Session overview
- Sponsorship Program dominated Question Period, with CPC and the government clashing repeatedly over whether the Liberal Party would place donations received from ad agencies — and the $2 million Elections Canada subsidy — into a separate trust fund ahead of Justice Gomery's report.
- Employment insurance was challenged four times by the Bloc Québécois, who pressed the government to honour the new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development's own prior vote in favour of an independent EI fund and to implement the 28 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
- The Maher Arar inquiry raised questions about ministerial responsibility, with Jack Layton pointing out that the Minister of Justice was standing aside on the Arar case and questions were being answered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who deferred back to the Deputy Prime Minister.
- Budget confidence votes scheduled for Thursday night were a recurring theme, with the government warning that defeating either Bill C-43 or Bill C-48 would bring down the government and kill the Atlantic accord, child care, the new deal for cities, and other measures.
- Foreign policy on Darfur produced a pointed exchange, with Stockwell Day citing a statement from seven African and Arab heads of state rejecting foreign intervention and the African Union president saying troops on the ground must be exclusively African, while Pierre Pettigrew insisted Canada's role was complementary and supportive of the African Union.
- The Minister of the Environment made a specific, on-the-record commitment that the review panel on the Sydney tar ponds cleanup would report back no later than June 30, 2006, and that the federal government would invest $280 million in the project.
Stéphane Dion made a concrete, dateable commitment — that the review panel on the Sydney tar ponds would report back to him no later than June 30, 2006 — and confirmed the $280 million federal investment and $120 million provincial contribution, giving the public specific benchmarks to hold the government to.
Cites a specific timeline (March 2005 statement in the House, December 2004 sworn testimony at government operations committee) and poses a single clear yes/no accountability question about whether the department has had the receipts since December 2004.
Rather than addressing Diane Ablonczy's specific point about clause k of Gomery's mandate and the logic of waiting for a report that cannot name those responsible, Brison called the question 'obtuse,' said she was 'out to lunch,' and offered no substantive response.
Outstanding questions
- Rob Nicholson asked whether the government would commit to placing all money received from ad companies — and the $2 million Elections Canada subsidy — into a separate trust account before the next election; no direct commitment was made. (Exchanges 1–3)
- Gilles Duceppe asked, yes or no, whether the government would honour the new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development's own principles by creating an independent EI fund to prevent diversion of the $47 billion collected from workers; the question was never answered directly. (Exchanges 4–5)
- Jack Layton asked why the Minister of Justice was standing aside in the Maher Arar case and what kind of government has no justice minister for Maher Arar; no explanation of the ministerial responsibility arrangement was provided. (Exchanges 8–9)
- Jim Prentice asked where the $3 billion to $4 billion for the residential school settlement with the AFN would come from given it was not in either budget, and whether this constituted an informal budget; the Deputy Prime Minister did not address the funding source. (Exchange 21)
- Vic Toews asked why the Minister of Justice refused to establish a transparent public process to limit political patronage in judicial appointments, given sworn Gomery testimony that political considerations outweigh merit; the minister did not address the substance of the testimony. (Exchanges 12–13)
Nicholson asks whether the government will commit to placing all money received from ad companies into a separate trust fund.
The question references reports of a Liberal plan and a specific prior lost motion, but relies on the label 'dirty money' and frames around a 'deathbed conversion,' making it partly rhetorical despite a clear single ask about a trust fund.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been reports that the Liberal government is now considering a plan whereby donations that it receives from ad agencies up to their neck in the sponsorship scandal will now be put into a separate trust fund. Maybe miracles never cease. The Liberals have been resisting this idea for several weeks but a deathbed conversion is better than nothing. Could the government today commit to putting all the money it has received from ad companies into a separate trust fund?
Brison says inappropriate funds will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer but only after Justice Gomery's report, and that any interim goodwill step would not accelerate that return.
Brison acknowledges the party's commitment to return inappropriate funds but conditions everything on Justice Gomery's report and offers only a vague reference to an unspecified 'interim action,' never directly committing to a trust fund.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the party has been clear from the beginning that if in fact funds were received inappropriately those funds will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. In fact, it is impossible to complete that transaction to the Canadian taxpayer until we have all the facts, until all the analysis has been conducted and until we have Justice Gomery's report. If the party establishes an interim action in terms of a goodwill approach, that will establish goodwill, but that will not return the money to the Canadian taxpayer any sooner than the report from Justice Gomery.
Nicholson presses again on the trust fund, noting Liberals lost a motion mandating a separate trust account and asking that the next election not be funded with dirty money.
Nicholson cites a specific lost motion from the previous month and the concern about election financing, but the framing around 'dirty money' and three elections is rhetorical, and the ask is a repeat of exchange 1.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a bunch of nonsense. All they have to do is just check their records. Last month the Liberals lost a motion that mandated them to put that money into a separate trust account. Three elections have been fought on that dirty money. Surely Canadians have a right to know that this next election will not be fought with this dirty money. Will they do the right thing now and put that money into a trust account?
Brison alludes to an unspecified announcement by the party leader that afternoon and deflects by alleging the Conservative Party operated a tollgating operation in Quebec per Stevie Cameron's book On the Take.
Brison deflects by referencing the party leader's upcoming afternoon announcement without specifying its content, then pivots to attacking the Conservative Party using allegations from Stevie Cameron's book On the Take.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the party leader this afternoon will be making an announcement and that announcement will establish and affirm a goodwill through that. Beyond that, the actual transaction, in terms of the transfer to the taxpayer, cannot occur until we have all the facts and we have Justice Gomery's report. In Stevie Cameron's book, On the Take , there are allegations that the Conservative Party operated a tollgating operation in the province of Quebec. Perhaps it ought to establish some sort of trust fund as well or perhaps those members over there ought to take some responsibility for their actions.
Nicholson and Jaffer ask whether the government will place its Elections Canada subsidy of over $2 million into a trust account rather than use dirty sponsorship money to fund another election campaign.
The exchange involves two questioners and multiple questions blended together; Nicholson introduces a specific Elections Canada subsidy figure of a little over $2 million, but Jaffer's follow-up devolves into rhetorical accusations of 'laundering' and 'rigging every rule,' diffusing the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is one bit of good news. Apparently Elections Canada is in the process of sending out party subsidies to all the parties and the Liberal Party is supposed to get a little over $2 million. I can appreciate, if all the stories about the Liberals' financial troubles are true, that they did not have the money before, but now that they have the cheque, why not do the right thing and let Canadians put their trust back into the electoral system, and put that money into a trust account?
Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government lost a vote which obliged it to create a trust fund for the dirty sponsorship money. So far, it has not done so. Elections Canada is now preparing to pay $2 million back to the government. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he is going to put that dirty money into a trust account, or fund a fourth election campaign with it?
Mr. Speaker, while I did ask if they would return it as a government, the Liberals have rigged every rule in the book to benefit themselves. They have laundered thousands if not millions for ad scam. They rewrote election financing laws to get millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. The only way Canadians can be sure the Liberals are not campaigning with dirty money is to put the Elections Canada subsidy in trust. Maybe it is their intention to buy another election campaign using that dirty money.
Brison reiterates that inappropriate funds will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer once Justice Gomery completes his audit process, and that any interim goodwill step does not achieve the actual transfer.
Brison repeats the same Gomery-conditioned response from exchanges 1 and 2 without addressing the specific Elections Canada subsidy or the $2 million figure, providing no new information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister has always been clear on this and the party has been clear on this, that if funds were received inappropriately they will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer and we will do that when Canadians have all of the facts. Any interim step to establish goodwill is a step in that direction but it does not achieve that transaction until we actually have all of the facts from Justice Gomery's own audit process. He is working with party auditors to achieve that. We are cooperating fully because we want to ensure that justice is done on behalf of the taxpayer and on behalf of all Canadians.
Duceppe asks whether the government will honour the new minister's own vote of April 13 in favour of establishing an independent EI fund to prevent diversion of money from the unemployed.
Duceppe grounds the question in a specific vote on April 13 in which the new minister herself supported an independent EI fund, making it a pointed accountability question tied to a recorded parliamentary action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development says she is a woman of principle. On April 13, she voted in favour of the establishment of an independent EI fund, a measure proposed by the Bloc Québécois to prevent the government from continuing to divert money from the fund at the expense of the unemployed. Will the government honour the principles of its new minister by creating an independent EI fund right now, so that money for the unemployed can be set aside?
Adams says the government has made considerable changes in EI, including changes in the independence of the commission, and notes a report was tabled in the House the previous day.
Adams vaguely references 'considerable changes in EI' and mentions a report tabled the previous day without addressing the specific ask of creating an independent EI fund or the minister's own prior vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has made considerable changes in EI, including changes in the independence of the commission. I believe a report was tabled yesterday in the House dealing with these matters.
Duceppe asks yes or no whether the government will create an independent employment insurance fund as the new minister herself voted for, noting the government yesterday rejected all 28 committee recommendations that Liberal MPs had supported.
Duceppe sharpens the prior question by citing the government's rejection of all recommendations from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, specifying that Liberal MPs had voted for those recommendations, and demanding a yes or no answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the very question. Yesterday the government rejected all the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, recommendations Liberal MPs had voted for. I put my question again. The new minister, this woman of principle, voted in this House in support of the establishment of an independent employment insurance fund to ensure that the government would not divert funds, as it had in the past to the tune of $47 billion. I am now asking whether the government will honour the principles of the new minister by creating an independent fund, yes or no. The question is simple, as is the answer.
Adams mentions steps toward greater fund independence, a $300 million EI allocation in the last budget, best 14 weeks benefit calculation, and extended benefits in areas with over 10% unemployment, without answering yes or no.
Adams lists several specific EI improvements from the last budget (additional $300 million, best 14 weeks calculation, extended benefits in high EI areas) but never answers yes or no on an independent fund, failing to address the core ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, steps have been taken to make the fund more independent. Also, in the last budget an additional $300 million was applied in the general EI area. We now calculate the benefits on the best 14 weeks. It is much easier for workers on benefits to work without losing their benefits. We have extended the benefits in high EI areas where unemployment is over 10%.
Lessard asks whether the Prime Minister will give the new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development free rein to correct the situation given the government turned its back on the committee's 28 recommendations and advocacy groups say the budget contains nothing of note for the unemployed.
Lessard references the 28 recommendations of the Standing Committee and cites advocacy groups' view that the budget contains nothing of note for the unemployed, contrasting $300 million with $47 billion in damages, though the concluding ask about giving the new minister 'free rein' is somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, $300 million is peanuts compared with $47 billion in damages. Three months ago, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made 28 recommendations aimed at substantially improving the employment insurance program. According to advocacy groups for the unemployed, the current budget contains nothing of note for the unemployed. The government has turned its back on the committee's report. Now that the Prime Minister has treated himself to a new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, could he assure us he will give her free rein to correct the situation?
Adams says the minister is grateful to the subcommittee and to a Prime Minister's task force for their recommendations and notes the department has tabled a report now available to all members.
Adams thanks the subcommittee for its recommendations and mentions a tabled departmental report, offering no substantive policy commitment or response to the specific concern that the budget ignored the committee's 28 recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is very grateful to the subcommittee for its recommendations. It is very grateful to the Prime Minister's task force of Liberals who made similar recommendations. As I mentioned, the department has tabled a report on this matter. That report is now available to all members of the House.
Lessard asks whether, in negotiations with the NDP, the new human resources minister negotiated only her own conditions of employment or also the needs of the unemployed she claims to agree with.
Lessard asks a pointed question about whether the new human resources minister negotiated the needs of the unemployed in NDP negotiations or only her own conditions of employment, but the framing is partly rhetorical and the ask is compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations with the NDP, the Prime Minister once again wanted nothing to do with improving employment insurance. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his human resources recruit negotiated only her own conditions of employment or whether she used the opportunity to negotiate the needs of the unemployed which she says she agrees with?
Adams says he is pleased to answer EI questions, deflects the negotiation question as belonging to other forums, and restates that EI has been improved and a recent report makes further improvements.
Adams says he is pleased to answer EI questions, deflects the question about NDP negotiations by saying the matter 'should be left to other forums,' and simply restates that EI has been improved without addressing the specific negotiation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am here and pleased to answer questions on employment insurance, which is of great concern to the government. Matters such as this should be left to other forums. I will repeat, EI has been improved by the government. The government, in the report that was tabled as recently as yesterday, makes even further improvements. We can be proud of what we have done and we continue to improve EI for the benefit of all Canadians.
Layton asks how justice is served when people demanding an open public inquiry into the Maher Arar case are referred to the Deputy Prime Minister who oversees the organizations that trampled on Arar's rights.
Layton identifies a specific structural problem — that people demanding an open inquiry are being referred to the Deputy Prime Minister who oversees the very organizations that trampled on Maher Arar's rights — and asks how justice is served in this arrangement, though the question is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because we have no Minister of Justice when it comes to the case of Maher Arar. The hon. member for Halifax is testifying at the Maher Arar inquiry today and we share her concerns. Could the minister please explain how justice is served when the people who are demanding an open and public inquiry here are referred to the Deputy Prime Minister who oversees the very organizations that trampled on the rights of Maher Arar?
