Session overview
- The session was dominated by the Liberal sponsorship scandal, with opposition members pressing the Prime Minister and ministers on cabinet documents, the role of the ad hoc communications committee, Treasury Board minutes, and the involvement of specific ministers and firms such as Groupe Everest and Groupaction.
- The Prime Minister committed, via a Point of Order, to releasing pertinent cabinet documents, Treasury Board documents, and communications committee documents to the public accounts committee.
- The Minister of Industry, Lucienne Robillard, denied meeting Jean Carle and cited the court's finding that Carle lacked credibility, in response to Bloc Québécois questions linking her to the sponsorship scandal through BDC.
- A procedural dispute arose over the tabling of a document quoted by the President of the Treasury Board, with opposition members questioning the integrity of a document that might be copied before tabling; the President of the Treasury Board ultimately undertook to table it and to retract any suggestion that Mr. Kenney personally received sponsorship funds.
- Missile defence and the weaponization of space were debated, with NDP members challenging the government's position and a notice of motion opposing Canadian participation in the American antimissile defence shield being tabled for the next opposition day.
- Agriculture and BSE were briefly raised, with a CPC member noting that net farm income in Saskatchewan was down 177%, and the Minister of Agriculture citing CAISP as the government's response.
The Prime Minister made a specific, on-the-record commitment to release pertinent cabinet documents, Treasury Board documents, and communications committee documents to the public accounts committee — a concrete promise of document disclosure.
Cites a specific paragraph (5.31) and page from the Auditor General's report with exact dollar figures ($270,000 for 10 copies at $27,000 each) and asks a single clear accountable question: which ten ministers paid for the same report.
Rather than addressing the factual contradiction between the Prime Minister's stated timeline of knowledge and the account given by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Saada accused the Bloc Québécois of seeking to smear reputations and told them to wait for the independent inquiry — entirely non-responsive to the specific inconsistency raised.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) asked three times which ten ministers each purchased a copy of the 'Rethinking Government' report at $27,000 per copy for a total of $270,000 — the government never named the ministers.
- Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC) asked how the Prime Minister could claim he knew nothing of Groupe Everest's shady actions ten years after his executive assistant's 1994 memo recommended adding the firm to the government's list — no direct answer was given.
- Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) asked why the Prime Minister kept in his government a minister involved in the sponsorship scandal, specifically the current Minister of Industry — the Prime Minister answered only that all ministers denied knowledge, not whether their involvement disqualified them.
- Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, CPC) asked why the Prime Minister awarded Groupe Everest a $500,000 contract after receiving the Auditor General's report on December 12 naming that firm — the Minister of Public Works said only that the process was competitive, without addressing the optics of the award.
- Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) asked why the Minister of National Defence's letter to the U.S. defense secretary contained not a single word about the government's supposed objection to space weaponization, given that the U.S. Missile Defense Agency was budgeting $3.3 billion for 304 space-based missile interceptors — the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not address the absence of that language in the specific letter.
Hill asks whether the Prime Minister will release secret cabinet documents to the public accounts committee when it requests them, citing Rob Walsh's advice.
Cites a specific authority (Rob Walsh, parliamentary legal counsel), identifies the precise mechanism (public accounts committee), and asks a clear yes/no commitment question about releasing secret cabinet documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Rob Walsh, the parliamentary legal counsel, says that secret cabinet documents can be released only to the public accounts committee. That is the committee charged with looking at the Liberal sponsorship scandal. My question is for the Prime Minister. When it asks, will he release those secret cabinet documents?
Martin says the government is prepared to have cabinet documents pertinent to this matter released.
Martin gives a direct affirmative commitment but qualifies it with the word 'pertinent,' which introduces ambiguity rather than a clean answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is quite prepared to have those cabinet documents pertinent to this matter released.
Hill asks specifically whether secret documents related to the ad hoc communications committee will be released to the public accounts committee.
Hill sharpens the previous question by identifying a specific body — the ad hoc communications committee — and asks directly whether its secret documents will be released.
Source text
Notice the word “pertinent”, Mr. Speaker. A more specific question: will the documents--
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is very interesting who will determine what is pertinent. To my specific question now. There was an ad hoc communications committee. On that committee: will those secret documents be released to the public accounts committee?
Martin deflects sarcastically, suggesting he would ask whether documents related to the first and second world wars and the Korean war could also be released.
Martin deflects with a sarcastic remark about documents related to the first and second world wars and the Korean war, entirely avoiding the specific question about the ad hoc communications committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to enquire. The use of the word “pertinent” was that I thought there was a specific issue the member was directing himself to. If he would like, I will ask if we could have documents related to the first and the second world wars and the Korean war.
Hill asks whether Treasury Board minutes that discussed the sponsorship issue will be released when the public accounts committee asks for them.
Hill asks a specific and narrow question: will Treasury Board minutes discussing this issue be released when the public accounts committee requests them?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Canadian public is going to be happy with an answer like that to the taxpayers' funding that they have taken away. To another specific question. The Treasury Board minutes, those minutes that discussed this issue, will they be released when the public accounts committee asks for those minutes?
Martin explains that documents of this kind belong to the previous government and permission must be sought, but says he is prepared to seek that permission and that his government is prepared to be totally open.
Martin provides relevant context about cabinet confidentiality and the need for the previous government's permission, and affirms willingness to seek that permission, but does not give a direct yes/no on the Treasury Board minutes specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, documents of this kind belong to the previous government and it is only up to the previous government to see if permission can be given. We have sought that permission, which is why I was able to answer in the affirmative to the hon. member's question, and I am certainly prepared to seek that permission. As far as this government is concerned, we are prepared to be totally open, totally transparent, and to lay everything on the table that can be laid on it.
MacKay asks how the Prime Minister can claim ignorance of Groupe Everest's shady actions given that his executive assistant sent a 1994 memo recommending the firm be added to the government's advertising list.
MacKay cites a specific 1994 memo from the Prime Minister's executive assistant, names Claude Boulay's Groupe Everest, and ties it to the Auditor General's findings, creating a pointed accountability question about prior knowledge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the same government, obviously. In 1994, the Prime Minister's executive assistant sent a memo to officials stating that the then finance minister hoped a number of Liberal-friendly ad firms would be added to the government's list. Among them was Claude Boulay's Groupe Everest, the same firm named as a huge beneficiary of Liberal largesse by the Auditor General. If the Prime Minister was willing to recommend Mr. Boulay's firm and give it a recommendation for its work in 1994, how can he possibly say he knew nothing of its shady actions 10 years later?
Martin says he would be happy to table the memo and characterizes it as recommending a competitive, tendered process, with a list of companies the government wanted to see included.
Martin engages with the memo and offers to table it, providing his interpretation of its contents (competitive basis, open tendering), but does not directly address the core question of how he can claim ignorance of Groupe Everest's shady actions ten years later.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted in fact to have that memo tabled. What it said was that it agreed with the suggestion from someone else and then went on to say that we wanted it all to be on a competitive basis, we wanted everything to be tendered, and there was a list of other companies that we, the government, wanted to see on that list. I would be quite happy to table that memo.
MacKay asks whether the Prime Minister expects Canadians to believe his request for Groupe Everest was not politically motivated given that Mario Laguë kept no records of closed advertising-decision meetings.
MacKay raises the specific point that no records were kept of closed meetings per Mario Laguë, links this to the Auditor General's findings on advertising contracts, and challenges the Prime Minister on whether his Groupe Everest request was politically motivated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will be happy as well, but according to the Prime Minister's communications officer, Mario Laguë, no records were kept about decisions made at closed meetings on advertising decisions. How convenient. While the Prime Minister's man Mario was in the thick of it, the Auditor General stated that the problems plaguing the sponsorship program touched the advertising contracts as well. Does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that his special request for the addition of Groupe Everest was not politically motivated and that with all those connections to his office he was not aware of its actions until 2002?
