Session overview
- Multiple exchanges focused on allegations that Minister of Transport Jean Lapierre had lobbied on behalf of Cossette Communication — a client — without registering as a lobbyist, including a meeting with former minister Alfonso Gagliano.
- Opposition parties pressed the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale over Earnscliffe contracts awarded under the Finance Department, with BQ members citing Warren Kinsella's sworn testimony and a 1995 letter from Goodale seeking an untendered contract for Earnscliffe.
- CPC members alleged that the Prime Minister's riding organizer Lucie Castelli intervened to have a $500,000 sponsorship application approved for Liberal fundraiser Serge Savard, directly connecting the Prime Minister's inner circle to ad scam.
- The government announced it would vote in favour of extending hepatitis C compensation to previously excluded victims, and the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed new amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would be tabled immediately after Question Period.
- NDP members challenged the Prime Minister on the whistleblower legislation, arguing that the person who first exposed the sponsorship scandal in 1999 would not have been protected under the new bill.
- The Minister of Transport confirmed that Cossette Communication was one of his private-sector clients for whom he provided research, analysis and strategies, and acknowledged a social meeting took place with Alfonso Gagliano and François Duffar of Cossette.
Minister of Transport Jean Lapierre confirmed for the first time on the record that Cossette Communication was indeed one of his private-sector clients for whom he provided research, analysis and strategies, a material fact previously contested.
Harper presses for a specific denial of factual allegations — whether Lapierre met with the minister on behalf of Cossette and whether Cossette was his client — making the ask clear and answerable.
Responding to two direct yes-or-no questions about payments received and meetings organized, Lapierre said only 'same question, same answer,' without specifying what that answer was, providing no substantive information whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Stephen Harper asked whether the Prime Minister knew that Jean Lapierre had lobbied on behalf of Cossette Communication when he appointed him to cabinet — the Prime Minister did not address the knowledge question directly. (Exchange 3)
- Jason Kenney asked whether the Minister of Transport organized the meeting between François Duffar of Cossette Communication and Alfonso Gagliano — Lapierre never answered yes or no. (Exchanges 29–30)
- Monte Solberg asked how Canadians are to believe the Prime Minister knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal when his political operatives Lucie Castelli and Serge Savard were so deeply connected — no factual rebuttal was offered. (Exchange 20)
- Jack Layton asked why the individual who exposed the sponsorship scandal in 1999 would not have been protected under the new whistleblower legislation — the President of the Treasury Board did not address that specific scenario. (Exchange 11)
- Gilles Duceppe asked why the Prime Minister did not act to prevent Earnscliffe, the firm of his close advisors, from profiting from what Duceppe described as an improper tendering process, given Warren Kinsella's sworn testimony — no answer addressed the substance of the allegation. (Exchange 6)
Harper asks whether Transport Minister Lapierre lobbied without disclosing Cossette as a client and without registering as a lobbyist, and whether he has submitted his resignation.
Cites specific allegations from a named former minister about unregistered lobbying on behalf of Cossette and asks a direct yes/no accountability question with a clear follow-up on resignation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transport an extremely serious question. A former minister revealed that the Minister of Transport had done some lobbying without telling him that Mr. Cossette was one of his clients and without even being registered as a lobbyist. Is this true? If so, has the Minister of Transport submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister?
Lapierre calls Gagliano's allegations 'pathetic' and characterizes him as a man 'in a sorry state,' without addressing the specific claims.
Lapierre dismisses the allegations as 'pathetic' and attacks Gagliano's credibility without denying or confirming any of the specific factual claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by Mr. Gagliano are pathetic. These are comments made by a man who, I would say, is in a sorry state at this time.
Harper asks whether Lapierre had the specific meeting described by Gagliano and whether Cossette was one of his clients.
Harper presses for a specific denial of factual allegations — whether Lapierre met with the minister on behalf of Cossette and whether Cossette was his client — making the ask clear and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are many people in the country who have an unfavourable opinion of Alfonso Gagliano. That said, he has made some specific allegations and I want to know whether the minister is actually refuting them. We already know the minister lobbied the Bloc Québécois MPs on behalf of Cossette. Did he have a meeting as described by Mr. Gagliano? Did he meet on behalf of Cossette with the minister and was Cossette one of his clients?
Lapierre questions Gagliano's credibility and states he was never paid for any lobbying whatsoever, without directly denying the meeting or the client relationship.
Lapierre partially addresses the question by stating he was never paid for any lobbying, but does not directly deny whether Cossette was a client or whether the meeting described by Gagliano occurred.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, no one on that side of the House gave much credibility to the words of Mr. Gagliano. I do not see why his word has now become golden. However, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that I have never been paid for any lobbying whatsoever.
Harper asks yes or no whether Cossette Communications was Lapierre's client and whether he lobbied a minister on behalf of that client, and whether the PM knew this when appointing him to cabinet.
Harper asks two sharp yes/no questions — whether Cossette was Lapierre's client, whether he lobbied a minister on behalf of that client, and whether the PM knew this at appointment — with appropriate escalation to the PM.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn this over to the Prime Minister because this is the kind of answer the minister was giving yesterday, that he might not have paid for that. The question is this. Was Cossette Communications one of his clients and did he lobby a minister on behalf of that client, yes or no? Did the Prime Minister know this when he was appointed to cabinet?
Martin says the minister answered 'no' directly, and notes that RCMP and government background checks found no issue with Lapierre's integrity.
Martin states the minister answered 'no' and references RCMP and government background checks, providing partial substantive grounding but not directly addressing whether Cossette was the client or what the PM knew.
Source text
First, Mr. Speaker, the minister answered the Leader of the Opposition's question quite directly. He said, “no”, and that no means no. Second, as with all ministers, an examination of their background, skills and experience was undertaken both by the government and by the RCMP. I have to say that no one has ever questioned the integrity of the Minister of Transport.
Moore asks whether the Minister of Transport met with Cossette Communication and Alfonso Gagliano to discuss the $100 million contract, yes or no.
Moore asks a precise yes/no question about a specific meeting between the Minister of Transport, Cossette Communication, and Gagliano regarding a $100 million contract.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these are very serious allegations. Did the Minister of Transport meet with Cossette Communication and Alfonso Gagliano to discuss the $100 million contract with Cossette Communication, yes or no?
Brison deflects entirely, raising testimony about CPC candidate Lawrence Cannon and his company AmeriContact receiving $25,000 in sponsorship money.
Brison does not address the question at all, instead pivoting to allegations about the CPC star candidate Lawrence Cannon and AmeriContact receiving sponsorship money, a complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister answered that question. However, we know that the Conservatives like to selectively choose commentary on individual testimony to suit their own purposes. Since the leader of the Conservatives follows testimony so closely, he ought to be aware that his star candidate in Quebec was named during testimony at the Gomery commission when Jean Brault was on the stand. Further, Mr. Cannon and his company, AmeriContact, received $25,000 in sponsorship money in 2001 after contact with Alfonso Gagliano's office. Perhaps in fairness to Mr. Cannon's reputation we should all wait for Justice Gomery's report.
