Session overview
- The dominant theme was the Earnscliffe contracting controversy, with CPC and NDP members pressing the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance over whether contracts awarded by the Department of Finance to Earnscliffe Strategy Group violated Treasury Board and public works rules, and whether the process was biased toward one firm.
- BQ members challenged the government on CSL International's tax arrangements in Barbados, alleging that the company contravened the Income Tax Act and that the Prime Minister was in conflict of interest when personally shepherding Bill C-28 through Parliament.
- NDP members raised concerns about the role of Earnscliffe in government decision-making, specifically whether the firm was present at confidential policy meetings, and challenged the contradiction between the government criticizing Conservative support for the Iraq war while the Liberal Minister of National Defence publicly endorsed it.
- BQ members pressed the government on federal-provincial jurisdiction in health care, older workers assistance programs, the national unity fund, and the case of a public servant ordered to resign from the sovereignty organization Le Québec, un pays.
- CPC members questioned the government about $4 million allegedly misappropriated from the RCMP pension fund and whether the Minister of Public Safety had prejudged the investigation by publicly exonerating the RCMP Commissioner.
- Commitments were made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on sustained long-term funding for FACTOR and by the Minister of Health on an integrated approach to cancer research through the CIHR, while the Minister of Finance defended Technology Partnerships Canada funding to Rolls-Royce as repayable contributions rather than grants.
Minister Pettigrew made a concrete and specific commitment that the government would not impose conditions on provinces and that accountability would run to citizens within each government's own jurisdiction, directly addressing Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard's public statement and clarifying the federal government's position on health care accountability.
Cites a specific internal letter from David Dingwall to the Minister of Finance describing a pattern of non-compliance with Treasury Board guidelines, and asks the minister directly to account for it.
Asked specifically who was running the show â Earnscliffe or the PMO â and confronted with a list of financial scandals, Martin ignored the question entirely and pivoted to boasting about eliminating the $42 billion deficit inherited from the Conservatives, without addressing any element of the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Bill Blaikie asked the Prime Minister directly whether Earnscliffe was allowed to sit in on confidential meetings where government policy is decided; the answer confirmed Earnscliffe was not in cabinet, but did not address whether the firm attended other confidential policy meetings outside of cabinet.
- Mr. Gilles Duceppe asked whether the Prime Minister would ask his family business CSL International to pay back at least $100 million in taxes allegedly diverted from the Quebec and Canadian tax systems; no substantive response was given to this specific demand.
- Mrs. Diane Ablonczy asked whether the Prime Minister was comfortable breaking the accounting rules laid down by cabinet in order to direct contracts to Earnscliffe; the question was cut off before completion and the response did not address the specific finding that tenders were written with a clear bias to one firm.
- Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay asked the Prime Minister to explain what concrete measures he had put in place to ease the transition for workers over age 55 who lose their jobs, citing a promise he made during the 2000 federal election; the minister responded with general job creation statistics rather than addressing the specific promise.
- Mr. Odina Desrochers asked the President of the Treasury Board to table existing lists of events that received money through the national unity fund, three weeks after the cabinet said it could provide the information within 48 hours; only a general statement about ongoing data collection was offered in response.
Harper asks why the Prime Minister claimed ignorance when memos from public works show him repeatedly breaking contracting rules to benefit Earnscliffe.
Cites specific memos from public works and references a prior public claim of ignorance, but the ask ('why did the Prime Minister mislead') is accusatory and compound rather than a single answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had 24 hours to study the documents referred to yesterday. These memos from public works show the Prime Minister repeatedly breaking contracting rules, all set up to benefit his allies at Earnscliffe. Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians with claims of ignorance and innocence, when he knew exactly how the system worked and he worked it?
Martin argues the documents show no wrongdoing, explaining the first contract was inherited from the previous Conservative government and subsequent contracts followed a new competitive process administered by public works.
Martin provides a chronological defence of the contracts, engaging the substance, but does not address the specific allegation that he misled Canadians or explain the rule-breaking claims in the memos.
Source text
Actually, Mr. Speaker, the documents show nothing of the kind. What in fact happened was that the first contract was a contract that the government inherited when we took office. It was a contract that had been awarded to the previous Conservative government and we simply continued with it. Following that, there were two extensions because public works was going through a new procedure. It said that instead of having open bids, they would be extended. Then, at the end of 1994, there was a competitive bid which was won. That competitive bid was adjudicated and administered by public works.
Harper challenges Martin's claim that the contracts followed an open tender, citing that the Guité and Kinsella memos were written after Martin said he ended his rule-breaking practices.
Harper sharpens the exchange by citing the timing of the Guité and Kinsella memos relative to Martin's claimed end of rule-breaking practices and directly challenges Martin's open-tender claim, making it a fairly specific and answerable yes/no question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister said yesterday and today, the memos from Guité and Kinsella were written after the Prime Minister said he ended his rule breaking practices. They show that the contracts were not subject to the kind of open tender that he claims. Does the Prime Minister still deny the facts laid out in these memos?
Martin affirms the contract was bid on in an open tender and administered and adjudicated by the Department of Public Works, not the Department of Finance.
Martin reaffirms the open-tender claim and notes public works administered the contract, but does not address the specific chronological point about the memos being written after the claimed end of rule-breaking.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I affirm the facts as they in fact were. The fact is that the contract was bid on in an open tender. It was administered and adjudicated by the Department of Public Works, not the Department of Finance.
Harper reads from a document stating only one bid was submitted for an Earnscliffe contract and other firms believed it was biased toward that firm, then asks why Martin's successor at finance immediately cancelled the contracts upon taking office in 2002.
Harper reads directly from a document quoting that only one bid was submitted and that other firms believed the scope showed bias to one firm, then asks a pointed follow-up about why Martin's successor cancelled the contracts in 2002.
Source text
I will read it for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It said: --only one bid was submitted which was by Earnscliffe Strategy Group. Unofficial comments were received by...my organization, that the scope was unclear and bias to one firm, so why waste time and money on a bid that they had no chance of winning. That is what it says here. If these contracting schemes with Earnscliffe were so legitimate, why did the Prime Minister's successor at finance immediately cancel them when he assumed office in 2002?
Goodale repeats the chronology of the four contracts, arguing the first was issued by the Conservative government and the fourth was won competitively, but does not address the cancellation in 2002 or the quoted language about bias.
Goodale revisits the chronological defence of the four contracts but does not address the quoted language about bias or explain why the successor cancelled the contracts in 2002.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, let us review the chronology of what happened. The first contract referred to here was in fact issued by the Conservative government. It was clearly within the limits and the rules permissible at that time. That was in September 1993. Then, in July and September 1994 there were extensions of that previously existing contract because the new contracting process by public works was not yet in place. It was put in place in the fall of 1994. A competitive process was held, and that is when the Earnscliffe firm won on a competitive basis.