Regan says the government is committed to a full and public inquiry while balancing national security, international relations, and the safety of police investigations, and declines to comment on actual testimony before the commission.
Regan states the government's commitment to a full and public inquiry while balancing national security, international relations, and police investigation safety, but does not explain the referral structure Layton asked about.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a full and public inquiry while balancing the need for national security or international relations and the safety and security of police investigations. This is a very important inquiry. I will not comment on the actual testimony before the commission, but it is important to let it do its work.
Layton presses on why the Justice Minister has recused himself from the Arar case, leaving the Fisheries Minister to answer and responsibility deflected to the Deputy Prime Minister who oversees the very security organizations involved.
Layton sharpens the accountability question by mapping out the chain of ministerial responsibility — Justice Minister standing aside, Fisheries Minister answering, Deputy Prime Minister overseeing implicated agencies — and asking what kind of government has no justice minister for Maher Arar, though it is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, pardon me but this is a little difficult for people to follow now. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for CSIS and the RCMP. The justice minister is responsible for protecting people's rights from being trampled upon, but he is standing aside in the Arar case. He is passing the responsibility over to the fisheries minister who then abdicates all responsibility and passes it right back to the Deputy Prime Minister, who, by the way, wrote the law that tramples on rights and civil liberties and who oversees the security organizations involved. What kind of government has no justice minister for Maher Arar?
Regan says the member knows why it is his responsibility to answer and restates the government's obligation to balance openness, a full inquiry, national security, international relations, and police safety.
Regan repeats the balancing-of-interests language without addressing why the Justice Minister is absent or explaining the jurisdictional logic Layton specifically challenged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well what has happened and why it is my responsibility to answer questions in relation to this matter. He also knows that we have a responsibility to balance the important interests in this matter, the interest in openness, the interest in a full and complete inquiry and the interests of protecting Canada in terms of national security or international relations and the security and safety of police work.
Ablonczy asks why Canadians must wait for the Gomery report to make a political judgment when clause k of Gomery's mandate prevents him from naming who is responsible, and government bureaucrats are already implementing reforms without waiting for the report.
Ablonczy identifies a specific clause — clause k of Gomery's mandate — that prevents him from naming who is responsible, and contrasts it with government bureaucrats not waiting for Gomery to implement reforms, making a legally grounded accountability argument with a clear implicit question about double standards.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to suggest that things must wait for the Gomery report before people can make up their minds about ad scam wrongdoing. Clause k of Gomery's mandate prevents him from telling who is responsible. Yesterday government bureaucrats admitted they were not waiting for Judge Gomery's report to implement reforms to the system. Why should Canadians have to wait to make a political judgment on the government?
Brison dismisses the question as obtuse, says the government is taking action and changing processes for better value for Canadian taxpayers, and personally insults Ablonczy.
Brison calls the question 'obtuse,' says they are doing the right thing by changing processes, and tells Ablonczy she is 'out to lunch,' providing no substantive response to the specific point about clause k or the double standard identified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the circular logic over there is almost laughable. I know I am not allowed to say that was a stupid question because you chastized me once. That was an obtuse question. The fact is that if we were not taking action, Canadians would have every right to be angry at us. We are doing the right thing by taking action and changing our processes to ensure better value for Canadian taxpayers, more open and competitive processes and accountable and transparent ones. She is out to lunch if she actually thinks she makes any sense with a question like that.
Ablonczy asks whether the government is inventing excuses to delay a political reckoning, given the Prime Minister told Canadians only Gomery could name the responsible parties while knowing clause k explicitly prevented Gomery from naming names.
Ablonczy cites the Prime Minister's national TV statement and links it to the specific constraint of clause k, arguing Gomery cannot name names so his report will merely summarize known facts, but the concluding question about 'inventing excuses' is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians would like to make some changes too in the government over there and they need the opportunity to do that. The Prime Minister told Canadians on national TV that only Gomery could tell who was responsible for the organized ad scam scandal, but all the while he knew that clause k explicitly prevented Gomery from naming names. Day after day televised evidence leaves no doubt that the stain on our nation's honour was put there by the Liberal Party. Gomery's report will just be a summary of facts we already know. Is it not true that the government is just inventing excuses to hold off the day of reckoning?
Brison accuses opposition members of attacking Justice Gomery's mandate to smear his work and says Canadians trust Justice Gomery to give them a balanced review of all the facts.
Brison accuses the opposition of attacking Justice Gomery's mandate and amplifying partisan testimony, without addressing the specific factual claim about clause k preventing naming of names or the Prime Minister's TV statement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those members are attacking the mandate of Justice Gomery in another attempt to try to smear the work that he is doing. They realize that when he reports to Canadians, Canadians will have a balanced review and analysis of all the facts and that will be exactly the opposite of what they provide to Canadians on a daily basis on the floor of the House of Commons. Those members amplify and magnify the testimony that suits their particular partisan position. Canadians want the whole truth and they trust Justice Gomery to give them exactly that. His mandate provides him with every opportunity to do that.
Toews asks why the Minister of Justice refuses to refer court appointment practices to an independent body for examination given sworn Gomery testimony that political consideration overrides merit, and Gomery has no jurisdiction over the matter.
Toews cites sworn testimony at the Gomery commission about court appointments being based on political consideration with merit secondary, and notes Gomery has no jurisdiction over the matter, making it a specific accountability question with a clear factual basis.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal has given sworn testimony at the Gomery commission that many court appointments in Canada have been based on political consideration and merit plays a secondary role. As long as the Liberal government controls the process, the political pedigree of any candidate will be the overriding consideration. The Minister of Justice has stubbornly refused to turn the matter over to an independent body for examination when he knows Gomery has no jurisdiction. What is he afraid it will uncover?
Cotler asserts the body handling judicial appointments is independent and not controlled by Liberals, noting it was the same body Toews presided over as attorney general of Manitoba.
Cotler asserts the judicial appointments body is independent and not controlled by Liberals, and notes Toews himself presided over it as attorney general of Manitoba, which is partially relevant but does not address the sworn testimony or the call for an independent examination.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the body is not controlled by the Liberals. It is an independent body. It was the same body that the hon. member presided over. It was good enough for him when he was the attorney general of Manitoba and it is good enough for us when we are the Government of Canada.
Toews asks why the Justice Minister refuses to establish a transparent public process that limits political patronage in judicial appointments, citing among other examples the appointment of the minister's own former chief of staff.
