Session overview
- The sponsorship program dominated Question Period, with CPC and BQ members pressing the Prime Minister on when he knew his office placed calls to Alfonso Gagliano to secure sponsorship money for his fundraiser friend Serge Savard; the government consistently deflected all questions to the Gomery commission.
- The BQ challenged the exclusion of Desjardins Securities from the sale of Petro-Canada shares, questioning whether Liberal Party donation records influenced the selection of brokerage firms; Finance Minister Goodale defended the process as independent and proper.
- NDP leader Jack Layton challenged the Prime Minister on broken promises regarding foreign aid, student debt, pollution control, and the GST rebate to cities; the Prime Minister defended the government's record, particularly citing the $7 billion GST rebate to municipalities.
- Canada Post's former president André Ouellet and the Deloitte Touche audit revealing over $2 million in lavish hospitality and travel expenditures were raised by CPC members; the Minister of National Revenue confirmed the Canada Revenue Agency audit was underway and that receipts had been formally requested.
- The President of the Treasury Board confirmed he had ordered payment stopped on a contract for a public service ethics instructor who had been convicted of fraud in 2002, and committed to report back to the House.
- The opposition leader's so-called Belgian plan for linguistic governance was attacked repeatedly by Liberal members as promoting territorial unilingualism; the government used this to deflect sponsorship questions and frame the CPC as a threat to official language minority communities.
President of the Treasury Board Reg Alcock confirmed a concrete, immediate action: he had ordered payment stopped on the contract with the fraud-convicted ethics instructor and committed to report back to the House with full details.
Cites specific dollar amounts of contributions by named firms to the Liberal Party (RBC Dominion Securities $117,000, BMO Nesbitt Burns $79,600, GMP Securities $51,000 to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign) and notes Desjardins made no such contribution, asking directly whether those contributions influenced the Minister of Finance's selection criteria.
Rather than addressing Monte Solberg's direct question about when the Prime Minister knew his office lobbied the sponsorship program for Serge Savard, Brison pivoted entirely to praising the Parliamentary Secretary's procurement review and inviting the opposition to engage in a future vision for the department.
Outstanding questions
- When did the Prime Minister learn that his office had placed calls to Alfonso Gagliano to secure sponsorship money for his fundraiser Serge Savard, and did he direct his staff to make those calls? (asked repeatedly by Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, James Moore, Monte Solberg, and Michel Guimond)
- Which ministers were found, in the 2000 investigation, to have intervened in the sponsorship program? (asked by Michel Guimond)
- Why did the Prime Minister's office withhold pertinent sponsorship documents from approximately half of the parliamentary committee motions requesting them, and why was the most damaging evidence not released until after the election? (asked by Diane Ablonczy)
- How does the Minister of Finance explain choosing UBS Security, which paid a $2 million fine for questionable trading practices, over Desjardins, the largest brokerage firm in Quebec, for the Petro-Canada share sale? (asked by Yvan Loubier)
- Will the government commit to investing 100% of the Petro-Canada sale proceeds into Canada's green economy to address greenhouse gas emissions? (asked by Nathan Cullen)
Harper asks when the Prime Minister learned that his office had placed calls to secure sponsorship money for his fundraiser, money that funnelled through Groupe Everest.
Cites a specific factual claim about calls from the Prime Minister's office to secure sponsorship money through Groupe Everest and asks a single, clear, answerable question about when the Prime Minister learned of those calls.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been asked 585 questions on the sponsorship scandal this year. He has maintained he knew nothing, he saw nothing and he did nothing, except that we now know his office placed calls to secure sponsorship money for his fundraiser, money that funnelled through Groupe Everest. When did the Prime Minister learn that his office had made these calls?
Martin deflects to the Gomery commission and ridicules the Leader of the Opposition's alleged positions on Belgium and the Bloc Québécois, providing no answer to the question.
The Prime Minister does not address the question at all, deflecting entirely to a mockery of the Leader of the Opposition's position on Belgium and the Bloc.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been explained in the House, Mr. Justice Gomery is dealing with this issue, and the commission certainly will deal with it. What the Gomery commission cannot deal with is the evolving position of the Leader of the Opposition on Belgium. Let me just simply say this. First he wants to cohabit with the Bloc. Then he wants to cohabit with Mario Dumont. Now we learn that he wants to do it with the both of them in a bed and breakfast in Brussels.
Harper asks when the Prime Minister knew that his office was placing calls to Alfonso Gagliano to get sponsorship money for Liberal fundraiser friends, given his claim to have been out of the loop.
Cites the Prime Minister's own public claim of being 'out of the loop,' contrasts it with the specific allegation that his staff called Alfonso Gagliano for sponsorship money, and asks a single clear question about when the Prime Minister knew.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Judge Gomery, unless the Prime Minister is planning to give up his seat, cannot come here and answer for the Prime Minister's behaviour on the floor of the House. The Prime Minister said that he was out of the loop on the sponsorship scandal, but apparently his staff were in the loop. They knew exactly whom to contact to get money for his Liberal fundraiser friends. When did the Prime Minister know his office was placing calls to Alfonso Gagliano to get sponsorship money?
Brison warns against commenting on day-to-day Gomery testimony and accuses the Leader of the Opposition of making false allegations on the floor of the House, without answering when the Prime Minister knew.
Brison does not address the question of when the Prime Minister knew, instead warning against prejudging Gomery and accusing the Leader of the Opposition of making false allegations the previous day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have reminded the hon. members opposite not to prejudge Gomery by commenting on day to day testimony for a very important reason. That is to respect the independence of a judicial inquiry. However, there is another reason why it is important. That is to save them from themselves and to prevent them from making the grievous errors that their leader did yesterday when he made false allegations on the floor of the House of Commons. That is the risk he is taking and they are taking when they comment on day to day testimony without the full report.
Harper asks again, in both English and French, when the Prime Minister learned that calls were being placed from his office to Alfonso Gagliano to secure sponsorship money for his fundraiser friend.
Acknowledges that the identity of who made the calls has been revealed, and presses the single answerable question of when the Prime Minister knew his office was placing those calls.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apparently these questions finally got the government to answer outside the House of Commons. If the government is prepared to tell us who made the calls, I want to find out when the Prime Minister learned. I will ask again in French if it will help. We now know when the office of the Prime Minister placed calls to Alfonso Gagliano to get sponsorship money for his fundraiser friend and who placed these calls. Now, when did the Prime Minister know these calls were being placed from his office?
Martin says all answers will be in the Gomery commission report and dismisses the Leader of the Opposition with a Tintin and Snowy joke.
Martin again refuses to answer, directing the questioner to await the Gomery report and mocking the Leader of the Opposition with a Tintin reference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the answers will be in the report of the Gomery commission, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. What we want to know is who is advising the Leader of the Opposition on constitutional matters, Tintin and Snowy?
MacKay asks when the Prime Minister knew that calls were made seeking sponsorship money, and why Canadians had to wait for a judicial inquiry rather than the Prime Minister following his own advice to come forward.