Moore alleges the transport minister lobbied for a $100 million contract without registering as a lobbyist as required by law, and demands his resignation.
Moore presents a factual allegation — lobbying for a $100 million contract without registering as required by law — but frames it as a demand for resignation rather than a single clean answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking about the Gomery inquiry. We are asking about another Liberal scandal, a new Liberal scandal. I know the minister is up to his neck in defending Liberals from scandal, but this is a new scandal that only the transport minister can answer. The transport minister lobbied the federal government for a $100 million contract without registering as a lobbyist as is required by law. The transport minister must stand in his place and do the right thing and resign. Will he do it?
Oh, oh!
Lapierre swears he never did any lobbying for a $100 million contract for anyone.
Lapierre swears he never did any lobbying for a $100 million contract for anyone, which is a direct denial, though it does not address the specific registration requirement under law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I swear—
Mr. Speaker, I swear I never did any lobbying for a $100 million contract for anyone.
Duceppe asks why the Prime Minister did not act to prevent Earnscliffe, the firm of his close advisors, from profiting from an improper tendering process, given sworn testimony that the PM was aware of interventions.
Duceppe cites Warren Kinsella's sworn testimony, references the Ernst & Young report described as 'watered down' by Justice Gomery, and asks a specific causal question about why the PM did not act to prevent improper contracting benefiting Earnscliffe.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Warren Kinsella has stated, under oath, that members of the Prime Minister's entourage arranged for Earnscliffe to get a contract and that the Prime Minister was aware of that fact. All the Minister of Finance can think to do is hide behind the Ernst & Young report, referred to as “watered down” by Justice Gomery, the initial version of which identified a widespread failure to comply with contracting policies and regulations. Since he knew, why did the Prime Minister not take action to prevent Earnscliffe, the firm of his close advisors, from profiting from an improper tendering process?
Goodale says the allegations are not supported by the written record, Ernst & Young, the Auditor General, or Mr. Goldenberg's comments, and characterizes the source as 'poisoned partisanship.'
Goodale lists sources that allegedly do not support the allegations but does not address the specific claim about Kinsella's sworn testimony or why the PM took no action, essentially attacking source credibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. gentleman seems to be relying upon some unreliable information. The allegations are not supported by the written record. They are not supported by the audit done by Ernst & Young. They are not supported by the Auditor General of Canada. They are not supported in the independent comments offered yesterday by Mr. Goldenberg. They are only supported by the opposition and even the deputy leader of the official opposition calls that source poisoned partisanship.
Duceppe asks how the PM could not have seen a conflict of interest when his chief of staff Ms. O'Leary was the spouse of David Herle, who worked for Earnscliffe and was the PM's own campaign manager.
Duceppe raises specific facts about the Auditor General's limitations on reviewing Earnscliffe, Justice Gomery's 'watered down' characterization, and names the specific spousal conflict of interest involving Ms. O'Leary and David Herle.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said she did not see most of Earnscliffe's reports because they were filed verbally. In addition, Justice Gomery said the Ernst & Young report was watered down in response to pressure from officials of this government. This is being used as an excuse, when there was very clearly a conflict of interest. How can the Prime Minister not have seen a conflict of interest when the his former chief of staff was the spouse of David Herle, who worked for Earnscliffe? How could he not see a conflict of interest when his chief of staff was the spouse of David Herle, who was himself the PM's campaign manager? Did he not realize this was a conflict of interest?
Martin says O'Leary corresponded with the Ethics Commissioner, declared her status, followed his recommendations to the letter, and stated under oath she never interfered in the awarding of any contracts.
Martin addresses the specific O'Leary conflict concern by noting she corresponded with the Ethics Commissioner, declared her status, followed his recommendations, and stated under oath she never interfered in awarding contracts — a reasonably direct response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, Ms. O'Leary corresponded with the Ethics Commissioner; as a result of this correspondence, she declared her status, and then she followed the Ethics Commissioner's recommendations to the letter. Second, Ms. O'Leary stated unequivocally that she had never interfered in the awarding of any contracts. Her answer is clear: never. She made this statement under oath.
Sauvageau asks what the PM has to say about Warren Kinsella's sworn testimony that the former finance minister personally called him at home to complain about interventions to secure Earnscliffe contracts.
Sauvageau cites Warren Kinsella's sworn statement about a personal phone call from the former finance minister and asks what the PM has to say about this specific allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was aware of the interventions made to ensure Earnscliffe got the contracts for the Department of Finance, because he intervened himself to add pressure. What does the Prime Minister have to say about Warren Kinsella's statement under oath that the former finance minister had even called him at home to complain?
Goodale calls the alleged telephone call 'completely fallacious' and directs the member to check the written record, Ernst & Young, the Auditor General, and Mr. Goldenberg.
Goodale calls the alleged telephone call 'completely fallacious' without providing any specific evidence, and directs the member to check unspecified written records and audits — a near-deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the remark with respect to the alleged telephone call is completely fallacious. Again, I would ask the hon. gentleman to check the record. Check all the written record that is published in the material. Check with Ernst & Young. Check with the Auditor General. Check with Mr. Goldenberg. Time and time again you will find that your allegations are blatantly and completely false.
Sauvageau asks why the PM said on April 14 that he knew nothing and had never intervened, when documents submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts show the finance department intervened at least four times to promote Ekos, Earnscliffe and Everest.
Sauvageau cites documents submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts showing at least four interventions by the finance department favouring Ekos, Earnscliffe and Everest, and directly challenges the PM's April 14 sworn statement of non-involvement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the documents submitted in evidence to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts show beyond any doubt that the finance department intervened at least four times to promote Ekos, Earnscliffe and Everest. How could the Prime Minister say here in this House on April 14 that he knew nothing and had never intervened in this regard, when documents show, on the contrary, that the Prime Minister was running his own little parallel sponsorship scandal?
Martin says the member's statement is completely untrue, that there was never any intervention in the awarding of contracts, and that all he wanted was an open competition.
Martin flatly denies the statement and asserts he and his department always wanted open competition, but does not address the specific documents or the four instances of intervention cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement is not true, it is completely untrue. There has never been any intervention in the awarding of contracts. All I wanted as minister was an open competition, as did my assistant, Ms. O'Leary, the deputy minister and the finance department. That was what we proposed from the start.
Layton asks how it helps the House of Commons to work when the PM first tries to take away the democratic rights of the opposition and then refuses to explain himself.
