Session overview
- Taxation and fiscal surplus dominated Question Period, with CPC and BQ members pressing the government to return the $8.9 billion surplus to Canadians through tax cuts, while the Minister of Finance defended the government's fiscal record and spending priorities.
- The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Judy Sgro faced sustained questioning over allegations of queue-jumping favouritism for a campaign volunteer, staff travel expenses during the election, and personal travel reimbursements, with CPC members calling for her to step aside pending an ethics commissioner investigation.
- The BQ pressed the government for a concrete federal aerospace policy, citing urgent needs of companies including Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, and Bell Helicopter, while the Minister of Industry and Minister of Transport provided only assurances of a forthcoming strategy.
- Senate reform and western alienation were raised by CPC members ahead of Alberta's senate election, with the Prime Minister refusing to commit to appointing the winners and insisting on comprehensive rather than piecemeal reform.
- The session closed with a notable procedural incident in which the President of the Treasury Board Reg Alcock admitted to calling a member of Parliament a 'scumbag' during Question Period and was asked to retract the remark.
- General Ray Henault's election as chairman of NATO's military committee was announced in the House, and the Minister of State for Public Health highlighted Canada's pandemic influenza plan as a best model recognized by the World Health Organization.
The House learned the concrete, verifiable fact that General Ray Henault had been elected chairman of NATO's military committee, placing a Canadian at the most senior levels of NATO in a role advising the secretary general.
Exceptionally specific: names the director of parliamentary affairs, gives the precise dates (May 28 to June 28), and itemizes expenses — $1,200 transportation, $2,400 accommodations, $2,300 meals and incidentals — totalling $5,900, with a clear yes/no ask.
Responding to a specific question about whether the Prime Minister would ask her to step aside pending the ethics commissioner investigation, Sgro said only 'I have already answered the question twice,' providing no substantive response to the distinct accountability question put to her.
Outstanding questions
- Jim Prentice asked why the Deputy Prime Minister did not inform the House that her own officials had admitted the residential school ADR process is deeply flawed — this was not answered, with Anne McLellan only restating that the ADR process is in place and that over 1,000 applications have been received.
- Peter MacKay asked whether the Prime Minister would have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration step aside until the ethics commissioner investigation is complete — the Prime Minister did not answer and the question was deflected by the minister herself.
- Rahim Jaffer asked why taxpayers were on the hook for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's personal travel and her husband's travel expenses when she was appointed to cabinet — the minister said only that the member should 'get his facts straight' without addressing the substance.
- Stephen Harper asked whether the Prime Minister would commit to naming the winners of Alberta's senate election to all three of Alberta's Senate vacancies — the Prime Minister declined to make any commitment, citing his preference for comprehensive Senate reform.
- Gilles Duceppe asked whether the government would ensure that Quebec receives the lion's share of benefits from the federal aerospace policy, as Ontario benefits in the case of the automotive industry — the Minister of Industry refused this framing and committed only to a national policy without addressing the equity comparison.
Harper asks whether the Prime Minister will name the winners of Alberta's Senate election to all three of the province's Senate vacancies.
The question is specific and timely, referencing the upcoming Alberta Senate election and asking for a direct commitment on naming the three elected senators to vacancies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in less than a week, Albertans will choose the people they want to have as representatives in the Senate. News reports today indicate that the Prime Minister may reverse his longstanding opposition and name some elected senators. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that he will name the winners of the election to all three of Alberta's Senate vacancies?
Martin says he supports Senate reform but not piecemeal, preferring to look at it in its entirety.
Martin deflects with a general statement about Senate reform needing to be done 'in its entirety' rather than addressing the specific commitment to name the Alberta election winners.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have long been an advocate of Senate reform. However I do not believe that doing Senate reform piecemeal would bring us the desired result. What it could quite well do is simply exacerbate a number of the problems. What I think we should do is look at Senate reform but look at it in its entirety.
Harper asks the Prime Minister to honor the throne speech commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income Canadian families, pointing to a vote taken three weeks prior.
Harper invokes a specific prior commitment — a throne speech vote three weeks earlier to reduce taxes for low and modest income families — giving the question some factual grounding, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we would all like to look at it in its entirety but over here we are prepared to do something as opposed to doing nothing. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to give some money back to Canadian taxpayers. In doing so, he broke yet another promise. I remind the Prime Minister that it was only three weeks ago in the House that he stood on his feet and voted to reduce taxes for low and modest income Canadian families. Will the Prime Minister keep his word, fulfill his commitment and execute the promise in the throne speech?
Martin says the government intends to reduce taxes further but only after meeting commitments on health care, child care, and defence, warning against returning to deficit.
Martin engages the topic of tax reduction but does not address the specific throne speech commitment Harper cited, instead conditioning future tax cuts on meeting other spending priorities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that it is our intention to further reduce taxes, as we have done. However we will only do so after the government has met all of its commitments, from health care, to child care, to defence. To do otherwise would run the risk of going back into deficit and then we would have to borrow to pay for the tax cuts the Leader of the Opposition is talking to. This country has been there, done that and we are not going back.
Harper asks why the Prime Minister refuses to respect the throne speech promise to reduce taxes given a surplus more than four times larger than expected.
Harper asserts the surplus is more than four times larger than expected and references the throne speech and a recent vote, but the question is partially rhetorical and lacks a sharp single ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government already has four times more surplus than it said it needed to fulfill its commitments. It should give the money back to Canadians.
Hear, hear!
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal caucus could cheer that kind of over-taxation. Once again, Liberal promises have been broken, even though the surplus is more than four times larger than expected and even though they voted to reduce taxes. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to respect the promise made in his throne speech?
Martin praises the finance minister's economic management and accuses the Leader of the Opposition of proposing old deficit-inducing policies.
Martin congratulates the finance minister and pivots to attacking Harper's policies as deficit-inducing, without addressing the throne speech promise or the surplus figure cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the finance minister for his management of the Canadian economy. He has decreased Canada's debt. The Leader of the Opposition should know that what he is recommending consists of old policies, incurring a deficit and being forced to borrow to reduce taxes. We will never return to the kind of harmful practices now being proposed by the leader of the Alliance-Conservative opposition.
Solberg demands the Prime Minister fulfill the throne speech promise and return the $8.9 billion surplus to Canadians.
Solberg names the $8.9 billion figure and references the throne speech commitment, but frames it with rhetorical flourish and the ask is essentially a repeat of earlier questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think taxpayers are going to ralph if they hear any more of that. The $8.9 billion is not the Prime Minister's fun money to play with any way he wants. It belongs to Canadians. I remind him that he agreed three weeks ago in the throne speech to give some of that money back to Canadians. The finance minister told us yesterday at the finance committee that he wants our input. Here is our input: tell the Prime Minister to fulfill his promise and give Canadians their money back.
