Session overview
- The bulk of Question Period focused on the Kyoto Protocol's entry into force, with opposition parties pressing the government on its lack of a concrete implementation plan, rising emissions, carbon trading credits, and job impacts — the government repeatedly deflected by announcing that Montreal would host COP 11.
- The Auditor General's report triggered exchanges on accountability gaps in foundations, CIDA financial mismanagement, airport rent reviews, and crown corporation appointments, with the President of the Treasury Board defending government practices while promising further tabling of reports.
- Child care dominated several exchanges, with CPC and BQ members challenging the Liberal plan for lacking parental choice, excluding stay-at-home parents, and potentially routing funds through unaccountable foundations; the Minister of Social Development disputed the opposition's characterizations.
- Critical infrastructure protection was raised following Radio-Canada revelations that reporters walked unchallenged into two major hydroelectric dams; the Deputy Prime Minister deferred to provincial jurisdiction and the Sûreté du Québec investigation ordered by Premier Charest.
- The listing of the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist entity produced sharp exchanges, with CPC members pressing the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who stated that since the February 2002 ceasefire no country has taken any action against the Tamil Tigers and that Canadian foreign policy is made in Canada.
- Public transit investment was raised by BQ members in connection with Kyoto, with the Minister of Transport confirming a gas tax transfer to municipalities would appear in the upcoming budget, while the Minister of Industry gave a non-committal response on a public transit component within Technology Partnerships Canada.
The President of the Treasury Board stated unequivocally that the government had made no decision to route child care funds through a foundation, giving the public a concrete, on-the-record denial of a specific policy concern raised about accountability.
The question cites specific Senate committee testimony and CSIS advice, and poses two clear answerable questions about the minister's personal position on listing the Tamil Tigers and whether she has advised cabinet.
Asked specifically whether he would provide massive support to the public transit industry — naming Bombardier Transportation and Nova Bus — to help meet Kyoto targets, Emerson answered only that the government is moving ahead with an aerospace strategy, which was entirely unresponsive to the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- Stephen Harper asked how much it will cost to actually achieve the Kyoto emissions reduction targets, given that $4 billion had already been spent or budgeted with emissions rising — no cost figure or concrete target pathway was provided (Exchange 2).
- Bob Mills asked exactly how many jobs will be sacrificed by living up to Kyoto — the Minister of the Environment did not provide any job-impact figures and spoke only generally about renewable energy leadership (Exchange 4).
- Kevin Sorenson asked whether the Minister of Public Safety believes the Tamil Tigers should be on the terrorist list and whether she has advised cabinet to add them — the minister said the list is not static and she will act as circumstances require, but gave no direct answer on her cabinet advice (Exchange 33).
- Bill Blaikie asked when the government will produce a concrete Kyoto plan that can be judged, noting years of dithering — neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of the Environment provided a specific date or defined deliverables (Exchanges 10–11).
- Nathan Cullen asked the Minister of Natural Resources for a commitment that the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling off the Queen Charlotte Islands will not be lifted — the minister refused to commit, saying a decision would only be made after due diligence and a complete science review (Exchanges 25–26).
Why has the government still produced no plan to lay in front of Canadians to implement Kyoto, given the Prime Minister's own stated commitment to do so?
Harper quotes the Prime Minister's own prior public commitment to lay out a plan and asks why, after eight years and on the first day of implementation, no plan exists — a reasonably specific accountability ask grounded in a direct quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for eight years the Prime Minister has been saying that the Kyoto accord is one of his top priorities. In fact, less than two years ago, while criticizing his predecessor, the Prime Minister said the following: “I think if you're going to bring in something like Kyoto, you owe it to Canadians to lay the plan in front of them”. Having committed itself to Kyoto, why, after eight years, on the first day of the accord's international implementation, has the government still produced no plan to lay in front of Canadians?
The Minister of the Environment will be laying down a plan, and Montreal will host the next major UN conference on climate change.
Martin vaguely says the Minister of the Environment will be laying down a plan but provides no details, then pivots entirely to announcing Montreal will host the next climate conference — deflecting from the specific question about a plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear. The Minister of the Environment will be laying down a plan that is full in terms of the objectives that will be set and the means of arriving at them. I am delighted that the hon. member has raised the issue. I am delighted to announce to this House that the Minister of the Environment and I this morning in Montreal announced that Montreal will be hosting the next major conference on climate change under the auspices of the United Nations.
Given that the government has spent or budgeted almost $4 billion on Kyoto and emissions covered by the accord have gone up, how much will it cost to actually achieve something?
Harper cites a specific figure of almost $4 billion spent on Kyoto promotion while noting emissions have gone up, and poses a pointed if rhetorical question about cost versus results — factually grounded but the ask is more a rhetorical barb than a precise policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have not managed to do anything on this one, but we are moving on to the next photo op. The government has spent or budgeted almost $4 billion peddling Kyoto to Canadians, but emissions covered by the accord have actually gone up. My question is simple. Could the Prime Minister tell us, if it costs $4 billion to achieve nothing, how much will it cost to achieve something?
Martin accuses Harper of cynicism for calling the Montreal conference a photo op, emphasizing that ministers and delegates from over 180 countries will attend for two weeks.
Martin does not address the $4 billion figure or the emissions increase at all, instead attacking Harper's characterization of the Montreal conference as a photo op — a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there can be no better indication of the depth of cynicism of the Leader of the Opposition and in fact the Alliance Conservatives than to say on this the day that Kyoto comes into effect that the major conference under the auspices of the United Nations which will lead to the next step in terms of dealing with climate change is nothing but a photo op. In fact, the ministers and the delegates from over 180 countries will be coming to Montreal. They are coming here for two weeks to deal with the issues, not for a photo op. They are not coming here for that kind of cynicism.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that his scheme to comply with Kyoto does not involve buying hot air credits from major polluters in other countries?
