Session overview
- The dominant theme was the Sponsorship Program: opposition parties pressed the government on its exchange of letters with Jean Chrétien's lawyers, which Justice Gomery's counsel said jeopardized the commission's work, while ministers repeatedly cited the Attorney General's June 9 letter as proof of support for Justice Gomery.
- Chinese espionage in Canada was raised across four exchanges, prompted by claims from defector Hao Fengjun that China operates more than 1,000 spies in Canada and conducts a campaign of harassment against Falun Gong members; the government declined to discuss operational details and offered only general assurances.
- Environmental and health concerns featured prominently: Jack Layton and Bob Mills both pressed the government on seven days of smog affecting Ontario and Quebec, the government's Kyoto plan, and rising greenhouse gas emissions, while the government pointed to Bill C-49 and the climate change plan.
- Agent orange contamination at CFB Gagetown and water contamination in Shannon, Quebec generated exchanges over delayed fact-finding, potential compensation, and calls for the release of a secret report, with the Minister of National Defence maintaining that a proper scientific process was underway.
- The Minister of International Cooperation issued a correction during Points of Order, acknowledging she had misstated $500,000 when the correct figure related to Bill C-48 was $500 million in potential aid funding.
- Whistleblower legislation under Bill C-11 was contested, with opposition members demanding a truly independent commissioner to investigate disclosures of corruption, while the President of the Treasury Board deferred the debate to committee.
The Minister of Health made a specific, verifiable commitment, announcing that the first phase of consultations on the registration and full disclosure of clinical trial information had begun on June 8, with the first public workshop taking place that day in Ottawa and further sessions planned in Halifax and Vancouver.
Cites Justice Gomery's letter directly, references his lawyer's words, and poses a clear yes/no ask: will the government end the arrangement as Gomery demands?
Rather than addressing Harper's specific allegation that an exchange of letters was conducted behind Justice Gomery's back contrary to the Attorney General's undertaking, the Prime Minister dismissed the question as already answered and then offered to table a copy of The South Beach Diet, wholly failing to engage with the substance of the accountability challenge.
Outstanding questions
- Stephen Harper asked whether the government would take the specific action demanded in Justice Gomery's June 6 correspondence â either expedite Mr. ChrĂ©tien's accusations of bias or have them withdrawn â and received no direct yes or no answer. (Exchange 1â3)
- Mr. Stockwell Day asked whether the Prime Minister raised the issue of Chinese espionage at the diplomatic and political level during his January visit to China; Pierre Pettigrew gave only a generic statement about ongoing discussions with Chinese officials without confirming whether the subject was raised. (Exchange 15)
- Mr. Tom Lukiwski asked the Minister of Public Works to confirm whether his communications director, Ms. Susan Murray, phoned the media with misleading figures about the cost of Justice Gomery on the same day Mr. ChrĂ©tien filed his motion to quash the commission; the minister never confirmed or denied the specific phone calls. (Exchanges 22â23)
- Mr. Guy CĂŽtĂ© asked the Minister of National Defence to make public the secret report on water contamination in Shannon, Quebec; the minister acknowledged the $34 million transfer and ongoing work but did not commit to releasing the report. (Exchanges 18â19)
- Mr. Jason Kenney asked why the Minister of Public Works dispatched his communications director to spread what Justice Gomery himself called 'an exaggeration and a twisting of reality' about the cost of his commission; the minister denied the characterization but did not address who made the calls or why. (Exchange 30)
Harper asks whether the government will end its arrangement with Jean Chrétien as Justice Gomery demands, citing Gomery's lawyer's warning that the arrangement jeopardizes the commission's work.
Cites Justice Gomery's letter directly, references his lawyer's words, and poses a clear yes/no ask: will the government end the arrangement as Gomery demands?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery has written to the government demanding that it reverse its deal with Jean ChrĂ©tien. Through his lawyer, Justice Gomery says that the arrangement is not in the public interest. In fact, his lawyer says that âthe ability of Justice Gomery to complete his work will be put in jeopardyâ. He asked the government directly to either expedite Mr. ChrĂ©tien's accusations of bias or have them withdrawn. Will the government end the arrangement with Mr. ChrĂ©tien as Justice Gomery demands, yes or no?
Martin denies any arrangement exists and states the government opposes any challenge to Justice Gomery's impartiality, now or in the future.