Cites the Prime Minister's own public statement from last spring and alleges that staff made calls looking for sponsorship money while hiding information from a parliamentary committee, asking a two-part question about when the Prime Minister knew and why a judicial inquiry was required.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister was not looking in the mirror when he said last spring, “anyone who knows anything...should come forward and not wait to be compelled to do so”. In a case of do as I say, not as I do, the Prime Minister refused to follow his own advice. Now we know his staff routinely made calls looking for sponsorship money and hid this information from a parliamentary committee. When did the Prime Minister know that calls were made and why did it take a judicial inquiry for Canadians to find out that the Prime Minister's staff and his invisible hand were guiding the sponsorship program?
Brison recounts alleged factual errors by the deputy leader and leader of the Conservative Party on the two preceding days and urges the party to support Justice Gomery's work.
Brison responds only by cataloguing alleged factual errors made by MacKay and the Leader of the Opposition on previous days, without addressing when the Prime Minister knew or why a judicial inquiry was needed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two days ago the deputy leader of the Conservative Party said that Francis Fox was on the board of Internationaux du Sports de Montréal. He was wrong. Yesterday the leader of the Conservative Party said that the Prime Minister personally made calls. He was wrong. That right-wing party seems to be wrong a lot of the time. I would urge the Conservative Party to fire its research staff and to support the work of Justice Gomery. That would be the right thing to do.
MacKay cites Gomery testimony about secrecy, Liquid Paper being used to blank out names, and the involvement of the Prime Minister's staff, then asks the Prime Minister what his staff whited out.
References specific testimony from three witnesses and specific alleged practices (Liquid Paper to blank out names, rules written after a media request) before asking the Prime Minister what his staff whited out, but the final question is metaphorical and somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one columnist said that the testimony at the Gomery commission is “a Liberal Party mired in patronage, political interference and yes, corruption”. Three witnesses have said that the sponsorship program was initially kept secret and only Liberals knew about it. The rules for the program were written after the media requested it, years after the program began. Political direction was given to public servants and were told to use Liquid Paper to blank out certain names. Now we learn the Prime Minister's staff was involved in directing the program. My question is for the Prime Minister. What has his staff whited out?
Brison presents a letter from former Conservative MP Elsie Wayne seeking sponsorship funding and warns against commenting on day-to-day testimony without the full report.
Brison does not address any of the testimony cited or the question about what was whited out, instead producing a letter from Elsie Wayne seeking sponsorship funding and warning against commenting on testimony.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I fear that the hon. member may be wrong yet again. I have a letter here addressed to the former minister of public works from my good friend Elsie Wayne, a former senior member of the Conservative Party, in the year 2000, seeking funding from the sponsorship program. The folly of commenting on day to day testimony of a judicial inquiry is that one runs the risk of being wrong. I am surprised they do not break limbs jumping to conclusions on that side of the House.
Duceppe asks why the Prime Minister told Alban D'Amours, president of the Desjardins Group, that he was sorry if the federal government acted properly in excluding Desjardins Securities from the sale of Petro-Canada shares.
Cites a specific named individual (Alban D'Amours, president of the Desjardins Group) and a specific alleged apology by the Prime Minister to argue that proper procedures were not followed, asking a pointed question about why the Prime Minister apologized if everything was done correctly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance can say what he likes about following objective criteria, it is still true that Desjardins Securities was excluded from the sale of Petro-Canada shares in a cavalier fashion. If the federal government acted as properly as the finance minister claims, why did the Prime Minister tell Alban D'Amours, president of the Desjardins Group, that he was sorry, if, indeed, the federal government did all it was supposed to?
Martin asserts that the Minister of Finance followed proper procedures with enormous integrity and praises the cooperative movement and the role of Desjardins, without explaining the alleged apology.
Martin asserts that the Minister of Finance followed proper procedures with enormous integrity but does not address the specific allegation that he personally apologized to Alban D'Amours or what that apology signified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Minister of Finance followed the proper procedures with enormous integrity, exactly as he was supposed to. I think that all Quebeckers and all Canadians recognize the importance of the cooperative movement and the role Desjardins plays in it, as well as its role both inside Canada and in less-developed countries. The growth of the cooperative movement in Canada is something I have always recognized and shall continue to recognize.
Duceppe argues that Quebeckers were excluded from buying Petro-Canada shares by the exclusion of the best vehicle for selling shares in Quebec, comparing it to André Ouellet's use of Bill S-31 to prevent Quebec from buying shares in Canadian Pacific.
Makes a pointed rhetorical argument about Quebec being excluded from buying Petro-Canada shares and draws a historical parallel with Bill S-31, but does not pose a sharply worded or single answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it might also be interesting if the federal government were to recognize that movement when it is time to do business, and not just pay lip service to it. When the Minister of Finance has the nerve to call this transaction one of the “single most successful transactions of its kind in the last decade in the western world”, I would like to remind him that Quebec is also a part of the western world. It is the best vehicle for selling shares in Quebec, and Quebeckers have been excluded from buying Petro-Canada. That is what was done, the same way André Ouellet tried to use Bill S-31 to prevent Quebec from buying shares in Canadian Pacific. That is what happened.
Goodale states that the hon. gentleman is simply mistaken and points to two Quebec companies — the Banque Nationale and Casgrain — that were included in the transaction.
Goodale notes that two Quebec companies — the Banque Nationale and Casgrain — were included in the transaction, which is a partial factual rebuttal, though he does not address the broader exclusion argument or the Bill S-31 comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is simply mistaken. I am proud to salute the work of the team that was created and also emphasize the fact that this transaction was an opportunity for companies from one end of the country to the other to show their talents, in particular, two Quebec companies, the Banque Nationale and Casgrain.
Loubier asks whether the Minister of Finance had the listed brokerage firms' contributions to the Liberal Party in mind when he said all companies were chosen according to objective criteria, citing specific donation amounts from RBC Dominion Securities, BMO Nesbitt Burns, and GMP Securities.
Cites specific dollar amounts of contributions by named firms to the Liberal Party (RBC Dominion Securities $117,000, BMO Nesbitt Burns $79,600, GMP Securities $51,000 to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign) and notes Desjardins made no such contribution, asking directly whether those contributions influenced the Minister of Finance's selection criteria.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that most of the brokerage firms chosen by the government have contributed money to the Liberal Party of Canada. RBC Dominion Securities contributed $117,000, BMO Nesbitt Burns $79,600, while GMP Securities contributed $51,000 to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. There is only one important exception: the Desjardins Group did not make a contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada. Did the Minister of Finance have the contributions to the Liberal Party in mind yesterday when he said that all the companies had been chosen according to objective criteria?
Goodale says he has no knowledge whatsoever of what the corporations contribute and describes a consultation process with the Department of Justice, senior Finance officials, and two independent outside experts to ensure propriety.