Layton raises a concern about the government 'taking away the democratic right of the opposition parties to hold the government accountable' but the ask is vague and compound, mixing procedural grievance with a request for explanation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister chose to make a presentation on his broken promises on foreign aid when this House was falling apart due to the actions taken by this government to take away the democratic right of the opposition parties to hold the government accountable. We have tried to make the House of Commons work. How exactly does it help the House of Commons to work when the Prime Minister first tries to take away the democratic rights of the opposition and, second, refuses to explain himself?
Martin explains that the international policy review presentation was planned well in advance and that he met with ambassadors afterward, then congratulates four ministers on a successful day.
Martin does not address the procedural democratic-rights concern at all, instead explaining why yesterday's international policy presentation was planned and congratulating four ministers — a complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member obviously must know, the planning for yesterday's presentation of the international policy review has been done for quite some time. It was very important that following the presentation I take the opportunity to meet with a number of key ambassadors so the message would go back to their capitals, and that is exactly what I did. I would like, however, to take this occasion to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of International Trade and the minister responsible for overseas aid. I must say that yesterday was a very successful day for Canada.
Layton asks how the new whistleblower legislation deals with corruption when the individual who exposed the sponsorship scandal in 1999 would not have been protected under it.
Layton makes a specific factual claim — that the individual who exposed the sponsorship scandal in 1999 would not be protected under the new whistleblower legislation — and links it directly to the government's stated anti-corruption agenda.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we just offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to explain why he would take away the democratic rights of the opposition parties and he refused to answer the question. That says it all. Let us turn to the whole issue of corruption. The Prime Minister pretends to care about corruption but what he says does not match what he does. In the new whistleblower legislation that has been brought forward, the very individual who in 1999 brought forward the entire scandal on sponsorships would not have been protected. How is it dealing with corruption when he will not protect the people who expose corruption?
Alcock says the bill is before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which has made recommendations he is examining, and describes it as a first reading bill designed for House involvement in its design.
Alcock engages with the bill itself, notes it is before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, that recommendations have been made and he is examining them, but does not address the specific protection gap Layton identified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a question on this bill. In fact, we put this bill before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. It is conducting an extensive study. It has made a series of recommendations and I am in the process of examining them. This is a first reading bill that is designed for the House to be involved in its design. We will respond in due course.
MacKay asks what the Prime Minister did about concerns raised as far back as 1995 regarding rigged contracts favouring Earnscliffe, given that his EA Terrie O'Leary confirmed under oath she discussed these concerns with him.
MacKay cites specific Kinsella memos from 1995 with direct quotations, references Terrie O'Leary's sworn testimony confirming she discussed concerns with the PM, and asks what the PM did about the shady contracting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, raging Liberal Warren Kinsella raised concerns as far back as 1995 through memos, letters and phone calls about rigged contracts that he felt favoured the company employing the Prime Minister's leadership campaign manager. One memo read that the “competition was flawed, the payments are excessive, the work is probably not needed, and the research community can be fully expected to blow the whistle on the political connections”. The Prime Minister's former EA, Terrie O'Leary, confirmed under oath that she had discussed these concerns with the current Prime Minister. We now know the Prime Minister was aware of these concerns over the shady contracting. What, if anything, did he do about it?
Goodale says Kinsella is not supported by the written record, external audits by Ernst & Young, the Auditor General, or Mr. Goldenberg's testimony, and notes MacKay himself described Kinsella as a 'poisoned partisan.'
Goodale attacks Kinsella's credibility using multiple sources and the fact that MacKay himself called him a 'poisoned partisan,' without addressing what the PM actually did in response to the concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is simply following the wrong path. Mr. Kinsella is not supported by the written record that has been filed with the public accounts committee. He is not supported by any of the audits that have been done, either by Ernst & Young externally or the Auditor General internally. Some of his testimony yesterday was directly contradicted by Mr. Goldenberg. Indeed, the only support he has is from the opposition and that very member has described him as a “poisoned partisan”. So much for his star witness.
MacKay asks the PM to admit his knowledge and involvement in contracting practices that funnelled taxpayers' money through Earnscliffe to finance his leadership activity, citing Kinsella's sworn statement.
MacKay quotes Kinsella's sworn statement that cross-subsidizing political activity using the public treasury is inappropriate and asks the PM directly to admit his knowledge and involvement in contracting practices that funnelled taxpayers' money through Earnscliffe to finance his leadership activity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is not a lot of love in the Liberal ranks, and the Prime Minister can hide but he is eventually going to have to run. This question is for him. These are serious allegations in reference to questionable government contracts being used to subsidize the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. Warren Kinsella also said, “I and perhaps others would consider it inappropriate that you cross-subsidize that political activity using the public treasury. That's inappropriate”. Will the Prime Minister now admit his knowledge and his involvement in the contracting practices of his department that funnelled taxpayers' money through Earnscliffe to finance his leadership activity?
Martin says there was no leadership race at that period — it occurred six or seven years later — and challenges MacKay and the Leader of the Opposition to disclose their own leadership funds.
Martin pivots entirely to denying there was a leadership race at the relevant time and attacking MacKay and Harper for not disclosing their own leadership funds — a textbook deflection that does not address the contracting question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a reference to leadership money. The hon. member knows that at that period of time there was no leadership race. In fact, the leadership race did not occur for another six or seven years. What the hon. member omitted to say is that every single penny I raised in the leadership race has been fully disclosed. It is all in the public record. The question is, since I have fully disclosed, why have the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Central Nova not made full disclosure of their leadership funds?
Ablonczy asks why the PM gave Boulay unusual privileged treatment by personally sending his resumé to the federal office for regional development in Quebec, given his sworn testimony that Boulay was only the merest acquaintance.
Ablonczy cites the PM's sworn testimony about Boulay being a 'merest acquaintance,' contrasts it with a specific 1994 personal letter promising to give Boulay's business a boost and a personal referral to the federal office for regional development in Quebec, and asks why Boulay received this unusual privileged treatment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is pretty selective memory. The Prime Minister gave sworn testimony that Boulay was the merest acquaintance, only for a very short time around 1990, but in 1994 he wrote one of several distinctively personal letters to Boulay. This one promised to give Boulay's business a boost. A very busy new finance minister took the time to personally send Boulay's resumé directly to the federal office for regional development in Quebec for action. Why the unusual privileged treatment?
Brison quotes Paul Wells' blog saying Boulay's testimony was 'substantially exculpatory' of the PM and accuses the opposition of 'character assassinations and drive-by smears.'
Brison does not address the question at all, instead quoting from Paul Wells' blog characterizing Boulay's testimony as exculpatory of the PM and attacking the Leader of the Opposition for 'character assassinations and drive-by smears.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Paul Wells' blog. In fact, Paul Wells says: Claude Boulay's testimony has been substantially exculpatory of [the Prime Minister]...we've spent the week hearing speculation and hearsay about Boulay's relationship with [the Prime Minister], and both [the Prime Minister] and Boulay have now testified that there wasn't much of a relationship. There are places in the world where a politician who'd leaned on hearsay as hard as [the Leader of the Opposition] has this week would be a little sheepish after a day like today.... Members opposite should all be hanging their heads in shame after the character assassinations and drive-by smears.