Harper identifies a specific reported mechanism — buying hot air credits from major polluters — and asks the Prime Minister to assure the House it is not the compliance scheme, making it a fairly concrete ask grounded in reported policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have to say for all of the opposition parties that after listening for eight years to unfulfilled promises cynicism is becoming awfully contagious. Reports persist that the environment minister is going to try to reach the Kyoto targets by using a loophole to buy hot air credits from major polluters. This will cost Canadian taxpayers and businesses billions of dollars and do nothing to clean up the environment. Would the Prime Minister please assure the House that his scheme to comply with Kyoto is not to buy hot air from other countries?
Oh, oh!
Dion confirms that using the trading mechanism of the Kyoto protocol is part of the plan, though not the main part, framing it as exporting Canadian technology and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
Dion partially addresses the question by confirming that using the trading mechanism is part of the plan, though not the main part, but does not directly assure the House about the hot air credits characterization or explain the cost to taxpayers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, it is the slow movers that do not understand how the environment and the economy work together. It is this government that understands--
Mr. Speaker, I still hope that we will have a constructive opposition and that we will work, all Canadians together, in order to reach our Kyoto target and do our share for the planet. It is unfortunate that the opposition does not understand that part of the plan, not the main part but part of the plan, must be to use the trading mechanism of the Kyoto protocol.
Given that the public works minister previously said Kyoto would cause job losses in all regions, how many jobs will be sacrificed by living up to Kyoto?
Mills quotes the current public works minister's own prior statements predicting job losses from Kyoto and asks how many jobs will be sacrificed — a direct accountability question citing a specific prior commitment by a named cabinet colleague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today Kyoto comes into effect and this government has no plan. When the current public works minister voted against Kyoto, this is what he said: “The job losses from Kyoto ratification will affect all regions of Canada”. Or how about this: “This is a government that could not organize a two car funeral, let alone implement a Kyoto agreement...”. Will the minister tell Canadians exactly how many jobs will be sacrificed by living up to Kyoto?
Oh, oh!
Dion argues Canada is becoming a leader in renewable energy and cleaner technology, making it more competitive, without addressing the job loss question.
Dion does not address the job loss question or the cited public works minister's statements at all, instead arguing Canada is becoming a leader in renewable energy — a complete deflection from the specific numerical ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the opposition thinks Canada will lose jobs. We are becoming one of the leaders for renewable sources of energy. We are becoming one of the leaders of all the sources that--
Mr. Speaker, it is a mystery why the opposition does not understand that if Canada becomes a leader for renewable energy and a leader in having cleaner technology with better conservation of energy, we will be more competitive around the world.
Why has the minister taken this long to admit that his hot air plan is simply to cover his boost in foreign aid, while Canadians face domestic environmental problems like smog and raw sewage?
Mills raises a specific allegation — that Kyoto money is being used for foreign aid while domestic environmental problems persist — and asks the minister to admit this, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and the ask somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously his cabinet colleague thinks he is wrong. The latest revelation in the Liberal embarrassment called Kyoto is news that the environment minister is planning to send billions of dollars overseas for non-environmental purposes. While Canadians choke on smog, live near waste dumps and dump raw sewage into the ocean, the minister is using Kyoto money for foreign aid. Why has the minister taken this long to admit that his hot air plan is simply to cover his boost in foreign aid?
Oh, oh!
Dion says most of the plan will be in Canada and part will use the trading mechanism to export Canadian technology and decrease greenhouse gas emissions globally, emphasizing that global warming requires a global response.
Dion confirms part of the plan will use the trading mechanism and frames it as global in nature, but does not address the foreign aid allegation directly or explain the domestic environmental problems cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, most of the plan will be in Canada. Part of it will be--
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition does not understand a word about climate change. The sole thing they understand is hot air that they are breathing all the time when someone tries to explain to them how it will work. Let me tell the House that part of the plan will be to use the trading mechanism to export Canadian technology, to confirm new markets and to decrease greenhouse gas emissions around the world because in global warming the word we need to understand is global.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his government has nothing on the credit side of the greenhouse gas emission reduction balance sheet, given that emissions have increased by 20% since 1990?
Duceppe cites a specific statistic — a 20% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 — and asks the Prime Minister to admit his government has nothing on the credit side of the emission reduction balance sheet, making it a pointed and factually grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto protocol has come into effect but, regrettably, there is no cause for celebration in Canada. Instead of decreasing, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 20% since 1990. The federal voluntary approach has proved to be a failure, and Ottawa still lacks any credible implementation plan to force the hand of the major emitters. On this historic day, will the Prime Minister admit that his government still has nothing on the credit side of the greenhouse gas emission reduction balance sheet?
Martin says the government has introduced and implemented initiatives with more forthcoming, then redirects to express disappointment that Duceppe is not congratulating Montreal for hosting the major UN climate conference.
Martin vaguely references initiatives without naming any, then pivots entirely to congratulating Montreal for hosting the upcoming conference — completely deflecting from the specific question about emission reductions achieved.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is well aware that not only has the government introduced and implemented a number of initiatives, but more will be forthcoming. There is, however, one thing I find disappointing: the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who represents a Montreal riding, is not prepared to congratulate the City of Montreal, the Province of Quebec and Canada for hosting the most significant meeting held under the auspices of the United Nations on protecting the environment and managing the impact of climate change. I do not understand. For once at least, he should be congratulating Montreal, Quebec and Canada.
Given that the 1993 red book promised a 20% reduction in emissions by 2005 but emissions have increased by 20% instead, when will the government present a real plan?