Goodale references $100 billion in historic tax cuts and touts Canada's fiscal record as the best in the G-7.
Goodale cites the $100 billion in tax cuts under the previous finance minister and general fiscal record talking points without addressing the throne speech commitment or the $8.9 billion surplus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, when the Prime Minister was the minister of finance, the government implemented the biggest tax cuts in Canadian history, $100 billion. The financial statement yesterday spoke about the value of a competitive tax system and the need to maintain that kind of tax system in Canada, and we will do that. That is all part of having the best fiscal record in Canadian history and the best fiscal record in the G-7.
Solberg again asks the Prime Minister to keep his commitment and return money to Canadians, framing it with a pop-culture analogy.
Solberg's question is largely rhetorical, using a 'Father Knows Best' analogy, and the ask is a vague repetition of earlier demands with no new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, watching the government handle the surplus is a little like watching a Father Knows Best rerun. We have the Prime Minister over there playing big daddy telling Canadians that he will decide how to spend their money. I am going to ask the Prime Minister to do something radically different. I am going to ask him to keep his commitment and give Canadians back their money.
Goodale lists fiscal achievements: seven surplus budgets, $61 billion in reduced debt, $3 billion in lower annual interest costs, a AAA credit rating, $100 billion in tax cuts, and $200 billion in social and economic priorities.
Goodale delivers a list of fiscal accomplishments including seven consecutive surplus budgets, $61 billion in reduced debt, and $100 billion in tax cuts, which is substantive context but does not address the throne speech commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what have we done with the country's fiscal strength? We have had seven consecutive surplus budgets, $61 billion in reduced debt, $3 billion in lower interest costs every year, consistently low interest rates, low inflation, a AAA credit rating, the fastest growing standard of living in the G-7, $100 billion in tax cuts, 10 consecutive cuts in EI rates and $200 billion in the social and economic priorities of Canadians, like health care, Canada pension and early intervention for children. We are building the future.
Duceppe asks what the Prime Minister is waiting for to act on a real federal aerospace policy, citing demands from Quebec's entire financial and business community.
Duceppe names specific stakeholders (Quebec Aerospace Association, FTQ, Montreal Chamber of Commerce, Quebec Employers' Council) and references Bloc proposals tabled that morning, but the ask — 'what is the Prime Minister waiting for' — is somewhat open-ended.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Aerospace Association, the FTQ, the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the Quebec Employers' Council, basically Quebec's entire financial community is demanding a real federal aerospace policy. It is urgently needed, and the Bloc Québécois laid proposals on the table this morning, but the Liberals are continuing to drag their feet. Quebec's aerospace industry needs a policy now. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to act?
Martin says the government has already announced it will present its aerospace plan and credits government industrial policies for the sector's prominence.
Martin vaguely says the government would be presenting its plan and credits government industrial policies for Canada and Quebec's prominence in aerospace, without any specifics on timing or content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has already announced that it would be presenting its plan for the aerospace industry. I should take this opportunity to tell the leader of the Bloc Québécois that one of the reasons why Canada and Quebec are so prominent in that sector is this government's industrial policies.
Duceppe asks the government to ensure Quebec receives the lion's share of federal aerospace policy benefits, given that at least 55% of the Canadian aerospace industry is in Quebec, as Ontario benefits from automotive policy.
Duceppe cites the specific statistic that at least 55% of the Canadian aerospace industry is concentrated in Quebec and draws a parallel to automotive industry treatment of Ontario, making a substantive equity argument with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they are so prominent and so good that the government is still waiting, and and does not know what it wants. When it talks about help for the sector across Canada, the fact is that at least 55% of the Canadian aerospace industry is concentrated in Quebec. This is a reality that the Liberals must not forget. Therefore, will the government refrain from sprinkling money about and make sure that Quebec gets the lion's share of the benefits generated by the federal aerospace policy, just as Ontario benefits in the case of the automotive industry? We are asking for equal treatment.
Emerson says there are 38,000 aerospace workers outside Quebec who will not be sacrificed, commits to a national policy with tremendous benefits in Quebec, and notes he is meeting that evening with the aerospace association of all of Canada.
Emerson directly acknowledges 38,000 aerospace workers outside Quebec, commits to a national policy with benefits in Quebec, and notes a meeting that evening with the aerospace association of all of Canada, providing some specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that there are 38,000 aerospace workers outside of the province of Quebec and we will not sacrifice them. We will build a policy that serves the aerospace industry all across the country. Yes, it will have tremendous benefits in the province of Quebec, but it will be a national policy. We are not buying a pig in a poke. We will do an orderly negotiation. I am meeting tonight with the aerospace association of all of Canada to move that strategy forward.
Crête asks whether the government intends to announce specific measures in the near future for the aerospace industry, citing urgent needs of companies like Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter, and Bombardier.
Crête names specific companies (Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter, Bombardier), identifies specific policy elements needed (research and development support, sales financing commitment, small and medium size business policy), and notes Bombardier's imminent decision deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all across Canada, companies and their employees, including Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter and Bombardier, are concerned. They need a plan that will provide, among other things, a research and development support program, a sales financing commitment and a policy to support small and medium size businesses in the aerospace industry. The government must realize that it has to act before it is too late, because Bombardier, for example, must make a decision very shortly. Does the government intend to announce specific measures in the near future?
Emerson says the government is moving ahead on a strategy that will be announced after discussions and negotiations are complete, promising to act in a timely manner.
Emerson commits to moving ahead on a strategy and announces it will be done in a timely manner but provides no specifics on content or timeline, and deflects with a statement about not throwing taxpayer money at problems.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead on a strategy and we will announce the strategy once we have completed discussions and negotiations. We will not just throw taxpayer money at this problem. Many industries in this country are in a serious situation. We are moving forward with an aerospace strategy, and we will do it in a timely manner.
Crête asks whether the government's aerospace plan aligns with the Bloc Québécois proposals and whether the Minister of Transport will assume his responsibilities as the government's representative in Quebec.
Crête references the Minister of Transport's public statement about not giving in to a bidding war and the Bloc's consultation process, but the ask — whether the plan aligns with Bloc proposals and whether the minister will assume his responsibilities — is diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the aerospace industry has every reason to be concerned, considering the government's vague replies and the Minister of Transport's statements to the effect that he will not give in to a bidding war. The Bloc took time to consult stakeholders before tabling its policy for the development of the aerospace industry. We are asking the government to make a commitment and tell us whether the plan that it has in mind for the aviation industry is along the lines of the proposals made by the Bloc Québécois. Will the Minister of Transport finally assume his responsibilities as the government's representative in Quebec?
Lapierre attacks the Bloc for proposing policy it will never have to implement and asserts the government will support the aerospace industry as it always has.