Ablonczy asserts that Boulay worked on the PM's 1990 and 1993 campaigns and that the new finance minister gave him a personal referral for government contracts weeks later, and begins to ask the PM to explain — though the question is cut off.
Ablonczy presents specific facts — Boulay working on the PM's 1990 and 1993 campaigns and the personal referral for government contracts weeks after the election — but the question is cut off before being fully stated, reducing its accountability value.
Source text
If only those Liberals knew the meaning of shame, Mr. Speaker. Here are some facts. Not only did Claude Boulay work on the Prime Minister's 1990 leadership campaign, he also worked on the Prime Minister's local campaign in 1993. We also know as a fact that, weeks later, the new finance minister, now the Prime Minister, gave his good buddy Boulay a tangible reward with a personal referral for government contracts, so the Prime Minister has to explain--
Brison quotes Boulay saying they never had one-on-one meetings, that he doubted the PM wrote the birthday letter due to a miscalculation of his birth year, and accuses the opposition of selectively using testimony for narrow partisan interests.
Brison quotes Boulay's own testimony — that they never had one-on-one meetings and that Boulay doubted the PM even wrote the birthday letter — which is somewhat responsive to the acquaintance claim, but does not address the contract referral allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is what Mr. Boulay said, “We never had one-on-one meetings. We run into each other at different activities”. He said he doubted that the Prime Minister even wrote the birthday letter. He noted that the letter miscalculated Mr. Boulay's year of birth by 11 years, a mistake he did not think the finance minister of the day, somebody who is very good with numbers, would have made. The fact is that the hon. member and her party, by commenting selectively on testimony that favours their narrow partisan interests, are smearing Justice Gomery's work and smearing the reputation of this House.
Gauthier cites a March 24, 1995 letter in which the then-minister of agriculture and agri-food wrote to PWGSC to award an untendered contract of less than $50,000 to Earnscliffe, and asks what credibility the Minister of Finance has in defending the Prime Minister.
Cites a specific letter dated March 24, 1995 and identifies an untendered contract under $50,000 to Earnscliffe, giving it factual grounding, though the closing ask is somewhat rhetorical ('what credibility does the minister have').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been rising and defending the Prime Minister so vigorously in the Earnscliffe matter over the past two days, because he himself was doing the very same thing at the same time. In a letter of March 24, 1995, the Minister of Finance, who was the minister of agriculture and agri-food then, wrote his colleague at PWGSC to ask him to award an untendered contract of less than $50,000 to Earnscliffe. What kind of credibility does the minister think he has in defending the Prime Minister?
Goodale states the matter was fully discussed in the House over a year ago, cites urgency as the reason for the contract, and notes the project received a favourable review from the Auditor General.
Goodale acknowledges the matter, claims urgency justified the contract, and notes a favourable Auditor General review, which partially addresses the substance but does not directly engage the credibility question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this matter was fully discussed in the House over a year ago. I indicated at that time the reasons for the urgency in the matter referred to. Indeed, it has been in written form for more than a decade. The project was successfully completed and it received. at the end of it, a favourable review from the Auditor General.
Gauthier quotes a PWGSC letter stating the Department of Agriculture was 'trying systematically to avoid complying with the Treasury Board guidelines for the awarding of contracts,' and asks whether the minister was part of a parallel group running his own sponsorship scandal.
Cites a direct quote from PWGSC correspondence alleging systematic avoidance of Treasury Board guidelines, giving it documentary grounding, but the closing question veers into rhetorical character assassination territory.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many things discussed in the House then, now prove not to have been correct. His colleague at PWGSC wrote, “The Department of Agriculture is trying systematically to avoid complying with the Treasury Board guidelines for the awarding of contracts”. I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is not defending his Prime Minister so vigorously because he too was a member of the parallel group, and the two of them were running their own sponsorship scandal on the side?
Goodale characterizes the exchange as a 'slimy attempt at character assassination,' explains the correspondence concerned interdepartmental disputes about appropriate procedures, and states that when questions were raised they were referred to the deputy minister of agriculture who corrected the procedures.
Goodale explains the correspondence reflected interdepartmental procedural disputes and that issues were referred to the deputy minister of agriculture who corrected the procedures, but spends considerable time on a personal grievance rather than addressing the question directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago I had the privilege to work with the hon. gentleman as fellow House leaders and I thought he would be above some slimy attempt at character assassination. I would point out that the correspondence back and forth between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Agriculture some 10 years ago had to do with disputes between the departments about the appropriate procedures to be followed. When questions were indeed raised at the official level, they were referred to the deputy minister of agriculture, who corrected the procedures.
Guimond states that Alfonso Gagliano said the Minister of Transport approached him on behalf of his client François Duffar of Cossette, and lists three admitted facts — receiving fees from Cossette, meeting Gagliano and Duffar at his office, and dining with them — asking if these are not lobbying activities.
Lists three specific admissions by the Minister of Transport — receiving fees from Cossette, meeting Alfonso Gagliano at his office with François Duffar, and dining with Duffar and Gagliano — and asks a pointed definitional question about whether these constitute lobbying.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano said that the current Minister of Transport had approached him to put in a good word for his friend François Duffar, of Cossette, a company trying to land federal contracts. The Minister of Transport admits receiving fees from Cossette. He also admits seeing Alfonso Gagliano at his office with his client from Cossette, François Duffar. He also admits going out for supper with his client from Cossette and Gagliano. If these are not lobbying activities, then what are they?
Lapierre calls it a social gathering, says many people attended such gatherings including the Bloc leader at the same table as Gagliano, and flatly denies any lobbying was involved.
Lapierre dismisses the activities as 'a social gathering' and deflects by noting the Bloc leader sat at the same table as Gagliano, without substantively addressing the lobbying activities described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we could call that a social gathering. There were many such gatherings that many people attended. The leader of the Bloc has sat at the same table as Mr. Gagliano. There was no lobbying involved. It was a social gathering, period.
Guimond challenges the minister's claim that he invoiced only for policy analysis or brainstorming, not for arranging social gatherings with ministers for his friends, and asks what he was doing if not lobbying.
Challenges the minister's claim that he invoiced only for policy analysis and not for arranging meetings and meals, implicitly asking him to account for what he was actually doing, but the ask is somewhat diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport would have us believe that he invoiced only for policy analysis or brainstorming, but not for time spent arranging so-called social gatherings with ministers for his friends, and their subsequent meals. I hope he does not expect us to believe that, because we do not. If he was not lobbying, then what was he doing?