Owen says the Prime Minister already answered regarding the competitive-basis request and acknowledges that problems occurred in the late 1990s with advertising and communications, stating the government is taking every step to get to the bottom of it.
Owen refers back to Martin's earlier answer about competitive basis and provides general context about the late-1990s problems, but does not address the specific question about whether the Groupe Everest request was politically motivated or the no-records issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just answered the question with respect to his request that the process for choosing advertising companies be done on a competitive basis. As we know, in the late 1990s, problems did occur with respect to the advertising and communications factors. Those have been reported on by the Auditor General. This government is taking every possible step to get to the bottom of it. But this does not go back to the 1994 suggestion and encouragement by the Prime Minister, then finance minister, that these be on a competitive basis.
Duceppe asks how the Prime Minister can claim to want to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal when he has kept in his government a minister — the Minister of Industry — whom Jean Carle says he met with in connection with the sponsorship file.
Duceppe cites specific court testimony by Jean Carle from 1998, names the ministers involved, and asks a pointed question about why the Prime Minister keeps a minister implicated in the sponsorship scandal in his government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Jean Carle said in court in 1998 that as soon as he arrived at the BDC from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's office, the mandate given to him was to improve the visibility of the Government of Canada. To do so, Jean Carle acknowledges having met Chuck Guité and a number of ministers including Alfonso Gagliano, Marcel Massé, the member for Outremont and the current Minister of Industry. How can the Prime Minister say he wants to get to the bottom of things when he has kept in his government a minister involved in the sponsorship scandal?
Robillard says the question refers to the corporate identity program, not the sponsorship issue, that she does not recall these meetings, and that the court found Jean Carle had no credibility at paragraph 16.90.
Robillard directly challenges the factual basis of the question by distinguishing the corporate identity program from the sponsorship issue, states she does not recall the meetings, and cites paragraph 16.90 of the court ruling finding Jean Carle had no credibility — a substantive rebuttal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, the member's question alludes to the ruling by Justice Denis of the Superior Court in which he refers to the corporate identity program of the Government of Canada, which has nothing to do with the sponsorship issue. Second, I do not recall these meetings. Third, he quotes paragraphs 16.68 and 16.69 of the ruling but neglects to quote paragraph 16.90 in which the court finds that the witness has no credibility.
Duceppe asks whether the Prime Minister verified that none of his ministers was involved in the sponsorship scandal, or whether he turned a blind eye to their involvement.
Duceppe asks a reasonably pointed question about whether the Prime Minister checked with his ministers about involvement in the sponsorship scandal, but the framing is somewhat rhetorical with the 'turned a blind eye' language.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, anyone who says the BDC is not involved in the sponsorship scandal should read the Auditor General's report. BDC is one of the Crown corporations that was used as a smokescreen. It is linked to groups, Liberal cronies, receiving commissions. I have the following question for the Prime Minister, who says he wants to clean up this mess. Did he check to make sure that none of his ministers was involved in the sponsorship scandal, or did he turn a blind eye to the involvement of some of his ministers, including the Minister of Industry?
Martin says that during the swearing-in ceremony on December 12 and subsequently, he asked each cabinet minister whether they had knowledge of inappropriate activity in the sponsorship issue, and in each case the answer was no.
Martin describes the actual process he used — asking ministers during the swearing-in ceremony and individually — which partially answers the question, but the answer is self-serving and does not address the adequacy of that process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as part of the ministerial swearing in ceremony on December 12, the ministers were asked whether there was anything in their past that should be discussed with us. Moreover, I have asked each and every one of my cabinet ministers whether they had any knowledge of inappropriate activity in the sponsorship issue. Rest assured that in each case, the answer was no.
Gauthier asks whether the Prime Minister's method of simply asking ministers if they were aware of wrongdoing constitutes a superficial review, given that the ministers involved now claim to remember nothing.
Gauthier asks a specific question about the adequacy of the Prime Minister's review process given that named ministers say they do not recall meetings with Jean Carle, Gagliano, and Guité, making a concrete point about the weakness of asking ministers to self-report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is a little problem. Jean Carle, who was appointed by the PMO to improve Canada's visibility and managed to get the BDC mentioned in the Auditor General's report for its involvement in the sponsorship scandal, met with Messrs. Gagliano and Guité, the two main actors in the sponsorship saga, as well as the Minister of Industry and the member for Outremont. Will the Prime Minister not agree that this represents a pretty superficial review, if one asks ministers whether they were aware of a certain thing, when here we are informed that the minister does not recall, and the member for Outremont has just told the press that he too remembers nothing? Amnesia has set in.
Robillard says the two matters — the Quebec Superior Court ruling on Beaudoin and BDC, and the sponsorship file — are being deliberately confused, that she has not met Jean Carle, and that the court found he had no credibility.
Robillard again distinguishes the corporate identity program from the sponsorship issue and reiterates the court's finding on Jean Carle's credibility, which substantively addresses part of the question, but does not address the adequacy of the Prime Minister's review process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two totally different matters are being deliberately confused. There is the Quebec Superior Court ruling on Beaudoin and the BDC, particularly paragraphs 16.68 and 16.69. Jean Carle is speaking of the Canadian corporate identity program, and yes we do have such a program. This is perfectly normal, and nothing to do with sponsorships. The witness says he has met with certain ministers. I say I have not met that individual. I wish to point out as well that the court stipulates that it does not find this witness to have any credibility.
Gauthier asks how the minister can remember how the programs operated in detail but suddenly cannot recall discussing them, attending meetings, or intervening in ways that led to the BDC being named in the sponsorship scandal.
Gauthier raises a legitimate point about the minister's selective memory but the question is somewhat rhetorical — 'what kind of selective amnesia' — without a precise factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is referring to the second aspect of the sponsorship program. It is true that, overall, there was something like $1.25 billion for sponsorships, to the same ad agencies, for the government's corporate identity. What we have trouble believing today is that the minister remembers so well how the programs operated, but suddenly does not remember that she discussed them with colleagues, that a meeting was held, that she intervened, and that as a result the BDC is today named as being involved in the sponsorship scandal. What kind of selective amnesia is the government suffering from?
Robillard distinguishes between the corporate identity program and sponsorships, confirms the BDC was involved in sponsorships per the Auditor General's report, and says the President of the Treasury Board has personally met with the Auditor General and called in the BDC's board analyst to rectify what happened.
Robillard distinguishes the two programs, confirms the BDC was involved in sponsorships per the Auditor General, and mentions the President of the Treasury Board's actions, but this is largely tangential to the specific memory/credibility question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member for Roberval has never been a member of government, and has never paid any attention to government programs. On the one hand we have the sponsorships, and on the other, the government corporate identity program, which applies to all government departments. What we want is for the public to perceive a department doing something as acting on behalf of the Government of Canada. That is the first thing. Second, with respect to the sponsorships per se, the Auditor General's report indicates that the BDC was involved. This is why the President of the Treasury Board has personally met with the Auditor General and has even called in the BDC's board analyst to rectify what happened with the sponsorships.
Blaikie asks the Prime Minister who else in his office was imported from Gagliano's office, given that one of his senior advisors worked with Mr. Gagliano.