Martin flatly denies any 'arrangement' exists without addressing the specific correspondence cited, and does not answer whether the government will comply with Gomery's request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no such arrangement. Our position is very clear. There should not be a challenge to the impartiality of Mr. Justice Gomery. There should not be a challenge now and there should not be a challenge later. If there is, we will oppose it.
Harper presses whether the Prime Minister will do what Justice Gomery is specifically asking â deal with ChrĂ©tien's request immediately or withdraw it â given the contradiction between public support and private dealings.
Harper sharpens the ask by characterizing the discrepancy between public support and private dealings, and reiterates the specific request Gomery made, but does not introduce new documentary evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not the arrangement the government made. While the Prime Minister supports the judge in public, he is making a deal in private to the contrary with Mr. Chrétien. The judge has just asked the government to either deal with Mr. Chrétien's request immediately, or withdraw it so that the judge can do his work in peace. Will the Prime Minister do what Justice Gomery is asking or not?
Martin repeats that there is no agreement and that the government opposes any challenge to Justice Gomery's impartiality.
Martin again simply denies any agreement exists and restates the same position from Exchange 1, entirely ignoring the specific request Gomery made to the government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this time I will say it in French: there is no agreement. Our position is clear. Justice Gomery's impartiality should not be challenged, not now, not ever. If it is, we will object.
Harper states the government conducted a back-channel exchange of letters without informing Justice Gomery, contrary to the Attorney General's undertaking, and asks whether the government will comply with Gomery's June 6 demands or continue working with Chrétien's lawyers.
Harper cites a specific letter dated June 6, references the Attorney General's prior undertaking, and the allegation that Gomery was not informed â grounding the question in identifiable documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these answers by the Prime Minister are simply not factually correct. Here is what the Prime Minister is doing. He had an exchange of letters, call it what they will, behind Justice Gomery's back. Justice Gomery was not even informed about this. It was contrary to the undertaking the Attorney General had made. Now Justice Gomery is demanding, in his correspondence of June 6, very specific action by the government. Is the government willing to take that action or is it going to continue to work hand in hand with Chrétien's lawyers?
Martin claims to have already answered twice, then tables a copy of The South Beach Diet as a personal jab at Harper, offering no substantive response.
Martin does not address the June 6 correspondence or the specific action Gomery demanded; instead he tables a copy of The South Beach Diet as a personal attack on Harper, a complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have now answered the hon. member's questions twice, but I would like to raise another issue. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party has said that the Leader of the Opposition is going to spend this summer on the barbecue circuit. I understand the dangers of the barbecue circuit and I would therefore like to table this document for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition this summer. It is a document called The South Beach Diet .
Toews asks the Attorney General why he has not complied with Justice Gomery's lawyers' specific request to have Chrétien permanently withdraw his bias allegations or have them dealt with immediately in court.
Toews specifically attributes the request to Justice Gomery's lawyers, states the precise ask (permanently withdraw or deal with bias allegations immediately), and directs the question to the Attorney General, making it highly targeted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not think--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians are impressed by that kind of answer. Lawyers representing Justice Gomery have specifically asked the Liberal government to take all necessary steps to have Jean Chrétien permanently withdraw his allegations of bias against Justice Gomery or to have those allegations dealt with immediately in court. My question is for the Attorney General of Canada. Why has he not complied with Justice Gomery's request? It is not an issue of what the deal is. Why has he not made that request and complied with that request?
Cotler quotes the government's memorandum of fact and law showing it vigorously opposed Chrétien's application and maintained that the bias allegation was without merit.
Cotler quotes the exchange of letters to show the government opposed Chrétien's application on the merits, but does not explain why the government has not complied with Gomery's specific procedural request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think I need to remind the member opposite of what is written in this exchange of letters: It is clear from the memorandum of fact and law filed on behalf of the Attorney General in response to Mr. Chrétien's judicial review application that the government was vigorously opposing Mr. Chrétien's application. The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected. That remains our position.
Toews asks why, when the public interest demands full cooperation with Justice Gomery, the government has failed to act on Gomery's request and appears to be serving Liberal Party political interests instead.
Toews presses on why the government failed to act as Gomery requested, but frames it partly rhetorically by accusing the Liberals of serving partisan interests over the public interest.
Source text
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have refused to comply with Justice Gomery's request. That is the issue. Despite Liberal claims of cooperation with Justice Gomery, the truth is that by failing to act the government is working with Mr. Chrétien to derail Justice Gomery's commission. Why is it that when the public interest demands full cooperation with Justice Gomery the government is only concerned about the political interests of the Liberal Party? Why did this government not act as requested by Justice Gomery?