Toews presses on the distinction between an independent body and the body that controls federal judicial appointments, citing the specific example of the minister's former chief of staff being appointed, and asks for a transparent public process to limit political patronage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister understands perfectly well the distinction between an independent body and the body that controls federal judicial appointments. The denials of the minister are simply not enough. An independent investigation is needed to clear the air. It is more than a coincidence that predominantly Liberal Party loyalists get appointed to the bench, including the minister's former chief of staff. Why does the minister refuse to put into place a transparent public process that actually limits political patronage?
Brison reads from a householder Toews sent to his constituents in which he argued more Gomery testimony must be heard and the Conservative Party would not allow separatists' electoral agenda to dictate the country's agenda.
Brison, standing in for the justice minister, ignores the judicial appointments question entirely and reads from a householder Toews sent to his own constituents about Conservative willingness to wait for more Gomery testimony, having no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member earlier referenced Gomery and the work of Justice Gomery. It is important to realize that recently constituents of the hon. member started receiving householders that he sent out. In that householder he said: --we in the Conservative Party, believe that more testimony must be heard. And we believe that the Canadian public deserves a chance to hear, understand, and evaluate this evidence. This will obviously take some time. Our party is not interested in the electoral calculations of the Bloc Québecois, nor do we wish to have any part of pre-empting further evidence...We will not allow the separatists’ dangerous, narrow electoral agenda to dictate that of the entire country. That is what he said--
Loubier asks how the government can explain that its budget contains no solution to the fiscal imbalance despite the throne speech recognizing its existence and Quebec's Charest and Pelletier expecting better federal funding for post-secondary education.
Loubier references the throne speech recognition of the fiscal imbalance and cites Jean Charest and Benoît Pelletier's expectations regarding post-secondary education funding, making it a specific accountability question though the framing is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is unacceptable to Quebec. It does not include any measures to eliminate the fiscal imbalance. Yet, Jean Charest and Benoît Pelletier expect the federal government to provide better funding for post-secondary education, something which, in their opinion, would be a first step in solving the fiscal imbalance issue. How can the government explain that its budget does not include any solution to the fiscal imbalance, even though it recognized its existence in the throne speech?
McKay asserts there is no such thing as a fiscal imbalance and argues that provinces have the same access to resources and revenue sources as the federal government.
McKay flatly denies any fiscal imbalance exists and argues provinces have the same access to revenue sources as the federal government, directly contradicting the premise rather than explaining why the throne speech commitment was not reflected in the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a fiscal imbalance. I would remind the hon. member that 25 years ago the argument was that all the money was in the provinces and all the needs were in the federal government. Now they argue that all the needs are in the provinces and all the money is in the federal government. Twenty-five years ago they found that there was no structural imbalance. Provinces have the same access to resources and to revenue sources as does the federal government.
Loubier asks whether the government will increase transfers for post-secondary education as a real solution to the fiscal imbalance, noting federal contribution has fallen from 50% to 11.5% of post-secondary funding.
Loubier cites a specific statistic — federal contribution falling from 50% to 11.5% of post-secondary education funding — to ground a question about whether the government will increase transfers to honour its throne speech commitments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal contribution accounts for 11.5% of the funding for post-secondary education, while at one time it accounted for 50%. Does the government realize that, if it really wants to follow up on its commitments set out in the throne speech and provide a real solution to the fiscal imbalance, it must increase transfers for post-secondary education?
McKay tells the member the simple solution is to support Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 on Thursday night.
McKay does not address the post-secondary education funding figures or the fiscal imbalance commitment, instead simply telling the member to support Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 on Thursday night.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution to the hon. member's inquiry, and that is on Thursday night support Bill C-43 and Bill C-48.
Why has the Prime Minister not delivered on his election campaign promise of no-strings-attached child care money for Quebec after a full year?
Cites the Prime Minister's election campaign promise of no-strings-attached child care money for Quebec and asks a specific accountability question about why no agreement exists a year later.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister was as proud as could be to announce that Quebec would receive money for child care with no strings attached. How does the Prime Minister explain that a year after making that promise there is still no agreement with Quebec?
Dryden says negotiations and discussions with Quebec are ongoing and he is hopeful they will result in an agreement.
Dryden only says negotiations are ongoing and expresses hope for an agreement, entirely ignoring the specific accountability challenge about the election promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, we have ongoing negotiations and discussions with the province of Quebec. We are very hopeful that those negotiations will end up in an agreement.
Why has the Prime Minister signed agreements with five provinces but claims negotiations with Quebec are still ongoing when an unconditional transfer should be a mere formality?
Sharpens the challenge by pointing out that an unconditional transfer should be a mere formality, contrasting Quebec's situation with five already-signed provincial agreements, but the ask remains somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that an unconditional transfer would be very easy to negotiate. In that context, how can the Prime Minister sign agreements with five provinces and tell us that negotiations with Quebec are ongoing when it should be a mere formality? Let him explain.
Dryden says the first step is to pass the budget on Thursday night before any money can be transferred to provinces.
Dryden pivots entirely to the budget vote on Thursday night, completely avoiding the substance of why Quebec has not received an unconditional transfer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the first step that needs to be taken in all of this, in order for money to be transferred to the provinces under any agreement, is to pass the budget on Thursday night.
Will the minister admit that his department has had André Ouellet's receipts since December 2004, given that Ouellet testified under oath he sent them to the minister then, contrary to the minister's March 2005 statement in the House?
Cites a specific timeline (March 2005 statement in the House, December 2004 sworn testimony at government operations committee) and poses a single clear yes/no accountability question about whether the department has had the receipts since December 2004.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it does not appear that the government has any interest in solving the case of André Ouellet's missing receipts. As recently as March of this year, the Canada Post minister told this House that he still did not have the receipts. Yet yesterday, before the government operations committee, Mr. Ouellet testified under oath that he sent the minister the receipts in December of last year. Will the minister now admit that his department has had the receipts since December of 2004?
McCallum says the claim is not true and that there was no political interference, then criticises the member for allegedly challenging a witness's right to respond in French.
McCallum dismisses the claim as untrue without providing any evidence, then pivots to attacking the member over a bilingualism dispute at committee, never addressing the specific receipt-timeline question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a parliamentary committee, the hon. member challenged the right of a witness to respond to him in French. I hope today he will be so kind as to allow me to respond to him in French. My response is that what he just said is not true. There was no political interference in the past and there will be none in the future.