Lapierre asserts that throughout his years in the private sector he attended social gatherings and did policy analysis for networks and private sector clients, always covered by the press, and states he came to Ottawa only three or four times in 12 years on behalf of the private sector.
Lapierre speaks broadly about attending social gatherings and doing policy analysis for networks and private sector clients over the years, and claims he visited Ottawa only three or four times in 12 years for the private sector, without directly accounting for the specific Cossette-related activities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, you know full well that during all those years I attended a lot of social gatherings and did a lot of policy analysis for most of the networks and many private sector clients. This was always covered by the press, radio and television. I always spoke my mind. I am being called a lobbyist. In 12 years, I believe I came here to Ottawa three or four times to give a speech on behalf of the private sector. After all, that was not my job. Let it go.
Solberg identifies Lucie Castelli as the Prime Minister's political organizer who sat on the Quebec Liberal Party's finance committee alongside Alain Renaud and Jacques Corriveau, who allegedly obtained $500,000 from Groupaction through the sponsorship program without doing work, and asks how Canadians can believe the Prime Minister knew nothing.
Names specific individuals — Lucie Castelli, Alain Renaud, Jacques Corriveau — and cites a specific allegation of $500,000 from Groupaction, asking how Canadians can believe the Prime Minister knew nothing, though the closing question is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the sponsorship scandal was in its heyday, the Prime Minister's political organizer, Lucie Castelli, sat on the Quebec Liberal Party's finance committee. Her colleagues on that committee were those upstanding citizens Alain Renaud and Jacques Corriveau, who allegedly obtained $500,000 from Groupaction and the sponsorship program without doing any work. Lucie Castelli was the Prime Minister's eyes, ears and right-hand person in the riding. How are Canadians supposed to believe the Prime Minister knew nothing about this when his political operatives were so deeply connected?
Brison attacks the opposition's inconsistency in relying on Renaud's testimony when convenient and dismissing it otherwise, and urges all parties to wait for Justice Gomery's report.
Brison deflects entirely by pointing out the contradiction in the opposition's treatment of Renaud's credibility on different days, and urges waiting for Justice Gomery's report, without addressing the Castelli connection at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, would that be the same Mr. Renaud that the opposition has taken the testimony of as sacrosanct when he alleged that there were meetings between the Prime Minister and somebody else? I think that probably would be the same Mr. Renaud. Again, it speaks volumes about the opposition that will stand in the House one day and attack somebody's credibility and then on another day vault them up onto a higher plane as sacrosanct, as somebody who offers undeniable evidence before a commission. We would all benefit if the opposition would simply wait for Justice Gomery's report, as Canadians want them to do, because Canadians deserve the truth.
Solberg alleges that Serge Savard, a million dollar bagman for the Prime Minister, received $500,000 in sponsorship cash after Lucie Castelli lobbied on his behalf to have his application overturned and approved, and asks when the Prime Minister will admit he cannot clean up the sponsorship scandal because he is part of it.
Names Serge Savard as a million dollar bagman who received $500,000 in sponsorship cash after Lucie Castelli lobbied on his behalf, combining specific factual allegations with a rhetorical closing question about the Prime Minister being part of the scandal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the reason the Prime Minister is not answering this is that he just cannot remember. Serge Savard was a million dollar bagman for the Prime Minister. Coincidentally, I am sure, Savard received $500,000 in sponsorship cash after Lucie Castelli lobbied on his behalf to have his sponsorship application overturned and approved. Boy, I bet he loves Lucie. When will the Prime Minister admit that he cannot clean up the sponsorship scandal because he is part of it?
Brison declares the allegation absolutely false, then lists the government's policy announcements that week — international policy statement, immigration reform, Kyoto plan, gas tax agreement with British Columbia — and attacks Conservatives for focusing on birthday greetings.
Brison simply states the allegation is 'absolutely false' and then pivots entirely to listing the government's week's policy achievements and attacking Conservatives for talking about birthday greetings, with no engagement on the substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that allegation is absolutely false. Further, this week the Prime Minister released Canada's international policy statement to strengthen Canada's role in the world. He announced funding and reform to improve Canada's immigration system, announced Canada's Kyoto plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and signed a historic agreement on federal gas tax investments with British Columbia for cities and communities, and all the Conservatives could talk about were birthday greetings. This is a government that is addressing the issues that face Canadians four-square when all the opposition wants to talk about are birthday greetings. Canadians will choose this Prime Minister over that party.
Watson alleges that the Prime Minister's chief riding organizer Lucie Castelli intervened to unblock $500,000 in sponsorship money for Serge Savard, the Prime Minister's million dollar fundraiser and golf buddy, after Savard had initially been refused, and asks the Prime Minister to admit he has not told Canadians the full truth about his ad scam knowledge.
Specifies that the Prime Minister's chief riding organizer Lucie Castelli intervened to unblock sponsorship money for Serge Savard after an initial refusal, asking whether the Prime Minister has told the full truth, though the framing relies on colourful language like 'ad scam'.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would like us to believe arm's length rogues are responsible for ad scam. His arm is rather short. The Prime Minister's chief riding organizer, Lucie Castelli, made sure $500,000 flowed to his million dollar fundraiser and golf buddy, Serge Savard. After Savard was told no to gobs of sponsorship cash, the Prime Minister's riding aide intervened and unclogged ad scam money. Will the Prime Minister finally admit he has not told Canadians the full truth about his ad scam knowledge?
Brison states Canadians trust Justice Gomery and the Prime Minister who appointed him, and accuses Conservatives of wanting to kneecap the work of Justice Gomery and deny Canadians the truth before an election.
Brison ignores the Castelli-Savard allegation entirely and pivots to Justice Gomery's trustworthiness and accusations that Conservatives want to 'kneecap the work of Justice Gomery.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians determine whom they trust to get to the bottom of this issue, they trust Justice Gomery and they trust our Prime Minister who appointed Justice Gomery and supports the work of Justice Gomery and does not have any fear of the report of Justice Gomery. In fact, he believes that Canadians deserve that report before an election. I will tell the House whom they do not trust. Canadians do not trust the Conservatives who want to kneecap the work of Justice Gomery and who want to deny Canadians the opportunity to have the truth before they face a decision in an election.
Watson reiterates that Lucie Castelli, the Prime Minister's eyes and ears in his riding, phoned Public Works to inquire why Savard had not received his $500,000 in sponsorship funds, and asks how Canadians can believe the Prime Minister knew nothing about ad scam.
Repeats similar allegations about Castelli and Savard with vivid language, adding the detail of a phone call to Public Works, but is largely a restatement of the previous exchange with a rhetorical closing rather than a new specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Lucie Castelli is the Prime Minister's eyes and ears in his riding. The Prime Minister's aide had her eyes on an ad scam application from the Prime Minister's million dollar fundraiser and golf buddy, Serge Savard. She put her ear to the phone to Public Works to find out why Savard had not received his slice of the ad scam pie. The sum of $500,000 in sponsorship slush flowed to the Prime Minister's faithful friend and Liberal Party bagman from Castelli's efforts. How are Canadians to believe the Prime Minister knew nothing about ad scam?