Blaikie's question mixes rhetorical framing about a 'political road show' and 'disaster relief tour' with a substantive ask about who in the Prime Minister's Office came from Gagliano's office, but the phrasing 'ability not to notice what was going on' undermines specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, whom I would like to welcome back from his recent political road show. I am sure the Prime Minister never realized that his first disaster relief tour would be his own. The Prime Minister says that things are getting better, but I can tell him that a lack of phone calls at the constituency office does not always mean anything. Sometimes silence is scarier. Given that one of his senior advisors worked with Mr. Gagliano at one point, could he tell me who else is in his office that was imported from that office, presumably for their ability not to notice what was going on.
Martin states that Mr. Laguë did not work for Mr. Gagliano but was the secretary of the cabinet committee on communications.
Martin directly corrects the factual premise — stating that Laguë did not work for Gagliano but was the secretary of the cabinet committee on communications — which is a precise and relevant factual response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Laguë did not work for Mr. Gagliano. He was the secretary of the cabinet committee on communications. That is a cabinet committee.
Blaikie challenges the Prime Minister to explain how he never had a conversation with Laguë about possible wrongdoing, given that Laguë was right in the Prime Minister's Office.
Blaikie's follow-up is largely rhetorical — challenging the Prime Minister to explain what he discussed with Laguë — but lacks a clear factual ask and relies on imprecise characterizations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe I said worked with Mr. Gagliano, not for. The fact of the matter is that this is a person right in the Prime Minister's Office who should have known what was going on. The Prime Minister is telling us he has never had a conversation with this person who said he did not know that people were actually stealing money. He might have thought that maybe they were stealing money, but not actually. I mean, how much more does the Prime Minister have to ask us to believe?
Martin warns against deliberately setting out to destroy the reputation of any single person by association, calling such behaviour despicable, without addressing whether he spoke with Laguë.
Martin does not address the substance of whether he spoke with Laguë about the sponsorship issue, instead delivering a rebuke about destroying reputations by association, which is an attack rather than an answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we all have to avoid in the House is deliberately setting out to destroy the reputation of any single person. It is perfectly valid for the hon. member to pursue a line of questioning, but when he deliberately seeks, by association, to damage somebody else's reputation, a public servant who is not here in the House capable of defending himself, it really is despicable.
Ablonczy asks why the Prime Minister is not busy getting the truth out of his own Quebec ministers about the sponsorship fiasco, since he himself implicated them.
Ablonczy's question is largely rhetorical — using loaded language like 'wagonloads of cash' and 'clueless' — and the ask (why is he not getting the truth out of his Quebec ministers) is vague and partisan rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to have had time to talk to everyone in the entire country about how he was clueless about the wagonloads of cash that were being shovelled into Liberal-friendly advertising agencies on his watch. He has had time to run around doing everything except get a few straight answers from his own Quebec ministers. I invite the Prime Minister to remember that he himself implicated the Quebec ministers in this fiasco. Why is he not busy getting the truth out of them?
Martin says he asked all ministers around the cabinet table, not just Quebec ministers, and that all said they had no knowledge of those activities.
Martin partially engages by restating that he asked all ministers, not just Quebec ministers, around the cabinet table, though he does not address the process or adequacy of those inquiries.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was very clear when I gave my answer. In fact, I asked all the ministers around the cabinet table, and I do not really think that we should be singling out Quebec ministers. The fact is that I asked all of the ministers, and all of the ministers said they had no knowledge of those activities.
Ablonczy asks whether the Prime Minister's real problem is that he himself, as one of those ministers, was at the front of the line to benefit from the Liberal sponsorship money.
Ablonczy asks a pointed closing question — whether the Prime Minister's real problem is that he himself was one of the ministers who knew — but the surrounding rhetoric about 'ill-gotten gains' and 'divvy up the loot' makes it more partisan attack than accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Prime Minister has a hard time getting his story straight. Now his story is that not only was he asleep at the switch, but every other Quebec cabinet kingpin was as well. They took absolutely no notice when a cool $100 million was diverted out of the federal treasury. The Liberal Party must have been rolling in ill-gotten gains, yet Canadians are to swallow the fiction that Liberal cabinet ministers were not at the front of the line to divvy up the loot. Is it not true that the Prime Minister's real problem is the fact that he himself was one of those ministers?
Martin says the breach of trust is universally condemned and then accuses Ablonczy and her colleagues of Quebec bashing by singling out Quebec ministers.
Martin does not address the substance of whether he as a minister was aware; instead he pivots to denouncing what he calls Quebec bashing, which is a complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this kind of activity taking place within the political process is a breach of trust and nobody supports it. It has happened elsewhere in this country, unfortunately, and we must do everything possible to ensure that it does not happen again. However, what is very despicable is when the hon. member singles out a province and then the rest of her colleagues stand up to applaud the fact that they are engaged in Quebec bashing. Let us not have any more of that here in the House of Commons.
Solberg asks why the Prime Minister stayed silent about incidents of fraud and double billing outlined in the 2000 internal audit, given that he said he saw the report and was very familiar with it.
Solberg cites the 2000 internal audit specifically, notes that it outlined double billing and fraud rather than mere administrative errors, and holds the Prime Minister to his prior statement that he was very familiar with that report — a strong accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who said that a very few Quebec ministers were involved. The Prime Minister originally said that he was only aware of administrative errors in the sponsorship program. The truth is that the 2000 internal audit, cited so often by the government, actually outlined double billing and fraud. The Prime Minister said he saw this report and was very familiar with it. My question is, why has he stayed so silent about incidents of fraud and double--
Owen says the 2000 internal audit identified managerial and administrative problems, that deputy ministers testified there was no political influence, and that any indication of illegality in the working papers will be looked into through the various processes underway.
Owen engages with the 2000 internal audit directly, discusses deputy ministers' testimony at the public accounts committee, and acknowledges that working papers may lead to indications of illegality to be investigated, but does not directly address why the Prime Minister characterized it as only administrative errors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the 2000 internal audit identified a number of problems. The two deputy ministers, before and after, came before the public accounts committee to say there was no political influence on them. The audit only included managerial and administrative problems. The action plan to that report was put on the Internet and indicated the steps that would be taken to overcome the managerial problems. If in the working papers in that audit there is an indication that may lead to some illegality, those are the very things that will be looked into in the various processes--
Solberg asks whether the Prime Minister considers the fraud revealed in the 2000 internal audit to be only administrative errors, challenging the credibility of that characterization.
Solberg asks a sharp, focused question about the Prime Minister's credibility: how can he call the report's findings mere administrative errors when it revealed actual fraud, and he ties it directly to Martin's own prior public statement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Prime Minister address this issue because it goes to his credibility. The Prime Minister has used that report to defend his statement that he thought this was only about administrative errors. Clearly, that report indicates many examples of actual fraud. Does he consider the fraud that was revealed in that report to be only administrative errors?
Owen disputes the word fraud, saying the background papers showed inconsistencies in billing and questions about them that led to a conclusion about the need to improve administrative practices, and says any corrupt practices that come to light will be brought before the appropriate inquiries.
Owen disputes the use of the word 'fraud,' characterizing the issues as inconsistencies in billing in background papers, and says any corrupt practices will be brought before inquiries — this is tangential to the specific credibility question about Martin's characterization of the report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using words such as fraud, which I do not believe were indicated in the background papers. There were some inconsistencies in billing in the background papers and some questions about them. They led to the conclusion that there was a need to improve the administrative practices which were supported by the deputy ministers and reported on by them to the public accounts committee. If indeed there are any corrupt practices that come to light, they will be brought before the various inquiries that are going ahead and the appropriate action will be taken, whether it is criminal, civil or administrative.
How does the Prime Minister explain the total contradiction between his claim of not knowing until May 2002 and his Minister of Public Works and Government Services's account that problems were identified as early as fall 2000 and that Gagliano resigned in January 2002 for those reasons?