Duceppe cites a specific 1993 red book promise of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005 contrasted with an actual 20% increase, demanding to know when a plan will be presented — well-grounded in a specific prior commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not understand, but this is not the first time he does not understand, nor will it be the last. He is talking about Kyoto 2 ,when he has not even signed Kyoto 1. We know that this Prime Minister, the author of the 1993 red book, promised a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005, yet the opposite has occurred. Emissions have increased by 20%. Rather than playing at smoke and mirrors, he ought to be ashamed of turning up at a conference empty handed. I am pleased for Montreal, but it is distressing to see that he has no plan whatsoever. When is he going to present one?
Oh, oh!
Dion says Canada has had a plan since 2002 and cites the green plan for municipalities as an example, acknowledges the plan needs beefing up, and says a consolidated plan will be announced in the near future.
Dion acknowledges Canada has had a plan since 2002, gives one example (the green plan for municipalities), admits it needs beefing up, and says a consolidated plan will be announced in the near future — partially responsive but without specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, Canada has had a plan since 2002, a plan that will yield results. For example—
For example, Mr. Speaker, the green plan for municipalities is working very well, but it will not lower emissions immediately. It will be a few years before we see the effect. One thing is certain, however: this plan needs beefing up. The Government of Canada will be announcing a consolidated plan in the near future. At that time, I will be only too pleased to discuss it with my colleagues, if they are willing to listen.
Can the Minister of the Environment deny that his Kyoto strategy for the automotive industry, limited to a voluntary program, amounts to nothing less than magical thinking?
Bigras focuses on the automotive industry as a specific example of inaction and asks whether the minister can deny that the Kyoto strategy is nothing less than magical thinking — a somewhat substantive ask mixed with heavy rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as an example of inaction, we have the automotive industry. Did the government announce a reasonable plan? No. Its plan for the automotive industry is limited to a voluntary program. The government's approach is to not give any direction. This is pure improvisation. It is magical thinking. Can the Minister of the Environment deny that his strategy for Kyoto is nothing less than magical thinking, and nothing else?
Efford says the auto industry has honoured 14 previous voluntary agreements and already achieved a 6% reduction in emissions toward a 2010 target, ahead of US partners, and the new voluntary agreement will accomplish the targets by 2010.
Efford provides specific claims about the automotive industry — 14 previous voluntary agreements honoured, a 6% reduction already achieved toward a 2010 target — and asserts the voluntary agreement will accomplish the targets, offering more factual content than most answers in this session.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc does not understand the policies that the government has in place when it comes to dealing with the auto industry and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is very clear that the auto industry has already honoured 14 previous voluntary agreements. It has already accomplished a 6% reduction in its emissions for the target of 2010, far ahead of its partners down in the United States. The voluntary agreement that we will be putting in place will accomplish the targets by 2010. Canadians will be very proud of that.
Can the Minister of the Environment deny that he has no plan or strategy on Kyoto and that, despite calling himself a talented architect, he is in reality nothing more than a busy beaver?
Bigras's question is largely rhetorical, mocking Dion's self-description as a talented architect and calling him a busy beaver — the question contains no specific factual grounding and the ask is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since this morning, the Minister of the Environment has been trying hard to lull us with his fancy rhetoric and to have us understand that he is doing everything possible. Still, can he deny that he has no plan or strategy and that he is unable to speak his mind on Kyoto? While he calls himself a talented architect, is he not in reality nothing more than a busy beaver?
Dion says the new plan will soon be released and will galvanize Canadians to achieve the Kyoto objective together.
Dion says a new plan will soon be released without any details, then deflects by invoking forces of separation — largely non-responsive to the substance of what was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, coming from a member from a province where many dams were built and greenhouse gas emissions reduced, that is not a bad comparison. More seriously, the new plan will soon be released. I am sure it will galvanize Canadians and that, together, we will be able to achieve our objective by working together, ignoring the forces of separation.
After all these years of dithering, with emissions at 1.543 billion tonnes rising at 8 tonnes a second, when are Canadians going to get a plan?
Blaikie cites a specific real-time pollution counter showing 1.543 billion tonnes increasing at 8 tonnes per second to illustrate the gap between promise and reality, and asks when a plan will be presented — factually specific framing with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister goes to the NDP website he will see his own pollution counter. It was at 1.543 billion tonnes this morning. It goes up by 8 tonnes a second. Every tonne is the difference between where we are and where the Prime Minister promised we would be by this time. It is no wonder he did not want to get up yesterday to defend his record. I would not want to have to defend it either. The fact remains that we need a plan. We need something that we can judge. After all these years of dithering, when are we going to get a plan?
Martin says the municipalities plan is successful, further initiatives will be set out in the upcoming budget, and Canada is taking global leadership through hosting the major climate conference in Montreal.
Martin references the municipalities initiative and the upcoming budget as sources of further initiatives, then pivots to the Montreal conference — partially engaging the topic of a plan but providing no specifics or timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only has the government set out a very clear set of initiatives, one of which was cited by the minister and is a very successful plan working with the municipalities, but we have also said that in the budget to come a further series of initiatives will be set out. What is important is the leadership that Canada is taking. This is a global problem and the most important global conference on the issue will take place in Montreal next fall under the leadership of Canada and its Minister of the Environment.
After all this dithering and with a conference not being a plan, when are Canadians going to have a decent plan to address greenhouse gas emissions?
Blaikie presses the same question about when a decent plan will emerge, adding the rhetorical flourish about a smog day and hot air — the ask is clear but the exchange is now repetitive and increasingly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the future of the planet depends on Canadian leadership, so far it is a doomed planet because nothing of any significance has come from the government. A conference is not a plan. I hope for the Prime Minister's sake that it is not a smog day in Montreal when the conference takes place. We will have hot air on top of smog and still no plan. After all this dithering, when are we going to have a decent plan?
Dion says the NDP has no fiscal plan to finance its policy and positions the Liberal Government as the responsible middle ground that will enable Canadians to achieve the Kyoto objective while keeping finances sound.