Goodale denies any knowledge of corporate contributions and describes a three-step consultation process involving the Department of Justice, senior Finance officials, and two independent experts, but does not address the specific figures cited or why Desjardins was excluded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge whatsoever of what the corporations contribute. However I want to tell the hon. gentleman that in order to secure the very best results, we first consulted thoroughly with the Department of Justice to make sure all the rules were complied with. Second, we consulted with senior officials in the Department of Finance with long experience in these matters. Third, we went entirely outside the government to get two independent experts to verify to us that the pattern we were following was precisely proper in the context of the transaction.
Loubier asks how the Minister of Finance can justify choosing UBS Security, which had paid a $2 million fine for questionable trading practices, over Desjardins, the largest brokerage firm in Quebec, thereby denying Quebec investors the opportunity to buy Petro-Canada shares.
Cites a specific fact — that UBS Security had to pay a $2 million fine for questionable trading practices — and asks how the minister can justify choosing UBS Security over Desjardins, the largest brokerage firm in Quebec.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is too bad. If he consulted the Department of Justice, the choice available to the government is even better today. One of the firms chosen under the Minister of Finance's objective criteria is UBS Security, which had to pay a $2 million fine, one of the biggest fines ever paid, for questionable trading practices. That must have been quite the consultation at the Department of Justice. How does the minister explain choosing UBS Security over Desjardins, the largest brokerage firm in Quebec and, as a result, denying numerous Quebec investors the opportunity to buy Petro-Canada shares?
Goodale says it was not possible to include every worthy applicant among the 22 selected, mentions Casgrain and the Banque Nationale as Quebec participants, and cites advice from a former governor of the Bank of Canada and a former auditor general.
Goodale acknowledges it was not possible to include every conceivable worthy applicant among 22 selected, mentions Casgrain and the Banque Nationale, and notes advice from a former governor of the Bank of Canada and a former auditor general, but does not specifically address the UBS Security fine allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in the context of this transaction, it was not possible to include every conceivable worthy applicant. We included 22 very worthy applicants. Unfortunately, it was not possible to include everyone. We did include Casgrain and the Banque Nationale. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that we went outside the circle of the government to get professional independent advice so that I could absolutely assure myself that the transaction was conducted properly. That advice came from a former governor of the Bank of Canada and a former auditor general.
Layton asks whether the Prime Minister will give an undertaking to keep all his promises — on foreign aid, student debt, pollution control, and the 5¢ promise to cities — before he starts to reduce taxes.
References multiple policy areas (foreign aid, student debt, pollution control, cities funding) but combines them into a compound, broadly framed ask about whether the Prime Minister will keep all promises before reducing taxes, weakening its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On his recent foreign trip, foreign leaders had to point out to the Prime Minister that he had not kept his promise on foreign aid. Students, meanwhile, of course know that he has not kept his promise on student debt. People trying to breathe clean air know that he has not kept his promise on pollution control. Cities know that he has not kept his 5¢ promise and the result is property taxes are going up. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that he will keep all his promises before he starts to reduce taxes?
Martin asserts the government is keeping its promises on cities through the $7 billion GST commitment over 10 years, claims increased foreign aid every year, and points to over $1 billion committed to environmental technologies from the sale of Petro-Canada.
Martin cites the $7 billion on GST over 10 years and increased foreign aid amounts without providing specific data for any of the other promises cited, and does not address the condition about keeping promises before reducing taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me simply tell the hon. leader of the NDP that we are keeping our promises on cities. I would quickly remind him of the $7 billion on GST over the next 10 years alone. We have increased every single year the amount of money that we are putting into foreign aid. I would remind him of the very important role that Canada is playing with the most heavily indebted countries in the world. I would ask the hon. member to take a look at the amount of money that we have put in terms of the municipalities and the environment, and the fact that the Minister of Finance has committed over $1 billion to go into environmental technologies from the sale of Petro-Canada. Let me assure the hon. member that we are keeping our promises.
Layton asks why the Prime Minister has an infrastructure minister who is crying poor when he has a finance minister who says his pockets are full of money, accusing the Prime Minister of separating words from action.
Frames its substance rhetorically — contrasting the infrastructure minister crying poor with the finance minister saying his pockets are full — and the question about a Prime Minister who separates words from action is more a talking point than a specific, answerable ask.
Source text
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in this House I get to say that this so-called GST promise to the cities, this giving of money to the cities, is the government not taking money from the cities. That is what it is. I am just trying to understand this House. What we have here is an opposition leader who wants to separate English from French and we have a Prime Minister who wants to separate words from action. Why is it that the Prime Minister has an infrastructure minister who is crying poor when he has a finance minister who says his pockets are full of our money?
Martin says mayors, reeves, and wardens across the country have praised the government for the $7 billion they will receive over 10 years, and chooses their judgment over that of the NDP leader.
Martin responds by citing mayors, reeves, and wardens praising the government for the $7 billion, which does not address the contradiction Layton alleges between the infrastructure minister and the finance minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have gone across this country, as has the minister who is in charge of cities and communities and infrastructure. I have met with the people in small towns and with the mayors of the biggest cities. In every single meeting they have praised the government for the $7 billion that they will be receiving over the next 10 years. Let me just say that if I have to choose between the judgment call of the leader of the NDP and the mayors, the reeves and the wardens of this country, I will choose the mayors, the reeves and the wardens.
Moore asks whether the Prime Minister's assistant requested over $1 million in sponsorship funding for Serge Savard on her own initiative or at her boss's behest, and whether the Prime Minister will disavow any connection.
Cites a specific named witness and a specific dollar figure ($1 million in funding for Serge Savard) from testimony the previous day and asks a clear either/or question about whether the Prime Minister's assistant acted on her own or at her boss's behest.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to it, what Canadians want to know about the sponsorship scandal is whether the Prime Minister is or is not responsible. The facts are fuel for speculation. Yesterday, his assistant at the time admitted to having requested over $1 million in funding for his organizer, Serge Savard. Did she do so on her own, or at her boss's behest? Is the Prime Minister now going to disavow any connection with this?
Brison says the Prime Minister has been extremely accountable by ending the sponsorship program and commissioning Justice Gomery, and urges members opposite not to prejudge the independent judicial inquiry.
Brison does not address the specific question about the assistant's actions, instead citing the Prime Minister's accountability in ending the sponsorship program and commissioning Justice Gomery, while warning against prejudging the inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been extremely accountable, which was why he ended the sponsorship program and commissioned Justice Gomery to do his work. I urge hon. members opposite to support Justice Gomery and not to prejudge Justice Gomery, because it is an independent judicial inquiry. They would also do themselves a favour by not making grievous errors on the floor of the House of Commons on a daily basis.
Moore asks when the Prime Minister knew that his office was calling to secure a $1 million grant for Serge Savard, who then raised $1 million for the Prime Minister's leadership.
Restates the specific allegation of a $1 million grant for Serge Savard linked to $1 million raised for the Prime Minister's leadership, and asks when the Prime Minister knew his office was calling to secure that money, though it adds a rhetorical flourish about the guilty hiding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being so open he cannot even answer a question in the House of Commons. Canadians want to hear from the Prime Minister, not from the minister of public sell-outs. We know the Prime Minister's Office intervened to support a $1 million grant for his friend, Serge Savard. We know that Mr. Savard turned around and raised $1 million for the Prime Minister's leadership. Only the guilty hide. When did the Prime Minister know that his office was calling to secure money for his millionaire finance raiser?