MacKay lists several financial scandals and questions how the Prime Minister could not know how his buddies at Earnscliffe got their contracts, asking who is running the show, Earnscliffe or the PMO.
The question strings together several unrelated scandals with dollar figures primarily for rhetorical effect and ends with a vague compound ask about who is running the show, making it more of a partisan attack than a specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's problems with numbers are well documented. He failed to catch the $1 billion boondoggle at HRDC, missed the boat over $1 billion on the gun registry, does not have a clue about the $250 million wasted in a sponsorship scandal, and failed to differentiate between $130,000 and $161 million given to his shipping empire. Apparently the Prime Minister is bad at math and has a poor memory. Now he claims he does not know how his buddies got these contracts. Canadians deserve to know, who is running the show, Earnscliffe or the PMO?
Martin defends his record as finance minister by noting he eliminated a $42 billion deficit and that Canada is the only G-8 country currently in surplus.
Martin deflects entirely to his record on deficit reduction and debt-to-GDP ratio, not addressing the Earnscliffe contracts or any of the specific figures cited by MacKay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in terms of a finance minister, myself at that time, who had some problem with numbers, let us go through some numbers. We inherited a $42 billion deficit from that party and a debt to GDP ratio that was going through the roof. What is the net result? Today we are the only G-8 country not in deficit. We are the only one in surplus. I understand those numbers.
MacKay cites a note from Warren Kinsella to Chuck Guité expressing concerns about the improper awarding of contracts, stating the Department of Finance under the current Prime Minister awarded four contracts in violation of Department of Public Works rules.
MacKay references a specific note from Warren Kinsella to Chuck Guité and cites four contracts awarded in violation of Department of Public Works rules, grounding the question in documentary evidence, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Here is a figure, Mr. Speaker, $161 million to CSL. In a note to Chuck Guité, Warren Kinsella expresses his concerns about the improper awarding of contracts to the minister's friends at Earnscliffe. The note in question shows that the Department of Finance, headed by the current Prime Minister, had awarded four contracts in violation of Department of Public Works rules. And the Prime Minister knew nothing?
Goodale argues the contract was not wired, citing that it required the lead consultant to have a minimum of five years of media experience as evidence the criteria were legitimate.
Goodale responds only to the allegation that the contract was wired by citing a specific qualification criterion in the contract, but does not address the Kinsella note, the four contracts, or the violation of Department of Public Works rules.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes the allegation that somehow the contract was wired. When the criteria is in the contract, for example, that the lead consultant should have a minimum of five years of media experience and that sort of qualifying ability, that hardly appears to be a wired contract.
Duceppe alleges that CSL International used Bill C-28, personally ushered through Parliament by the Prime Minister, to avoid taxes while making decisions in Montreal rather than Barbados, and asks the Prime Minister to have his family business repay $100 million in allegedly illegally diverted taxes.
Duceppe cites Bill C-28, CSL International, and a specific claim that $100 million was illegally diverted from the Quebec and Canadian tax systems, offering a reasonably specific factual basis, though the ask about paying back taxes is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while ordinary people are paying income tax, CSL International, a branch of the Prime Minister's family business, is avoiding the tax man. Thanks to Bill C-28, personally ushered through Parliament by the Prime Minister, this is legal, provided all decisions are made in Barbados. It is just a sham, however; all decisions are made in Montreal. Will the Prime Minister, who was in flagrant conflict of interest, at least have the decency to ask his family business to pay back the $100 million it has illegally diverted from the Quebec and Canadian tax systems?
Goodale says Duceppe is confusing two different companies and two different corporate rules, calling them quite separate things, but provides no specifics.
Goodale dismisses the question by saying Duceppe is confusing two different companies and two different corporate rules, providing no substantive engagement with the Bill C-28 allegation or the $100 million figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is going back to a variety of questions that he asked in the House a number of months ago, confusing two different companies and two different corporate rules. They are quite separate things and the one does not effect or involve the other, and they should not be mixed.
Duceppe argues that the Income Tax Act requires a foreign branch to be administered abroad for tax exemption, alleges CSL International in Barbados is just a front with orders coming from Montreal, and demands the Prime Minister have his family business pay back at least $100 million in avoided taxes.
Duceppe precisely cites the Income Tax Act requirement that a foreign branch be administered abroad to be exempt, alleges CSL International in Barbados is a front with orders coming from Montreal, and asks for retroactive payment of at least $100 million in avoided taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion here. It is very precise. They would like to make things as confused as they feel. The Income Tax Act calls for a foreign branch of a Canadian company to be administered abroad in order to be exempt from Canadian taxes. In actual fact, CSL International in Barbados is just a front; the orders come from Montreal. Will the Prime Minister now have the courage to ask his family business to pay retroactively the taxes it avoided paying Quebec and Canada, to the tune of at least $100 million? That is what tax evasion isâ
Goodale states that Bill C-28 has absolutely nothing to do with CSL and refers to a February 13 National Post article by a distinguished Canadian lawyer to challenge the allegations about Barbados tax rules.
Goodale makes two points â that Bill C-28 has nothing to do with CSL and that tax rules applicable in Barbados are disputed â and references a National Post article, but does not address the core allegation about Montreal decision-making or the $100 million figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. gentleman is referring to the impact of Bill C-28, from a previous Parliament, which has absolutely nothing to do with CSL. Second, the hon. gentleman makes reference to the tax rules applicable in Barbados. Different people have different views on the tax rules applicable in Barbados. I would refer him to an article that appeared in the February 13 edition of the National Post , written by a distinguished Canadian lawyer in a firm in which the senior partner is the hon. Lucien Bouchard.
Paquette alleges the Prime Minister was in conflict of interest passing Bill C-28, that his family business violated the Income Tax Act, and asks whether the Prime Minister is aware that other companies followed his example, resulting in $23.9 billion leaving Canada for Barbados in 2002 alone.
Paquette raises the specific figure of $23.9 billion leaving Canada for Barbados in 2002 alone and alleges other companies followed the Prime Minister's example, grounding the question in a concrete data point, though it conflates several allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we knew the Prime Minister was in conflict of interest in passing Bill C-28, which, despite what the Minister of Finance has said, was tailor made for international shipping companies like the PM's. We now know that his family business was in contravention of the Income Tax Act. As a result, the Quebec and Canadian tax systems did not get $100 million in taxes. Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of other companies have followed his example, and as a result $23.9 billion left Canada for Barbados in the year 2002 alone, thereby escaping taxes in Canada and Quebec.
Goodale again states that Bill C-28 does not have, did not have, and will not have any connection or impact on CSL, citing the language of the legislation and evidence before a standing committee.
