canada is concentrating its aid efforts and has taken the aid program in a new direction. Our partners are essential, as the hon. member must know. In delivering Canada's aid they go through a very scrupulous process to receive money and to be partners, and we work with all of them to ensure we affect and help the poor.
Why does the government continue to squander CIDA's limited foreign aid dollars, meant to meet UN millennium goals, on Liberal friends instead of NGOs that alleviate poverty and promote economic growth?
The question is largely rhetorical, repeating the 'Liberal friends' framing without new facts, though it references UN millennium goals as a policy anchor.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, CIDA has a limited amount of money to meet the UN millennium goals. Squandering hard earned Canadian taxpayer dollars to support friends of the Liberals is just plain wrong. Foreign aid should go to NGOs that will alleviate poverty and promote economic growth. Yet the Liberals continue to aid their friends instead of helping those who really need it. Why?
Whelan stated that Obhrai's press release reflects only a small portion of CIDA's contributions, noting for example that Canada gives 10 times the cited figure to the international Red Cross organization.
Whelan pushes back with a specific counter-datum — that CIDA gives 10 times the figure in Obhrai's press release to the international Red Cross — which partially addresses the proportionality concern, though she does not directly explain the Canadian Labour Congress allocation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would want the House to know that the press release that he sent out reflects only a small portion of the contributions that CIDA makes to a number of organizations. For example, we give 10 times the figure that is in the hon. member's press release to the international Red Cross organization. We would like to have all the facts on the table when we are talking about Canada's foreign aid program.
Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food realize that unless Canada ratifies the Cartagena protocol on biosafety by November 22, it cannot participate in the first implementation meeting in Kuala Lumpur on February 23–27, 2004, and is sending the message that trade is more important than the protection of public health?
The question cites the specific Cartagena protocol on biosafety, its ratification deadline of November 22, and the first implementation meeting in Kuala Lumpur on February 23–27, 2004, making it highly specific with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Cartagena protocol on biosafety has come into force without Canada, which means that Canada is not part of the international consensus on GMO control. If it wants to take part in the first implementation meeting scheduled for February 23 to 27, 2004, in Kuala Lumpur, Canada must ratify the protocol by November 22. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food realize that unless it ratifies the Cartagena protocol, Canada will not be able to defend its interests on the international scene and is sending the message that trade is more important than the protection of public health?
Anderson stated that no decision on ratification has been taken because consultations with stakeholders, particularly in the agricultural sector, are still ongoing, but that the government supports the objectives of the protocol and hopes a decision can be taken in short order.
Anderson acknowledges no decision has been taken and that consultations with stakeholders, particularly in the agricultural sector, are ongoing, and expresses hope a decision can be taken in short order — a partial but honest answer that does not address the public health versus trade framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken on ratification because we are still engaged in consultation with stakeholders, particularly stakeholders in the agricultural sector. That said, the Government of Canada and certainly most of the stakeholders support the objectives of the protocol and we hope a decision can be taken in short order.
Given that a landmark national survey found depression affects as many Canadians as diabetes and heart disease and that mental illness costs the health care system $5 billion and the economy $13 billion a year, what steps is the government taking to address these findings?
This is a government-backbench softball citing a survey's findings to invite the minister to describe government action, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. A landmark national survey found that depression affects as many Canadians as diabetes and heart disease. Mental illness costs our health care system $5 billion and our economy $13 billion a year. What steps is the government taking to address the alarming findings of this study?
McLellan stated that Health Canada participated in a fact-finding project producing the first ever statistical overview of mental illness in Canada, that the government is working with other departments to implement its recommendations, and that the CIHR has funded over $60 million in research on mental health, neurosciences and addiction.
McLellan provides substantive detail: Health Canada's participation in the fact-finding project producing the first statistical overview of mental illness in Canada, work with other departments to implement recommendations, and over $60 million in CIHR funding for mental health, neurosciences and addiction research.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important issue, one that should concern all levels of government and non-governmental organizations that work with those who are mentally ill. Indeed, Health Canada participated in a fact finding project which resulted in the first ever statistical overview of mental illness in Canada. We are now working with other government departments to ensure that its recommendations are implemented. In addition, the CIHR has funded over $60 million worth of research in relation to mental health, neurosciences and addiction across our country. This is a very important issue and one which we need to work on together.
The Speaker recognized the presence of guests in the gallery and members responded with approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.