Duceppe cites specific timeline facts — the fall 2000 internal audit, fall 2001 realization of more than administrative problems, January 2002 Gagliano resignation — and poses a single clear contradiction between the Prime Minister's account and his Minister of Public Works and Government Services's account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he did not know about the sponsorship scandal until May 2002. Yet, his Minister of Public Works and Government Services told us that there was a comprehensive internal audit in the fall of 2000, but that in the fall of 2001, in the latter part of that year, they realized that there were more than just administrative problems, adding that, in January 2002, Alfonso Gagliano had to resign for these reasons. Everyone knows that. Only the Prime Minister apparently did not know about it. How does the Prime Minister explain the total contradiction between his version—that he knew nothing until May 2002—and that of his Minister of Public Works and Government Services?
Saada accused the Bloc of trying to smear reputations or pre-empt the independent inquiry, and told them to wait and trust the process in place.
Saada does not address the specific contradiction at all, instead accusing the Bloc of trying to smear individuals and urging them to wait for the independent inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in recent days, the past couple of weeks, the questions put directly to us by the Bloc Quebecois are intended specifically to either smear individuals' reputation or assume the findings of an independent inquiry. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. If they are serious about wanting to know what really happened, I suggest they wait, as we are doing, and trust the process in place.
Why does what the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said completely contradict what the Prime Minister said, and why will the Prime Minister not answer here instead of hiding behind the public inquiry?
Duceppe repeats the core contradiction question but frames it heavily around the Prime Minister's public posturing on transparency and democratic deficit, making it more rhetorical than the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there has to be limit in the end, because the Prime Minister is going all over the place telling people he is innocent. But when we put questions to him in the House, he is the democratic deficit incarnate. He will not answer. If he is as transparent as he claims to be, I would ask him to answer our questions, instead of trying to hide behind the public inquiry. He says he is prepared to answer. Let him answer in this place. Why is it that what his Minister of Public Works and Government Services said completely contradicts what he said?
Martin said there is no contradiction, explaining that he was aware of rumours at the start of 2002, questions raised in the House, a Globe and Mail article, a new minister appointed on approximately January 15, and a subsequent Globe and Mail article on Groupaction, followed by the Auditor General's report.
Martin engages directly with the contradiction, citing rumours at the start of 2002, questions raised in the House, a Globe and Mail article, the January 15 ministerial appointment, and the Auditor General's report, though he does not squarely reconcile his account with the minister's fall 2001 timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The hon. member can read what I said; I said that there were rumours at the start of 2002, that questions were raised in the House, and there was an article in the Globe and Mail on this issue. On January 15, I think it was, a new minister was appointed. Later, the Globe and Mail published an article on Groupaction. Following that, the Auditor General's report and confirmed everything. I have said repeatedly and everyone knows that questions were raised in the House and there were newspaper reports in the early part of 2002.
Given the government's stated desire for transparency, could someone identify which ten ministers each paid $27,000 — a total of $270,000 — for a report worth only $27,000?
Gauthier cites a specific factual anomaly — ten ministers each paying $27,000 for a total of $270,000 for a report worth $27,000 — and asks a specific, answerable question: which ten ministers paid?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, questions were asked in the House as early as of 2001, and a minister resigned in January 2002. It is very rare for a minister to resign on the strength of rumours. However, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question, since he is in a position to answer and stated earlier that he was prepared to release cabinet documents. Yesterday, I asked this question, and I want to ask it again today. Ten ministers in his government each paid $27,000, a total of $270,000, for a report worth $27,000. Yesterday, I asked the government: given this government's desire to be transparent, as it claims, could someone tell us which ten ministers paid—
Alcock referred to an internal audit report posted on the government's website, noted that the previous Auditor General had not discovered what the member claims to have found, and characterized the report as 'relatively coached bureaucratese.'
Alcock does not name any ministers, instead referring to the internal audit on the government's website, questioning the Auditor General's own conclusions, and describing the report as 'relatively coached bureaucratese,' entirely avoiding the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is true the government received an internal audit report which it hid on its website so everyone could see it. I would invite the member to read it and see what he would discern from that. I might also point out that the Auditor General himself, because it was the previous Auditor General, when auditing the department's books did not discover what this member seems to have discovered. The fact is that the information that was available was relatively coached bureaucratese. It was done by somebody who was not sure what was going on. I suspect that if the member opposite read that report, and I would invite him to do so, it would be interesting to see the conclusions that he would come to.
If the Prime Minister is truly committed to transparency as he claims when campaigning in Quebec, who are the ten ministers who each purchased the same report?
Gauthier presses the same specific question — the identity of the ten ministers — and frames it as a straightforward transparency test, though repetition and rhetorical framing reduce its sharpness slightly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister does the rounds in Quebec, he swears to everyone that he is outraged, that he wants the truth to come out. Is this not a very basic test? If the Prime Minister is telling the truth in Quebec, if he has information to the effect that ten ministers each purchased the same report, I ask the government, and this Prime Minister, who says that he want to be transparent, who are those ministers? It is not complicated.
Alcock accused the opposition of slandering staff and members through innuendo, demanded a single fact to prove the allegation, and quoted a Globe and Mail passage praising the Prime Minister.
Alcock does not name any ministers, instead accusing the opposition of slander and innuendo, and then reads a Globe and Mail quote praising the Prime Minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is really easy for the opposition to come into the House and slander staff and slander, through innuendo, other members of the House, trying to create an atmosphere of distrust. I would ask him to put a single fact on the table that proves his allegation. Let me tell the House what somebody else thinks about the Prime Minister. This is from today's Globe and Mail . It states: ...Prime Minister Paul Martin deserves more credit than the polls are giving him.
Given that the Prime Minister received the Auditor General's report on December 12 and then awarded Groupe Everest — a company mentioned in that report and still the official company of record — a $500,000 contract, when is the scandal going to stop?
Moore cites specific facts — Media/IDA Vision as a subsidiary of Groupe Everest, the Auditor General's report received December 12, and a $500,000 contract awarded after the Prime Minister assumed office — and asks a clear accountability question about when the scandal will stop.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, before this scandal can be properly cleaned up, the scandal has to stop. Media/IDA Vision, which is a subsidiary of Groupe Everest, the Groupe Everest of scandals past, is the same firm that was mentioned in the Auditor General's report. The Prime Minister received the Auditor General's report on December 12 of last year when he assumed the role of Prime Minister of Canada. After he became Prime Minister, he gave Groupe Everest a $500,000 contract, the very company that is still listed as the official company of record for the government. The scandal is continuing. It is getting $500,000. When is the scandal going to stop?
Owen stated that if the member is referring to an advertising contract awarded after competitive bids, without a commission being paid, through the reformed method put in place by his predecessor, then it was a highly competitive, transparent, and accountable process.
Owen acknowledges an advertising contract was awarded through competitive bids without a commission, under the reformed method put in place by his predecessor, which is partially responsive, but does not address the specific Groupe Everest connection or the December 12 timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to an advertising contract awarded after competitive bids, without a commission being paid, through the reformed method that was put in place by my predecessor as minister of public works, then that was a highly competitive process that was transparent and there is accountability behind it.