Goodale simply repeats the assertion that Bill C-28 does not have and will not have any connection to CSL, without addressing the $23.9 billion figure or the broader tax avoidance allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. gentleman is confusing the impact of Bill C-28. It is clear in the very language of the legislation and it was clear when the evidence was heard before the standing committee of this House that Bill C-28 does not have, did not have, and will not have any connection or impact at all on CSL.
Paquette asks how Canadians can believe the Prime Minister's promise of a different kind of politics given allegations that he custom tailored Bill C-28 for his family business, received $160 million in hidden contracts, and tailored contracts in favour of Earnscliffe.
Paquette strings together several allegations about Bill C-28, $160 million in hidden contracts, and Earnscliffe, but the question devolves into a rhetorical challenge about the Prime Minister's credibility rather than a specific answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how can we believe the Prime Minister when he says that his kind of politics will be different, when we realize he custom tailored legislation to benefit his family business, that his company received $160 million in hidden contracts, and that he also custom tailored contracts in favour of Earnscliffe, a company owned by his buddies?
Goodale asserts that every piece of legislation related to offshore companies and offshore taxation presented by the then finance minister was aimed at closing loopholes and establishing tax on a fair basis, going in the opposite direction to what the opposition alleged.
Goodale makes a general claim that all legislation presented by the then finance minister related to offshore taxation was aimed at closing loopholes, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the specific compound allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every piece of legislation put before the House that related in any way to offshore companies and offshore taxation presented by the then finance minister was aimed at closing the loopholes and establishing tax on a fair basis, going exactly in the opposite direction to that alleged by the opposition.
Blaikie asks the Prime Minister directly whether Earnscliffe is allowed to sit in on confidential meetings where government policy is decided.
Blaikie asks a specific, binary, and answerable question about whether Earnscliffe is sitting in on confidential meetings where government policy is being decided, making it one of the sharper questions of the day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP is as concerned about the influence of corporate lobbyists as we are as to how they are hired and what the details of the contracts are. In this respect, it has come to our attention that Earnscliffe is sitting in on confidential meetings in which government policy is being decided. I want to ask the Prime Minister, is this true? Could he tell the House whether Earnscliffe is allowed to sit in on confidential meetings where government policy is decided or not?
Goodale states that government policy is determined in cabinet and by cabinet, with the Prime Minister in the chair, and that there are no private consultants in the room.
Goodale directly answers that government policy is determined in cabinet and by cabinet with the Prime Minister in the chair and that there are no private consultants in the room, which is responsive but limited to cabinet meetings and does not address broader policy-setting contexts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, government policy is determined in cabinet and by cabinet, with the Prime Minister in the chair. There are no private consultants in the room.
Blaikie asks the Prime Minister what the role of Earnscliffe is in his government and how Canadians can have confidence in health care decisions when Earnscliffe, which has MDS as a for profit health care client, has a close relationship with the Prime Minister.
Blaikie raises a specific concern about Earnscliffe's client MDS and its relationship to government health care decisions, but the question broadens into a general challenge about the influence of corporate lobbyists, making the specific ask somewhat diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not just about cabinet meetings. Again, I ask this question of the Prime Minister because it is about the nature of his government. It goes to the heart of what the influence of corporate lobbyists is in his government. I ask the Prime Minister, what is the role of Earnscliffe in his government? Can he tell us, for instance, given that one of its clients is MDS, a for profit health care company, how we can have confidence in the government's decision with respect to health care when Earnscliffe, who has a client in the for profit health care industry, is right at the table and has such a close relationship with the Prime Minister?
Martin says government policy is determined in cabinet, acknowledges outside consultants may advise on communications, states he has not been lobbied by any firm, and cites Roy Romanow as an outside health care adviser.
Martin acknowledges outside consultants advise on communications, denies being lobbied by any firm, and mentions Roy Romanow as an outside health care adviser, engaging the topic but not directly addressing the MDS-Earnscliffe conflict of interest concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has just said, government policy is determined in cabinet and by cabinet. There are outside consultants who may well advise on matters of communication and that kind of thing. There has been no lobbying by any firm of me as far as I am concerned. I will say to the hon. member that there are outsiders who have certainly given us advice in terms of health care, to begin with, the hon. Roy Romanow.
Solberg alleges the Earnscliffe scandal amounts to insider trading, claims a public works memo confirms the fix was in to guarantee contracts to the PM's friends, and asks why the Prime Minister continues to mislead Canadians.
Solberg uses the Martha Stewart comparison and insider trading metaphor primarily for rhetorical effect; the ask about why the Prime Minister continues to mislead Canadians is unanswerable in its framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Earnscliffe scandal is nothing more than the government's version of insider trading. The Prime Minister is nothing more than Martha Stewart in a blue suit. The fix was in to guarantee that contracts went to the PM's friends at Earnscliffe. A public works memo confirms that. Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead Canadians about his role in this scandal?
Owen says the documents and opinions expressed in them should be tested before the public accounts committee and the forthcoming judicial inquiry rather than raised in the House without being shared with the committee.
Owen does not address the substance of the allegation but deflects by suggesting the documents should be taken to the public accounts committee and the forthcoming judicial inquiry, which is procedurally relevant but avoids the question entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have had various documents brought forward to our attention in this House. The place where these documents should be taken, so that the opinions expressed in them can be tested against other opinions, is the public accounts committee and the judicial inquiry that will be forthcoming soon. Instead of raising in the House, and unshared with the public accounts committee, a memo which expresses a particular opinion, it should be put to the public accounts committee and to the author of that document. That is where these questions should be construed.
Solberg asks the minister to confirm whether his position is that the public accounts committee should investigate the Earnscliffe scandal, in which the Prime Minister is directly involved.
Solberg scores a procedural point by asking the minister to confirm whether he is calling for the public accounts committee to investigate the Earnscliffe scandal, holding Owen to his own words, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that I heard the minister correctly. He is saying now that he wants the public accounts committee to investigate the Earnscliffe scandal as well, the one that the Prime Minister is directly involved in. Is that the minister's position?
Oh, oh.
Goodale returns to the chronology of the four contracts â one predating the government, two extensions, and one competitive â without addressing whether the public accounts committee should investigate the Earnscliffe matter.
Goodale ignores the procedural point and returns to the chronology of the four contracts, which is substantively relevant to the broader debate but does not address Solberg's specific question about the public accounts committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker--
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman continues down a very confusing path. What the documents indicate, what the Prime Minister has said, and what others have said, not just today, but over a long period of time, is that there are four contracts being discussed here: one that predated the existence of the government; two that were extensions because a new process was not put in place; and a fourth that was issued under a competitive process. That is what the evidence indicates and those are the facts.