Brison ignores the question entirely and pivots to describing his September 21 speech on the strategic direction of the public works department, urging Moore to engage in a positive debate about the future of the department.
Brison's answer is entirely non-responsive, pretending Moore was referring to a speech Brison gave on September 21 about the strategic direction of the public works department, with no connection to the question whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was perhaps referring to a speech I gave on September 21 when I talked about the strategic direction for the future of the public works department, which is a very positive direction. It involves new approaches to procurement, real property and IT, all aimed at providing better value for Canadian taxpayers and better services for Canadians. I would urge the hon. member to get involved and get engaged in a positive debate about the future of our department, and to let Justice Gomery do his work.
Solberg asks the Prime Minister to come forward and tell Canadians what he knew and when he knew it regarding his own staff lobbying the sponsorship program for Serge Savard, holding him to his own public statement that anyone who knew anything should come forward.
States as facts both that the Prime Minister's Office staff lobbied for money for Serge Savard and that the Prime Minister publicly said anyone who knew anything should come forward, then directly asks the Prime Minister to do so himself by explaining what he knew and when.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Prime Minister's Office staff lobbied the sponsorship program for money for Serge Savard who in turn raised a bunch of money for the Prime Minister. It is also a fact that the Prime Minister said that he wanted anyone who knew anything about this to come forward. Well, here is his chance. Why does he not come forward right now and tell us what he knew and when he knew it with regard to his own staff lobbying the sponsorship program for Serge Savard?
Brison suggests the current allegation may be wrong as previous ones were, expresses confidence in the forthcoming Gomery report, and says the government is not afraid of the truth.
Brison does not address when the Prime Minister knew anything, instead suggesting the current allegation may also be wrong, like the previous day's allegations, and expressing confidence in the forthcoming Gomery report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday they were making the same type of error over there by accusing the Prime Minister of making calls on behalf of individuals. Today maybe they are wrong again. We will not know until we have Justice Gomery's report. We are not afraid to have the full report because we are not afraid of the truth here in this government and we are looking forward to that report. Again, I would urge the hon. members to discontinue prejudging the work of Justice Gomery by commenting on testimony and by making errors on a daily basis because after a while it gets embarrassing on all sides of the House.
Solberg asks why the Prime Minister will not meet his own stated standards of accountability and tell Canadians directly what he knew and when he knew it about his staff lobbying the sponsorship program to get money for his fundraiser.
Invokes the Prime Minister's own prior standard of accountability and asks why the Prime Minister will not meet that standard by telling Canadians directly what he knew and when regarding his staff lobbying the sponsorship program for his fundraiser, but the framing is more rhetorical than Exchange 14.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister lets his little helper answer these questions instead of answering them for himself, he makes a mockery of his own commitment to get to the bottom of this. Why will the Prime Minister not meet the standards that he set for everybody else back when he was mad as hell about the sponsorship program? Why will he not meet those standards right now and tell Canadians directly, here and now, what he knew and when he knew it with regard to his own staff lobbying the sponsorship program to get money for his fundraiser?
Brison describes the procurement review being conducted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and urges the opposition to engage in the exciting future vision for the department rather than focusing on the past.
Brison's answer has no connection to the question, instead describing the parliamentary secretary's procurement review work and inviting the opposition to engage in an exciting future vision for the department.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in the House to provide a little help to the opposition. In fact, I want to point out the important work being done by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works who has done the most extensive procurement review in this country since 1963. That procurement review will provide exceptional value for the Canadian taxpayer and better services for Canadians. I am proud of the work that he is doing and the work the Department of Public Works is doing. I would urge the hon. members opposite to become involved in this exciting future vision for the department and not to continually focus on the past.
Given the PM's own admission of political involvement in the sponsorship program and the leak from his office identifying a caller to Gagliano's office, who was behind that political involvement?
The question references a specific incident — someone from the PM's office revealing a caller's identity to the press — and cites the PM's own election-campaign admission of political involvement, making it reasonably grounded, though the ask ('who was behind that political involvement') is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's defence that it is up to the Gomery commission to receive the testimony relating to the sponsorship scandal collapsed yesterday. Although the PM has been questioned five times in this House, after yesterday's oral question period someone from his office revealed to the press the identity of the individual in his office who called Gagliano's office. Since the Prime Minister himself admitted during the election campaign that there was indeed political involvement in the sponsorship program, I ask again, who was behind that political involvement in the sponsorship program?
Brison pointed to the Gomery inquiry, noting the government is providing openness and transparency including cabinet documents to 1994, and expressed support for Justice Gomery's work.
Brison deflects entirely to the Gomery inquiry and the government's openness record, never addressing who was behind the political involvement or the specific office-leak incident.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the advice that I have provided very graciously to the members opposite in the Conservative Party also applies to members of the Bloc. Both parties have intervener status at the Gomery inquiry and are participating and being supported during that process. We are supporting Gomery. We are providing a tremendous level of openness, transparency and information to Gomery, including cabinet documents to 1994. We are not afraid of Mr. Gomery's work and we are looking forward to Justice Gomery's report.
The 2000 investigation revealed that certain ministers intervened in the sponsorship program; which ministers were they?
The question is concise and factually grounded, referencing a specific 2000 investigation that revealed ministerial interventions and asking for the names of those ministers — a single, clear, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the investigation carried out in 2000 revealed, after the fact, that certain ministers intervened in the sponsorship program. I ask the Prime Minister, which ministers?
Brison called the member petty and partisan, said Canadians want Parliament to work, and urged support for Justice Gomery without naming any ministers.
Brison does not name any ministers, does not engage the 2000 investigation, and instead attacks the member as 'petty and partisan' before redirecting to Gomery — a pure deflection with no substantive content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when one really considers what the Prime Minister has done to ensure that we get to the bottom of this issue, I think the hon. member is being petty and partisan. Canadians want this Parliament to work and, whether a minority Parliament or not, they are depending on us to make this Parliament work. I would expect all members of Parliament to be constructive and focused on seeking the right solutions for Canadians. That is what Justice Gomery is doing, so why do we not support him?
Will the PM pledge to keep the Canada Elections Act as is and confirm that companies will not again be allowed to contribute beyond the $1,000 annual limit to political parties?
The question cites a specific threshold in the Canada Elections Act ($1,000 annual limit) and a concrete example (Petro-Canada share brokers), but bundles a pledge request with a rhetorical comparison, softening its sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to some unofficial information, the government might amend the Canada Elections Act and take a step backward by once again allowing companies to provide funding to political parties beyond the annual limit of $1,000, despite the undesirable effects of such a measure. Will the Prime Minister pledge to leave the Canada Elections Act in its present form and confirm that it is out of the question to go back to a system allowing contributions from friends, who then become entitled to certain favours, as we saw with the brokers retained for the sale of Petro-Canada shares?