Lapierre attacks the Bloc for never having to implement policy because it will never be in office and offers no information about the government's aerospace plan or its relationship to the Bloc's proposals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is rather easy for the Bloc Québécois to come up with a so-called aerospace policy, when it knows that it will never have to implement it, because it will never be in office. Bloc members will always be irresponsible. The truth is that this government will support the aerospace industry, as it has always done. If there is an aerospace industry in Quebec, it is thanks to this government and definitely not the Bloc Québécois.
Layton asks the Prime Minister to tell George Bush that the arms race — prompted by star wars missile defence — is unacceptable, citing Putin's announcement of new nuclear weapons and a Scientific American assessment calling the system 'useless'.
Layton references Putin's announcement of new nuclear weapons, hypersonic weapons testing, and a Scientific American scientist calling the missile defence system 'useless,' but conflates several issues and the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we learned today of a very grave situation unfolding on the world stage. Vladimir Putin has announced that there will be the development of new nuclear weapons. This is on top of the hypersonic weapons already being tested by his government. That is exactly the kind of arms race that George Bush's star wars missile defence will produce, and it is why a top scientist in Scientific American has indicated very clearly that the system is “useless”. Will the Prime Minister take a position on this issue and tell him that the arms race is unacceptable whether it is for George Bush or Mr. Putin?
Martin states Canada opposes nuclear proliferation, supports the international Atomic Energy Commission and inspections in Iran and elsewhere, and will raise the issue in every international forum.
Martin addresses nuclear proliferation and the international Atomic Energy Commission but does not address the star wars missile defence question specifically or Putin's announcement directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has made it clear from the very beginning that nuclear proliferation is a blight that all countries must work to stop. That is why we have supported the international Atomic Energy Commission and why we have supported inspections, whether they be in Iran or elsewhere in the world. The world cannot afford a nuclear arms race. That is the Canadian government's position and one we will continue to defend. I will raise it in every international forum, and that will always be the position that this country will defend.
Layton accuses the government of an incoherent position — opposing an arms race while participating in one — and demands a firm stance saying no to George Bush on star wars missile defence.
Layton's exchange is largely rhetorical, mocking the government's position with a Kerry-esque flip-flop reference and demanding a 'no' to George Bush without specifying what action or decision is required.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is the position on star wars missile defence? I am sure he would have voted for the $87 billion before he then turned around and voted against it. What we have is a Canadian position that says that we are against an arms race but that we are willing to be part of one; that we favour multilateralism but that we do not mind tearing up multilateral arms treaties by Mr. Bush; and that we think star wars is bad but that we are happy to let Mr. Bush go ahead with it. It is unacceptable. What we have on the world stage is an incoherent Canadian stance. This is the time for a firm stance and to say no to George Bush.
Martin states the government is against nuclear proliferation and against the weaponization of space, asking what part of that answer Layton does not understand.
Martin gives a direct two-point statement — against nuclear proliferation and against the weaponization of space — which directly addresses the core of Layton's challenge, though it remains brief and does not engage the star wars policy decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are against nuclear proliferation. We are against the weaponization of space. What part of that answer does the leader of the NDP not understand?
Ablonczy asks whether the immigration minister abused her position to show favouritism to a campaign supporter who came on a temporary work visa as a stripper and sought to jump the queue for landed immigrant status.
Ablonczy provides specific narrative detail — a campaign worker on a temporary work visa who had not been ordered to leave and whose husband said normal channels were too frustrating — and asks a direct yes-or-no accountability question about abuse of position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister helped a campaign worker jump the queue, someone who came here to work as a stripper on a temporary work visa, then married a Canadian and applied to stay. This supporter had never been ordered to leave, nor was her application turned down. She just did not want to wait in line like everybody else. Her husband said that normal channels were too frustrating so she volunteered to help the minister hoping to get a special deal, which is exactly what she got. Is it not true that the minister abused her position to show favouritism to a supporter?
Sgro says immigration is fundamentally human, and for the sake of transparency she personally contacted the ethics commissioner to demonstrate her actions were beyond reproach, promising to share findings with the House.
Sgro does not address the specific allegation of preferential treatment but pivots to a statement about contacting the ethics commissioner herself, framing it as transparency without engaging the facts of the case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the issue of immigration is one that is fundamentally human and everyone in the country, no matter who he or she is, is entitled to fair and compassionate treatment. I take these issues very seriously. For the sake of transparency, I want everyone to know that I, no one else, personally contacted the ethics commissioner to demonstrate that my actions were beyond reproach. These findings will be shared very gladly with all members of the House.
Ablonczy presses the minister by citing the husband's media statements that he and his wife volunteered for the minister's re-election campaign hoping she could help with the landed immigrant application, not for humanitarian and compassionate reasons.
Ablonczy references the husband's media statements directly and draws a distinction between humanitarian and compassionate grounds versus political volunteering, but the question is cut off and lacks a sharp final ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is good that the minister understands there is an ethical problem here. The woman's husband said in the media nothing about humanitarian or compassionate problems. He said--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, this woman's husband talked freely to the media. There was no humanitarian and compassionate problem here. He said that he and his new wife were hoping that the minister could help with her landed immigrant application, so they volunteered for her re-election campaign. He said he was desperate because he had been frustrated in his efforts to go through normal channels at the immigration department. The minister claims she is going to clean up the abuse of the system.
Sgro says she receives thousands of requests from members on all sides of the House, citing a request from the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley as an example, and says she looks at all cases on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Sgro deflects by citing a request from the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley as an example of the thousands of requests she receives, without addressing the specific allegation of a link between volunteering and preferential treatment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in case my official opposition critic is not aware, the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley came to me in this House yesterday seeking my intervention. This is one of thousands of requests, including several that I have received in the very short time that I have been in the House. This is one of thousands of requests I have received this year from members on all sides of the House. I can assure the member that I will look at all cases on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and I will continue to do so.
MacKay cites the conflict of interest code's prohibition on using office for preferential treatment, notes the ethics commissioner has been asked to investigate, and asks the minister to table the report and step down until the investigation is complete.
MacKay cites the specific language of the conflict of interest code — 'Public office holders shall not use their position of office to assist private entities or persons where this would result in preferential treatment to any person' — and asks two clear questions: table the ethics commissioner report and step down during investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the interests of being completely clear about that, the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley was not seeking input on behalf of someone working on his campaign. There is something completely different about that. The conflict of interest code states clearly: Public office holders shall not use their position of office to assist private entities or persons where this would result in preferential treatment to any person. The ethics commissioner has been asked to investigate. Will the minister agree to table that report in the House and will she step down until this investigation is complete?
Sgro repeats that she personally contacted the ethics commissioner to demonstrate her actions were beyond reproach and that findings will be clearly shared with the House.