Ablonczy states that public works investigated and found in 1995 that the finance minister, the current Prime Minister, had acted contrary to cabinet approved guidelines and called this simply unacceptable, before her question was cut off.
Ablonczy cites a specific 1995 public works investigation finding that the finance minister had acted contrary to cabinet approved guidelines and that this was simply unacceptable, grounding the question in documentary findings, though the question is cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is what the documents really show. Public works investigated and found that the finance minister, the current Prime Minister, had acted contrary to cabinet approved guidelines. That is what they found in 1995. They said this was simply unacceptable. The truth is starting to come out about how the Prime Minister led the way in breaking and abusing contract rules. Is it not true that the Prime Minister was very comfortable in--
Goodale refers to the very document in Ablonczy's hand and states that contracts 2, 3, and 4 were all issued by the Department of Public Works, arguing the appropriate department administered the process.
Goodale responds by citing the issuing department for each of the four contracts â noting that contracts 2, 3, and 4 were issued by the Department of Public Works â which is relevant but does not address the 1995 finding that the finance minister acted contrary to cabinet approved guidelines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the very document that the hon. member has in her hand Contract No. 1 was issued in September 1993, before this government came into office. Contract No. 2 was issued by the Department of Public Works. Contract No. 3 was issued by public works. Contract No. 4 was issued by public works. The process was administered by the appropriate department.
Ablonczy alleges a public works investigation found tenders for finance department work were written with a clear bias to Earnscliffe, that other firms quit bidding because they saw it was rigged, and asks how the Prime Minister can clean up the mess when he broke all the accounting rules laid down by the cabinet.
Ablonczy alleges tenders were written with a clear bias to the one firm favoured by the Prime Minister and that other firms quit bidding because they figured out it was rigged, drawing on the same investigative documents, but ends with a rhetorical flourish rather than a clean question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was a good try, but here is what the investigation by public works really found out. Tenders for finance department work were written with a clear bias to the one firm favoured by the current Prime Minister. Other firms just quit bidding because they figured out it was all rigged. So, in order to give pork to his cronies, the Prime Minister broke all of the accounting rules laid down by the cabinet. The Prime Minister claims to want to clean up this mess, but how can he do that when he is standing in the rubble of all the rules he broke himself?
Goodale quotes from the same document to show there was considerable confusion within public works itself about contracting rules, arguing the government was trying to resolve the confusion in favour of competition.
Goodale quotes directly from the same document to argue there was considerable confusion within public works about contracting rules and that the government was trying to resolve it in favour of competition, engaging the document but framing it to deflect the bias allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is being a little selective. In the very document she is referring to there is a clear indication that there was considerable confusion with respect to the administration of some of the rules. Let me just add one quote, âWithin our own departmentâ, that would be the department of public works, âwe have at least three sectors that can issue contracts for public opinion research and each sector probably has a different definition of what is public opinion researchâ. It was that very confusion that we were trying to resolve in favour of competition.
Given Philippe Couillard's statement that accepting Canadian standards or being accountable to Ottawa in matters of health was out of the question, how can the Minister of Health justify demanding accountability from Quebec on health care?
Cites a specific public statement by Philippe Couillard and poses a reasonably clear constitutional accountability question, though it is framed partly rhetorically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Minister of Health, Philippe Couillard, stated yesterday that accepting Canadian standards or being accountable to Ottawa in matters of health was out of the question. Faced with such clear words, how can the Minister of Health still imagine that it is right to demand accountability from the Government of Quebec in the matter of health care, when it is not the federal government's responsibility to provide health care and when all its interventions only complicate the situation?
Pettigrew says he spoke with Minister Couillard and that the government does not seek to impose conditions, but rather to develop a transparent plan with provinces based on objectives they themselves agree to.
Pettigrew directly addresses the Couillard reference, claims personal contact with Couillard, and clarifies the government's approach to transparency versus accountability, though without hard factual detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to talk with Minister Couillard after the speech I gave in Toronto yesterday. He was completely comfortable with what I had to say. I agree completely that it is not our place to impose conditions on the provinces. The way we want to work is to develop a plan with the provinces by setting objectives they would agree to themselves, in a completely transparent way. No government is asking for accountability from another, but the point is to be transparent vis-Ă -vis our citizens, within our own jurisdictions.
Does the government realize that its alleged blackmail of Quebec and the provinces over health is being done at the expense of ill patients, citing Jean Charest's statement that health is Quebec's responsibility?
Cites a Jean Charest quote but the core question dissolves into partisan rhetoric about 'blackmail' and 'obsession with sticking its nose into other people's business,' making the ask vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there was one man who was unhappy with the health minister's actions and that was Jean Charest. He said, âHealth is the Quebec government's responsibility. It makes good sense, and for that reason, there is no question about making compromisesâ. Does the government realize that the blackmail it is perpetrating with respect to Quebec and the provinces is done at the expense of the ill, and that they are the ones who will pay the price for the federal government's obsession with sticking its nose into other people's business?
Pettigrew says the government wants partnership with provinces, playing a supporting role, with no conditions, no accountability between governments, and only transparency to the public.
Pettigrew reiterates the partnership framing and explicitly denies imposing conditions or requiring accountability between governments, engaging the substance of the charge but without new specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what our government wants is partnership with the provinces. We want to play a supporting role to permit the provinces to carry out the very important responsibilities they have toward Canadians. We intend to work with them. There is no question of conditions. There is no question of accountability. There is no question of one level of government being accountable to another. It is a question of each level of government being accountable to the public, in a completely transparent way.
Did the Liberal member for Montmagny-L'Islet pass on the Whirlpool employees' older workers assistance plan to the minister, and given the May 14 plant closure, when will the minister act on it?
Highly specific: names Whirlpool employees, the Liberal member for Montmagny-L'Islet, a concrete funding plan, and the May 14 plant closure deadline, with two clear answerable questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last fall, Whirlpool employees gave the Liberal member for Montmagny-L'Islet a plan to create an older workers assistance program, the funding for which would be provided by the employees, employers, Quebec and Ottawa. Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House if his Liberal colleague for Montmagny-L'Islet passed this plan on to him? Since time is of the essence, as the plant will close on May 14, when does the minister intend to follow up on the workers' request?
Volpe says pilot projects have been implemented and their results are being analyzed, and that if results are positive, decisions and long-term programs will follow â without addressing the specific Whirlpool plan or timeline.
Volpe ignores both specific questions â whether the plan was passed on and when action will be taken â instead offering a vague reference to pilot projects and their analysis.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to realize today that the member opposite has taken a page from the Liberals. That is wonderful. Pilot projects have been implemented. We are currently analyzing the results of these pilot projects. Obviously, if the results are positive, decisions will be made and the necessary measures taken to provide people with long term programs.