Bélanger explained that Bill C-24 provides for a statutory review following the chief electoral officer's recommendations expected early in the new year, and that the act will be reviewed as provided in the legislation.
Bélanger references the statutory review mechanism in Bill C-24 and notes the chief electoral officer's recommendations are expected early in the new year, which is relevant context, but does not give a direct pledge on whether the $1,000 limit will be changed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when Parliament passed Bill C-24 on election financing, it provided for a statutory review following the tabling, in the House, of the recommendations of the chief electoral officer, which are expected early in the new year. At that time, the act that was passed will be reviewed, as provided in the legislation.
Instead of changing party financing rules, would it not be better to review the appointment process for returning officers, which currently benefits Liberal friends?
The question raises a specific alternative reform — reviewing the appointment process for returning officers — with a clear implicit critique (Liberal patronage), though it is framed somewhat rhetorically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to improve the Canada Elections Act, would it not be preferable, instead of changing the rules on political party financing, to review the appointment process for the positions of returning officers, which currently benefits Liberal friends?
Bélanger said the government has asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the issue of returning officers and make recommendations, and the government is awaiting those recommendations.
Bélanger directly acknowledges the returning officers issue and states the government has asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine it and make recommendations, which is a partial but substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I should mention that the statutory review was suggested by the committee itself and approved by Parliament. As regards returning officers, the government asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the issue and make recommendations to the government. We are waiting for these recommendations.
The PM pledged to make every piece of information public as quickly as possible, yet the government failed to comply with about half of the committee motions requesting pertinent documents; why did the PM withhold vital information until after the election?
The question quotes a specific PM pledge word-for-word and cites a concrete failure — non-compliance with about half of committee motions requesting documents — giving it strong factual grounding and a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not answer straight questions because he cannot defend the fact that his word has been broken time and time again. He pledged to cooperate fully with Parliament's investigation into the sponsorship scandal. He said: --the government will ensure that every single piece of information and every fact on this matter are made public as quickly as possible. Shame on him. His government failed to comply with about half of the committee motions requesting pertinent documents. Why did the Prime Minister withhold vital information until the election was safely behind him?
Brison stated the government has responded to all requests from the public accounts committee and the Gomery commission consistent with the laws of the land and is continuing to cooperate fully with both bodies.
Brison gives a general assurance of compliance 'commensurate with the authorities of each and consistent with the laws of the land' but does not address the specific allegation of failing to comply with about half the committee motions or explain any withholding before the election.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has responded to all requests for information from both the public accounts committee and from the Gomery commission commensurate with the authorities of each and consistent with the laws of the land. We are aiming to and continuing to cooperate fully with both bodies.
Given the PM's pledges to make all documents public and cooperate fully with the parliamentary committee, was it not convenient that the most damaging evidence was not released until after the election?
The question distinguishes the parliamentary committee investigation from the Gomery inquiry and cites a specific pattern of broken pledges, though its closing rhetorical flourish ('Liberal skulduggery') weakens its precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, withholding relevant documents from Parliament has nothing to do with the Gomery inquiry. It is a question of the Prime Minister's contempt for our committee and for members of this House. The Prime Minister made a clear pledge to make all documents public. He did not. He promised to cooperate fully with the investigation of the parliamentary committee. He failed to keep that promise. Is it not just a little too convenient that the most damaging evidence of Liberal skulduggery in the sponsorship mess was not released until after the election?
Brison said his department has responded to over 20 requests from the public accounts committee, cabinet documents back to 1994 are being made available, and the information commissioner is lauding the government's openness and transparency.
Brison cites a concrete number — over 20 requests responded to — and mentions cabinet documents back to 1994 and praise from the information commissioner, which is partial substantive engagement though it does not directly address the timing allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact, my department has responded to over 20 requests from the public accounts committee and will continue to respond to further requests as they come in from the public accounts committee as it continues its work. The Prime Minister has made a decision that cabinet documents back to 1994 will be made available. This is why the information commissioner is lauding the Prime Minister and the government, and recognizing that openness and transparency is a priority for this government.
The Deloitte Touche audit showed André Ouellet spent over $2 million on lavish hospitality and travel; why does the government apply different accountability rules for Liberals than for other Canadians?
The question references the Deloitte Touche audit and a specific dollar figure ($2 million), but the ask ('why does the government have two sets of rules') is rhetorical rather than precise and mixes several accusations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Deloitte Touche audit revealed that former president André Ouellet spent over $2 million on lavish hospitality and travel. The Prime Minister's inaction since that time speaks volumes about his real commitment to accountability. The report was delayed until after the election. He did not fire André Ouellet, he actually had to resign. The only action the Prime Minister has taken is to hire his own crony to assume the new chairmanship. If it were any other Canadian but André Ouellet, it would have been different rules. Why does the government have two sets of rules, one for Liberals and one for everyone else?
Oh, oh!
McCallum stated Ouellet resigned on September 23 with no severance pay, the board chair wrote again requesting receipts, and the Canada Revenue Agency is conducting an audit of expenditures surrounding the president's office.
McCallum provides specific dates (September 21/23 resignation, no severance pay) and confirms a Canada Revenue Agency audit of expenditures is underway, which is substantively responsive though it does not address the 'two sets of rules' framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. Mr. Ouellet resigned with no severance pay whatsoever on September 23--
Mr. Speaker, action is certainly being taken. Following Mr. Ouellet's resignation on September 21, the chair of the board of Canada Post wrote again to Mr. Ouellet to request the receipts. As I have already informed the House, the Canada Revenue Agency is in the process of conducting an audit of the expenditures surrounding the office of the president. Action is indeed being taken.
The $2 million spent by André Ouellet belonged to Canadian taxpayers; where is their money and when will they get it back?
The question makes a pointed observation about the $2 million belonging to the public and asks two concrete questions — where is the money and when will it be returned — but combines them with rhetorical commentary about the audit's purpose.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will all shed a tear for that lack of severance pay. The minister said there is a single purpose audit being done, but it is obvious that the single purpose of the audit is to ensure Canadians do not get to the truth on this issue. The fact of the matter is that André Ouellet would not have spent $2 million on lavish hospitality and travel if it had been his own money. It was not his money. It was the Canadian public's money. The Canadian public deserves some clear answers to some straightforward questions. Where is their money? When do they get it back?
McCallum repeated that the chair of Canada Post wrote to Ouellet on September 21 requesting receipts and that the Canada Revenue Agency is auditing expenses from the president's office going back to 2000.
McCallum repeats the specific actions already cited — the September 21 letter requesting receipts and the Canada Revenue Agency audit going back to 2000 — which is directly relevant though does not answer when money will be returned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the very firm actions that are in the process of being taken. The chair of Canada Post has again written to Mr. Ouellet requesting the receipts on September 21. The Canada Revenue Agency is in the process of conducting an audit surrounding the expenses of the president's office going back to the year 2000. Those are clear actions.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs comment on the opposition leader's scheme to undermine Canada by converting Ottawa to Brussels and giving federal powers to unaccountable institutions?