Sgro simply repeats her earlier statement about having personally contacted the ethics commissioner and promises to share findings, without committing to table the report or addressing the request to step down.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe we need to do something with the audio on the other side. I clearly said, and I will repeat it in case he did not hear. For the sake of transparency, I personally contacted the ethics commissioner to demonstrate that my actions were beyond reproach. These findings will be clearly shared with the House.
MacKay asks the Prime Minister to have the minister step aside during the ethics investigation, pointing out the conflict that the ethics commissioner reports to the minister under scrutiny.
MacKay raises the structural accountability problem that the ethics commissioner reports to the minister under investigation, and asks the Prime Minister to have the minister step aside — a reasonably specific procedural ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us review this. The ethics commissioner has been asked to investigate. Here is how this allegation of preferential treatment works. The minister has not provided any information yet. This is the democratic deficit at work. Once the opportunity to investigate has been complete, what does the ethics commissioner do? He reports to the minister. In the interests of transparency and honesty, will the Prime Minister have the minister step aside until the investigation is complete?
Sgro says she has already answered the question twice, providing no substantive response.
Sgro's response — 'I have already answered the question twice' — is a complete non-answer that does not address the procedural concern about the ethics commissioner reporting to the minister or the request to step aside.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question twice.
Loubier asks whether the government is prepared to admit that choices for use of the surplus should be openly debated in the House, citing the Auditor General's prior criticism.
References the Auditor General's criticism for grounding but the ask is broad and partly rhetorical ('admit that its choices should be debated').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has already criticized the fact that the way billions of dollars in the surplus will be used is not subject to any public debate. Yet there is no shortage of priorities: unemployment, housing, economic development and agriculture. The government's attitude is proof of just how irresponsible it is. Is the government prepared to admit that its choices for use of the surplus should be debated openly here in this House?
Goodale lists the estimates debate, public accounts debate, budget debate, and finance committee prebudget consultations as existing opportunities for surplus debate.
Goodale lists several legitimate parliamentary venues for surplus debate but does not engage with the Auditor General's specific criticism about transparency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that opportunity happens many times during the year: the debate on the estimates, the debate on the public accounts, the debate on the budget, and the debate in the finance committee of the House of Commons and its prebudget consultations. Indeed, I look forward to the very learned and constructive contributions of all members of Parliament to the shaping of the future surplus.
Loubier asks what the Minister of Finance has to say to farmers in desperate straits who are asking for help that the government refuses to give.
Largely rhetorical and accusatory ('demagoguery'), with no specific policy ask or factual grounding beyond a general reference to agriculture being in 'desperate straits.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, while he is congratulating himself on good administration and they are all busy applauding, agriculture in Canada, in Quebec in particular, is in desperate straits? What does the Minister of Finance, in his demagoguery, have to say to that? What is his answer to the farmers, who are in such desperate straits and are asking for his help, which he refuses to give?
Goodale cites a $5.5 billion safety net system for farmers, $2 billion specifically for BSE, and ongoing WTO advocacy for farmers' trade rights.
Goodale cites specific figures — the $5.5 billion safety net system and $2 billion for BSE — and mentions WTO advocacy, providing substantive context even if the question was vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question as a former minister of agriculture in this House. We have put on the books of this country a $5.5 billion safety net system to assist farmers in difficult circumstances. We have, over the course of the last year and a half, put in place $2 billion to be of particular assistance in the case of BSE. We are fighting the fight for farmers at the WTO in order to maintain their trade rights and their marketing rights around the world. Indeed, as further requirements arise in agriculture, they will get a very sympathetic ear from this finance minister and this Prime Minister.
Côté asks whether the government should use its large surplus to address problems such as unemployment, housing, regional development, and agriculture rather than hiding it.
The question is broad and rhetorical, listing multiple policy areas without a specific ask, though it raises a legitimate concern about surplus transparency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has a huge surplus, not only in its budget, but also in its various foundations. It has billions of dollars it could use to help people. Instead of continuing its bad habit of disguising the surplus, should the government not use it to solve the problems of unemployment, housing, regional development and agriculture, to name but a few?
Goodale cites $2.7 billion for climate change, $4 billion for contaminated sites cleanup, and investments in ethanol, wind power, and carbon sequestration.
Goodale cites some spending figures ($2.7 billion for climate change, $4 billion for contaminated sites) but responds to environment rather than the unemployment, housing, and regional development issues Côté named.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed we do. I have already mentioned the money that has gone into agriculture, for example. The honourable gentleman mentioned issues related to the environment. We have in fact invested $2.7 billion to deal with climate change. We have invested another $4 billion to deal with the cleanup of contaminated sites. We have invested in ethanol, wind power and carbon sequestration. We have a very elaborate agenda for dealing with the environment and under the environment minister, it will increase.
Côté asks whether the government will acknowledge that it is unacceptable to apply the entire surplus to the debt without any debate in Parliament.
Raises a specific procedural concern about the entire surplus being applied to the debt without parliamentary debate, but the ask is framed as a rhetorical acknowledgement rather than a precise question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our concern is that the government has applied all of its surplus to the debt, with no debate whatsoever here in Parliament. There are urgent problems that require choices to be made. Will the government acknowledge that it is unacceptable for the entire surplus to be applied to the debt without debate, thus refusing to put his huge financial resource at the service of the people to whom it belongs, in fact?
Goodale again lists the estimates process, public accounts, budget debate, and finance committee as venues for fiscal debate, and suggests the opposition is not using available opportunities.
Goodale repeats the same list of parliamentary processes from Exchange 16 and adds a mild jab at the opposition, without addressing the specific claim that the entire surplus went to debt without debate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, through the estimates process, the public accounts process, the budget debate in the House, and the work of the finance committee of the House of Commons, there are huge opportunities to debate the fiscal condition of the country and the priorities in the budget. If the opposition does not take advantage of those opportunities, that is not the government's fault.
Guergis asks whether the minister can assure the House that her tax-funded staff, who claimed over $11,000 in travel expenses from May 21 to June 29, did no campaign work.
Highly specific: cites a named time period (May 21 to June 29), a dollar figure ($11,000), and a specific role (ministerial liaison officer), asking for a clear assurance that staff did not work on the campaign.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the immigration minister about her employees' expenses during the election and she avoided my question, so I will ask her again. Three of the minister's staff claimed expenses to be in her riding during the election period. One claimed expenses for a month as her ministerial liaison officer during the election. In fact, from May 21 to June 29, staff members claimed more than $11,000 in travel expenses. Can the minister assure us that her tax funded staff did not work on her campaign at all?
Sgro states that ministers are obligated to fill their duties during elections and that all expenses are within the appropriate guidelines.