Cotler agrees the public interest demands full cooperation with Justice Gomery's commission and states the government will continue to fully support him against any allegation of partiality or attempt to delay the commission.
Cotler affirms general support for Gomery but does not explain why the government did not take the specific action requested, deflecting with a reminder that the government established the commission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at this point the member opposite is correct. The public interest demands full cooperation with Mr. Justice Gomery's commission which, I would remind him again, we established. We not only cooperate with him but have fully supported and will continue to fully support him against any allegation of partiality. We will continue to support him against any attempt to retard or delay the commission. Our position is that we support Mr. Justice Gomery fully.
Gauthier asks the government to acknowledge that the exchange of letters had the sole effect of destabilizing and concerning Justice Gomery while reassuring the Chrétien clan.
Gauthier asks the government to acknowledge a specific concrete effect of the exchange of letters â destabilizing Gomery and reassuring the ChrĂ©tien clan â but frames it as a rhetorical challenge rather than a precise factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the war on legalities between Jean Chrétien and Judge Gomery, it is all very well for the government to say it supports Judge Gomery every way it can, but will it acknowledge that the exchange of letters has had only one effect, which is to destabilize and concern the judge and reassure the Chrétien clan? That is the effect of the work.
Cotler restates that the government has supported and will continue to support Judge Gomery and has opposed and will continue to oppose attempts to delay the commission.
Cotler repeats boilerplate support for Gomery and opposition to delays but does not address the specific claim that the exchange of letters destabilized the judge and reassured the Chrétien clan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we supported Judge Gomery in the past when allegations of bias were levelled against him and we will continue to support him in the future. We opposed attempts to delay the commission and, in the future, we will do so again.
Gauthier asks, citing the June 9 letter in which government counsel opposed Justice Gomery's effort to have the bias matter settled before drafting his report, whether the government will instruct its lawyers to genuinely support Justice Gomery.
Gauthier cites the specific June 9 letter and its content, identifies a direct contradiction between the government's stated position and what its lawyers argued in that letter, and asks the government to instruct its lawyers to actually support Gomery.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice is speaking truthfully, he should admit that the government did such a bad job that it has ended up doing the opposite. That is the exact opposite of what he is saying. In a letter dated June 9, counsel for the government contends that he does not support the action of Judge Gomery, who wants to have the matter of his bias settled before he begins drafting his report. Will the government, which says it supports Judge Gomery, ask its lawyers to really support Judge Gomery, contrary to what it says in the June 9 letter?
Cotler quotes the June 9 letter to assert that the Attorney General's factum vigorously opposed Chrétien's judicial review application and maintained the bias allegation was unfounded.
Cotler quotes the June 9 letter's reference to the factum opposing Chrétien's bias allegation, which partially addresses the substance, but does not acknowledge or resolve the contradiction Gauthier identified regarding the procedural support for Gomery's hearing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to the June 9 letter, the factum presented on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, in response to Mr. Chrétien's request for a judicial review, shows clearly that the government vigorously opposed Mr. Chrétien's request. The Attorney General argues primarily that Mr. Chrétien's allegations of bias are unfounded and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness has always been respected.
Guimond asks how the government can be believed when it publicly says it totally supports Justice Gomery while a June 9 letter from its own lawyers says they cannot support Gomery regarding his federal court hearing.
Guimond cites the June 9 letter and its specific contradiction with the Minister of Public Works's previous day statements, asking how the government can be believed given the inconsistency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that Justice Gomery had the government's support, but he was careful not to tell us that a letter from the government's counsel dated June 9 says the exact opposite, that the government cannot support Justice Gomery regarding his hearing before the federal court. How are we supposed to believe the government when it changes its version every day? On one hand, its own lawyers are saying that they cannot support Justice Gomery, while on the other hand, the government says in this House that it totally supports Justice Gomery.
Brison states the June 9 letter was tabled at the Gomery commission, quotes its language that Chrétien's bias allegation was without merit, and affirms the government supports Justice Gomery's position that he wants standing to make his case.
Brison notes the letter was tabled at the Gomery commission and quotes its language opposing the bias allegation, and adds that the government supports Justice Gomery's standing request, partially engaging the contradiction but not fully resolving it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member refers to the June 9 letter. In fact, the Prime Minister referred to that letter yesterday and it was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday. In that letter, once again, it is clearly stated that the Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that âMr. ChrĂ©tien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. ChrĂ©tien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respectedâ. We support Justice Gomery's work and in fact we support his position that he wants standing in order to make his case. We support that position.