Brison calls the allegations absolutely false and quotes the Chronicle-Herald saying that if Conservatives pull the plug before the Gomery report, they will be easy prey to charges of recklessness and opportunism, and that the report will exonerate the Prime Minister.
Brison calls the allegations absolutely false and then reads a newspaper quote from the Chronicle-Herald speculating the Gomery report will exonerate the Prime Minister, with zero engagement on the specific Castelli-Savard allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those allegations are absolutely false. Let me quote from the Chronicle-Herald : An election under the present circumstances would put the country in peril.... [The Conservatives] have been accused of being afraid to wait for the Gomery report - in case it exonerates [the Prime Minister]. This...is exactly what it will do. If they do pull the plug, the Conservatives will be easy prey to the charge of recklessness and opportunism-- They are afraid of the Gomery report because they know that report will judge our Prime Minister fairly.
Bell asks the Minister of Health to inform the House of the government's position on the day's vote regarding compensation for hepatitis C victims who fall outside the January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990 group previously included in a program of assistance.
A government-backbench softball question referencing the January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990 group and a day's vote, clearly designed to allow the minister to announce the government's supportive position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since becoming a member of Parliament, I have risen in the House on several occasions to speak in favour of compassion and understanding, and assistance for hepatitis C victims across Canada, including those who fall outside the January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990 group who were previously included in a program of assistance, and to encourage and support our Minister of Health in considering extending assistance to these previously excluded victims. Could the Minister of Health please inform the House on the government's position on today's vote regarding compensation for people?
Dosanjh states the government will vote in favour of the principle of the motion, affirms commitment to discussions launched in November to explore all available options for compensation, but notes the motion has limitations and that compensation can only be made once those discussions have concluded.
Dosanjh clearly states the government will vote in favour of the principle of the motion, explains the commitment to discussions launched in November to explore compensation options, and notes limitations of the motion — providing substantive and specific information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state that the government will vote in favour of the principle of the motion. We agree because it supports what we as a government have already been doing. We are committed to the discussions launched in November to explore all available options for providing compensation. However, while we are supporting the motion, we recognize the limitations and flaws of that motion. It must be made clear that compensation can only be made once the discussions underway have concluded. Everyone is working in good faith as fast as they can to reach a successful outcome.
Godin states that representatives of the Canadian public called on the PM the previous day to use a trust account as a sign of good faith, and asks when the Prime Minister will stand up, assume his responsibilities, apologize and put the dirty money into a trust account.
References a specific request from the previous day for the PM to use a trust account and asks for an apology and action on dirty money, but the framing ('stand up like a man') is rhetorical and the ask combines multiple demands.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the perfect poster boy for the democratic deficit. Again yesterday in the House of Commons, representatives of the Canadian public called upon the PM to take practical action by making use of a trust account. All they want from him is a sign of good faith. When will the Prime Minister stand up like a man, assume his responsibilities, make apologies and put the dirty money into a trust account, once and for all?
Brison states the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have been clear that any inappropriate funds received will be reimbursed to the taxpayers, but that this cannot be done without all the facts, which is why they are waiting for the Gomery commission's report.
Brison gives the standard party line — inappropriate funds will be reimbursed once the Gomery report provides the facts — which is somewhat responsive but entirely formulaic and does not address the trust account mechanism specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear, as has the Liberal Party. If the party has received any inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers. It is not possible to do so, however, without all the facts. That is why we are waiting for the Gomery commission's report.
Blaikie cites four motions the government has allegedly ignored — the motion on DFAIT, the motion on the Air-India inquiry, the motion on Glen Murray, and the motion on setting up a trust fund — and asks the Prime Minister to respect the will of Parliament and set the money aside.
Lists four specific motions the government has allegedly ignored — DFAIT, Air-India inquiry, Glen Murray, and trust fund — and asks the PM to respect the will of this minority Parliament, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. One of the reasons this Parliament is not working is that the Prime Minister and his government keep thumbing their noses at things that are passed in the House: the motion on DFAIT, the motion on the Air-India inquiry, the motion on Glen Murray, and now the motion on setting up a trust fund to put aside the money. Will the Prime Minister finally show some respect, show that he acknowledges that this is a minority Parliament and the government has a responsibility to respect the will of Parliament, and put that money aside?
Brison states the party and Prime Minister have been clear that any inappropriately received funds will be returned to the taxpayer, and that the Liberal Party and Prime Minister are determined to get to the truth through the Gomery report.
Brison repeats the standard line that inappropriate funds will be returned when the Gomery report provides the truth, with no acknowledgment of the specific motions cited or the broader question about respecting the will of Parliament.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the party has been absolutely clear; the Prime Minister has been clear; the Minister of Transport has been clear that any funds that were received inappropriately will be returned to the taxpayer. Let us face the facts on this. The Liberal Party and our Liberal Prime Minister are the ones who are determined to get to the truth. We do not fear the truth. We will make the appropriate actions based on that truth when we have the Gomery report.
Harper references multiple news articles describing a meeting between Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Transport, and François Duffar of Cossette Communication Group, and asks the minister directly whether that meeting took place, yes or no.
Harper cuts through prior evasion and asks a specific yes-or-no question about whether a meeting between Alfonso Gagliano, himself and François Duffar of Cossette Communication Group actually took place, citing multiple news articles as his basis.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, may I just remind the government, if it continues to violate the will of the majority of the House, it does so at its peril. The Minister of Transport keeps answering about his views on Alfonso Gagliano and his own definitions on lobbying. I would like the Minister of Transport to just be clear. Today a number of articles describe a meeting between the former minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano, himself and François Duffar of Cossette Communication Group. Did that meeting take place, yes or no?
Lapierre confirms by implication that the meeting took place but characterizes it solely as 'a social meeting, period,' without elaborating.
Lapierre answers that it was 'a social meeting, period,' which technically confirms the meeting occurred but refuses to engage with the yes-or-no framing and adds no further detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have said a number of times that this was a social meeting, period.
Harper asks, after noting the meeting was followed by a $100 million contract for Cossette Communication, whether Cossette Communication was a client of the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant and whether he ever received money from Cossette Communication.
Harper asks two tightly focused follow-up questions: whether Cossette Communication was a client of the minister, specifically whether the minister received money from them, grounded in the context that the minister was a radio talk show host at the time.
Source text
Okay, Mr. Speaker, it was a social meeting after which Cossette Communication got a $100 million contract. Let me ask a second question. Was Cossette Communication a client of the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant? By client I mean did he ever receive money--he was a radio talk show host--from Cossette Communication?