Dion attacks the NDP for having no fiscal plan to finance its policy and positions the Liberals as a middle ground between extremes — entirely deflecting from the question about when a plan will be released.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with Kyoto. The New Democratic Party, which wants to get a lot of mileage out of Kyoto, has no fiscal plan to finance its policy. Between these extremes, there is the Liberal Government of Canada, which will enable Canadians to achieve the Kyoto objective while keeping finances sound.
Given that major dams are exposed to threats from groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah as revealed by Radio-Canada, what role will CSIS be given in protecting them?
MacKay raises a specific security concern about access to major dams citing Radio-Canada revelations and asks what role CSIS will be given, but the question is partially rhetorical with the attack on the minister being unaware.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, anyone at all can get into a power plant. From Kitimat to Churchill Falls, hundreds of major dams are exposed to the al-Qaedas and Hezbollahs of the world. Unaware, even yesterday of the Radio-Canada revelations, the minister is getting lost in her explanations. North America' s energy is threatened, and she is asleep at the switch. What role will she give CSIS in this matter, this very day?
McLellan says the Hydro-Québec matter is primarily for Hydro-Québec and the province, Premier Charest and Minister Chagnon have asked the Sûreté du Québec to investigate, and the government is developing a critical infrastructure protection plan.
McLellan directly addresses the Hydro-Québec situation by noting Premier Charest and Minister Chagnon asked the Sûreté du Québec to investigate, explains the jurisdictional framework for critical infrastructure, and mentions a critical infrastructure protection plan in development — reasonably responsive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in reference to the specific commentary around Hydro-Québec, this is a matter first and foremost for Hydro-Québec and then for the province. That is why Premier Charest and Minister Chagnon this morning asked the Sûreté du Québec to investigate the situation as it relates to Hydro-Québec. Most of the critical infrastructure in this country is owned by the private sector. We work with the private sector, local governments and provinces. We are in the process of developing a critical infrastructure protection plan.
Given that RDI reporters walked directly into two centrally controlled major dams and that four years after 9/11 there is still no critical infrastructure plan nor updated Emergency Preparedness Act, why has the government not acted to protect critical infrastructure?
MacKay cites the 2003 blackout, the RDI reporters' access to two centrally controlled major dams, and the four years since 9/11 without a critical infrastructure plan or updated Emergency Preparedness Act — multiple specific factual anchors with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over two years ago there was a blackout that left much of Ontario and all of the PMO in the dark. Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister is still in the dark. What I asked her yesterday about the protection of a dam in Quebec, she did not have a clue. Last night Radio-Canada revealed how easy it would be for a terrorist to cripple the energy supply. RDI reporters were able to walk directly into two centrally controlled major dams that are power supports for all of North America. It has been four years since 9/11 and we do not have a critical infrastructure plan nor do we have an updated Emergency Preparedness Act. Why has the government not acted to protect--
McLellan questions why the CPC would want the federal government to override provincial jurisdiction over privately owned critical infrastructure, and notes Premier Charest and Minister Chagnon appropriately called on the Sûreté du Québec.
McLellan invokes provincial jurisdiction to deflect, praises Premier Charest's response, and does not address the absence of a critical infrastructure plan or the outdated Emergency Preparedness Act — largely deflecting from the core accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that a party that is usually in the business of respecting things like provincial jurisdiction would suggest, as it relates to most of the critical infrastructure in the country which is owned by the private sector and regulated by provinces, that somehow we should simply step in, push them aside and tell them that we will protect their critical infrastructure. Premier Charest and Minister Chagnon did the right thing this morning when they called upon the Sûreté in the province of Quebec to work with Hydro-Québec around the issues that were raised yesterday and we will--
Will the Minister of Social Development explain why the Liberal child care plan only offers one option and does not address the needs and desires of parents for choice in child care?
Ambrose references the previous day's vote and asserts the Liberal plan does not address parental choice, then asks why the Liberal plan only offers one option — a somewhat specific ask but heavily framed by partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals voted against allowing parents to choose different child care options and voted against--
Oh, oh!
--tax measures that support those child care options. Let us be clear. The Liberal plan does not even scratch the surface to address the child care crisis in the country and it does not address the needs and desires of parents for choice in child care. Will the Minister of Social Development explain why the Liberal plan only offers one option?
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Dryden attacks the CPC's $2,000 child tax deduction platform from the last election, arguing it means almost nothing for parents and does not put money in their pockets for child care.
Dryden pivots to attacking the CPC's own $2,000 child tax deduction platform from the last election rather than explaining the Liberal plan's approach to choice — a deflection onto the opposition's record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about choice.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that she look at her own party's platform, the $2,000 child tax deduction in the last election--
--for child care, how it means almost nothing for parents and putting money in parents' pockets--
Will the Minister of Social Development admit his child care plan never once entertained choices for child care?
Ambrose's question is mostly rhetorical — calling the Liberal plan ludicrous and political — with the ask being essentially whether Dryden will admit his plan never entertained choices, which is a vague accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the proposed Liberal child care system is not about children. It is about politics. This is a ludicrous approach to raising and educating children. Young Canadian families deserve more, and Canadians need to know that the Liberals have not and will not entertain choices for how they may want to care for their children. Will the Minister of Social Development admit his plan never once entertained choices for child care?
Dryden says the CPC's child care platform from the last election means almost nothing in parents' pockets, brings Canadians no closer to affordable child care, and is completely contrary to building quality.
Dryden continues to attack the CPC's child care platform as meaning almost nothing and not building quality, without engaging with the specific claim that the Liberal plan never entertained choices — a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I was trying to say before, that party's platform in the last election for child care means almost nothing in the pockets of parents for child care. It brings Canadians no closer to affordable child care. It is completely contrary to building quality. I ask the member and the party opposite to be honest, do the math, think and see where they end up.