Sgro offers only a generic assurance that expenses were 'within the appropriate guidelines' without addressing the specific dates, amounts, or roles cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all ministers are obligated to fill their duties during elections. All of the expenses are within the appropriate guidelines.
Guergis asks whether the minister can guarantee that her director of parliamentary affairs, who charged approximately $5,900 in expenses while in the riding from May 28 to June 28, did absolutely no political work during the campaign.
Exceptionally specific: names the director of parliamentary affairs, gives the precise dates (May 28 to June 28), and itemizes expenses — $1,200 transportation, $2,400 accommodations, $2,300 meals and incidentals — totalling $5,900, with a clear yes/no ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister's director of parliamentary affairs worked in the riding from May 28 to June 28 and charged approximately $1,200 for transportation, over $2,400 for accommodations, and almost $2,300 for meals and incidentals. A total of almost $5,900 was charged to the taxpayers by one staff person. Can the minister guarantee to the House that her staff did absolutely no political work during the campaign?
Sgro repeats that ministers are required to continue their ministerial work and that everything was done according to the appropriate guidelines.
Sgro repeats the same boilerplate response about ministers continuing their work and expenses being within appropriate guidelines, ignoring the itemized amounts entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, ministers are required to continue to do their work as ministers. I can assure all members of the House that everything was done according to the appropriate guidelines.
Jaffer asks why the taxpayer was billed for the minister's personal travel expenses and her husband's when she was recalled from a family vacation to be appointed to cabinet, citing an ATI.
Cites an ATI as the source and raises a specific allegation that the minister charged personal and spousal travel expenses to taxpayers, but the partisan framing ('orgy of corruption') weakens its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister seems to think that this country operates under two sets of rules: the rule of law for Canadians and an orgy of corruption for her and her Liberal friends. According to an ATI, the minister cut short her family vacation when she was appointed to cabinet. Instead of paying the cost herself, she stuck the taxpayer for not only her personal expenses but that of her husband's as well. Why is the taxpayer on the hook for the minister's travel plans?
Sgro tells the member to get his facts straight, offering no factual rebuttal or explanation.
Sgro's entire response is a single sentence telling Jaffer to 'get his facts straight,' providing no facts, no denial, and no explanation whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member on the other side of the House should get his facts straight.
Jaffer mockingly asks whether the minister intends to use her passport a great deal in coming weeks to get some rest, alluding to her potential departure from cabinet.
Primarily sarcastic and rhetorical ('future-ex-minister'), with the passport joke rendering the question largely unanswerable and designed more for political effect than accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no doubt convinced that she would not be in the cabinet, the future-ex-minister of citizenship and immigration decided to take a vacation outside Canada. She was so torn between her public and her private life that what it took to convince her was the reimbursement of travelling expenses for two, in addition to $10.34 for her passport. Can the minister tell us if she intends to use her passport a great deal in the weeks to come, to get some rest?
Valeri states he fails to understand the relevance of the question to the minister's responsibilities and asserts she is focused on doing her job effectively as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Valeri does not address any of the travel expense allegations and simply asserts the minister is focused on her job as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how this has anything to do with the responsibilities of the minister, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would suggest to the member opposite that the minister is very focused on doing her job as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will continue to do that job, and will do so in a very effective way.
Tonks asks the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities to update the House on the outcome of the November 12 meeting with provincial and territorial counterparts and progress on the new deal for cities and communities.
A classic government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to update the House on a meeting he attended, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. On November 12 the minister met with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Toronto. Would the minister please update this House on the outcome of the meeting and the continuing progress of the new deal for cities and communities?
Godfrey reports the meeting was a success, with all provinces and territories wanting to move forward so gas tax money can flow after budget 2005, and lists shared principles including respect for jurisdictions, flexibility, accountability, and predictable funding.
Godfrey provides substantive information about the November 12 meeting — provincial and territorial consensus, shared principles of respect for jurisdictions, flexibility, accountability, and the gas tax timeline post-budget 2005.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report that the meeting was a success. The ministers I met with from every province and territory want to get on with the new deal so that money can start to flow from the gas tax after budget 2005. We shared a tremendous amount of common ground regarding respect for jurisdictions, flexibility, investments, sustainable infrastructure, transparency, accountability, and the need for predictable funding. This is a continuation of the great new deal for cities and communities.
Wasylycia-Leis asks whether the finance minister will support an independent parliamentary budget office, yes or no.
Asks a direct yes/no question on a specific policy proposal — an independent parliamentary budget office — with some rhetorical framing but a clear, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister. If he is grumpy that people do not believe him, maybe he should have reconsidered being a Liberal finance minister because people have had enough of Liberals making numbers up as they go along. That is why we in the NDP support an independent parliamentary budget office. Will he support such an office, yes or no?
Goodale says he supports improving forecast accuracy but notes that the model she refers to has generated an annual deficit in the United States bigger than Canada's entire combined federal debt.
Goodale says he supports techniques to improve forecast accuracy but deflects by criticizing the U.S. congressional budget model for generating large deficits, never directly answering yes or no to supporting a parliamentary budget office.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I fully support every technique to improve the accuracy and the reliability of forecasts and projections. However, I would point out to the hon. member that the particular model that she refers to, while worthy of consideration, has generated a deficit, on an annual basis, in the United States bigger than the entire combined federal debt of the Government of Canada.
Wasylycia-Leis asks why, more than two years after the United States cracked down on corporate accounting crime, the Liberals have done exactly nothing, despite promising a common securities commission in two throne speeches.
Raises specific comparisons — U.S. corporate accounting laws and a common securities commission promised in two throne speeches — with a clear ask about why Canada has acted on neither, though somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. He is the one who has been out $61 billion in the last five years. People are sick and tired of not having numbers they can trust. Just look at the workers at Nortel and the people whose pension plans are invested in Nortel. The United States has tough corporate accounting laws, not Canada. The U.S. has a common securities commission, not us, even though the Liberals promised it in two throne speeches. Can he explain why, more than two years after the United States cracked down on corporate accounting crime, the Liberals have done exactly nothing?
Goodale accuses the NDP of wanting to blindly copycat U.S. policy and asserts that Canada has its own economic policy and is leading the United States on most important economic indicators.
Goodale mischaracterizes the question as advocating blindly copying U.S. policy and pivots to boasting about Canada's economic indicators, entirely ignoring the corporate accounting laws and securities commission questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am just peering down to see if the leader of the NDP has left the chamber because I have just heard that party's finance critic say that we should blindly copycat every policy of the United States of America which will necessarily be good for Canada. The fact is that we have our own foreign policy, we have our own economic policy, and we are leading the United States on most of the most important economic indicators.
Grewal asks when the minister will end political favouritism and set her priorities to focus on legitimate refugees and family reunification immigrants rather than queue jumpers.