Lapierre confirms that he provided research, analysis and strategies to a number of private sector clients over the years, including Cossette Communication, effectively admitting he received payment from them.
Lapierre confirms that he provided research, analysis and strategies to a number of private sector clients including Cossette Communication, which directly answers the question about whether Cossette was a client and whether he received money from them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had read the reports in the newspapers and magazines and so forth, he would have seen that it has always been obvious that I provided research, analysis and strategies to a number of private sector clients over the years, including Cossette Communication.
Kenney asks whether the Minister of Transport, when he was in the private sector, organized a meeting between François Duffar of Cossette Communication and the then minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano — that is, whether he made the social gathering happen.
Kenney asks a precise follow-up: did the minister organize the meeting between François Duffar of Cossette Communication and Alfonso Gagliano, i.e. did he make the social gathering happen — a single, clear, accountable question.
Source text
The fog is clearing, Mr. Speaker. Now we know that there was a meeting. We would like to know, did the Minister of Transport, when he was in the private sector, organize a meeting between François Duffar of Cossette Communication and the then minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano? Did he make the social gathering happen?
Lapierre states only that 'the same answer applies,' offering no substantive response.
Lapierre says only 'the same answer applies,' providing no substantive response to the specific question about whether he organized the meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies.
Kenney asks directly and in yes-or-no terms whether the Minister of Transport received payments from Cossette Communication and whether he organized meetings between François Duffar and Alfonso Gagliano.
Kenney explicitly asks two binary questions: did the Minister of Transport receive payments from Cossette Communication, and did he organize meetings between Duffar and Gagliano — framed as yes or no, maximally specific and accountable.
Source text
But what is the answer, Mr. Speaker? I do not get it. Anyway, I am going to put it very clearly. Did the Minister of Transport receive money, receive payments, from Cossette Communication, for anything? Did he receive money from that organization and did he organize meetings between Messrs. Duffar and Gagliano? Yes or no?
Lapierre says only 'same question, same answer,' providing no substantive response to either binary question.
Lapierre says only 'same question, same answer,' which is a complete non-answer that does not confirm, deny, or elaborate on either of the two specific questions asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, same question, same answer.
Cardin asked whether the Minister of the Environment would guarantee that Hydro-Québec would never be forced to sell electricity to other parts of Canada below international market prices.
The question is grounded in the minister's own stated 'dream' of a coast-to-coast hydroelectric transmission line and asks a specific, answerable guarantee about pricing protection for Hydro-Québec.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has expressed his dream of seeing one hydroelectric transmission line stretching from east to west in Canada. Can the Minister of the Environment guarantee he will never force Hydro-Québec to sell its electricity to other parts of Canada at a price lower than what it can get on international markets?
Dion stated the Government of Canada has no power to force Hydro-Québec to buy or sell hydroelectricity, and described the plan as based on partnership with Quebec, Ontario, and Canada to reduce greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol.
Dion denies federal jurisdiction to compel Hydro-Québec, which is relevant but sidesteps the question of whether the government would guarantee no below-market pricing in a partnership arrangement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I realize the Bloc knows nothing of the Canadian Constitution, but the Government of Canada has no power to force Hydro-Québec to buy or to sell hydroelectricity. Our plan, however, is based on the concept of partnership. We know that the Government of Quebec, Hydro-Québec and the Government of Ontario are very interested in forming a partnership with the Government of Canada to reduce greenhouse gases and thus honour our international commitment as part of the Kyoto protocol.
Cardin asked whether the government would promise that Hydro-Québec would not be obliged to carry electricity in transit across Quebec without the formal agreement of Quebec.
The question is specific in asking for a commitment that Hydro-Québec would not be obliged to carry electricity in transit without Quebec's formal agreement, though it is framed with rhetorical colour.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister's line is operating at low voltage. The point of the exercise is to protect Hydro-Québec against federal meddling in its operations. Will the government promise that Hydro-Québec will not be obliged to carry electricity in transit across Quebec, without the formal agreement of Quebec?
Dion dismissed the Bloc as 'totally useless,' reiterated that the plan involves a partnership with Quebec, and claimed Hydro-Québec does not need the protection of the separatists.
Dion's answer is almost entirely a partisan attack, calling the Bloc 'totally useless' and dismissing their 'protection of the separatists,' without addressing the transit obligation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with questions like that, the Bloc is demonstrating its total uselessness yet again. We are talking about a partnership with the Government of Quebec. Nobody is imposing anything on anyone. If there is one thing Hydro-Québec can do without, it is the protection of the separatists.
Thompson asked, citing two broken 2000 Liberal commitments on victim information and parole hearing audio tapes, whether today's announcement on victims was anything more than a public relations exercise before an election.
Thompson cites two specific 2000 commitments — more information for victims at offender transfers and audio tapes of parole hearings — and asks directly whether today's announcement is more than a public relations exercise, grounding the question in a prior government record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2000 the Liberal government made two commitments to the victims of crime. One was to make more information available to them when it came to transferring offenders, and the others who could not attend parole hearings would receive audio tapes of the hearings. As usual, these two promises made were two promises broken. How is today's announcement regarding victims any different? Is it not anything more than a public relations exercise prior to an election?
McLellan stated that amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, including the two specific items the member mentioned, would be introduced immediately after question period.
McLellan directly confirms that both specific items mentioned will be addressed in amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act being introduced that same day, which substantively responds to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with the strong advocacy of my colleague from the riding of Nickel Belt, today as soon as question period is over, we will be introducing both amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and announcing changes in relation to the way our corrections system deals with victims, including the two specific items that the hon. member has mentioned.
Sorenson asked whether the minister would personally ensure that Claude Forget's case — involving the 1993 shooting of Montreal police officer Walter Filipas and a scheduled September statutory release — would be properly reviewed before Forget is released.
Sorenson cites a named individual — Montreal police officer Walter Filipas — a named offender Claude Forget, a specific 1993 shooting incident, and a scheduled September statutory release, making it highly factually grounded with a clear personal commitment being sought.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister should not be so smug. Those parole amendments were recommended five years ago, and the government did nothing but dither. Perhaps the minister would like to face Montreal police officer Walter Filipas and try to convince him of the virtues of the long overdue legislation. In 1993 Filipas was shot in the head by Claude Forget. This would-be cop killer is scheduled for statutory release in September. Will the minister personally ensure that Forget's case is properly reviewed before he is pushed back onto the streets by statutory release?
McLellan noted the matter would come before the parole board and that extenuating circumstances would be reviewed, and announced she was asking the standing committee on justice and human rights to undertake a broader review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, including statutory release.