Given that Ouellet claims he lost almost $200,000 worth of receipts, are the same tax rules that apply to every other Canadian not applicable to him, and is 'I lost the receipts' an acceptable excuse for Revenue Canada tax officials?
Raises a legitimate policy point about equal tax-rule application regarding the almost $200,000 in lost receipts, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and the closing question is compound and polemical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is as evasive today as Mr. Ouellet was yesterday. The Liberals are not interested in getting to the bottom of this issue. For every other Canadian, tax rules are straightforward: no receipts and we pay a taxable benefit. Mr. Ouellet claims he lost almost $200,000 worth of receipts and “the dog ate my homework”. The same rules that apply to everyone else must apply to Liberal fat cats in this country. Or is “I lost the receipts” now an acceptable excuse for Revenue Canada tax officials?
McCallum states the matter is still being investigated, then accuses the member of insulting French Canadians and challenging the professionalism of 30,000 public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency.
McCallum says the matter is still being investigated but then pivots to attacking the member over insulting French Canadians and challenging the professionalism of 30,000 public servants, without addressing the lost-receipts tax-treatment question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the matter is still being investigated. Not only did this member insult French Canadians with his remarks on bilingualism, but he is also challenging the professionalism of 30,000 public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency. He should apologize to French Canadians and those public servants.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain what is happening with the ADR process for residential school claimants, given that the government has reportedly negotiated a $3 billion to $4 billion deal with the AFN for 80,000 people while ignoring the class actions of 15,000 people who have already sued?
Cites specific figures ($625 million spent, less than 2% of claimants settled, a reported $3 billion to $4 billion deal, 80,000 people, 15,000 class-action claimants) and asks a pointed question about the ADR process being ignored, though the question was cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister continues to struggle with the residential school file. To date the government has spent $625 million on the residential school fiasco and has settled with less than 2% of the possible claimants. Now the government is reportedly negotiating a $3 billion to $4 billion deal with the AFN to settle the claims of 80,000 people who have not sued the government, yet it ignores the class actions of 15,000 people who have sued the government. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what she is doing and what happened to the ADR--
McLellan says the ADR process continues as it should and the government is working with claimants, claimants' lawyers, the AFN and other interested parties toward a fair and transparent result.
McLellan confirms the ADR process continues and says the government is working with multiple parties, which is partially responsive, but gives no specifics about the figures cited or the tension between the AFN deal and class-action claimants.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ADR process continues as it should. We are working with the claimants, the claimants' lawyers, the AFN and other interested parties. This is a very difficult issue. It is part of a horrible tragedy that happened to a significant number of aboriginal Canadians. I think the hon. member acts in good faith on this issue, but I would encourage him to be patient and to understand that we are working with all the key interested parties to try to reach a fair and transparent result for--
Given that the proposed AFN settlement should exceed $3 billion and neither the February 2005 budget nor the NDP budget additions include funding for it, can the Minister of Finance explain where this money will come from?
Identifies a specific fiscal gap — a proposed settlement exceeding $3 billion not accounted for in either the February 2005 budget or subsequent NDP-Liberal additions — and asks a direct question about where the money will come from.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is terrible. The proposed settlement with the AFN should exceed $3 billion. Neither the February 2005 budget nor the budgetary fireworks since created by the Liberals and the NDP include any funding for this settlement. Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House where this money will come from? Are we talking about an informal budget?
McLellan says the question was perhaps not as clear as it could have been and reiterates that discussions with the AFN, claimants, lawyers, churches and other interested parties are continuing with the shared objective of dealing with as many claimants as fairly and quickly as possible.
McLellan responds as if the question was unclear and simply restates that discussions are ongoing with the AFN and other parties, never addressing where the funding will come from.
Source text
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think the question was perhaps not as clear as it could have been, but if the hon. member is in fact talking about our negotiations with the AFN, the claimants, the claimants' lawyers, the churches and other interested parties, let me say that those discussions continue. We have a shared objective to try to deal with as many claimants as possible, as fairly and as quickly as possible. That is what we are doing. That is what the ADR process is about. That is what our discussions with all interested parties are about.
Could the minister clarify what would happen to the Atlantic accord if the opposition defeats the second part of the budget implementation bill?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the government to clarify a scenario designed to embarrass the Conservatives rather than hold government to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservative members from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia sat on their hands when the Liberal Party stood in favour of the budget and the Atlantic accord. Now the Conservatives want to vote for one budget implementation bill while voting against the other. Could the minister clarify what the status of the Atlantic accord would be if the opposition defeats the second part of the budget implementation bill?
Valeri argues that defeating any budget bill constitutes defeating the government and would also defeat the Atlantic accord, the new deal for cities, child care, environmental funding, post-secondary education funding and affordable housing.
Valeri provides a partial explanation of the consequences of defeating the budget bill but spends most of the answer attacking the Conservatives rather than directly explaining the Atlantic accord's legal status.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, the Conservatives are now saying that they will vote to support the budget and the government, and then, 10 minutes later, they will vote no confidence and bring down the government. There are two confidence votes tomorrow. It does not matter which one they defeat. If they defeat a budget bill, they defeat the government and they defeat the Atlantic accord. They defeat the new deal for cities. They defeat child care. They defeat funding for the environment. They defeat funding for post-secondary education. They defeat affordable housing. Conservatives need to be straight with Canadians. Canadians will not be fooled. The Conservatives need to take responsibility for defeating the budget.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update Canadians on the government's progress in implementing the new NDP budget provisions?
This is a government-aligned NDP backbench question asking for an update on implementing new NDP budget provisions, framed as a promotional opportunity rather than an accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the new NDP budget provisions certainly improve the lives of people and improve our environment. They have received a favourable response from Canadians right across this country. We expect that the government will soon be introducing measures to implement these very important new budget provisions. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to update Canadians about progress by the government for implementing these measures and ask if he could give some details about where we are with respect to these very important new budget provisions.
Is that how it works?
Valeri explains that the votes on Thursday evening are at second reading and that the budget bills, if successful, will then go to committee for deliberation, before pivoting to attack the Conservatives for expecting to vote for one budget bill while defeating the other.
Valeri explains the procedural step of second reading votes on Thursday and committee deliberation afterward, which is marginally responsive, but then pivots to attacking the Conservatives rather than providing substantive detail on implementing the NDP budget provisions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member is referring to are the votes on Thursday evening, which are votes at second reading. Subsequent to that, the budget bills, if successful, will flow to committee where in fact I am sure there will be committee deliberation.