Raises the legitimate issue of processing times and queue jumping but frames it in highly partisan and inflammatory language ('queue jumping Liberal strippers'), making the ask vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has difficulty understanding her job. There are thousands of legitimate refugees fearing for their lives and waiting years for their chance to come to Canada. Family reunification immigrants are waiting 53 months to enter the country, but the minister would rather look after queue jumping Liberal strippers. Her job is to focus on those who legitimately need Canada's help and compassion. When will the minister set her priorities right, end political favouritism, and start doing her job?
Sgro describes a recent meeting with provincial immigration ministers and announces a plan to develop a new immigration system bringing it into the 21st century.
Sgro pivots entirely to describing a meeting with provincial immigration ministers and a vague plan to bring immigration into the 21st century, ignoring the specific allegations about queue jumping and political favouritism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House about an important meeting that we had on Monday with the ministers of immigration for Canada. Let me tell the House a little bit of where we are going in the future when it comes to immigration. We are creating a system that we are going to develop together with the ministers of immigration across Canada. We are going to bring our immigration system into the 21st century. I look forward to participating in that and I hope the hon. member will assist as we move forward to putting immigration clearly into the 21st century.
Lukiwski asks why the minister is giving political payoffs instead of fixing the system so that all Canadians who want to come to Canada can do so in a fair and balanced manner.
Raises the legitimate concern of lengthy wait times for immigrants versus alleged political payoffs, but the ask is vague ('fix the system') and rhetorically framed without citing specific data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, due to massive problems in the immigration department, thousands of immigrants are forced to wait years before coming to Canada, and wait even longer before being granted resident status, but apparently problems such as this do not occur if one is a Liberal supporter. My question is for the immigration minister. Rather than giving political payoffs, why does the minister not simply fix the system and let all Canadians who want to come to Canada to do so in a fair and balanced manner?
Sgro says she intends to move forward to bring the immigration system into the 21st century with a new program focused on expediency and nation-building.
Sgro again pivots to a vague commitment to modernize the immigration system without addressing the specific allegation of political payoffs or providing any details on wait-time reduction measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that question. Exactly what I intend to do is move forward to bring our immigration system into the 21st century. That means developing a program and a process that clearly will see expediency and that will be able to help build this great nation of ours. I welcome all members on that side of the House to help us as we move forward with our new program.
Prentice asks who is receiving dozens of management consulting contracts each suspiciously in the amount of $88,460, noting that victims are not getting this money and citing the AFN's condemnation of the residential school claims program.
Cites the AFN report released the same day, references a specific suspicious contracting pattern (dozens of contracts each at $88,460), and asks who the consultants are — a specific and well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Deputy Prime Minister proclaimed her pride in the residential school claims program. Today the AFN condemned this system, saying that it is deeply flawed and that the government is re-victimizing aboriginal Canadians. Now it is reported that the government has issued dozens upon dozens of contracts, suspiciously each in the amount of $88,460, for management consulting services. The victims are not getting this money. Who is getting the money? Who are these consultants? Let the Deputy Prime Minister answer.
McLellan thanks the AFN for its report, describes it as part of ongoing consultations, and reports that over 1,000 applications have been received for the ADR process.
McLellan thanks the AFN for its report and cites over 1,000 ADR applications as evidence the process is working, but does not address the $88,460 contracts or identify who the consultants are.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the AFN for the report that it released today. In fact, that report is part of the ongoing discussions and consultations that we carry on with the aboriginal community as it relates to the residential school question. I do, however, want to reassure the hon. member that our ADR process is in place. It is working and as of today, I believe, we have received over 1,000 applications for the ADR process.
Prentice asks why the Deputy Prime Minister did not tell the House that her own officials have admitted the system is deeply flawed, citing the grand chief's statement that it is biased, abusive, unequal, will take 53 years, and cost $2 billion in administrative costs.
Cites specific figures from the grand chief's statement that day — 53 years and $2 billion in administrative costs — and asks why the Deputy Prime Minister did not disclose that her own officials admitted the system is deeply flawed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is bizarre that the Deputy Prime Minister would claim that this process is a success. Today the grand chief said that the system is biased, it is abusive, it is unequal, and it is going to take 53 years and cost $2 billion in administrative costs. What a success. Would the Deputy Prime Minister please stand up and tell the House why she did not tell the House that her own officials have admitted that the system is deeply flawed?
McLellan defends the ADR process as more sensitive and better than litigating thousands of claims in court, and repeats that over 1,000 people have applied to participate.
McLellan defends the ADR process as more sensitive and better than court litigation and repeats the 1,000 applications figure, but does not address the 53-year timeline, the $2 billion cost estimate, or the allegation about her own officials admitting flaws.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, we have in place a new process, an ADR process. It is our belief and in fact the belief of many of the victims that this process is better and it is more sensitive. It can be part of the healing process as opposed to litigating thousands of claims in the court and taking millions of dollars and years and years to resolve these claims. That is why we have an ADR process and that is why over 1,000 people have applied to participate in that process.
Will the government apologize to those whose land was expropriated and return the 11,000 acres they are asking for, given the history of Mirabel's development and the departure of the last international passenger flights?
Cites specific dates (1969 expropriation, February 20 1996 announcement, October 31 2004 last flights) and names a concrete figure (11,000 acres) with a clear dual ask — apology and land return.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1969 the Liberal government decided to expropriate 100,000 acres of farmland to develop Mirabel airport. On February 20, 1996, Aéroports de Montréal announced that international passenger flights would be moved to Dorval. Finally, on October 31 of this year, the last international passenger flights left Mirabel airport. What a waste. Is the government going to apologize to those whose land was expropriated and give them back the 11,000 acres they are asking for?
The minister explained that the government leased Aéroports de Montréal properties to ADM until 2053 and that occupants have been offered lease extensions until 2023 while keeping future options open.
Addresses the lease structure with ADM and offers a lease extension to 2023 as a partial response, but does not address the apology ask or the return of the 11,000 acres.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Government of Canada has leased all Aéroports de Montréal properties to the ADM corporation until 2053. In the meantime, other offers have been made to everyone who now occupies the land, to extend their leases until 2023. I believe that will give those who are occupying the land, for which they have already been paid, an opportunity to continue their agricultural and other uses of that land until 2023, while keeping all options open regarding the future of Mirabel airport.
Why won't the government stop hiding behind ADM, apologize for its monumental error, and sell back the 11,000 acres to those whose land was expropriated?
Presses the specific ask for land return and apology again with pointed framing, but the question is more rhetorical ('What is the Liberal government waiting for?') and largely restates the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government must stop hiding behind ADM. It has the power and the duty to maintain the infrastructure of Mirabel airport. It has the duty to apologize for its monumental error to those whose land was expropriated and it also has the power to sell back the 11,000 acres of land they are asking for. What is the Liberal government waiting for?