Citing a 2000 promise by the then-minister, now Prime Minister, about a program to help workers with the transition, what concrete measures has the Prime Minister put in place to ease the transition for workers over age 55 who lose their jobs?
Cites a specific 2000 campaign statement attributed to the current Prime Minister on POWA and asks what concrete measures have since been implemented for workers over age 55, making it a reasonably sharp accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is time to change the record; he played the wrong one in answering my question. During the 2000 federal election, in answer to a question on the POWA, a Liberal minister told the workers at Beloit in Sherbrooke, âIn a changing society, we need a program to help with the transitionâ. That minister is now Prime Minister. Four years later, can the Prime Minister tell us what concrete measures he has put in place to ease the transition for workers over age 55 who lose their jobs? When will he finally fulfill the promise he made in 2000?
Volpe cites 157,000 jobs created for older workers in Canada last year and 43,000 in Quebec, arguing the best program is a job, without addressing transitional measures or the POWA commitment.
Volpe pivots entirely to job creation statistics (157,000 jobs for older workers nationally, 43,000 in Quebec) without addressing the POWA promise or any specific transition program for workers over 55 who lose their jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the results speak for themselves. This is not just about transitional measures. The best program is a job. Are there jobs in Quebec and in the region? Yes, obviously. For example, last year in Canada, we created 157,000 jobs for older workers, 43,000 of them in Quebec. I see these as positive results, but the Bloc is playing to the gallery.
How can Canadians trust a Prime Minister who allegedly broke rules and used government policy to bend contracting rules in order to award contracts to Earnscliffe?
References documents and Earnscliffe but frames the question as a broad rhetorical accusation about trust rather than a specific factual ask, making accountability value limited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells us that he followed the rules for awarding contracts. That is not so. This was not a public tendering process, but a government policy for bending the rules and awarding contracts to Earnscliffe. How can we trust this Prime Minister who breaks the rules in order to put taxpayers' money in the pockets of his friends like Earnscliffe?
Goodale argues the documents show the Prime Minister and his staff argued for greater competition sooner, that a competitive system was assembled in fall of 1994, and that the Earnscliffe contract was awarded through a competitive contest.
Goodale directly addresses the documents, argues the Prime Minister and his staff pushed for greater competition, and provides a specific timeline â fall of 1994 competitive system â though the claim is disputed and not fully documented in the answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is misreading the documents. The documents indicate that the Prime Minister and his staff argued for greater competition, not less. They argued for it sooner rather than later. A more competitive system was finally assembled and put into place in the fall of 1994. A competitive contest was held, and it was under that basis that the Earnscliffe contract was awarded.
Why does the Prime Minister not show leadership and ask Canadians for forgiveness for having broken the funding rules and directing money to his friends at Earnscliffe?
Names Alfonso Gagliano and the Minister of Finance alongside the Prime Minister in a rule-breaking allegation but shifts into a rhetorical appeal for forgiveness rather than a precise factual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the documents show that rules were broken. They were broken by Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister himself. Why is the Prime Minister unable to show leadership and ask Canadians to forgive him for having broken the funding rules and putting money in the pockets of his friends at Earnscliffe? Why does he not show leadership and simply ask for forgiveness?
Goodale says the Earnscliffe contracts have been thoroughly discussed, that all the evidence in the memo is consistent with prior information, and outlines the four-contract sequence ending with a competitive process.
Goodale provides a four-contract chronology â predating the government, two extensions, then competitive â which is factually responsive but does not address the specific allegation that rules were broken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the series of contracts with respect to Earnscliffe have been thoroughly discussed in the House, not just in the last number of days but in fact many years ago. They are probably the most exposed and debated contracts in the history of contracting in Canada. All the evidence that has been referred to in the memo that is before the House now is completely consistent with the information given before. The first contract predated the government, the next two were extensions while a competitive process was assembled and the fourth was issued on the basis of a competitive process.
Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services confirm that the Earnscliffe contracting matter should be referred to the ad scam inquiry being led by public accounts?
References David Dingwall's predecessor comments and asks a specific procedural question â whether the Earnscliffe matter should be referred to the ad scam inquiry led by public accounts â though framed with partisan flattery.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to have a Minister of Public Works and Government Services who has a firm grasp of the obvious and who agrees with his predecessor, David Dingwall, that the Prime Minister's contracting practices with Earnscliffe left a bit to be desired. I would like to give him another opportunity to confirm that he agrees that this matter should be referred to the ad scam inquiry being led by public accounts.
Owen says the public accounts committee is examining contracting on advertising and sponsorship, and invites the opposition to put the documents before the committee and question the memo's author who will appear there.
Owen explains what the public accounts committee is examining and directly tells the opposition to put the documents before the committee and question the memo's author there, which is a substantive procedural response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee is looking into issues of contracting with respect to advertising and sponsorship. Opposition members are suggesting, through these documents that they have raised in reference in the House, that this has something to do with it. If that has something to do with it, they should put it before the committee, make their arguments and put their questions to the author of the memo they are referring to, who will be appearing before the public accounts committee. It is that simple.
Given the shipping subsidy, ad scam, and Earnscliffe contracting allegations, how does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe he had nothing to do with and knew nothing about breaking the rules to benefit his buddies?
Piles together three separate allegations â the $137,000/$161 million shipping subsidy, ad scam, and Earnscliffe contracting â into a single broad rhetorical question about what the Prime Minister expects Canadians to believe.
Source text
It looks like that minister will have as long a political future as certain Liberal candidates in Burnaby, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Prime Minister. First there was the $137,000 handout to his shipping empire that turned out to be $161 million. Then he professed to be shocked about Liberal ad scam corruption happening right under his nose. Now he is outraged that leaked documents show how he broke contracting rules to shovel tax dollars to his friends at Earnscliffe. How exactly does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that he had nothing to do with and knew absolutely nothing about breaking the rules to benefit his buddies?
Goodale asserts only that the information in the memo does not establish what the member is alleging, without providing any specific factual rebuttal.
Goodale merely asserts the questioner is turning facts upside down and that the memo does not establish what is alleged, providing no substantive facts or direct response to any of the three allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman persists in trying to turn all the facts upside down and on their heads. The fact of the matter is the information being referred to by him in this memo does not establish at all what he is alleging.
Will the Minister of Health commit to ensuring the Department of Health follows through on its commitment of $10 million in annual funding for the Canadian prostate cancer research initiative?
A government-backbench softball setup that simply restates a funding commitment and asks the minister to confirm it, with no accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. Research is key to a cure, and the Canadian prostate cancer research initiative is a national leader in supporting innovative cancer research. It is my understanding that there had been a commitment from the Department of Health for the annual funding of $10 million supporting this research. Will the minister commit to ensuring that the department goes through with this funding?