This is a government-backbench softball setup using inflammatory rhetoric ('rip Canada apart,' 'turn it into Belgium') with no factual grounding and an unanswerable open-ended invitation to attack the opposition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the opposite side of the House we have a separatist party that wants to rip Canada apart and we have an official opposition that wants to turn it into Belgium. The leader of the official opposition wants to convert Ottawa to Brussels, and give all federal powers to unaccountable and unelected institutions that will segregate linguistic communities. My question is for the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Can the minister comment on the opposition leader's scheme to undermine our great federation?
Robillard said the opposition leader's proposal is unclear even to his own caucus, that it would have all francophones speak with one voice against reality, and that the government believes in a strong Canada respecting linguistic duality and diversity.
Robillard engages the topic by characterizing the opposition leader's proposal as unclear even to his own caucus and describing it as wanting all francophones to speak with one voice, which is some substantive engagement but remains largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the leader of the official opposition is not clear to his own caucus and all Canadians. He seems to want all francophones in this country to speak with one voice and the same for anglophones without dissension. This is not the reality of Canada. This scheme is a very complicated one and one with a lot of unanswered questions. This government, this Prime Minister, and this party believes in a strong Canada that respects linguistic duality and diversity, and--
Given the broken 1993 promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2005, will the environment minister commit to investing 100% of the $2.6 billion proceeds from the sale of Petro-Canada into Canada's green economy?
The question cites a specific 1993 pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2005, names a concrete funding source ($2.6 billion from the sale of Petro-Canada), and makes a specific ask to commit 100% of proceeds to Canada's green economy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Prime Minister promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2005. The reality is that we are dead last in the industrialized world even behind the likes of George W. Bush. So much for Liberal promises. Now the Liberals are promising more far away action instead of action today. They are getting $2.6 billion from the sale of Petro-Canada. The clean technology that will cut pollution is already available in this country. Will the environment minister stand up today and commit to investing 100% of these proceeds into Canada's green economy?
Dion thanked the member, said he would discuss it with the Minister of Finance, and affirmed the government's commitment to Kyoto and climate change action.
Dion thanks the member and says he will discuss it with the Minister of Finance, adding only a vague commitment to Kyoto and 'action,' entirely failing to address the specific 100% investment ask or the $2.6 billion proceeds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for his question and I will discuss this with the Minister of Finance. The Government of Canada is committed to Kyoto and for climate change. We want to go ahead with action and that is what we are doing.
Why was promised funding for VIA Rail cancelled, and where is the government's commitment to passenger rail for transport, communities, and the Kyoto accord?
The question links the cancellation of VIA Rail funding to the government's $7 billion budget error and connects it to Kyoto commitments, making a substantive policy point, but the ask is broad and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the transport minister. When the government admitted that it was $7 billion off on its budget line, one has to wonder why the promised funding for VIA Rail was cancelled. Why is the transport minister silent on support for VIA Rail? Where is the government's commitment to passenger rail which is so crucial in meeting commitments to transport, rebuilding cities and communities, and to the Kyoto accord?
Lapierre said he will meet with VIA Rail's board of directors on Sunday to discuss future projects and that they will submit an action plan he will present to the government.
Lapierre says he will meet with VIA Rail's board of directors on Sunday to discuss future projects and receive an action plan, which is a partial engagement with the topic but provides no funding commitments or explanation for the cancellation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I will be meeting with members of VIA Rail's board of directors. Together, we will discuss future projects. They will submit an action plan, which I will be pleased to present to the government.
Cracks in the tail rotor have grounded the new Cormorants for the second time this year; how serious is this problem and what resources has the government allocated to fix it?
The question cites a specific recurring technical defect (cracks in the tail rotor) grounding the new Cormorants for the second time this year and asks a precise two-part question about severity and allocated resources to fix it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's new Cormorants are once again grounded. Why? Cracks in the tail rotor. This government's policy over the last decade has been to cut military funding at every opportunity. This is the second time this year that cracks in the tail rotor have grounded this aircraft. We would like to know how serious is this problem and specifically, what resources has the government allocated to fix this problem?
Graham said the Cormorant fleet is flying only essential SAR operations as a precautionary measure, the military is working with the manufacturer, the aircraft is still under warranty, and the matter is being treated seriously.
Graham confirms the fleet is limited to essential SAR operations as a precautionary measure, notes he spoke with the military that day, confirms the aircraft is still under warranty, and says they are working with the manufacturer — substantive though he does not specify resources allocated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the air force is treating this matter very seriously. As a precautionary matter, the Cormorant fleet will only be flying essential SAR operations as mandated, but this is only a precautionary measure. I have spoken with the military today. It is working with the manufacturer of the helicopter. It is still under warranty. This is a matter of a recently delivered machine. We are working closely with the manufacturer to address all and any problems that arise. The military is approaching this extremely seriously and with great responsibility.
With Canada ranked at the bottom of 169 nations in military funding and Cormorants requiring 22 hours of maintenance per flight hour — more than three times original estimates — why is the military paying millions more in maintenance for a brand new aircraft?
The question cites a study ranking Canada last of 169 nations in military funding and a specific maintenance ratio (22 hours per flight hour, more than three times the estimate) to ask why the military is paying millions more for a brand new aircraft.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect to funding, there is a study that has been released showing that Canada is at the bottom of 169 nations with respect to military funding, half of the average NATO nations. Even when the Cormorants are cleared to fly, they require 22 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air. That is more than three times what was originally estimated. Why is the military being forced to pay millions of dollars more in maintenance for a brand new aircraft at a time when the government has left its pockets empty?
Graham rejected the premise, stating Canada ranks in the top 10 of NATO and top 20 of the world in total defence spending, and said the government is working with the manufacturer to ensure the best equipment for troops.
Graham rejects the premise and cites a counter-statistic — Canada ranks in the top 10 of NATO and top 20 of the world in total defence spending — which is a partial counter-factual response, but does not address the 22-hour maintenance ratio or the excess cost claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the hon. member's preface in his question. I am proud to say that in terms of total defence spending, that is total money spent on our military, Canada ranks in the top 10 of NATO and the top 20 of the world. This is a record to be proud of, not to be denigrated by members from the other side of the House. We are working with the manufacturer of the helicopter to ensure that we get the best equipment for our troops, as we do in every area in which we operate.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Ms. Scherrer confirmed they met with the president of the CRTC in breach of rules; were those meetings used to influence decisions about CHOI-FM?
The question cites confirmed rule-breaking meetings between the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Ms. Scherrer with the president of the CRTC and asks a specific binary question about whether those meetings were used to influence decisions about CHOI-FM.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage maintains that no ministerial influence is being exerted on the CRTC. It has been confirmed that both the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Ms. Scherrer broke the rules and met with the president of the CRTC. Were these just social meetings or were they used to influence the decisions about CHOI-FM?
Martin said the ministers met with the president of the agency at the president's request and discussed only the agency's broad parameters, not any specific case.