How can anyone believe the Prime Minister is cleaning up the mess when, after receiving the Auditor General's report on December 12, he gave Groupe Everest a $500,000 contract — the same company that has kicked back $77,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Moore adds the specific detail of $77,000 kicked back to the Liberal Party of Canada by Groupe Everest and ties it to the post-December 12 contract, making a pointed but slightly rhetorical accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it hardly fixes the problem to give a contract to the very firm that has been involved in these very scandals that we are dealing with right now. The company, Groupe Everest, is the very same company that has given $77,000 back to the Liberal Party of Canada. It has been given $500,000 in contracts. The Auditor General's report is supposed to help clean this stuff up. The Prime Minister received the AG's report on December 12. After that, he gave Groupe Everest $500,000. This company, in the past, has kicked back $77,000 to the Liberal Party. How in the world is anybody supposed to believe that the Prime Minister is cleaning up the mess when he continues to do it?
Owen told Moore that if he had any evidence the company did not properly earn or perform its contract, he should bring it before the public accounts committee and the public inquiry, and said that merely raising a company's name and ascribing corrupt motives is not appropriate.
Owen deflects by asking the member to bring evidence to the public accounts committee and the public inquiry rather than addressing the specific contract or the $77,000 figure, and characterizes the question as improperly ascribing corrupt motives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any single bit of evidence to suggest that this company that he is citing won a competitive process and did not earn or did not properly perform that contract, he should bring it before the public accounts committee and the public inquiry, and let us get to the bottom of it. Just raising the name of a company in the House and ascribing corrupt motives to it is not an appropriate way to--
If the Prime Minister who sent out the cheques and the Minister of Canadian Heritage who received them both claim to have known nothing about the sponsorship scandal, who exactly in the Liberal Party did know?
Kenney raises a specific allegation about the Minister of Canadian Heritage managing projects receiving Groupaction subsidies, but the final question — 'who exactly in the Liberal Party did know?' — is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear today that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was involved in the sponsorship scandal. She managed projects that received subsidies from Groupaction for Public Works. But like her boss, she says that she knew nothing about this scandal. If the Prime Minister, who sent out the cheques, did not know, and if the person who received the cheques, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, did not know, who exactly in the Liberal Party did know?
Owen explained that the minister of heritage was a private citizen in 2000 when she applied to the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of a non-governmental association for a sponsorship grant for the World Ski Championship, and that Groupaction was assigned as the communications agency by Public Works, not by the minister.
Owen provides a reasonably detailed factual account — the minister of heritage was a private citizen in 2000, applied to Public Works on behalf of a non-governmental association for the World Ski Championship, and Groupaction was assigned by Public Works — directly addressing the allegation about the minister's involvement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister of heritage was a private citizen in 2000 when, as a representative of a non-governmental association, she applied to the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of this group for a sponsorship grant for the World Ski Championship. She sought and obtained this grant through public works that ran the sponsorship program. Groupaction was assigned as the communications agency by the Department of Public Works and Government Services. It has nothing to do with the minister of heritage who was a private citizen--
Why is the Prime Minister allowing ministers who were involved in the sponsorship scandal — including one whose project received a subsidy without even applying for it — to sit in his cabinet?
Kenney adds the detail that the project received a subsidy without even applying for it and asks why the Prime Minister is allowing ministers involved in the sponsorship scandal to sit in cabinet, a pointed but somewhat rhetorical ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it had everything to do with that minister who worked with Groupaction when it was taking money from the taxpayer that did not belong to it. In fact the project she was working on received a subsidy without even applying for it. My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is he allowing ministers to sit in his cabinet who were involved in the sponsorship scandal themselves?
Oh, oh.
Alcock began to suggest that the member for Calgary Southeast himself received $115,000 from the sponsorship program, but the answer was cut off by disorder in the House.
Alcock does not address whether the minister should remain in cabinet, instead attempting to redirect to an allegation that the member for Calgary Southeast received $115,000 from the sponsorship program, which was interrupted by disorder and never completed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question, when a private citizen is involved in trying to get some support for an organization in their area, that is wrong. When the member for Calgary Southeast received $115,000 from the sponsorship program--
Given that the Commissioner of Official Languages warned the review must not become a pretext for relenting on official languages programs, what steps will the minister take to ensure the Official Languages Act is strengthened rather than weakened?
This is a government-backbench softball setup: Boudria invokes the Official Languages Commissioner's testimony but asks only a general assurance question about strengthening versus weakening the Official Languages Act, with no specific accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for Official Languages.
Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the action plan for official languages. In the context of the review of the action plan for official languages, the Commissioner of Official Languages, testifying before the parliamentary committee, told us that the review must not become a pretext for relenting on programs related to official languages. What steps is the minister prepared to take to assure the House today that the Official Languages Act will be strengthened, not weakened?
Pettigrew reported that he had lunch that day with ministers responsible for each part of the action plan for official languages, noted their enthusiasm and commitment to the plan over the next five years, and cited the Minister of Finance's recent announcement in Regina confirming the $751 million commitment.
Pettigrew provides specific information — a lunch meeting that day with ministers responsible for each part of the action plan, their expressed enthusiasm, and the Minister of Finance's commitment to the $751 million commitment announced in Regina — making it a reasonably informative answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent and timely question. Today at noon, in fact, I had lunch with the ministers responsible for each of the parts of the action plan for official languages. I noted that the ministers around the table were very enthusiastic and committed to promoting the action plan in favour of the linguistic communities in this country. I saw that they wanted to keep their sights on the action plan as a priority over the next five years. As the House is aware, the Minister of Finance recently announced in Regina that he fully intends to honour the $751 million commitment.
If missile defence is not on course to weaponize space, why is the U.S. Missile Defense Agency budgeting $3.3 billion for 304 space-based missile interceptors — and why did the minister's letter to the U.S. defense secretary say not a single word about the government's supposed objection to space weaponization?
McDonough cites a specific budget figure — $3.3 billion for 304 space-based missile interceptors from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency — and ties it to the specific omission of space weaponization language in the minister's letter to the U.S. defense secretary, forming a pointed factual challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. New Democrats will not be fooled or bullied by a fan of the Iraqi war waving a piece of paper proclaiming “No space weapons in our time”. The fact is his letter to the U.S. defense secretary said not a single word about the government's supposed objection to space weaponization. If missile defence is not on course to weaponized space, why is the U.S. Missile Defense Agency budgeting $3.3 billion for 304 space-based missile interceptors?
Graham argued that Canada is on the record as opposing the weaponization of space through UN votes and every international disarmament organization, and that the defence minister's omission of the issue in one letter does not change Canada's established position.
Graham argues that Canada's position against the weaponization of space is well established through UN votes and international disarmament organizations, but does not address the specific $3.3 billion / 304 space-based interceptors budget figure McDonough cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts of the hon. member's question are totally out of whack with the reality, as the debate in the House last night demonstrated. In so far as the government is concerned, she has been attacking us for the fact that the defence minister did not mention the weaponization of space in one single letter to the defense secretary of the United States when we have voted on this in the United Nations and when we have raised this continually in every single international disarmament organization of which we are a member. The member knows full well that Canada is on the record as being against the weaponization of space. The United States of America knows it, and every member of the House too.
Given that scandal-ridden Liberals cannot be trusted and that proposals for nuclear-tipped missiles represent the weaponization of space, why would Canadians not think the government is lying about star wars?
McDonough raises the issue of nuclear-tipped missiles but the core 'question' — why would Canadians not think the government is lying about star wars — is largely rhetorical and unanswerable in a factual sense.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last night in the House Liberals and Conservatives accused the NDP of star wars scaremongering. It is not scaremongering, it is just plain scary, especially with proposals for equipping those missiles with nuclear tips. This is the weaponization of space. If the minister thinks Canadians will shut up about it, he is dead wrong. When Canadians do not trust a word that scandal-ridden Liberals say these days, why would they not think the government is lying about star wars?
Graham said Canadian citizens are wise enough to see through rhetoric and know that there is no star wars, that discussions with the United States concern only a land and sea based missile defence system for North America, not space weaponization.