Guimond asks why, if the Prime Minister truly wants to support Justice Gomery in any way he can, he instructed his lawyers to write to Jean Chrétien in a way that reassured Chrétien and unsettled Gomery.
Guimond asks a pointed question about why the Prime Minister instructed lawyers to write to ChrĂ©tien â which reassured ChrĂ©tien and unsettled Gomery â if he truly wants to support Gomery in any way he can.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in one of his rare responses in the House, says he wants to support Justice Gomery in any way he can. If that is the case, then why did he need to instruct his lawyers to write to Jean Chrétien, which reassured the former PM and unsettled Justice Gomery?
Cotler distinguishes between substance and procedure, asserting the government supported Gomery against bias charges on the substance and also supports his procedural hearing before the court.
Cotler distinguishes substance from procedure to claim support on both fronts but does not explain the decision to write to Chrétien or why the lawyers' letter had the effect Guimond described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion between substance and procedure. In terms of substance, we have supported and will continue to support Justice Gomery against any charges of bias. As for procedure, we also support Justice Gomery regarding his hearing before the court.
Layton asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that his government's Kyoto plan has failed over 12 years, citing seven consecutive days of smog and criticism from health experts, 11 environmental organizations, and the Globe and Mail, and when he will bring in a better plan.
Layton references seven days of smog, cites health experts, 11 environmental organizations, and the Globe and Mail as critics of the Kyoto plan, but the ask â 'bring in a better plan' â is vague and the 12-year framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For seven straight days residents of Ontario and Quebec have been choking on smog, not just in southern Ontario but in northern Ontario as well. Health experts, 11 environmental organizations and even the Globe and Mail are saying that the government's Kyoto plan will not do the job. Is the Prime Minister capable of admitting that over 12 years the results have not come about? When is he going to bring in a better plan?
Martin claims the government has one of the best climate change plans among major countries and that the most recent budget was qualified by most environmentalists as perhaps the greenest budget ever.
Martin praises the government's climate change plan and budget as among the best without addressing the specific criticisms from health experts and environmental organizations or committing to any concrete change.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to examine the government's climate change plan or the government's overall environmental thrust, what he will see is one of the best climate change plans of any of the major countries. He will also see that the most recent budget was qualified by most environmentalists as perhaps the greenest budget ever. The reason is that we are very much aware of the environmental problems caused by smog, impure water and impure air. The fact is that this government is dedicated to dealing with those issues.
Layton asks whether the government will finally take concrete action on the Devils Lake situation, which he describes as an imminent environmental crisis threatening Manitoba's water.
Layton raises Devils Lake as a specific and imminent environmental crisis affecting Manitoba's water, asking whether action will follow, but the question is partly rhetorical and the ask is not precisely defined.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of saying that everything is under control, one would think that the government might finally be willing to admit that it is not and take some responsibility, but obviously that is not going to happen. Let us turn to Devils Lake for a moment. Here is an environmental crisis that is about to hit this country. Manitoba's water is about to be polluted. There has been no movement whatsoever on the issue. Are we finally going to get some action on the Devils Lake situation? Or are we just going to get more words about how important it is, but no results?
Dion criticizes an NDP MP for allegedly insulting the United States and says Canada is working hard with American friends to prevent the outlet from opening without proper environmental assessments, but provides no specific action.
Dion does not address Devils Lake or what action the government is taking; instead he pivots to criticizing an unnamed NDP MP for allegedly insulting the United States, making the answer almost entirely a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the leader of the NDP would stand up today and say that he has no link at all with what one of his MPs said, because it is not a time to insult our friends in the United States. It is time to work with them to be sure that the wrong thing will not be done and this outlet will not be opened at a time when there have not been proper environmental assessments. We have a treaty to respect. We are working very hard and we will have results, but with no insults to anyone.
MacKay asks how many Chinese spies have been arrested or deported, citing defector Hao Fengjun's claim of over 1,000 Chinese spies in Canada and a December CSIS warning about economic espionage, and what the government will do to protect Canadian sovereignty and security.