Martin directly addresses the circumstances of the meetings — they were at the president's request and covered broad parameters, not any specific case — which is a clear and substantive response to the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, the ministers who met with the president of the agency did so at the president's request. Furthermore, they discussed the agency's broad parameters. They did not discuss any specific case.
When will Liberal ministers stop their manipulation and censorship of public broadcasting so that Canadians can finally be free to choose?
The question mixes a reference to the heritage minister's statements about CBC content with a vague claim about the foreign affairs minister selling off Canadian television audiences, then poses a broad rhetorical ask about Liberal manipulation and censorship.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage proclaimed her innocence, but that same day, she fussed over the CBC's content. The next day, it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was selling off Canadian television audiences to Italian politicians. When will Liberal ministers stop their manipulation and censorship of public broadcasting? When will Canadians finally be free to choose?
Frulla said Canadians are free to choose, the CRTC is one of the best broadcast regulating systems and is independent, but ministers responsible may meet agency presidents to discuss their needs or roles.
Frulla asserts Canadians are free to choose, calls the CRTC one of the best broadcast regulating systems, affirms it is independent, and defends ministers' right to meet agency presidents — some connection to the topic but does not address the specific accusations raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians are free to choose. With the CRTC, we have one of the best broadcast regulating systems. That said, the CRTC is an independent agency. It is now and always will be. However, that does not prevent the ministers responsible from meeting the presidents of their agencies to discuss their needs or simply their roles.
Does the federal government intend to meet Quebec's requests by transferring not only responsibility for social housing but also the money that goes with it, including compensation equal to at least 24% of federal investments since the 1994 withdrawal?
The question cites a specific Quebec minister by name, references a concrete claim of 24% compensation, and poses a clear ask about whether the federal government will transfer both responsibility and funding for social housing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect to social housing, Quebec and the federal government are negotiating the transfer of affordable housing and co-op units built before 1994. The Quebec minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, estimates that Quebec is also entitled to compensation at least equal to 24% of the federal investments in this sector, in view of the federal government's withdrawal in 1994. Does the federal government intend to meet Quebec's requests by transferring not only responsibility for social housing but also the money that goes with it?
Fontana confirms that negotiations with Quebec on the social housing transfer are underway and that the government hopes to reach an agreement soon, noting the phase two affordable housing agreement already signed.
Fontana confirms negotiations are ongoing and expresses hope for a timely agreement but does not address the specific 24% compensation figure or commit to transferring the money that goes with responsibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my critic's question is very important, and he would know that Quebec and Canada have signed phase two of the affordable housing agreement. In fact, Quebec is doing some absolutely incredible things in partnership with communities and in partnership with the Government of Canada with regard to affordable housing. On his question with regard to social housing, I and my counterpart in Quebec are negotiating for the social housing transfer. We hope that we can come to an agreement fairly soon because in fact we believe that the Quebec government can deliver social housing along with the Government of Canada.
When the social housing transfer takes place, does the minister intend to fully compensate Quebec for the revenue losses it suffered due to the federal government's 1994 withdrawal?
The question sharpens the prior exchange by asking specifically whether Quebec will be fully compensated for revenue losses, but it is somewhat repetitive and lacks new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that, because of the loss of revenue suffered by Quebec, there is a need to catch up in social housing? Consequently, when the transfer takes place, does he intend to compensate Quebec in full for its losses?
Fontana assures the House that negotiations with the Quebec housing minister are ongoing and that the government is committed to working in partnership with provinces to deliver affordable housing to those in need.
Fontana reiterates that negotiations are ongoing and restates a general commitment to partnership without addressing the specific question of full compensation for Quebec's losses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again let me assure the House and this particular member that negotiations are taking place with the minister of housing in Quebec. Our goal is to work in partnership not only with Quebec but with all the provinces to make sure we can deliver affordable housing to those people in need. We have a commitment from the Prime Minister and from the government that we intend to work with communities and provinces to finally deliver some homes to the most needy in our country.
Will the government admit it does not know the first thing about ethics, given that a former senior RCMP member convicted of fraud in 2002 is training the public service in ethics?
The question references a real and specific fact (a conviction for fraud in 2002) but buries it in partisan rhetoric including a joke about Alfonso Gagliano, making the actual ask vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the public service is being trained in ethics by a former senior RCMP member who was convicted of fraud in 2002. Maybe the Prime Minister will start sending his federal cabinet to similar ethics courses. I can see it now: “How to win friends and influence people 101”, taught by Alfonso Gagliano. When will this government admit it does not know the first thing about ethics, taught by fraudsters or otherwise?
Oh, oh!
Alcock confirms a contract was let in May 2003 for school instructors, acknowledges an issue has been identified with one instructor, states he has ordered payment on the contract stopped, and commits to reporting back to the House.
Alcock directly acknowledges the specific issue, confirms he has ordered payment on the contract stopped, and commits to reporting back to the House with full details, which is a concrete and responsive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the--
Mr. Speaker, a contract was let in May 2003 for instructors for the school. There has been an issue identified with one of the instructors. The irony of it is certainly not lost on me. I can tell the hon. member that we are looking into it. I have ordered that the payment on the contract be stopped. I will report back to the House when I have all the details.
Will Canada vote to ban all forms of human cloning at the upcoming United Nations debate, or will it again say no at home but abstain internationally as it did last year?
The question cites a specific factual record — Canada's abstention at the UN vote last year — and asks a clear, direct question about whether Canada will vote consistently with domestic policy at the upcoming UN debate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government says it is opposed to human cloning, but last year at the United Nations, Canada abstained from a vote on the issue. This week it has another chance. The United Nations is again going to debate the resolution to ban all forms of human cloning. Will the government continue to say no at home but something different at the United Nations, or will it say no to human cloning?
Dosanjh states that Canadian law is very clear in opposing all forms of human cloning and that the government will take positions internationally that are consistent with domestic policies.
Dosanjh directly states that Canada is committed to opposing all forms of human cloning and will take positions internationally consistent with domestic policies, though he does not specify how Canada will vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian law is very clear. We are committed to opposing all forms of human cloning, and we will take positions internationally that are consistent with our domestic policies.
Is the Minister responsible for Official Languages prepared to reassure Canadians that the Government of Canada is fully committed to the Official Languages Act and will say no to territorial unilingualism as proposed by the opposition leader?
This is a government-backbench softball setup designed to attack the opposition leader's so-called Belgian plan rather than hold the government to account, with a leading question inviting a reassuring declaration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, francophones living in minority situations and nearly all Canadians are outraged by the opposition leader's declaration, in his so-called Belgian plan, that he wants to see territorial unilingualism in Canada. Is the Minister responsible for Official Languages prepared to reassure the Canadian people that the Government of Canada is fully committed to the Official Languages Act and that it will say no to territorial unilingualism in Canada?
Bélanger characterizes the Leader of the Opposition's proposal as territorial unilingualism and pledges that this Prime Minister's government, like those of Laurier, Saint-Laurent, Pearson, and Chrétien, will never abandon official language minority communities.