Graham addresses the star wars framing by asserting the discussions are only about a land and sea based missile defence system, not star wars, but the response is largely dismissive and does not engage with the nuclear tips allegation McDonough raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reason why Canadian citizens do not think that the government is lying about star wars is that the Canadian people are wise enough and smart enough to see behind the rhetoric and know the facts. There is no star wars. We are not engaged in discussion with the United States about star wars. As the debate in the House last night revealed very clearly, and most members of the House understand that, we are discussing and only discussing with our American colleagues the possibility of a missile defence system, land and sea based, for North America which might eventually be of benefit to Canadians. Let us pursue--
Given that the 2000 internal audit alleged fraud and double-dipping, how does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe he is genuinely outraged now when, as finance minister, he heard the word 'fraud' and did absolutely nothing?
McNally cites the 2000 internal audit's allegations of fraud and double-dipping and poses a specific accountability challenge: how does the Prime Minister explain doing nothing when he first heard the word 'fraud' as finance minister?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the 2000 internal audit alleges fraud and double-dipping, but the Prime Minister simply minimizes that by calling it administrative errors. He said that he only heard rumours of the wrongdoing at the time and did not feel the need to look into it. He did not speak to the prime minister or the minister in charge. He did not even give it a passing thought. However, he was finance minister of the day and he was responsible for Canadians' hard earned tax dollars. How does the Prime Minister expect us to believe that he is as mad as hell now and when he first heard the word “fraud” he did absolutely nothing?
Alcock directed McNally to download and read the internal audit report from the government's website, and quoted Don Martin's column suggesting Martin did not know about any criminal wrongdoing ahead of the Auditor General's report.
Alcock does not explain why the Prime Minister did nothing, instead directing McNally to read the report on the website and quoting Don Martin's column to the effect that Martin did not know about criminal wrongdoing — entirely deflecting the specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I would invite the member to do, as a great many of the journalists and columnists have done, is to go to the website, download the report, read it and see what he finds in that. I think he will find what some of the, shall I say, more thoughtful columnists from western Canada have found. Don Martin said: --I don't buy the notion Martin knew about any criminal wrongdoing ahead of the Auditor-General's report or that he will ever be directly implicated in the scandal. He had read the audit. Why does the hon. member not read it?
Why did the Prime Minister turn a blind eye to what was going on around him — failing to speak to Mr. Chrétien or Mr. Gagliano or consider an RCMP investigation — instead of acting on the fraud allegations four years ago?
McNally frames a reasonable accountability question — why did the Prime Minister turn a blind eye rather than act — but the question is heavily rhetorical and does not cite specific new facts beyond what was raised in exchange 27.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will find allegations of fraud in that report, and perhaps he should read it again. The Prime Minister should have been outraged four years ago, but he is only pretending to be outraged now that he is in hot water. He should have talked to Mr. Chrétien and to Mr. Gagliano. He should have considered whether an RCMP investigation needed to happen. He should have done anything but turn a blind eye to what was going on all around him. Now there is nowhere left to turn. It is his problem and Canadians want to know why he did nothing.
Owen outlined a sequence of government actions: following the internal audit and further questions in 2001, the minister was removed, Groupaction was referred to the Auditor General, independent forensic audits were conducted, referrals were made to the RCMP, and the sponsorship program was killed.
Owen provides a reasonably specific chronological account of government actions: internal audit, removal of the minister, referrals to the Auditor General, independent forensic audits, referrals to the RCMP, and the killing of the sponsorship program, which is partially responsive to the 'did nothing' charge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government did a great deal when the first indications of problems with the sponsorship program arose. Following an internal audit and further questions arising in 2001, the minister was removed and replaced by another minister. Referrals were made of the Groupaction case to the Auditor General. Further administrative reviews, independent forensic audits and referrals to the RCMP by both the Auditor General and the government, all these things were happening as more information became available, finishing with the killing of the sponsorship program--
Why did the Prime Minister not act or express the same outrage in 1997, or in the ensuing years, when the scandalous affair first came to light, rather than only after the Auditor General's report?
Sorenson asks why the Prime Minister did not express outrage in 1997 when the affair first came to light, which is a specific chronological accountability challenge, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for a week now the Prime Minister has tried to convince Canadians that he acted immediately upon hearing of the Auditor General's report. The question remains however, why did he not act when this scandalous affair first came to light in 1997? Why did he not, at the very least, express the same outrage in 1997 or even ensuing years, as he attempted to show last week?
Martin expressed uncertainty about what the member was referring to in 1997, suggesting it may have been a period before the sponsorship program was created.
Martin's response is brief and evasive — suggesting the member may be referring to a period before the sponsorship program was created — which partially engages the timeline but does not substantively answer why he expressed no concern in the years before May 2002.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure when in 1997, but I think the member is referring to a period before the program was created.
Does the Prime Minister really expect Canadians to believe that he, as the senior minister from Quebec, knew nothing, saw nothing, and asked no questions when everyone else knew about the kickbacks?
Sorenson poses a direct credibility question — why did the senior minister from Quebec ask no questions when everyone else knew about the kickbacks — which is specific enough to be answerable but broadly framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister really expect Canadians to believe that, when everyone else knew about the kickbacks, he was unaware of what was happening? He, the senior minister from Quebec, knew nothing, saw nothing and asked no questions. Why did this senior minister at that time ask no questions?
Martin said that when questions were raised by the 2000 interim audit, 37 administrative changes were made and confirmed as correct, and that in 2002 the deputy minister of public works stated there was no evidence of any criminal activity — it was all administrative and in the hands of the Auditor General.
Martin recounts the sequence of the 2000 interim audit, 37 administrative changes, a subsequent review confirming those changes, and the deputy minister of public works's 2002 statement that there was no evidence of criminal activity — engaging the timeline but not squarely addressing why he personally asked no questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the questions were raised and revealed in the interim audit prepared in the year 2000, that same report they refer to made a series of findings. There were 37 administrative changes. Those administrative changes were made. There was a subsequent involvement in it which confirmed that those were the right changes. Then in the year 2002, the deputy minister of public works, in referring to that very internal audit, said that there was no evidence of any criminal activity, it was all administrative. Besides that, it was all in the hands of the Auditor General who accepted it.
Gauthier cites paragraph 5.31 of the Auditor General's report showing 10 departments each bought the same $27,000 'Rethinking Government' subscription for a total of $270,000, and asks which ten ministers were responsible.
Cites a specific paragraph (5.31) and page from the Auditor General's report with exact dollar figures ($270,000 for 10 copies at $27,000 each) and asks a single clear accountable question: which ten ministers paid for the same report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier, the President of the Treasury Board asked me to give him a single fact. Chapter 5, page 7, paragraph 5.31 of the Auditor General's report states: A core subscription to “Rethinking Government”, for example, costs about $27,000. We noted that 10 copies were purchased by departments in 2002-03 at a total cost of $270,000. Since this is taxpayers' money, I would ask him this nicely: which ten ministers—
Owen explains the Auditor General flagged this as an efficiency issue rather than impropriety, says the government accepted the recommendation, and commits to providing the names of the departments that subscribed separately.
Owen acknowledges the finding, accepts the recommendation, and commits to supplying the list of departments, but does not actually name any of the departments, leaving the specific ask partially unmet.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the Auditor General was one of efficiency, that different departments should not be separately subscribing to syndicated public opinion research reports. That is something of efficiency that has been a useful recommendation, which the government has accepted. If the hon. member wants to know the departments that individually subscribed to the same syndicated report, I will certainly supply that, but that was not the issue. It was not identifying the department. I will get the names for the member. However, the issue was one of efficiency, not of impropriety of any one of the departments.