Pettigrew explains the five-year fixed period initiative began in 1999, that the government now takes an integrated approach to all cancers through the CIHR, and that in 2003-04 the CIHR allocated almost $8 million to prostate cancer research.
Pettigrew provides relevant factual detail â the five-year fixed period initiative since 1999, the creation of CIHR in 2002, and $8 million allocated to prostate cancer research in 2003-04 â though he does not commit to renewing the specific $10 million annual funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the five years of funding for prostate cancer research that began in 1999 was a fixed period initiative that provided the necessary boost to increase Canada's capacity in this area. This government is now taking an integrated approach to cancer control that aims to reduce the incidence, mortality and morbidity of all cancers rather than focusing on a few particular tumour sites. In 2002 the CIHR was created to support health research. In 2003-04 the CIHR allocated almost $8 million to prostate cancer research.
Why should Canadians be afraid of the Conservative leader for supporting Bush's war in Iraq, but be comfortable with the Liberal defence minister, appointed by the Prime Minister, who fervently maintains invading Iraq was the right thing to do?
Identifies a genuine apparent contradiction â criticizing the Conservative leader for supporting the Iraq war while the Liberal Minister of National Defence fervently maintains invading Iraq was right â making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister whose Liberals constantly criticize Conservatives for things that his Liberal government supports. Could the Prime Minister explain why Canadians should be afraid of the Conservative leader for supporting Bush's war in Iraq, but be comfortable with his Liberal defence minister, appointed by him, who fervently maintains that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Could the Prime Minister explain this absurd contradiction?
Graham says the government's policy on Iraq has been very clear for over a year, the Prime Minister fully supported that position, and the Leader of the Opposition's position would have sent Canadian troops there.
Graham defends the government's Iraq policy as correct and attacks the Leader of the Opposition's position, but does not address or explain the contradiction between criticizing the Conservative leader and retaining a defence minister who supported the same war.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government's policy in respect of Iraq has been very clear for over a year. The Prime Minister totally supported the position we took. I think when we look at what is taking place in the Middle East today, we would all agree that position was the correct position to take. The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition would have had us there with our troops, with the danger, with ourselves exposed to problems that were no part of Canada. The Prime Minister and the government are firmly correct on the position in Iraq, and we will remain where we always were in the best interests of Canadian people.
Can the Prime Minister explain why the Conservatives are wrong to support Bush's war in Iraq, but his own Liberal Minister of National Defence is right to support the same war?
Sharpens the prior question by focusing specifically on why the Prime Minister's own Liberal Minister of National Defence is right to support the war if the Conservatives are wrong to, making it a pointed follow-up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has not answered my question. On one hand the Liberals are saying that the Conservatives are wrong to support President Bush's war in Iraq. On the other hand the Liberals are comfortable with the idea of the Prime Minister having appointed the biggest hawk in this Parliament as Minister of National Defence. Can the Prime Minister explain why the Conservatives are wrong to support Bush's war, but his own Liberal Minister of National Defence is right to support the war?
Martin says the difference is that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to send troops to Iraq during the war, while the Minister of National Defence wants to send troops to Haiti and Afghanistan to secure and maintain peace.
Martin attempts to distinguish the two positions by contrasting sending troops to Iraq during the war versus sending troops to Haiti and Afghanistan for peacekeeping, but does not directly address the defence minister's stated view that invading Iraq was right.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the difference between the two is very clear. What the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do was send our troops to Iraq during the war. That is exactly what he said on the Fox network in the United States. What our government wants to do, what our Minister of National Defence wants to do, is send our troops to Haiti to secure and maintain peace. He wants to send our troops to Afghanistan to secure peace. Our Minister of National Defence wants Canada to help these countries build their institutions. There is a fundamental difference betweenâ
How can the Minister of Finance account for the secret internal letter from David Dingwall stating that his department demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with and avoidance of Treasury Board guidelines?
Cites a specific internal letter from David Dingwall to the Minister of Finance describing a pattern of non-compliance with Treasury Board guidelines, and asks the minister directly to account for it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance pleaded innocent to any wrongdoing regarding the issuing of contracts. He said that all the rules throughout the process were indeed followed. How then can he account for the secret internal letter sent to him by his colleague David Dingwall stating that the minister's department had demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with and avoidance of Treasury Board guidelines?
Goodale identifies the letter as dated March 1995, relates it to urgent polling needed for a budget program, and says the program was later reviewed and received a favourable report from the Auditor General.
Goodale identifies the specific March 1995 letter and its context, explains there was an urgent reason for the work, and notes the program received a favourable Auditor General report, partially but not fully addressing the 'pattern of non-compliance' characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the specific letter that was referred to was one dated in March 1995 that talked about a certain polling activity that needed to be done in relation to the budget and the activities flowing out of the budget in the spring of 1995. I explained at that time that there was an urgent reason why the work had to be done so the program could be administered properly, and that when the whole process was completed, the program was reviewed and received a favourable report from the Auditor General.
Given that the minister became minister of agriculture on November 4, 1993, and was reprimanded for breaking the rules on July 25, 1995 â 628 days later â how could he let his department get so far out of control?
Uses specific dates â minister of agriculture from November 4, 1993, reprimanded July 25, 1995, calculating 628 days â to challenge the minister's claim of acting speedily, making it a factually grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister brags about the speed with which government and even he himself dealt with issues regarding the contracting. He became the minister of agriculture on November 4, 1993. He was reprimanded for breaking the rules by the then minister of public works on July 25, 1995, 628 days later. I am not sure of the minister's definition of speed, but how could this pretentiously cautious minister let his department get so far out of control?
Goodale argues the relevant guidelines came into place in fall of 1994, not 1993, making the period narrower than claimed, and that the issue arose in spring 1995 in a narrow window between the budget and spring seeding.
Goodale directly challenges the 628-day figure by arguing the guidelines came into place in fall of 1994, not 1993, narrowing the relevant period, and notes the issue arose in spring 1995 â a partial but substantive factual response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to guidelines that came into place, not in 1993 but in the fall of 1994. Therefore the period of time that is being referred to here is a much narrower one than the hon. gentlemen indicates. Also, the issue that had to be dealt with was not in 1994 but in the spring of 1995 in a very narrow window between the budget and spring seeding time.
Since the urgency defence has been blown given 628 days as agriculture minister, what excuse will the minister use today to explain handing untendered contracts to Earnscliffe?
References the 628-day period and the urgency defence raised the previous day, but the 'what excuse will the minister use today' framing is primarily rhetorical rather than a precise factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister tried to mask his role in the government-wide contracting scandal by claiming that it was urgent that he hand untendered contracts to Earnscliffe. When David Dingwall blew the whistle, the member for Wascana had been agriculture minister for 628 days. That is almost two years of being seized by urgency. That has to be hard on anyone. Since the urgency defence has been blown, what excuse will the minister use today?