What initiatives has the Minister of Transport taken regarding making public transit pass costs tax-deductible, and has he convinced the Minister of Finance, given his own public openness to the idea?
Cites a specific prior public statement by the Minister of Transport and asks two identifiable questions about budget initiatives and inter-ministerial persuasion, grounded in the Kyoto protocol coming into force.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with the coming into force of the Kyoto protocol today, it is now imperative the federal government take concrete measures, and promoting public transit is one of them. In fact, the Minister of Transport said publicly that he is open to the idea of making the cost of public transit passes deductible for income tax purposes. With the next federal budget just days away, what initiatives has the Minister of Transport taken in this respect, and has he finally managed to convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance?
The minister points to the gasoline tax transfer to municipalities as the concrete public transit measure that will appear in the budget.
The minister pivots to the gasoline tax transfer rather than addressing the transit pass tax deduction specifically asked about, and does not answer whether he convinced the Minister of Finance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the initiatives of this government that will be included in the budget will, of course, be the transfer of the gasoline tax to help municipalities, and particularly larger cities, set up adequate public transit services. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that will help build and put in place public transit infrastructures. This is the best news that large cities will have heard in a long time.
If the Minister of Finance opposes the transit pass tax deduction, will the Minister of Transport introduce a bill similar to the one the member herself tabled providing for such a deduction?
Poses a specific conditional question — will the minister introduce a bill modelled on the member's own tabled bill if the Minister of Finance opposes the transit pass deduction — with a concrete legislative reference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport talks a good line and is a master at diversion. However, as far as concrete measures are concerned, we are still waiting. So, should the Minister of Finance oppose this idea, will the Minister of Transport introduce in the House a bill similar to the one I tabled, providing for a tax deduction for public transit costs incurred, something which, according to the minister himself, would help increase significantly the use of public transit?
The minister reiterates that transfers to municipalities are concrete action and says there will be money for public transit in the budget.
The minister defends the gasoline tax transfer without engaging the conditional question about introducing a bill for transit pass tax deductions, effectively sidestepping the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more concrete than actual transfers to Canadian municipalities and cities. With these transfers, they will be able to modernize their public transit services and put money where it is needed to ensure that environmental objectives are achieved. Public transit is indeed a priority and there will money for it in the budget. Do not give it a thought, kindly rejoice.
Is the Minister of Industry prepared to develop a public transit component within the Technology Partnerships Canada program to help industry reach Kyoto targets?
Asks a specific, identifiable question about developing a public transit component within the named Technology Partnerships Canada program, grounded in Kyoto implementation, though somewhat open-ended.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the coming into force of the Kyoto protocol will be the opportunity to launch a great offensive to improve everyone's lives. Moreover, it will also be an important economic lever, if the government takes appropriate action. Is the Minister of Industry prepared to develop a public transit component within the Technology Partnerships Canada program, which would enable the industry to reach the Kyoto targets as quickly as possible?
The minister says it is something they will be looking at as part of the overall plan going forward.
The minister offers a vague, non-committal response — 'something that we will be looking at' — with no reference to Technology Partnerships Canada or any specific commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is something that we will be looking at as part of the overall plan going forward.
Will the Minister of Industry provide massive support to the public transit industry — citing Bombardier Transportation and Nova Bus — to renew infrastructure and create thousands of jobs?
Names specific companies (Bombardier Transportation and Nova Bus) and asks whether the minister will provide massive support to the public transit industry to renew infrastructure and create jobs, giving it reasonable specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Industry intervene to provide massive support to the public transit industry, for example Bombardier Transportation and Nova Bus, thus enabling the renewal of transportation infrastructures and creating thousands of jobs? Will there finally be an optimistic message for people who want a better environment?
The minister says the government is moving ahead rapidly with an aerospace strategy for Canada.
The minister responds about an aerospace strategy, which does not address the question about public transit industry support or the named companies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead very rapidly with an aerospace strategy for Canada. We will continue to push aggressively on that in the months ahead.
Will the minister apologize for saying parents only want to stay home with their children because they feel guilty, and will he admit his child care scheme does not include stay-at-home options?
References a specific statement attributed to the minister from the previous day and asks a direct two-part question about an apology and whether the plan includes stay-at-home options, though the quote's accuracy is disputed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Social Development made a shocking statement. He said that parents only said they wanted to stay at home with their children because they felt guilty about having others care for their kids. Will the minister apologize and admit his child care scheme does not include stay-at-home options for parents?
The minister denies the quote, accusing the member of making it up and calling the strategy dishonest.
The minister denies the quote was made and accuses the questioner of fabricating it, but does not address whether the child care scheme includes stay-at-home options.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting approach. They make up quotes. They attribute quotes to whomever they want, and then they attack the quotes and they attack the person. That is quite a strategy. However, it is not honest and it is not a game I will play.
Given that the Liberal child care plan would only increase regulated subsidized child care spaces from 7% to 10%, when will the minister admit his plan will not meet the needs of shift workers, part-time parents, and rural parents?
Cites a specific statistic (7% to 10% of regulated subsidized child care spaces) and identifies three specific underserved groups — shift workers, part-time parents, and rural parents — making it a well-grounded, targeted question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal child care plan would only increase the number of regulated subsidized child care spaces from 7% to 10%. A program that only helps one in ten children, only helps some parents and only some provinces is not a national program. When will this minister admit his plan will not meet the needs of shift workers, part time parents and rural parents?
The minister highlights the $5 billion commitment over five years representing a 40% increase in early learning and child care spending.