Mr. Speaker, it seems that I have to explain to those hon. members across the way how it works, because there is some confusion. While those members expect to vote for one budget bill and defeat the other, they actually presume that they are not defeating the government. In fact, they are. I would say to them to support the budget, support the Atlantic accord, support the increase in tuition fee funding, support the increase in foreign aid, support the new deal for cities and communities, and do what is right for Canada.
Will the government implement a new shipbuilding policy so that the Canadian industry and its workers can get back to work, as it has done for the auto and aerospace sectors?
Raises the shipbuilding policy issue and draws a comparison with auto and aerospace sectors, but the question is implicit and rhetorical rather than a single clear answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Industry is quite simple. For years now the industry minister has had on his desk a shipbuilding policy designed by the industry and shipyard workers throughout the country. From Victoria to Marystown, Halifax, Lévis and Port Weller, we have the capability, we have the industry and we have the workers to build these ships that Canada so desperately needs. We cannot help but notice that the federal government is moving to assist the auto sector, which we support, and it is willing to assist the aerospace sector, which we support. We would also support the government if it put in a new shipbuilding policy so that our industry and our workers can get back to work.
Emerson states that the government has had a shipbuilding policy in place since 2001 and that he met Monday with members of the shipbuilding and marine industrial sector to discuss updating that strategy to ensure the industry is technologically sophisticated and competitive.
Emerson directly states that a shipbuilding policy has been in place since 2001 and that he met with the sector on Monday of that week to discuss updating the strategy, which is substantively responsive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has had a shipbuilding policy in place since 2001. In fact, I met on Monday of this week with members of the shipbuilding and marine industrial sector from across the country. We are having a discussion about how to update that strategy to ensure that our Canadian shipbuilding industry is technologically sophisticated and competitive, so that it can be competitive in the world economy and win government contracts for Coast Guard and other defence vessels.
Why has the government failed to move the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project forward, given that Esso, Shell and ConocoPhillips have halted their work on the $7 billion project due to unreasonable demands from aboriginal groups and government red tape?
Cites the $7 billion Mackenzie Valley pipeline project, names specific companies (Esso, Shell and ConocoPhillips) and states they have halted work, attributing this to unreasonable demands and government red tape, with a clear ask about why the government has not moved the project forward.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important to the Canadian economy that we have access to our northern natural gas. Esso, Shell and ConocoPhillips have halted their work on the $7 billion Mackenzie Valley pipeline project due to unreasonable demands from aboriginal groups and mounting red tape from this government. The government is sitting on the sidelines watching this project go down the drain. Why has the government failed to move this project forward?
McLellan says the government is working with the government of the Northwest Territories, has met with the producers, and notes that Premier Handley met with aboriginal proponents in Calgary on Friday, describing the regulatory process as one of the most complex anywhere.
McLellan lists several actions — working with the government of the Northwest Territories, meeting with producers, noting Premier Handley's meetings — but does not address the specific allegation of mounting red tape or explain concretely what the government has done to unblock the project.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, far from sitting on the sidelines, we are working with the government of the Northwest Territories. Premier Handley was in town last week. We are in fact working on the regulatory process. We have met with the producers. Premier Handley on Friday met in Calgary with aboriginal proponents of this project. It is a very complex project, one of the most complex regulatory processes under way anywhere right now, I think it is fair to say. Everybody has the shared objective to make sure the Mackenzie gas flows south in a timely fashion. That is what we are all--
Why has the government done nothing over the past 12 years to update the 27-year-old legislation that is now threatening to tie up the Alaska pipeline project in court, especially given that Enbridge is threatening legal action?
Cites a 27-year-old piece of legislation, names Enbridge as threatening legal action, states the member raised the issue with the minister two years ago, and asks why the government has done nothing to resolve the Alaska pipeline issue over 12 years.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the gas is not flowing in a timely fashion. The government has also dropped the ball on the Alaska pipeline. We have a 27-year-old piece of legislation which is outdated and is now threatening to tie up the entire Alaska pipeline project for years in court. I raised this issue in the House with the minister two years ago and was simply dismissed. Enbridge is now threatening legal action on this issue, yet the minister is not doing anything to resolve the issue. Why has the government been sitting on its hands for the past 12 years and doing nothing to move this project forward?
McLellan argues the Alaska gas project is driven by the private sector and the resource is owned by the state of Alaska, and accuses the member of knowing nothing about Alaska gas, who owns it or who will move it.
McLellan argues the Alaska gas project is privately driven and owned by the state of Alaska, which is partially relevant context, but she does not address the 27-year-old legislation, the Enbridge legal threat, or the specific regulatory issue raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would presume the hon. member knows enough about the Alaska gas project to know that in fact it is a project driven by the private sector. The resource is owned by the state of Alaska. In fact, it is up to the producers to undertake discussions with the state of Alaska as to how the project moves forward. Absolutely, there has to be infrastructure to move the gas south below the 49th parallel. In fact, for the hon. member to suggest that this government has been inactive or that this government is the problem reflects the fact that the member knows nothing about Alaska gas, who owns it or who is going to move it.
Given that a former minister said the government would not fund every provincial project with a minor climate change element at high cost, does the government still feel the same way about the Lower Churchill project?
Quotes a specific prior ministerial statement dismissing the Lower Churchill project as a high-cost minor climate change element, then asks whether the government still holds that position, creating a clear accountability moment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the present government was asked in the House if it would get involved in the development of the Lower Churchill project, the minister of the day said: --the climate change issue is not an opportunity for every provincial project in every area that may have a minor climate change element at a high cost to be funded by the federal government. Does the government still feel the same way about this project?
Dion says the climate change plan includes a partnership fund with provinces for joint priorities in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that hydroelectricity development could be funded if it is a joint priority, strengthening energy security and helping reach the Kyoto target.
Dion does not directly address the quoted ministerial statement but explains the climate change plan's partnership fund for greenhouse gas reduction and says hydroelectricity development could qualify if it is a joint priority with the province, which is partially responsive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the very strong climate change plan we have, which we hope will survive the whirlwind and which we hope the House will unanimously support through the budget, we offered to provinces to have a partnership fund to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in joint priorities. If it is a joint priority to develop hydroelectricity, for instance, we will do it. We will then strengthen the energy security of the country and we will reach our Kyoto target. It depends on what the provinces want to do with us.
Why will the government not renegotiate its contract with Newfoundland and Labrador to provide a more equitable revenue sharing plan for the Voisey's Bay development, given that the government is clawing back 90% of the province's revenues?
Raises a specific claim that the Liberal government is clawing back 90% of Newfoundland and Labrador's revenues from Voisey's Bay and asks a direct question about renegotiating for more equitable revenue sharing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is clawing back 90% of Newfoundland and Labrador's revenues from the Voisey's Bay development. Why will the government not agree to renegotiate its contract with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in order to provide a more equitable revenue sharing plan?