The minister defended the 60-year lease signed by the government and the offer of a lease extension to 2023, suggesting that Aéroports de Montréal's 2023 master plan review will clarify options.
The minister reiterates the lease-extension argument without addressing the apology demand or the possibility of selling back the 11,000 acres, and the answer is cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if signing a lease has any meaning for the hon. member. For us it does. A lease for 60 years was signed by the Canadian government of the day. Now, the people who occupy the land have been offered a lease extension until 2023. That gives them a long period of certainty. We are convinced that Aéroports de Montréal, when it reviews its master plan in 2023, will be able to see things more clearly. Still, at present, we are keeping the future open, because, perhaps, in a few years, they will say thanks to—
Will the Prime Minister commit to filling the three Senate vacancies from Alberta with senators elected by Albertans, as a concrete step to address western alienation?
References a concrete upcoming event (Monday's Alberta Senate election, third time Albertans are voting) and cites three specific Senate vacancies, making a clear commitment ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that western alienation is real and he would fix it. On Monday, Albertans are going back to the polls for the third time to elect their senators. The time has come for the Prime Minister to listen to Albertans. If he really wants to address western alienation, the time is now. Will the Prime Minister commit to addressing western alienation by filling the three Senate vacancies from those elected by Albertans?
The Prime Minister spoke generally about dealing with fundamental issues important to western Canada and pointed to the calibre of government MPs and ministers as evidence of a national perspective.
The Prime Minister does not address the Senate vacancies or the Alberta elections at all, pivoting instead to a general statement about addressing western alienation through good governance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the way to deal with western alienation, or any kind of alienation, is to deal with the fundamental issues that people in western Canada want to see us address. That is exactly what we are doing. In addition, a substantial step was taken after the last election. When we take a look at the outstanding men and women who are on the government side, as members of Parliament and as ministers, then we begin to see the kinds of decisions that we are taking with a national perspective, and that is the way we will deal with western alienation.
Will the Prime Minister keep his word to Premier Klein and use his unilateral power to appoint Alberta's elected senators, as was done with Stan Waters 14 years ago without any constitutional amendment?
Cites the precedent of Stan Waters 14 years prior, clarifies no constitutional amendment is required, references the Prime Minister's specific pre-election commitment to Premier Klein, and asks a pointed yes/no accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that appointing any senator, elected or unelected, does not require a constitutional amendment, nor does it require approval from any province. It is very simple. It requires the same thing that happened 14 years ago when Stan Waters was appointed as Canada's first elected senator. The Prime Minister is the only person who holds the power to make this happen. The Prime Minister told Premier Klein before the federal election he would look favourably at appointing Alberta's elected senators. Will the Prime Minister keep his word to Premier Klein and use his unilateral power to appoint Alberta's elected senators?
The minister said the government is open to Senate reform but will not do it in a piecemeal manner, and that a wide consensus across the country is needed, which is not currently present.
The Deputy Leader does not address the Stan Waters precedent, the commitment to Premier Klein, or the unilateral appointment power, instead repeating a general position about comprehensive Senate reform.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated repeatedly that we are open to reform of the Senate, but we are not going to do it in a piecemeal manner. If we are to reform the Senate, it will be done entirely. For that, we need a consensus, a wide consensus across this country, which is obviously not present at the current time.
Could the parliamentary secretary inform the House of the results of the NATO military committee chairman election held in Brussels?
A government backbench softball question asking for the results of a NATO election with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Earlier today there was an election in Brussels at the NATO meeting for a new chairman of the NATO military committee. Could the parliamentary secretary inform the House of the results of that election and the implications, if any, for Canada?
General Ray Henault, Canada's chief of the defence staff, was elected chairman of NATO's military committee and will be advising the secretary general of NATO.
The parliamentary secretary provides the specific result — General Ray Henault elected chairman of NATO's military committee — and explains the significance of the role.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for the question; he shows an enormous interest in foreign policy. I would like to announce to the House that our chief of the defence staff, General Ray Henault, has been elected to the position of chairman of NATO's military committee. This places a Canadian at the most senior levels of NATO. General Henault will be advising the secretary general of NATO. Most important, this reflects his qualifications--
How is it that after the RCMP insisted on a full regimental funeral and officers told the widow costs would be covered, the widow of RCMP Superintendent Dennis Massey is being sent a $20,000 bill?
Cites a specific date (December 18, 2002), names the individual (RCMP Superintendent Dennis Massey), specifies the location, and identifies a concrete claim — the widow being billed $20,000 after being told costs would be covered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on December 18, 2002, RCMP Superintendent Dennis Massey died in my riding on the Trans-Canada Highway while on duty. The RCMP insisted upon a full regimental funeral and told the widow they would cover the costs. How is it the government insists on a full regimental funeral, has officers claim they would cover the costs and then tries to stick the widow with a $20,000 bill?
The minister clarified that it was the RCMP, not the government, that made decisions about the funeral after meeting with Mrs. Massey, and that the commissioner has asked for a review of three cases currently in question.
The minister clarifies it was the RCMP rather than the government that made decisions, notes the commissioner has asked for a review of three cases, but does not explain how the widow came to face a $20,000 bill or what will be done about it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to answer this question yesterday. I want to clarify that it was not the government that made any decision in this case, but in fact the RCMP met with Mrs. Massey, as they do with all family members in these tragic circumstances. A decision was made as to the kind of funeral that would be held. As I indicated yesterday, obviously there are some questions arising out of this funeral and some others. That is why the commissioner has asked for a review of the three cases that are presently in question.
How many other families of fallen federal law enforcement officers have had to pay for their own regimental funerals, given the controversy surrounding Superintendent Massey's funeral?
Builds on the prior exchange with a specific follow-up asking for a concrete number — how many other families of fallen federal law enforcement officers have had to pay for their own regimental funerals — signalling a policy accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with all the controversy surrounding payment for RCMP Superintendent Dennis Massey's regimental funeral, it sounds like a policy change is in order. Could the Minister of Public Safety tell the House how many other families of fallen federal law enforcement officers have had to pay for their own regimental funerals?
The minister stated that the operational policy of the force on funerals has been applied consistently over the years and that the commissioner has asked for a review of the policy.
The minister does not provide any number and instead describes the operational policy as clear and consistently applied, before noting the commissioner's review, which does not answer the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the operational policy of the force in relation to funerals is quite clear and it has been applied consistently over the years. Because of the events that have arisen and the questions that have been raised, the commissioner has asked for a review of this policy and I am sure we all look forward to the results of that review.
Will the Minister of the Environment intervene following the Vermont Environmental Board's authorization for the Coventry landfill site to double its capacity, which risks contaminating Lake Memphremagog?