Gauthier contrasts the Prime Minister's public pledges of transparency in Quebec with three days of non-answers about which ten ministers each paid for the same report, and asks whether this handling of a minor request reflects the broader culture behind the sponsorship scandal.
Frames the unanswered question about the ten ministers in the context of the Prime Minister's transparency promises, but shifts toward rhetorical comparison with the sponsorship scandal rather than pressing for the specific list.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came to Quebec to say, “I will do my best to be transparent”. He came to say that. He told people, “Believe me, I want the truth to come out”. For three days now, we have been asking which ten ministers each paid for the same report for a total of $270,000. We are not getting an answer. Is the way they handle a request for a minor piece of information indicative of what goes on with sponsorships?
Alcock quotes the Auditor General saying large organizations will have failures, agrees the duplication was foolish, says the program was stopped, and repeats that the list of names will be provided.
Alcock quotes the Auditor General's broader caveat about large organizations, restates that it was an efficiency issue, and reiterates the commitment to provide the list, but does not actually name the departments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the member asks the question, he might want to listen to the answer, just for a little bit. The Auditor General in her report, the famous report, says: In a large organization like the federal government, there are bound to be problems and failures, despite best efforts The minister stood up and said that the Auditor General had said that a number of departments were buying the same report, and this was foolish. The minister said, “I agree”. We changed the program. We stopped it from happening, and if you want the list of names, he will give them to you.
Day lists international headlines from the New York Times, Washington Post, Taipei Times, Korean Daily, and BBC News describing the sponsorship scandal, and asks whether this is the Prime Minister's way of restoring Canada's international reputation.
Cites several international headlines by outlet and title but the closing question — 'Is this the Prime Minister's way to win our international reputation?' — is essentially rhetorical and unanswerable in any substantive policy sense.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one of the Prime Minister's major planks was to restore Canada's visibility in the world. He has chosen a very interesting way to do it. Headlines like these around the globe have screamed out the news this week. A headline in the New York Times said, “Scandal Haunts Canadian Leader”. Headline in the Washington Post said, “Canada's Prime Minister Acts to Counter Scandal”. Taipei Times headline said, “Kickback Scandal Grips Canada”. The Korean Daily said, “Corruption Raises Ugly Head”. BBC News said, “Ottawa 'mishandled' public funds”. BBC News said, “Ottawa 'damaged by funds scandal”. Is this the Prime Minister's way to win our international reputation?
Graham argues that Canada's reputation is enhanced by the Prime Minister's frank response, saying every country has governance problems and is judged by how it handles them, and that this government is doing so with transparency and openness.
Graham does not address any of the specific headlines or their impact, instead offering a generic defence that Canada is judged by how it handles its problems and that the government is acting with transparency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reputation of Canada is enhanced by the way in which this Prime Minister frankly has stepped forward. Every country on this globe has its problems of governance. Each is judged by the way it handles it, and this government is handling it with transparency, openness and frankness by the Prime Minister and are--
Day cites Wesley Cragg of Transparency International warning that growing perception of high-level corruption will cause international investors to park their capital elsewhere, and asks the Prime Minister to admit the Liberal scandals have hurt Canada's international reputation, investment, and possibly jobs.
Introduces a named external source (Wesley Cragg of Transparency International) with a specific claim about investor behaviour, and asks the Prime Minister to admit the scandals have hurt Canada's international reputation, investment, and jobs — a substantive but compound ask.
Source text
I was not looking for a Howard Dean scream, Mr. Speaker, just a response. The Liberal image of scandal is embarrassing and it is costly. Wesley Cragg of Transparency International, which is the watchdog group which monitors government corruption and transparency said that the growing perception of high level corruption will cause some international investors to park their capital elsewhere. Will the Prime Minister admit that these Liberal scandals have hurt our international reputation, investment and possibly jobs?
Martin acknowledges no one wished this situation had arisen, but argues that the strength of a democracy is shown by how it deals with such issues, and that the government is leaving no stone unturned and will bring perpetrators to justice.
Martin does not address Wesley Cragg's statement about investors or jobs, instead offering a general defence that the measure of a democracy is how it handles problems and that the government is acting openly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is an issue which nobody wishes had arisen, but the fact is it is the way in which it is dealt with that demonstrates the strength of a country's democracy. The fact is that we are dealing with this in an open and transparent way. We are leaving no stone unturned. Those who perpetrated whatever these acts were will be brought to justice. We are dealing with this the way that a democracy ought to deal with it.
Cuzner describes the Cape Breton Development Corporation pension surplus dispute — including court dismissal by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions — and asks the Minister of Natural Resources when pensioners and widows of former coal miners can expect a resolution.
A government backbencher provides detailed context about the Cape Breton Development Corporation pension surplus dispute but frames the question as a sympathetic setup for the minister to announce progress.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the late fall of 2002 it was determined by an independent actuary that the Cape Breton Development Corporation held surplus funds in both the contributory and non-contributory pension plans. In claiming rights to these funds, the corporation filed court proceedings which were later dismissed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The pensioners and widows of former coal miners who contributed to these surplus funds through the acceptance of contract concessions and wage scales far below industry standards are entitled to be fairly compensated in this case. Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House when these good people can expect a resolution to their case?
Efford states that in 2003 the Superintendent of Financial Institutions directed Devco to appoint an arbitrator, confirms that process is now in place, and says the government hopes to see a settlement in the very near future.
Efford identifies the specific 2003 direction from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to appoint an arbitrator, confirms that process is in place, and expresses hope for a settlement in the very near future — a reasonably substantive partial answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question and for the work that he and his colleague from Sydney—Victoria have done on this file. We would like to see this in a timely fashion. In 2003 the Superintendent of Financial Institutions directed Devco to appoint an arbitrator. That process is in place now and we hope to see a settlement in the very near future.
Yelich cites net farm income down 177% in Saskatchewan due to the BSE crisis and asks why the Prime Minister has time and money for Liberal friends but nothing for struggling farmers.
Cites net farm income down 177% in Saskatchewan due to BSE but pivots immediately to a rhetorical comparison with Liberal poll numbers and a compound question conflating scandal spending with farm support.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the BSE crisis has put our agriculture industry on the brink of disaster. In Saskatchewan net farm income is down 177%. Imagine the Liberal action we would see if that party fell that fast and hard in the polls. While the Prime Minister busies himself with scandal, the agriculture industry is sinking. Where do the farmers turn? Why does the Prime Minister have time and money for his Liberal friends but nothing for our struggling farmers?
Speller acknowledges the desperate situation facing farm families, says the government responded to BSE and introduced the new CAISP program to help with farm income, and says the government is working to resolve the situation.
Speller acknowledges the desperate situation facing farmers and mentions CAISP and the BSE response but provides no figures, timelines, or specifics, and does not address the rhetorical contrast with Liberal friends.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a question on agriculture in the House today. It highlights the importance of the desperate situation being faced by many farmers and farm families across this country. The Government of Canada has responded. We responded in terms of BSE. We have also brought in a new program, CAISP, that will help farmers in the future deal with their farm income situation. The Government of Canada clearly recognizes the trouble in agriculture today and we are working to resolve it.
The Prime Minister rose on a point of order to confirm that pertinent cabinet documents, pertinent Treasury Board documents, and communications committee documents requested by the Leader of the Opposition during Question Period would all be made available.
- Lib Right Hon. Paul Martin
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition if the pertinent cabinet documents could be made available. I said yes. He then followed up with a request that the pertinent Treasury Board documents, and I believe the communications committee documents, be made available. I am glad to confirm that they will.