The minister cites the $5 billion commitment and a 40% increase in spending but does not address the statistical claim about coverage or the needs of shift workers, part-time parents, and rural parents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has made a commitment of $5 billion over five years for an early learning and child care system. That represents a 40% increase in the amount of money that will be spent on early learning and child care in the country. That 40% is something that is unprecedented. In fact, if the government had not made that commitment, we would be nowhere in child care for many years to come.
Is it true that the Prime Minister set up foundations precisely so the public would not know what was happening with their money?
References the Auditor General's report on foundations accountability but frames the question rhetorically with a leading assertion and a loaded premise about deliberate unaccountability, weakening its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, and he thought the NHL was rough. Yesterday the Auditor General ripped the government for the lack of accountability around foundations. It was this Prime Minister ironically who set up these foundations to be unaccountable, the same person who never misses a chance to talk about how outraged he is about the lack of accountability around sponsorship. It is not true that the Prime Minister set up these foundations precisely so the public would not have a clue what was happening with their money?
The minister quotes the Auditor General saying she has no issues with the people or activities in the foundations, and notes that foundations are required under funding agreements to provide information to the public and Parliament.
The minister quotes the Auditor General directly from a radio interview that same morning and cites specific accountability requirements under funding agreements, partially addressing the substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not true. If the member would like, I will quote what the Auditor General of Canada said this morning on CBC Radio. She said: We don't have any issues with the people who are there and I wouldn't want any of our comments to be taken as a criticism of those people nor of the activities that are going on in the foundations. On the issue of accountability, as a result of legislation presented in the House by the current Prime Minister when he was finance minister, foundations are required under the funding agreements to provide information to the public. Plans are provided annually to the responsible minister and Parliament.
Will the government commit to allowing Parliament and the Auditor General to scrutinize the foundations he set up?
Asks a specific, clear commitment question — will Parliament and the Auditor General be allowed to scrutinize the foundations — grounded in the Auditor General's inability to audit their books.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how could the Auditor General criticize anyone in the foundations when she is not allowed to audit their books? We know that not a day goes by when the Prime Minister is not mad as hell about sponsorship, and he always wants to get to the bottom of it, come hell or high water. Now he has a chance to channel that chronic anger into something positive. For the foundations he set up to be unaccountable, he now has a chance to go in and do something good. Will he commit to allowing Parliament and the Auditor General to go in there and scrutinize those foundations?
The minister states that foundations have appeared before Parliament and that the funding agreements already contain provisions for independent evaluations, audits of compliance, and special program evaluations.
The minister lists existing accountability tools in the funding agreements but does not directly commit to allowing the Auditor General to audit the foundations, and does not address the access limitation directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member has been for the last number of years because the foundations have willingly come before Parliament many times. In the agreement that they were given by the government, their requirements were independent evaluations which must be presented to the responsible minister and made public, provisions that allow the responsible minister to carry out special independent program evaluations and audits of compliance. The tools the Auditor General is looking for are all there. Parliament has them and may want to use them.
Would the Minister of the Environment inform the House what opportunities lie ahead for Canadians in advancing the climate change agenda at COP 11 in Montreal?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to inform colleagues about opportunities at COP 11, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his response has demonstrated his confidence on behalf of all Canadians that Canada can and will play its part in building a better environmental and economic future. To this end, COP 11 will be the next international meeting in Montreal, where the global course on climate change beyond Kyoto will be set. Would the Minister of the Environment please inform his colleagues on all sides of the House what opportunities lie ahead for Canadians in advancing the climate change agenda?
The minister announces that delegations from 189 countries and up to 10,000 people are expected at the Montreal Conference on Climate, which will set the course on climate change beyond Kyoto.
The minister provides specific details — 189 countries, up to 10,000 attendees, Montreal as the venue — and frames the conference's significance, offering real informational content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, delegations from 189 countries will gather in Montreal for the Montreal Conference on Climate, as it will be known. Up to 10,000 people are expected to attend. When humanity emerges from the 21st century, it will need to have gained control of its impact on the planet. The Montreal climate conference will be turning point. It must enable us to create, on a sound footing, an international system that will apply to 2012. The Government of Canada will work with all the countries in the world to make this major conference a resounding success for the planet.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to not lifting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling off the Queen Charlotte Islands?
Asks a specific yes/no commitment question about whether the minister will confirm he will not lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling off the Queen Charlotte Islands, with a clear single ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier the parliamentary secretary commented that this was a day to celebrate, as the Kyoto accord comes into practice. Clearly, this is a humiliation for Canada in our lack of leadership on this issue. We have no plan and we have no leadership whatsoever on climate change. Will the Minister of Natural Resources commit today to offering confirmation that he will not lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling off the Queen Charlotte Islands?
The minister says a process is in place with over two years of consultation, and a decision will only be made after full consultation and a science review are complete.
The minister describes a consultation process and says a decision will only be made when it is complete, but does not commit to maintaining the moratorium as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have had over two years of consultation with the people in British Columbia. We have clearly put a process in place. More work needs to be done. We will have full consultation with the government, with the industry stakeholders and with the science review for further review on the impact of all offshore drilling. Only then, when everything is complete, will we make a decision.
Given that 75% of British Columbians and 100% of first nations said no, will the minister agree to keep the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Hecate Strait?
Cites specific polling figures (75% of British Columbians and 100% of first nations opposed) and specifically names the Hecate Strait, asking the minister to commit to keeping the moratorium — a clear, grounded ask.
Source text
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the minister's idea of consultation is continuing to ask the people of British Columbia until he gets the answer that he wants. Seventy-five per cent of British Columbians said no and 100% of the first nations said no to lifting the moratorium. The minister seems so committed to jumping into bed with Gordon Campbell over this pipe dream of a project, he cannot hear the people of British Columbia. I ask him again to agree with the people of British Columbia and with the first nations to keep the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Hecate Strait?
The minister says a decision will only be made when due diligence and a complete science review are finished.