References a specific recent decision by the Vermont Environmental Board, names the Coventry landfill site and Lake Memphremagog, notes the Bloc's prior request to the International Joint Commission, and ends with a direct ask for ministerial intervention.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Vermont Environmental Board has just authorized the Coventry landfill site to double its capacity. The neighbouring Lake Memphremagog risks being contaminated as a result. This is not a new problem. The Bloc Québécois had asked that it be raised with the International Joint Commission so that it could look into it. With this decision, Vermont is denying a request by the City of Sherbrooke and the RCM of Memphremagog to phase out the landfill. Will the Minister of the Environment intervene?
The parliamentary secretary said the government takes the issue seriously, noted the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush, and mentioned that the RCM of Memphremagog has been given a status.
The parliamentary secretary (responding for Foreign Affairs rather than Environment) affirms the issue is taken seriously and mentions the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush, but does not address whether the minister will intervene or what specific action will be taken following the Vermont Environmental Board decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a question for foreign affairs. I am pleased to say it is an issue that we on this side of the House also take seriously. I know that there are members on this side who have worked very hard on this issue. I must point out that it was no coincidence that the Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush when he had the opportunity. We are very pleased to find ourselves in a position where the RCM of Memphremagog has now been given a status.
What steps is the government taking to protect Canadians against a potential pandemic?
A government backbench softball asking generally what steps are being taken against a pandemic, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable talk recently about the risk of a worldwide pandemic and the preparedness of different countries in dealing with such a problem. Would the Minister of State for Public Health please explain to the House what steps the government is taking to protect Canadians against a potential pandemic?
Canada has a comprehensive pandemic influenza plan called a best model by the WHO, and the Minister of Health and chief public health officer were at the WHO in New York to launch the next phase of the global public health intelligence network, a made-in-Canada early warning system.
The minister provides substantive information: Canada's pandemic influenza plan praised by WHO, the Minister of Health and chief public health officer attending the WHO in New York, and the global public health intelligence network launch with specific operational details.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member that Canada has a comprehensive pandemic influenza plan which the World Health Organization has called a best model for other countries. Today the Minister of Health and our chief public health officer for Canada were at the WHO in New York to launch the next phase of the global public health intelligence network. This made in Canada early warning system gathers and disseminates the reports of public health significance in real time on a 24/7 basis, in seven languages, at the Public Health Agency of Canada. The earlier we know about public health risks, the better prepared we can be.
Why was the House of Commons not informed before the Minister of Heritage submitted Canada's position to UNESCO on the cultural diversity convention, given that it engages Quebec's cultural interests?
References a specific UNESCO deadline (November 15), raises a procedural accountability point about why the House was not informed before Canada's position was submitted, and notes Quebec's cultural interests are engaged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members of UNESCO had until November 15 to state their position on the cultural diversity convention. We can assume that by now, UNESCO knows Canada's position. Can the Minister of Heritage explain why the House of Commons was not informed before she submitted Canada's position, which, as we know, engages Quebec's cultural interests?
The minister clarified that the written comments are due November 19, that consultations with federal departments, provinces, and the cultural coalition are underway, and that a copy will be provided to members once submitted.
The minister clarifies the submission deadline is November 19 (not November 15), explains consultations with federal departments, provinces, and the cultural coalition are still ongoing, and commits to providing a copy to members upon submission — partially addressing the accountability concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the members had until mid November, and November 19 is mid November. We will send our written comments on UNESCO's preliminary convention by November 19. In preparing this written submission, we have consulted—that is where November 19 comes into play—federal departments, the provinces and the cultural coalition. As soon as we have submitted it, we will provide hon. members with a copy as well.
The Speaker drew the attention of the House to guests in the gallery and members acknowledged their presence.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Mr. Bill Casey (CPC) raised a point of order disputing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's characterization that he had only approached her yesterday regarding the Heidi and Holger Renner family's deportation case, stating he first raised it with her on October 6. Minister Judy Sgro acknowledged the case and stated she is currently looking at it under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
- CPC Mr. Bill Casey
- Lib Judy Sgro
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said during question period that I asked her yesterday for a ministerial permit for my constituents, a desperate family of four in my riding, the Heidi and Holger Renner family, who are about to be deported. If the minister spoke truthfully, she would have said that I approached her on October 6 when she was in her seat in the House. Forty-two days ago I raised this issue with her. Yesterday I received 19 letters of support for the family. I gave the letters to her for this desperate family, Heidi and Holger Renner. I think it is shameful that she would compare this desperate family with her problems with an exotic dancer.
Mr. Speaker, all I want the minister to do is acknowledge that I first approached her in her seat on October 6, not yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member. It is a very important case. I am currently looking at it under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Mr. Jack Layton (NDP) raised a point of order objecting to the Minister of Finance referring to his presence or absence during question period, and Mr. John Reynolds (CPC) raised a point of order alleging the President of the Treasury Board called a female member 'sweetheart' across the aisle. The President of the Treasury Board, Reg Alcock, clarified that he had in fact called the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough a 'scumbag', not a 'sweetheart'.
- NDP Mr. Jack Layton
- CPC Mr. John Reynolds
- Lib Reg Alcock
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with regard to comments made by the Minister of Finance during question period. In answering a question from my colleague from Winnipeg North, the minister suggested that I may not have been in the House. I believe it is against the practice of this chamber to refer to the presence or absence of a member who has not been recognized by the Chair. Therefore I would ask that the minister be requested to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, during question period, while the member for Calgary—Nose Hill was asking a question, the President of the Treasury Board was yelling some perhaps unparliamentary comments across the aisle, but at the same time, he called her “sweetheart”. I know her husband thinks she is a sweetheart, but I do not think she wants people to know that the President of the Treasury Board is her sweetheart. I would ask him to apologize for making that statement to the hon. member during question period.
Mr. Speaker, if that was what was understood, I certainly would apologize for it. I believe what I did was call the member for Pictou—Antigonish--Guysborough a scumbag, not a sweetheart.
Mr. Peter MacKay (CPC) raised a point of order demanding that the President of the Treasury Board retract his use of the word 'scumbag' to describe a member of Parliament. The President of the Treasury Board, Reg Alcock, retracted the remark while stating he only wanted to clarify what he had said.
- CPC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Lib Reg Alcock
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not even know that I have to rise to that kind of ridiculous unparliamentary language. Surely you as the Speaker presiding over the House, who wants to maintain decorum would not permit a minister of the crown to stand up and call another member of Parliament a scumbag, as we have just witnessed from the minister. I know that he will now be invited to retract that comment and I know that he will rise in his place laboriously and do that immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I am only too willing to retract the remark. I just wanted to clarify what I said.