Bagnell says the government has the Atlantic accord and is taking care of Newfoundland and Labrador and its revenues.
Bagnell's answer mentions the Atlantic accord and taking care of Newfoundland and Labrador but does not address the Voisey's Bay revenue-clawback claim or the request to renegotiate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have an agreement, the Atlantic accord, and we are taking care of Newfoundland and Labrador and its revenues.
Do the closures of four Tembec plants and the loss of 459 jobs, 403 of them in Quebec, not prove the government's negligence in refusing to create a recovery plan for the softwood lumber industry?
Cites the closure of four Tembec plants and 459 job losses, 403 in Quebec, and asks a pointed question about whether these closures prove the government's negligence in refusing to create an aid package for the softwood lumber industry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Tembec forestry products has announced that it will be closing four plants, which will mean the loss of 459 jobs, 403 of those in Quebec. The government has continued to turn a deaf ear to our appeals and is refusing to create an aid package for the softwood lumber industry. Is the closure of these four plants not, unfortunately, an illustration and proof of the negligence of the government which, in refusing to follow up on our recommendations for a recovery plan, has brought about the negative outcome we are seeing today?
Saada says the government is injecting an average of $25 million to $30 million into communities affected by the softwood lumber situation and has established a co-ordinating committee with the Government of Quebec, adding that no request of any kind has been received from Tembec.
Saada cites $25 million to $30 million injected into affected communities and a co-ordinating committee with the Government of Quebec, which is partially responsive, but then deflects by saying no request was received from Tembec.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are injecting an average of $25 million to $30 million specifically into communities affected by the softwood lumber situation. We and the Government of Quebec have agreed to take part in a co-ordinating committee to lessen the impact of provincial bill 71. We have never had any request of any kind from Tembec. We cannot respond to a request that has not been made.
How can the minister boast about the budget when it contains nothing for companies affected by the softwood lumber crisis, which has been ongoing for three years with no end to job losses?
Challenges the minister on the absence of softwood lumber crisis funding in the budget after three years of ongoing job losses, which is a substantive point, but is framed rhetorically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister be boasting about his budget when it contains nothing for companies affected by the softwood lumber crisis, even though that crisis has now been going on for three years and there is no end to the job losses?
Saada attacks the Bloc for voting against the budget, against a $309 million increase in the budget, against Bill C-9 and against the economic reinforcement of Quebec, calling their interest in economic development the lowest kind of petty politics.
Saada responds entirely with partisan attacks on the Bloc for voting against the budget and Bill C-9, calling it the lowest kind of petty politics, without addressing the substance of softwood lumber crisis funding in the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if I do not keep tight control over my emotions, I will end up in tears over the sudden interest in economic development from a party that is voting against the budget, voting against a $309 million increase in the budget, voting against Bill C-9, and voting against the economic reinforcement of Quebec. This is the lowest kind of petty politics, and has nothing at all to do with the issues at hand.
Day asks why the Prime Minister did not at least warn African Union leaders before rushing to announce sending Canadian military into Darfur without consulting allies or the Sudanese government.
The question cites specific failures — no consultation with African Union leaders, NATO leaders, or the Sudanese government — and asks a pointed accountability question about why warning was not given before taking unilateral action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unilateral action is not the way to resolve the crisis in Darfur. Last week the Prime Minister did not consult with African Union leaders, NATO leaders or even the head of the Sudanese government before rushing to make an announcement that he was sending Canadian military into Darfur without our allies, without the Sudanese government knowing, and without even the means to protect themselves. Helping people in Darfur is too important to ignore these things. Why did he not at least warn the African Union leaders that he was about to take unilateral action in Darfur?
Pettigrew denies the charge, stating that appropriate consultations were held with the UN, African Union, Sudan, and NATO, and defends Canada's catalytic leadership.
Pettigrew asserts consultations occurred and lists parties consulted including NATO, the United Nations, and Sudan, but does not address the specific timeline or the charge of acting before warning those parties.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. There have been the appropriate consultations. The Prime Minister and I have conducted consultations with the government in Iran, the United Nations, the African Union and the government of Sudan. I spoke again with the secretary general of NATO two days ago on the telephone. The catalytic leadership that the Government of Canada is providing when there are thousands of people who are dying, who are being raped and who are starving is very much appreciated.
Day cites a statement by leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea rejecting foreign intervention, the African Union president's insistence on exclusively African troops, and the Sudanese ambassador's refusal of Canadian military entry, implicitly asking how the government's plan can proceed.
Day cites a specific statement released today by named African leaders rejecting foreign intervention, quotes the African Union president Alpha Konare, and references the Sudanese ambassador's position — strong factual grounding that directly challenges the government's stated approach.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not catalytic leadership; it is catatonic leadership. I have a statement which was released today by the leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea. They said that they reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem. Today in Brussels the African Union president, Alpha Konare, said that there will be no troops on the ground unless they are exclusively African. The Sudanese ambassador to Canada said that her country will not allow Canadian military into Darfur.
Pettigrew states Canada will be complementary to the African Union, supporting their exercise, and identifies specific needs — communications equipment and transportation vehicles — that Canada and NATO can help provide.
Pettigrew reiterates that Canada will be complementary to and supportive of the African Union and references specific needs (communications equipment, transportation, 3,000 boots on the ground), but does not address the explicit rejections cited by Day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have always been very clear that we will be complementary to what the African Union is doing. We will be supporting the African Union exercise. We have always said exactly that. What we do know is that where the African Union has been in Darfur it has been helpful, but more boots on the ground are needed in the region, more than the 3,000 they have now. They need better communications equipment. Canada can do something about that. They need better transportation vehicles. Canada can help with NATO to do the right thing in Darfur.
Brown asks the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers to outline the improvements for seniors contained in budget 2005.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to outline budget improvements for seniors, with no accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the health and welfare of Canadian seniors is very important to me, and I believe to all my colleagues in the House. I would like the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers to outline for all of us the improvements for seniors contained in budget 2005.
Ianno states that budget 2005 includes $2.7 billion over five years for seniors and urges members opposite to vote for the budget.
Ianno provides a specific figure of $2.7 billion over five years for seniors in budget 2005, though the answer is also partly political and includes a call to vote for the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government believes in the value and the well-being of our seniors. Our seniors have helped build this nation to what it is today. In this budget there is $2.7 billion over five years to ensure our seniors are given the respect and the dignity they deserve. We ask the members opposite to support our seniors and vote for the budget because they believe in it. We ask them to do so also.