Mr. MacKay (CPC) tabled an internal memo from 1994 pertaining to retail debt strategy, which the Prime Minister had earlier said he had no difficulty with being tabled, and the House agreed. Mr. Kenney (CPC) then raised a point of order alleging that the President of the Treasury Board had stated during Question Period that the member for Calgary Southeast received $150,000 from the federal sponsorship program, which Kenney said was completely untrue and impugned his character, requesting a retraction. Mr. Alcock (Treasury Board) clarified that $115,000 was given to an organization in the hon. member's riding, not to the hon. member personally, and that this occurred two years in a row.
- CPC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Some hon. members
- CPC Mr. Jason Kenney
- Lib Reg Alcock
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I asked the Prime Minister about a document, an internal memo that came from his office in 1994 that pertained to retail debt strategy. The Prime Minister indicated at that time that he had no difficulty with that document being tabled. I have a copy of that and I would like to table it with the House today.
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the President of the Treasury Board said, and I quote, and I believe the blues will confirm this: “The member for Calgary Southeast received $150,000 from the federal sponsorship program”. Clearly, this is completely untrue. It impugns my character and, I believe, my privilege. I therefore request that the President of the Treasury Board retract this inaccurate remark.
Mr. Speaker, the allegation from that side of the House was that a member on this side of the House, as a private citizen, when seeking funds on behalf of a community organization, was somehow engaged in a corrupt act. There was $115,000 given to the organization in the hon. member's riding, not to the hon. member, I said in his riding. It was given two years in a row.
Mr. Kenney (CPC) raised a separate point of order arguing that because the President of the Treasury Board had twice cited from a document in the House, he was required by convention to table it. Mr. Alcock (Treasury Board) offered to check the tape and retract and apologize if the record showed he had said the member personally received the money, and committed to tabling the document and making copies for everyone.
- CPC Mr. Jason Kenney
- Lib Reg Alcock
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, the President of the Treasury Board has twice cited from a document in the House. I believe he is therefore required by convention to table the document from which he has cited.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to deal seriously with one piece of this. We will check the tape. If I said on the record that the member received the money personally, I will withdraw that. That was never my intention and I would apologize to the member if that is in fact what I said. However, as far as tabling the document goes, absolutely, I will make copies for everyone.
Mr. Hearn (CPC) insisted the President of the Treasury Board table the document immediately rather than leave to make copies, raising concern that the document could be altered. Mr. Breitkreuz (CPC) questioned why an untranslated document had just been tabled without objection while this document faced different treatment. Mr. MacKay (CPC) argued that allowing the minister to leave the chamber to make copies raised a concern about the veracity and originality of the document that would ultimately be tabled. Mr. Bélanger (Government Deputy House Leader) defended the minister's integrity and called the line of questioning unacceptable.
- CPC Mr. Loyola Hearn
- CPC Mr. Garry Breitkreuz
- An hon. member
- CPC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Lib Mauril Bélanger
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago, the President of the Treasury Board said he would table a document from which he quoted twice to the agreement of everyone. Then he said he would make copies. He should table the document now, not pass copies around afterward. We do not know whether we will get the true document or not.
Mr. Speaker, a document that we just tabled was accepted and it was not translated. Why would there be a difference?
Mr. Speaker, you must have read the rule book.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps as a point of clarification, the issue here is one of the veracity of the document itself. My colleague from St. John's is referring to the fact that the minister was quoting directly from a document which he then gave his undertaking he would table with the House. If he is permitted to leave the chamber and make copies, there is no telling what the copy that will be tabled with the House will then contain. It is very much an issue of the veracity of the originality of the document.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a rule in this House by which MPs are to be trusted, considered to be telling the truth and behaving decently. The member who just spoke is insinuating the contrary. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to resolve this issue of excessive questioning of individual behaviour.
Mr. Cummins (CPC) argued that the rule requiring tabling of cited documents may apply only to administrative matters before the government, not to matters raised in Question Period. Mr. Hearn (CPC) reiterated concern that the sponsorship funding list in question was likely already in both official languages and argued it was a dangerous precedent to allow the original document to leave the chamber before being tabled. Mr. Bélanger (Government Deputy House Leader) again accused the opposition of impugning the honesty of members by casting aspersions on the tabling of documents.
- CPC Mr. John Cummins
- CPC Mr. Loyola Hearn
- Lib Mauril Bélanger
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a point of clarification on that matter that you read from. It states “a paper dealing with a matter coming from within the administrative responsibilities of the government”. It would seem to me that may have to do with a bill or a ministerial report. The matter referred to here is a matter which was raised in question period. It does not necessarily deal with an administrative matter before the government.
Mr. Speaker, first, the document concerned was a list of funding provided through the sponsorship program. It would be that any documents that are distributed such as that are already in two languages. Second, because of the sensitivity of the programs that were sponsored that would be on that list, we have major concerns that the original document would be allowed to be taken out of this place to be perhaps tampered with before we see the other version. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in the space of a few minutes that a member of the opposition is casting aspersions as to the honesty of members in terms of the tabling of documents. It is with impunity that we are treating the reputation of hon. members. An hon. member who will table a document will table the document that he was quoting from. Unless those people will say on a regular basis that no member in the House is to be trusted any more, we had better get on with this. This is a rather unacceptable line of points of order.
A brief and disorderly exchange occurred in which Mr. Cummins (CPC) told Mr. Bélanger to sit down, and Mr. Bélanger asserted his right to speak. No substantive matter was addressed.
- CPC Mr. John Cummins
- Lib Mauril Bélanger
Source text
Sit down.
I have the right to speak here as much as those members do.
Ms. McDonough (NDP) raised a point of order reminding the House that the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla had committed during debate the previous evening to table the specific Michael Marzolini Pollara survey he cited as showing that seven out of ten Canadians support Canadian participation in some type of missile defence, and noted that he had not followed through on that commitment.
- NDP Ms. Alexa McDonough
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the debate last evening and a commitment by the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, after having been asked to do so last evening, to table in the House today the specific poll that he claimed made it clear that seven out of ten Canadians support Canadian participation in some type of missile defence. He cited a specific poll. When asked about the poll he indicated that it was in fact a Michael Marzolini Pollara survey in which a question was put to Canadians about whether they supported the notion of Canada being involved and participating in missile defence. He indicated that it was available and that he would be tabling it today. I think it is very important that he do so, and I do not believe he followed through on that commitment today.
Mr. Gauthier (BQ) sought and received unanimous consent to allow the Bloc Québécois to table the subject of its opposition day motion by the end of Thursday of the break week rather than the required ten days in advance, given that the opposition day falls on the Monday after the break. The Speaker then fulfilled his duty under Standing Order 81(14) by informing the House that the motion to be considered the following day during the business of supply, standing in the name of the member for Saint-Jean and votable, states that the government should oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield and cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possible Canadian participation.
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, having consulted the other parties, I would like to ask for unanimous consent. Given that the Bloc Quebecois opposition day is on the Monday after the break, and that it cannot be rescheduled because of an official visit in this House and a number of other factors under the Standing Orders, I would have to table the subject of the day 10 days in advance, which is somewhat excessive. I received consent from all the parties to table the subject of our motion at the end of the day Thursday of the break week. Although the House is not sitting that week, the other parties will nonetheless be aware of the subject we will be discussing on the Monday. I believe we have unanimous consent for that.
Agreed. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), to inform the House that the motion to be considered tomorrow during the consideration of the business of supply is as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield and, therefore, cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possible Canadian participation. The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Jean, will be votable. Copies of the motion are available at the table.