The minister repeats nearly the same answer as in Exchange 25 without addressing the cited statistics or the specific geographic reference to the Hecate Strait.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when I am satisfied that due diligence is done from every possible aspect and that a complete science review is done, only then will a decision be made.
Is the revelation by the Auditor General that foreign aid money is being spent on goods never received and services never rendered a case of incompetence or another sponsorship scandal?
Mentions the Auditor General's report and the $2 billion CIDA budget but frames the question as a rhetorical either/or and does not ask a specific, answerable question about corrective action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the CIDA budget tops $2 billion annually, but the Liberal government continues to treat taxpayers with disrespect and arrogance. The Auditor General shocked Canadians yesterday when she revealed that Canada's foreign aid budget is being squandered on goods never received and services never rendered. Is this a case of simple incompetence or is it another sponsorship scandal in the making?
The minister quotes the Auditor General saying CIDA has made satisfactory progress, explains the shift to grants approved by Treasury Board, and cites the World Food Program and World Health Organization as grant recipients.
The minister quotes the Auditor General's overall positive assessment, explains the difference between grants and contributions, and names specific recipient organizations, providing partial substantive context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will try not to judge the confidence of that question, but I think what is key here is that the Auditor General said, “Overall, CIDA has made satisfactory progress” in responding to her recommendations. It is important to note that it is often confusing because the Auditor General makes reference to grants and contributions. She made reference to the fact we are increasing grants. There was, after 20 years, a change in Treasury Board. It now allows grants. The organizations to which I give grants are the World Food Program and the World Health Organization. I am very comfortable with their auditing processes.
Why has CIDA seen a 25-fold increase in unaudited grants, and why does CIDA pay out money before work is done without proper authorization in seven out of eight audited cases?
Cites specific Auditor General findings — a 25-fold increase in unaudited grants and seven of eight audited cases showing pre-payment without proper authorization — making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has taken CIDA to task for financial mismanagement yet again. This time she reprimanded the minister for a 25-fold increase in money funnelled through grants that are not audited or accountable. Even worse, seven out of eight audited cases show that CIDA pays out money before work is done, cutting lump sum cheques without proper authorization. What is the minister hiding, or does she not know what is going on in her department?
Oh, oh!
The minister reiterates the difference between contributions and grants and the Treasury Board change, without addressing the specific statistics raised by the member.
The minister returns to the grants-versus-contributions distinction without addressing the specific 25-fold increase figure, the pre-payment finding, or the seven-of-eight cases cited by the member.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know it is a subtle challenge. It is one we call flexible response. When the first question has been answered and the second is a repeat, the member should try to connect with the answer he has received. The Auditor General made it very clear, my dear sir, that there has been a change--
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to explain, although it is a challenge. We have here a difference between contributions and grants. Treasury Board made a change which we found to be very good. The Auditor General is pleased with the change. The change allows us to give grants. I have a problem and I ask that the hon. member--
Why is the airport rent review promised for fall 2002 still not ready, and why are airport taxes projected to rise from $332 million to nearly $1.3 billion?
Cites the Auditor General's report, references a specific delayed review (fall 2002), and provides a specific dollar figure ($332 million rising to nearly $1.3 billion) for airport rents, making it a well-grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General, the Liberal's much promised airport rent review due in the fall of 2002 is still not ready. Meanwhile, her report shows the government's airport taxes are projected to rise from $332 million to nearly $1.3 billion in the coming years. So much for the promised freeze. Taxpayers are being ripped off, once to build the airport, and then again to pay for these rents. When are the Liberals going to stop ripping off Canadian airports and Canadian travellers?
The minister says the Auditor General congratulated Transport for its transparency, the review is now complete and has been shared with the Minister of Finance, with good news expected in coming days.
The minister directly states the review is now complete and has been shared with the Minister of Finance, with good news expected in days, partially addressing the question though not the rent increase figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member also read the report. It is congratulating the Department of Transport for its transparency and the way it is administering the leases. As a matter of fact, the review is now complete. It has been shared with some of my colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance. I hope that in the next few days we will have some good news.
Given that the Auditor General found favouritism and incompetence in crown corporation appointments, how can the Minister of Finance reduce taxes in this climate?
References the Auditor General's report and names Jean Pelletier, but frames the question rhetorically with loaded characterizations and ends with an unrelated question about tax reduction, making the ask compound and vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have learned from the Auditor General that, since Jean Pelletier, nothing has changed under the Liberals. All appointments to crown corporations remain the Prime Minister's exclusive domain. For Ms. Fraser, favouritism, incompetence and inexperience are the trademarks of this administration. Governance is the last of our castaways' concerns. Canadian families deserve good governance, but how can the Minister of Finance reduce taxes in this lackadaisical climate?
The minister says the Auditor General noted improvements in appointments and qualifications, and announces he will table a report the next morning at 10 o'clock for the member to review.
The minister directly contradicts the member's characterization by citing what the Auditor General actually said about improvements in appointments, and announces a specific action — tabling a report the next morning at 10 o'clock.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the member would take the time to read the Auditor General's report, he would find that she said exactly the opposite of that. She noted improvements in the appointments and qualifications of people appointed to boards. However, tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock I will be tabling the report, and he can review the actions that we are attempting to take and judge for himself.
Gagnon asked the Minister of Social Development to commit that child care funds would not be channelled through foundations the Auditor General has condemned for lack of transparency.
The question cites the Auditor General's criticism of foundations and asks for a specific commitment that child care funds will not flow through condemned foundations, making it reasonably grounded and pointed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government wants to set up a foundation into which it can transfer funds for the child care program. Is this not a great way to pass the buck? This decision is all the more surprising given that the Auditor General has condemned the lack of transparency associated with the administration of foundations. The Minister of Social Development should be extremely clear and should make a commitment that it is out of the question for child care funds to go to the same kind of foundation as the Auditor General has condemned. Is he able to make this commitment right now?