Preston asks the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to tell the House the truth about the Minister of Public Works' refusal to attend the committee to be held accountable on the 2005-06 spending estimates.
Preston raises a specific accountability issue — the Minister of Public Works refusing to attend the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates — but the question is oddly directed to the committee chair rather than the minister, and the ask is somewhat muddled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works often says he is open and accountable, but his actions say he is not. We just cannot trust what he says. The truth is that he refuses to attend the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to be held accountable on the 2005-06 spending estimates for his department. Will the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates tell this House and Canadians the truth about the minister's disrespectful treatment of this committee?
It is about the agenda.
No ministerial answer was recorded; an hon. member only interjected 'It is about the agenda.'
No substantive answer was provided; an hon. member interjected only 'It is about the agenda,' and there was no ministerial response recorded.
Goodyear asks the minister to get serious and present a plan to help the one million people in Ontario without doctors, not in 2008 or 2012, but immediately.
Goodyear references his first question in the House, cites a dollar figure and the Ontario context, and asks for a plan to help one million people without doctors, but mixes rhetoric ('doctors are driving cabs') with the substantive ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my first question in this House was with regard to the accreditation process for foreign trained doctors. Forty-four billion dollars later and there is absolutely no change. The last budget--the first one, I should say--just has 50¢ per Ontarian, and that will not solve this problem. Doctors are driving cabs while the lineups get longer. Will the minister please get serious and get a plan about helping the one million people in Ontario who do not have doctors, not in 2008, not in 2012, but right now?
Dosanjh cites $41 billion in the last health accord, $250 million per year embedded in the accord for training, and $75 million over five years just provided to create residencies for foreign trained doctors.
Dosanjh provides specific figures — $41 billion in the last health accord, $250 million per year for training, and $75 million over five years for residencies for foreign trained doctors — directly relevant to the question though not a comprehensive plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the last health accord $41 billion was provided to the provinces for this purpose and other purposes in health care. There is $250 million a year ongoing in terms of training that is implicit and embedded in that health accord. We just provided $75 million over five years to create residencies across the country. That money will flow to the provinces. That will create new positions for residencies for foreign trained doctors.
Boire asks what the government is waiting for to put forward a true plan including safeguards, a program for older workers, and a program to support the modernization of the clothing and textile sectors, given the mediocre results of its current plan.
Boire references ongoing plant closures in Huntingdon and elsewhere, characterizes the existing plan as improvised and mediocre, and asks for a true plan including safeguards, a program for older workers, and modernization support — a reasonably specific ask with some factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the textile plants that remain continue to shut down in Huntingdon and elsewhere in Quebec. This clearly shows that, in its present form, the government's improvised rescue plan cannot solve the crisis. In light of the mediocre results of its plan, what is the government waiting for to put forward a true plan that would include, among other measures, safeguards, a program for older workers, and a program to support the modernization of the clothing and textile sectors?
Saada describes prior involvement through the Suroît-Sud renewal committee, funding offered through CATIP and CANtex, and a commitment to follow up on infrastructure investment opportunities prioritized by the Quebec government.
Saada references the Suroît-Sud renewal committee, CATIP, and CANtex as existing programs and mentions infrastructure investment contingent on Quebec government prioritization, but does not address the specific measures requested — safeguards, a program for older workers, or a modernization program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, long before plants began shutting down, we had the pleasure, through the Suroît-Sud renewal committee, of meeting with municipal and local economic stakeholders. We were involved in the renewal plan. Through the Canadian apparel and textile industries program, or CATIP, and then through the Canadian textiles program, or CANtex, we offered funding to industry members, but they did not avail themselves of those funds. We are still there. We have already said that, if there are investment opportunities in infrastructure, we will follow up on a prioritization by the Quebec government. We will always be there for the residents of Huntingdon.
Cuzner asks whether the Minister of the Environment remains committed to the June 2006 deadline for receiving the review panel's report on the Sydney tar ponds cleanup, following the May 2 announcement of a full panel review.
Cuzner cites the specific May 2 announcement of a full panel review for the Sydney tar ponds cleanup, references the minister's assurance of a stringent timeline, and asks a clear yes-or-no accountability question about the June 2006 deadline — though this is a government-backbench exchange designed to elicit a positive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on May 2 the Government of Canada announced that a full panel review would be undertaken to assess the cleanup of the Sydney tar ponds. The Minister of the Environment assured the community at that time that a stringent timeline would be followed and there would be no delay in this process. As the first critical timeline benchmark approaches, does the Minister of the Environment remain committed to the June 2006 deadline for receiving the review panel's report?
Dion confirms a $280 million federal investment and $120 million provincial investment in the Sydney tar ponds, states there will be no unnecessary delay, and commits to receiving the review panel report no later than June 30, 2006.
Dion directly confirms the commitment, providing specific figures ($280 million federal, $120 million provincial) and explicitly stating the panel will report back to him no later than June 30, 2006, fully addressing the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of the $280 million that the federal government will invest in the Sydney tar ponds and the $120 million the province will invest, after fruitful discussions I may tell the House that I have no doubt that we will reach an agreement on the review process going forward in the near future. There will be no unnecessary delay in the cleanup of this area. I will receive the review panel report. The panel will report back to me no later than June 30, 2006.
The Speaker drew members' attention to guests in the gallery, and members responded with applause. No policy matter was raised or answered.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Three CPC members raised points of order following question period: Mr. Leon Benoit and Mr. Joe Preston argued that the question about the government operations and estimates committee agenda was in order and concerned the public works minister twice breaking his word to the committee; Mr. Ken Epp argued that a question from a government backbencher violated Standing Order 18 by reflecting on a vote that had not yet been held. No rulings were issued in this exchange.
- CPC Mr. Leon Benoit
- CPC Mr. Joe Preston
- CPC Mr. Ken Epp
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from question period and a question which was being asked of me as the chair of the government operations and estimates committee regarding the agenda of that committee. You yourself said that questions are allowed on the agenda of the committee. The member was asking about why the public works minister has twice agreed to come to this committee and has both times broken his word to the committee. He is showing contempt for--
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to reiterate what the chair of the committee has said and ask you to please look at the blues from today's question period. The question was simply about the agenda. No testimony was mentioned in my question.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, my apologies for not sending you a little note because this question also arises from question period. One of the questions asked by one of the backbenchers over there in my view is a clear violation of Standing Order 18 where it states, “No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded”. That question very clearly reflected not on a vote in the House but on one which has not even been held yet. I am amazed that you considered that question to be in order.