Goodale reiterates that the letter clearly indicates the timeframe was around the March 1995 budget and spring seeding, a period of only six or eight weeks.
Goodale restates the timeframe from the letter as around the March 1995 budget and spring seeding â six to eight weeks â which is a direct if brief factual response to the urgency challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the letter that was circulated yesterday indicates very clearly what the timeframe was. The timeframe was the period of time around the budget in March 1995 and spring seeding time in 1995, which was only a matter of six or eight weeks.
Will the finance minister stop hiding behind his urgency defence and admit that he was a kingpin in the decade of Liberal corruption?
The question is almost entirely rhetorical partisan framing â 'kingpin in the decade of Liberal corruption' â with no specific factual ask beyond demanding the minister stop using the urgency defence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals are preparing to trot out their old scare tactics in the next election and they are off to a good start. There are too many Canadians who are afraid that there is not a Liberal alive willing to follow the rules when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Will the finance minister stop hiding behind his urgency defence and admit that he was a kingpin in the decade of Liberal corruption?
Goodale says the letter sets out the urgency case clearly â ensuring a $1.6 billion program operated effectively â and that the Auditor General's subsequent review found it had been handled properly.
Goodale reiterates the specific case for urgency as laid out in the letter â a $1.6 billion program needing effective operation â and notes the Auditor General's favourable review, providing some factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the case for urgency is laid out in very specific terms in the letter that was circulated yesterday. It indicates the argument very clearly. It was important to make sure that a $1.6 billion program operated effectively. I am pleased to say that at the end of the program, after a review by the Auditor General, the report was indeed that it had been handled properly.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage intervene to protect Edith Gendron's right to serve as president of Le Québec, un pays, based on the 1991 Supreme Court ruling confirming public servants' right to legitimate political activities?
Cites a specific employee, a specific organization, and a specific 1991 Supreme Court ruling as legal grounding for a clear yes/no accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Edith Gendron, who works for the Department of Canadian Heritage, has just received an ultimatum to resign as president of the organization Le Québec, un pays. Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage plan to intervene and call her departmental staff to order, on the basis of the 1991 Supreme Court ruling that confirmed public servants' right to legitimate political activities?
The minister characterized the matter as a departmental human resources issue between the department and the employee, and said it was being handled in compliance with all applicable public service standards.
The minister confirms the matter is being handled in compliance with public service standards but does not address the specific Supreme Court ruling cited or whether an ultimatum was issued.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that concerns departmental human resources and, as such, is between the department and the employee in question. The department has assured me that the matter was being handled in compliance with all standards applicable to the public service of Canada.
How does membership in Le Québec, un pays prevent Ms. Gendron from properly performing her duties administering French-as-a-second-language programs in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?
Sharpens the prior exchange with a specific operational question about how Ms. Gendron's role in Le Québec, un pays interferes with her defined duties of administering French-as-a-second-language programs in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to us how membership in Le Québec, un pays would prevent Ms. Gendron from performing her duties properly, those duties being to administer programs to promote the teaching of French as a second language in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?
The minister reiterated only that she gave no directive and that the matter is strictly between the department and the employee as a human resources issue.
The minister does not engage with the specific incompatibility question at all, simply restating that she gave no directive and that it is a human resources matter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to reiterate my position, I have given no directive in connection with this. It is most definitely a matter between the department and an employee, a human resources matter.
How can the government justify giving Rolls-Royce Canada $30 million through Technology Partnerships Canada when the program has disbursed $2.4 billion since 1996 and recovered less than 2%?
Cites a specific $30 million grant to Rolls-Royce Canada, the program name Technology Partnerships Canada, a total figure of $2.4 billion since 1996, and a recovery rate of less than 2%, though the rhetorical framing weakens the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is continuing its shameful policy of subsidizing Canada's largest corporations. The Liberals recently gave Rolls-Royce Canada $30 million through Technology Partnerships Canada. This corporate welfare program has given $2.4 billion of taxpayer money since 1996 and has recovered less than 2% of that money. This is completely scandalous. How can the government justify to hard-working taxpayers using this money and giving it to large corporations like Rolls-Royce?
The minister defended Technology Partnerships Canada as a program to help develop technology and maintain international competitiveness, citing its national reach including British Columbia.
The minister defends Technology Partnerships Canada in general terms and mentions geographic breadth but does not address the specific recovery rate figure or justify the Rolls-Royce grant.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada is a program to help develop technology in Canada, which will impact all Canadians. Rolls-Royce is not the only one involved, there are a number of companies throughout the country, British Columbia included. Whether in the west or the east, this is a program to help us remain competitive internationally. We are very proud of it.
How can the government justify giving over $80 million to Rolls-Royce through two separate grants for what appears to be the same purposeâresearch and development of industrial gas turbine enginesâwhile recovering less than 2% since 1996?
Cites two specific grants totalling over $80 million to Rolls-Royce for apparently the same stated purposeâindustrial gas turbine enginesâand references the sub-2% recovery figure, constituting a highly specific accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the $30 million grant was given to Rolls-Royce to develop industrial gas turbine engines. In addition, less than four years ago the government gave over $50 million to the same company, Rolls-Royce, to--wait for it--research and develop industrial gas turbine engines. Does it sound familiar? This was over $80 million for the same purpose. It has to be the Rolls-Royce of photocopying. How can the government justify giving over $80 million of taxpayer money to one of the largest, most profitable international corporations and getting back less than 2% since 1996?
The minister stated the member had the facts wrong, that the two projects involve completely different technologies, and clarified that contributions under the program function like loan guarantees that the company will repay.
The minister directly disputes the factual premise by asserting these are two completely different projects and clarifies that contributions function like loan guarantees with repayment expected, but does not address the less-than-2% recovery rate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member has the facts wrong. Those are two completely different projects. Two different technologies will be developed that will help other companies in the country to be more competitive and more innovative. I think they will be very good for the economy and for Canadians. First, these are not contributions. They are like loan guarantees. The company will repay the Government of Canada. The objective of this program is precisely that: for the government to share the risks of developing high technology with industry.
What will the government do to provide sustainable funding to FACTOR, the Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Records, whose funding was set to expire on March 31?
This is a government-backbench softball setup citing FACTOR funding expiry on March 31 to invite the minister to announce continued support, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by members of Canada's music industry that the funding for FACTOR, the Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Records, will expire on March 31. The expiration of this fund will affect every facet of Canada's music industry, but individual Canadian artists will be affected the most. What will the government do to provide sustainable funding to FACTOR to ensure there remains a launch pad for tomorrow's Canadian recording stars?
The minister stated the government remains very committed to Canadian artists and pledged to ensure they have the necessary tools to succeed with sustained long-term funding for FACTOR.