McLellan acknowledges the parole board process for the specific case and announces a broader standing committee review of statutory release, partially engaging the question, but does not personally commit to ensuring Forget's case is reviewed as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the hon. member knows, I know that he knows actually, that is a matter that will come before the parole board. If there are extenuating circumstances in this case, obviously the parole board will review it. I will say in addition to that, I today am not only tabling amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, I am also asking the standing committee on justice and human rights to take up a broader review with that act, including the issue of statutory release.
Boudria, citing the passage of Bill S-3 at second reading, asked the Minister responsible for Official Languages to help deal with Conservative members who he claimed were postponing the bill in committee at the expense of francophones in minority situations.
This is a government-backbench softball that frames the opposition negatively and asks the minister to help 'deal with' Conservative members rather than posing a genuine accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Official Languages. On April 11, the members of the House passed, with a huge majority, Bill S-3, which I sponsored, at second reading. However, now, the Conservative members are turning around and postponing consideration of the bill in committee. Can the minister help us deal with the Conservative members, who are engaging in petty politics at the expense of francophones living in a minority situation in Canada? Can he help us deal with this?
Bélanger attacked the Conservatives for a supposed Conservative-Bloc alliance that tried to indefinitely postpone the bill, and reaffirmed the government's commitment to official language minority communities.
Bélanger pivots to attacking the Conservative-Bloc alliance and making partisan comparisons rather than explaining concrete steps the government would take to advance Bill S-3 in committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 35 years after this country was declared officially bilingual, the official opposition has finally said yes; supposedly, it gave its okay at its convention in March. I say supposedly because, yesterday, we saw clear evidence to the contrary, when a Conservative-Bloc alliance tried to indefinitely postpone this bill, which would improve the lives of official language minority communities in Canada. Its true position is clear. As for our government and our party, these communities know that they have been able to rely on us in the past, they can rely on us now and they will be able to rely on us in the future.
Hanger cited that the Calgary Airport Authority has paid over $250 million since 1992 for a facility valued at $118 million, with rent set to increase 125% to $56 million, and asked whether the government would support the airline industry and local airports.
Hanger cites specific figures — $250 million paid since 1992, a facility valued at $118 million, and a 125% rent increase to $56 million — and asks whether the government will support the airline industry and local airports, though the ask is cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since 1992 the Calgary Airport Authority has paid more than $250 million in airport rent for a facility that was valued at that time at $118 million. The federal government's contribution over that time has been zero. Instead, Calgary's rent will increase by a whopping 125% to $56 million, charges that will undoubtedly be passed on to the travelling public and the beleaguered airline industry. My question is for the Minister of Transport. For once, will the government support the airline industry and our local airports--
Lapierre stated he is working with the Minister of Finance and that the issue will be solved, crediting the Deputy Prime Minister's representations.
Lapierre gives a vague assurance that 'this issue will be solved' without addressing the specific rent figures, timeline, or any concrete action, and credits the Deputy Prime Minister's representations without substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has made so many representations on this topic that I know we are going to have some action. I am working diligently with the Minister of Finance and this issue will be solved.
Hanger asked the Minister of Transport to explain how higher airport rents benefit the airline industry, citing El Al's warning about dropping Canada and the difficulties facing Air Canada and WestJet.
Hanger raises El Al's warning about dropping Canada, references Air Canada and WestJet difficulties, and asks how higher airport rents benefit the airline industry, making it reasonably specific though somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time coming and I do not think the minister is paying attention to all the CEOs of the airport authorities. The government continues to use airports to extract a hidden tax from air travellers and the airline industry. El Al, Israel's national airline, has already warned that if the costs keep rising, it might be forced to drop Canada from its roster. On top of all this, Air Canada and even WestJet are having trouble operating in this overtaxed industry. Can the Minister of Transport explain to this House how higher airport rents benefit the airline industry in Canada?
Lapierre committed to finding a more equitable formula before the end of June, crediting representations from caucus and airport authorities across the country.
Lapierre commits to finding 'a more equitable formula before the end of June' without explaining how higher rents benefit the industry as asked, but at least provides a concrete deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of the representations of this caucus and of airport authorities across the country, we will find a more equitable formula before the end of June.
Lavallée asked why, after the budget's annex 8 proposed increasing the maximum pension benefit accrual rate from 2% to 2.33% for public safety occupations retroactive to January 1, 2005, the President of the Treasury Board was refusing to negotiate with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.
Lavallée cites a specific budget annex (annex 8), a specific regulatory change (pension benefit accrual rate from 2% to 2.33%), a specific retroactive date (January 1, 2005), and asks why the President of the Treasury Board is refusing to negotiate with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers — a precise, document-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in its latest budget, specifically in annex 8, the government proposes changes to the Income Tax Regulations to increase the maximum pension benefit accrual rate from 2% to 2.33% for public safety occupations, including correctional officers. This measure is retroactive to January 1, 2005. Why, after making this promise in the budget, is the President of the Treasury Board refusing to negotiate with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers?
Alcock stated the government is in constant dialogue with the union, the CSN, that staff report progress is being made, and that a conclusion will be reached when both sides are satisfied.
Alcock claims 'constant dialogue' with the CSN and says progress is being made, but does not address the specific allegation of refusal to negotiate or explain the discrepancy between the budget promise and the apparent lack of negotiation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in constant dialogue with the union, the CSN. Staff report that progress is being made. We will reach a conclusion when both sides are satisfied that we have reached an agreement.
Tonks asked the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities about the status of negotiations with Ontario, where the Government of Canada is committed to delivering $1.9 billion over five years to cities and communities.
This is a government-backbench question that sets up the minister to announce good news, citing the $1.9 billion Ontario commitment but framing it as an invitation to update rather than holding the government to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. Last week the Government of Canada announced the first bilateral agreement in the delivery of the promised new deal for cities and communities in British Columbia. With agreements reportedly close to being signed with Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Alberta, can the minister inform the House on the status of negotiations with the province of Ontario, where the Government of Canada is committed to delivering $1.9 billion over the next five years to cities and communities across the province?
Godfrey confirmed a deal was signed with British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, stated negotiations are proceeding well with Ontario and across the country, and warned that money will not flow if the budget does not pass, citing the mayors of Regina, Toronto, and Vancouver.
Godfrey confirms the British Columbia deal, notes negotiations proceeding in Ontario and across the country, and includes real information from mayors of Regina, Toronto, and Vancouver — though he pivots to a budget passage political argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member properly notes, we signed a fantastic deal on Friday with British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Negotiations are proceeding well with Ontario and indeed right across the country in every province and territory. However, the money will not flow if the budget does not pass. I ask the members opposite to hearken to the words of the mayor of Regina, “This budget should not be used as a political pawn”. I would listen to the mayor of Toronto who said, “It would be a huge setback if the gas tax money did not flow”, and the mayor of Vancouver who said, “It would be crazy and stupid to call an election when funding for cities hangs in the balance”.