Alcock stated that no such decision has been made and suggested the member was presuming upon a budget decision not yet brought down.
Alcock denies any decision has been made and deflects to a future budget, which is a partial but relevant response that does not address the commitment asked for.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has made no such decision. I think the member is maybe presuming upon a budget decision, but she should wait until the budget is brought down.
Gagnon asked how the Minister of Social Development intended to honour the Prime Minister's promise to transfer child care funds to Quebec with no strings attached, specifically in the next budget.
The question references the Auditor General's criticism and the Prime Minister's specific promise of unconditional transfers to Quebec, with a clear ask about honouring that promise in the next budget, though it blends accountability with some political framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has criticized the foundations that manage public funds without any sort of democratic controls. I remind the Minister of Social Development of the Prime Minister's promise that Quebec would get its share of the child care funding with no strings attached. How does he intend to honour this promise and immediately transfer these funds to Quebec, in the next budget?
Robillard accused the Bloc of speaking out of both sides of its mouth by simultaneously demanding unconditional transfers while opposing the foundation mechanism that could enable them.
Robillard completely deflects by accusing the Bloc of contradicting itself, offering no substantive response to how or when the Prime Minister's promise would be honoured.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how can the Bloc, particularly the hon. member for Québec, talk out of both sides of its mouth at once? On the one hand, the hon. member is asking for the unconditional transfer of funds to Quebec and, on the other, she is opposed to the foundation that might allow such an unconditional transfer to Quebec. Such inconsistency. Such confusion. Such typical behaviour from the Bloc.
Sorenson asked whether McLellan believes the Tamil Tigers should be on the terrorist list and whether she has advised cabinet to list them on CSIS advice, citing her Senate security committee testimony.
The question cites specific Senate committee testimony and CSIS advice, and poses two clear answerable questions about the minister's personal position on listing the Tamil Tigers and whether she has advised cabinet.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, providing testimony before the Senate security committee, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness blamed two of her ministerial colleagues for the Liberal government's refusal to put the Tamil Tigers on the list of known terrorist entities. Does the minister believe that the Tamil Tigers should be on the terrorist list, and if she does, has she advised cabinet to put them on the list on the advice of CSIS?
McLellan denied blaming her colleagues, described the listing process as ongoing and non-static, and said she will act as circumstances require, without stating her personal position on listing the Tamil Tigers.
McLellan disputes the characterisation of her Senate testimony and reiterates that the list is not static and is under review, but does not answer whether she personally believes the Tamil Tigers should be listed or whether she has advised cabinet.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what an absolutely ridiculous preface to this question. I did not blame my colleagues. I was trying to explain the process that the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself had described and talked about in the pages of the paper some days before. In relation to the listing process, as I have made absolutely plain, the list is not static. We continue to review this list. I will continue to review it and as circumstances change and require, I will act.
Day asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to identify who from the U.S. State Department contacted him about the Tamil Tigers and why the government would follow American suggestions but not the requests of Canadians and CSIS.
The question asks who specifically contacted the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the U.S. State Department and why the minister deferred to Americans over Canadians, but the framing is coloured by rhetorical language such as 'gang of thugs.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the good people in Canada's Tamil community, our own intelligence services and others have asked the government repeatedly to ban the Tamil Tigers. Apparently the Minister of Foreign Affairs has received a phone call from Condoleezza Rice or one of her officials, who apparently said, “Hey minister, we have banned that gang of thugs down here. Why do you not just let them run around Canada?” Will the minister please clarify who exactly talked to him from the U.S. State Department, and why would he say yes to Americans but no to Canadians?
Pettigrew affirmed Canadian foreign policy is made in Canada, noted consultations with Norway and the United States, and cited the February 2002 ceasefire as the reason no country has acted against the Tamil Tigers since then.
Pettigrew asserts Canadian foreign policy is made in Canada, references consultations with Norway and the United States, and cites the February 2002 ceasefire context, but does not identify who called him or directly address the 'yes to Americans, no to Canadians' charge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Canadian foreign policy is being made here in Canada and this decision has been made by our government. However, we do consult with our allies. When we talked about Sri Lanka, we consulted with Norway which has been playing an outstanding role in the peace process. We have consulted with the United States who are also interested. Since the February 2002 ceasefire, no country has taken any action against the Tamil Tigers. We believe that at this time, given the situation, it should be in that direction.
Boudria asked the Minister of Health what he intends to do about Internet pharmacies reportedly selling counterfeit drugs from India to U.S. customers while posing as Canadian suppliers.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that frames Internet pharmacies selling counterfeit drugs as a reputational threat and invites the minister to announce action, with no real accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health about Internet pharmacies. It is now reported that two Internet pharmacies are being sued for selling counterfeit drugs from India to customers in the United States while pretending that they are selling Canadian products. What does the Minister of Health intend to do to address this threat of irresponsible Internet pharmacies, which in addition to their usual faults are now threatening the excellent reputation of Canada's pharmaceutical industry?
Dosanjh said unethical practices are the core concern and noted that the Internet pharmacy association is presenting evidence before the Standing Committee on Health, expressing hope it would shed light on unethical conduct.
Dosanjh references the Internet pharmacy association's appearance before the Standing Committee on Health and frames unethical practices as the core issue, but provides no concrete measures or commitments in response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question of unethical practices is at the heart of what we are trying to address. We must ensure that there are good ethical practices that produce good medicine. The Internet pharmacy association is providing evidence before the Standing Committee on Health. I am hoping it can shed light on the unethical conduct that it engages in and participates in.
This exchange recorded only the procedural acclamation 'Hear, hear!' by hon. members acknowledging a presence in the gallery — no question was asked and no substantive response was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!