The minister referenced her public comments at the Juno Awards and round tables, and committed to sustained long-term funding for FACTOR, providing a reasonably clear commitment though without dollar figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the chance today to repeat what I said publicly at the Juno Awards a few weeks ago. At many round tables I heard the success stories surrounding FACTOR funding and also I heard about the worries surrounding the non-funding of FACTOR. Let me be very clear. The government remains very committed to Canadian artists and I will ensure that they have the necessary tools to continue succeeding both nationally and internationally with sustained long term funding.
Why did the Minister of Public Safety publicly exonerate the RCMP commissioner before the investigation into the potential misappropriation of $4 million in RCMP pension funds was completed?
Cites a specific prior ministerial statement exonerating the commissioner, references $4 million in allegedly misappropriated RCMP pension funds, and 4,000 RCMP pensioners, posing a clear question about prejudging an ongoing investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety was quick to defend the commissioner of the RCMP when questioned about his potential involvement in the misappropriation of $4 million of RCMP pension funds. She said âThere is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigatedâ. How does she know? It is the duty of the minister to protect and defend Canadians' interests, including 4,000 RCMP pensioners. Why has the minister prejudged this investigation?
The minister asserted there has been no prejudging, stated she has been informed that no funds are missing from the RCMP pension plan, and noted the RCMP has called in the Ottawa police service to conduct an investigation.
The minister directly disputes the misappropriation premise by asserting no funds are missing, and notes the Ottawa police service has been called in, but does not explain the basis for her prior statement about the commissioner's conduct.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact there has been no prejudging of this investigation. As I have assured the House on a number of occasions, there are no funds missing from the RCMP pension plan. In fact, the RCMP has called in the investigative assistance of the Ottawa police service. I think it is incumbent upon all of us at this point to let the Ottawa police service carry out its investigation.
Why did the minister publicly whitewash the investigation by exonerating the RCMP commissioner before the inquiry was completed, contrary to her past practice of not commenting on matters subject to police investigation?
Builds on the prior exchange by pointing to the minister's own past practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations and contrasting it with her statement exonerating the commissioner, but is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has prejudged and prejudiced this investigation by publicly exonerating the commissioner of the RCMP. In the past the minister has refused to comment on matters that are before the courts or that are subject to a police investigation. Why in this case did the minister whitewash this investigation before the inquiry was even completed?
The minister denied any whitewash, reiterated that the RCMP informed her no funds are missing from the pension fund, and again noted the Ottawa police service has been called in to conduct a thorough investigation.
The minister restates the same pointsâno funds missing, Ottawa police service called inâwithout addressing the inconsistency in her approach to commenting on ongoing investigations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, far from there being any whitewash, I have been informed by the RCMP that no funds are missing from the RCMP pension fund. I also have been informed by the RCMP that it has in fact called in the Ottawa police service to conduct a thorough investigation. I suggest that we await the outcome of that investigation.
What is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food waiting for to relax the support program and the agricultural policy framework so that compensation under the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program is not based on artificially depressed grain prices caused by U.S. and European subsidies?
Identifies a specific structural flaw in the Canadian agricultural income stabilization programâthat compensation is based on depressed five-year average grain prices distorted by U.S. and European subsidiesâand asks for flexibility in the agricultural policy framework, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program only provides grain producers with compensation based on the average price of grain for the past five years, a depressed price because of U.S. and European subsidies. Unfortunately, Ottawa's rigidity forces Quebec and its farmers to apply blanket Canada-wide rules and precludes the development of truly suitable programs. What is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food waiting for to relax the support program and the agricultural policy framework, and allow the money to be used to meet the needs of the agricultural industry?
The parliamentary secretary stated that many programs are available to help farmers throughout the country when their income margins go down, including in Quebec.
The parliamentary secretary gives a generic statement that money is available for farmers across the country including Quebec, addressing nothing specific about the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program's methodology or the request for flexibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have many programs available to help farmers throughout the country, whether in Quebec or out west, when margins go down in their income. There is money available for farmers right across the country, even in Quebec.
Why has the government taken no action on solvent abuse given that at least two teenagers died in Quebec this week from inhaling butane gas and 20% of Canadian kids will have tried sniffing by grade eight, and will it act on additives to gasoline, penalties to merchants of misery, and treatment for addicts?
Cites at least two recent teenage deaths in Quebec from inhaling butane gas, a statistic that 20% of Canadian kids will have tried sniffing by grade eight, and proposes three specific policy optionsâadditives to gasoline, penalties to merchants of misery, and treatment for addictsâthough the final ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at least two teenagers died this week in Quebec from inhaling butane gas. Many young people die or are permanently damaged every year from solvent abuse. Twenty per cent of Canadian kids will have tried sniffing by grade eight. Yet this is not a government priority. There is so much it could do: additives to gasoline, penalties to merchants of misery, treatment for addicts. Why has the government taken no action? Has it already forgotten the children of Davis Inlet? Why is the government just a spectator to this human tragedy?
The minister cited the government's funded and renewed national drug strategy, stating it addresses enforcement, education, and treatment, and works with local communities to reach young people and their families.
The minister references the national drug strategy and its renewal and notes it covers enforcement, education, treatment, and community work, but does not address any of the three specific policy options proposed by the member.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me say, in response to the hon. member's question, that it is in fact a very serious question and that is why this government has funded and renewed our national drug strategy. The tragedies, of which the hon. member speaks, are happening in our communities, which is why our national drug strategy will not only deal with enforcement but will deal with education and treatment, and work with local communities all over the country to ensure we reach young people and their families in their schools and in their communities to deal with this.
Why has the President of the Treasury Board not yet tabled the existing lists of events that received money through the secret national unity fund, three weeks after his cabinet committed to providing that information within 48 hours?
Cites a specific three-week-old cabinet commitment to provide information within 48 hours, references a specific Monday statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, and asks directly when the existing lists of events funded through the national unity fund will be tabled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been three weeks since the Prime Minister's cabinet said it would be able to provide information on the secret national unity fund within 48 hours. On Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said he had no record of the events and that he had to prepare a list of these events. What is the President of the Treasury Board waiting for to table the existing lists of events that received money through this fund?
The minister said the Treasury Board Secretariat is working with all departments to gather information on the use of the national unity reserve, and that scrutinizing all government programs going back a number of years requires a certain amount of time.
The minister explains the Treasury Board Secretariat is working with departments to gather information on the national unity reserve and that it takes time, but gives no timeline and does not explain why the 48-hour commitment was not honoured.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat is working with all the departments in order to gather information on the use of the national unity reserve. In order to obtain this type of information, it must scrutinize all government programs and activities that go back a number of years. A certain amount of time is needed to complete this process.