Bélanger characterizes the opposition leader's proposal as territorial unilingualism and invokes a list of Liberal prime ministers to reassure minority official language communities, but provides no new policy details or factual commitments.
Source text
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition proposes looks like a situation in which only French would be spoken in Quebec, and no English whatsoever, while in the other provinces, except New Brunswick perhaps—who knows—only English would be spoken and no French at all. That is territorial unilingualism. Let us be clear. Like the governments of Wilfrid Laurier, Louis Saint-Laurent, Pearson and Chrétien, this Prime Minister's government will never abandon the official language minority communities, wherever they are in the country.
Will the Minister of National Revenue assure all Canadians they will not be charged or penalized for failing to make payroll remittances due to the job action taken by employees of Revenue Canada?
The question cites a specific constituent case, identifies a concrete problem arising from the Revenue Canada strike, and makes a clear ask that all Canadians not be penalized for missed payments due to the job action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I received a very distressing call from one of my constituents who has not received his payroll remittance forms from Revenue Canada due to the strike. He was informed that if he failed to drive into Calgary, about 200 miles, and produce his payment he would be charged with a significant interest penalty. André Ouellet probably will not be charged. Will the Minister of National Revenue do the right thing and assure all Canadians they will not be charged or penalized due to job action taken by the employees of Revenue Canada?
McCallum acknowledges the good point raised, confirms his office is working diligently on the matter, and commits to getting back to the member as soon as possible.
McCallum acknowledges the member makes a good point, confirms his office is working on the matter, and commits to getting back to him soon, but does not provide a definitive assurance that Canadians will not be penalized.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member makes a good point. I received this information yesterday afternoon. I can tell him that my office is working diligently on the matter and we will get back to him as soon as possible.
Given that the Prime Minister's own security adviser and the director of CSIS have warned that the energy sector is a primary target for terrorists and that the government is not doing enough, what will it take for the Prime Minister to start protecting the 70,000 people who work in the oil sands?
The question cites specific warnings from the Prime Minister's own security adviser and the director of CSIS and references concrete facts about the oil sands sector, but the actual ask is cut off before completion and is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The oil sands of northern Alberta account for billions of dollars in this economy. They account for 40% of the oil production in this country and are the largest oil reserve in the western world. The Prime Minister's own security adviser has warned him that the energy sector in Canada is a primary target for terrorists. The director of CSIS has also clearly stated that this government is not doing enough to protect our energy sector. Since the Prime Minister cannot seem to follow the advice of his own advisers, what is it going to take for him to start taking note of and protecting the 70,000 people who work--
McLellan states the government takes the protection of critical infrastructure very seriously, is working with provinces, local governments, and the private sector on a national strategy, has released a consultation paper, and notes Alberta is working constructively with the federal government.
McLellan confirms the government is working with provinces and the private sector on a national strategy for critical infrastructure protection, mentions a consultation paper, and cites Alberta's constructive engagement, but does not address the specific warnings cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact the government takes the protection of critical infrastructure of all kinds in this country very seriously, which is why we are working with the provinces, local governments and the private sector to develop a national strategy around the protection of critical infrastructure. Let me say that in fact we have released a consultation paper in this regard. The province of Alberta, where the oil sands are largely present, is working very constructively with us in terms of ensuring that critical energy infrastructure is protected in this country.
Ought the government not first repay the $3.2 billion stolen from seniors over 10 years before raising the guaranteed income supplement, as stated in the Speech from the Throne?
The question cites a specific figure of $3.2 billion and references the Speech from the Throne commitment, posing a pointed moral challenge, but the framing as money 'stolen' introduces rhetorical inflation that reduces precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government states that seniors have earned the right to be treated with dignity and that, as one step, it will increase the guaranteed income supplement for the least well-off seniors. Ought the government not to first do the right thing and pay back to those seniors the $3.2 billion stolen from them over 10 years, and then raise the GIS?
Ianno states the government is committed to ensuring all senior citizens eligible for the guaranteed income supplement receive what they deserve and will continue to work toward an increase as promised in the election platform.
Ianno reiterates the government's commitment to ensuring eligible seniors receive the guaranteed income supplement and references the election platform promise for an increase, but does not address the specific $3.2 billion repayment claim at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and answer the question of the hon. member. He knows, as we have spoken earlier, that the government is very committed to ensuring that all senior citizens who are eligible for guaranteed income supplements get what they deserve. This government is working hard to ensure everyone is aware of it and we will continue to do so, as we promised in our election platform, to ensure that senior citizens who deserve guaranteed income supplements will get an increase.
Is there a way for communities to be made aware of the significance of the GST elimination for municipalities, given that savings like the $1.5 million in Thunder Bay this year alone seem unknown to many municipal representatives and taxpayers?
This is a government-backbench softball that references a local figure ($1.5 million savings in Thunder Bay) to set up the minister for a positive announcement, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. The elimination of the GST for communities has resulted in huge savings this year alone for all municipalities. In Thunder Bay alone, for this year there have been savings of over $1.5 million, yet many municipally elected representatives and their administrators, let alone municipal taxpayers, seem unaware of the significance of this action. Municipal organizations from coast to coast asked for this and received it as part of the Prime Minister's initiative. Is there a way of having communities--
Godfrey references the $7 billion GST rebate over 10 years going to every municipality in the country with no conditions attached, and suggests municipalities should invest that money in infrastructure and give a full accounting of it.
Godfrey provides the national figure of $7 billion over 10 years for the GST rebate to all municipalities, explains there are no conditions on the money, and suggests municipalities should invest it in infrastructure and provide a full accounting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member for his question I also thank the Prime Minister for reminding the House and the leader of the New Democratic Party of the $7 billion rebate of the GST over a 10 year period, which will go to every municipality in the country. As for accountability, that money is like own source revenue. There were no conditions imposed. That said, I think it would well suit municipalities to invest that money in the infrastructure which is so clearly needed in this country and to give a full accounting of it.
This exchange consisted solely of procedural acclamations from hon. members in response to a presence in the gallery and contains no question or ministerial response.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Lib) rose to correct the official record in Hansard, clarifying that the figure of $56 million she cited on October 12 for the government's affordable housing commitment in Ontario was out of date, and providing the correct figures: a federal allocation of approximately $245 million for Ontario under the first phase of the affordable housing initiative, with approximately $10 million spent to date on the creation of over 700 units. This was a statement of correction rather than a question period exchange.
- Lib Ms. Yasmin Ratansi
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify remarks I made earlier this week and to make a correction to Hansard . On October 12 during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, I referred to an investment that the Government of Canada has made in Ontario regarding affordable housing. On page 237 of Hansard , the figure I gave as the government's commitment was $56 million. It has come to my attention that this figure is out of date. I would like to point out to the House the correct figures. Under the first phase of the affordable housing initiative, the federal allocation for Ontario is approximately $245 million. A significant portion of that allocation, totalling 2,300 units so far, has been announced, though it has not yet been spent. To date, the government has spent approximately $10 million on the creation of over 700 units in Ontario. I hope this will clarify the record.