MacKay cites Hao Fengjun by name, references a December CSIS statement, mentions Sidewinder, and poses a specific double ask: how many Chinese spies have been arrested or deported and what will the government do.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Hao Fengjun, a former police officer and Chinese defector, says that China has more than 1,000 spies operating in Canada. Last December, CSIS said that foreign governments were resorting to economic espionage against Canada, and China has been one of the most enterprising in gaining access to information from sensitive industries, including the energy and technology sectors. Sidewinder is another example. The Prime Minister was questioned about this in February. As usual, he refused to act. Can he now tell the House just how many Chinese spies have been arrested or deported? What is he going to do to protect Canadian sovereignty and security?
McLellan declines to discuss operational details of CSIS and offers a general reassurance that CSIS, the RCMP, and other agencies are aware of foreign government activities and take all reasonable and necessary steps to protect Canadian security.
McLellan refuses to discuss operational details of CSIS and offers only a general reassurance that agencies are aware of foreign government activities, without addressing the specific numbers asked or any concrete action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, we are not going to discuss operational details of our intelligence gathering agency, CSIS, in the House or anywhere else. I do want to reassure the hon. member and all Canadians that not only CSIS but the RCMP and other intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies are very much aware of the activities of various foreign governments in this country. We take all steps that are reasonable and necessary to protect not only the security of Canadians, but the economic security of our businesses in this country.
MacKay asks whether the government will request a copy of Hao's Chinese intelligence report about a Falun Gong practitioner from Australian authorities and make a formal request to China to cease and desist in the harassment of Canadian citizens.
MacKay cites a CSIS report on foreign intelligence services manipulating expatriates, names Hao's report given to Australian authorities, and poses two specific asks: request the report from Australia and make a formal request to China to cease harassment of Canadian citizens.
Source text
In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is not very reassuring at all because the government knows the problem is there and yet does nothing. Mr. Hao says that in addition to spying, China is conducting a campaign of intimidation and harassment against Falun Gong members, mainly in Toronto and Vancouver. This action is consistent with a CSIS report that foreign intelligence services manipulate, threaten and exploit expatriates living in Canada. Mr. Hao claims that he has given a Chinese intelligence report about a Falun Gong practitioner in Canada to the Australian authorities. Will our government request a copy of this report from Australia and will it make a formal request to the Chinese government to cease and desist in the harassment of Canadian citizens?
McLellan states awareness of allegations regarding Falun Gong members' rights but declines to discuss operational details, asking MacKay to respect that CSIS cannot function if required to do so.
McLellan again refuses to discuss operational details and does not address either specific request â obtaining Hao's report from Australia or making a formal diplomatic demand to China â offering only awareness of Falun Gong allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of Falun Gong members and some of the allegations and assertions made in relation to their right to peacefully express their points of view and to peacefully associate and demonstrate in this country. However, as I said earlier in response to the first part of the member's question, we do not discuss operational details. I have no intention of doing so now. I would ask the hon. member to respect the fact that agencies like CSIS could not conduct their activities on behalf of Canadians if we were expected to discuss operational details.
Day asks whether the government has called on Chinese officials in Canada to get a full explanation following a second Chinese defector's claim of an operational espionage network on Canadian soil.
Day references a second Chinese defector claiming an operational network on Canadian soil, provides context of earlier dismissal, and poses a direct yes/no ask about whether the government has called on Chinese officials for a full explanation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, when we raised the possibility of Chinese espionage in Canada, the government did not seem concerned in the least. Now a second Chinese defector is claiming that there is an operational network on Canadian soil. Has the government called on Chinese officials here in Canada to get a full explanation, yes or no?
Pettigrew says Canada is always in contact with Chinese officials in the capital and discusses a range of issues including respect for human rights and the right of Canadian citizens to express themselves freely.
Pettigrew says Canada is 'always in touch' with Chinese officials and discusses human rights broadly but does not directly answer whether officials were specifically called in to explain the espionage allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are always in touch with Chinese officials in the capital. We discuss a number of issues relating to the respect for human rights and the right of Canadian citizens to express themselves in the way they want. This is a free country. We will always insist that people are free to do so in this country. This is what we have been expressing to the Chinese officials.
Day asks whether the Prime Minister raised the Chinese espionage allegations at the diplomatic and political level during his January visit to China, explicitly setting aside any CSIS operational matters.
Day explicitly sets aside CSIS operations, focuses the question on whether the Prime Minister raised espionage issues at the diplomatic and political level during his January visit to China, making it a specific and answerable accountability question.
Source text
There was no answer there, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking about the operations of CSIS. If these allegations are true, then clearly this has implications on our security and sovereignty. If the allegations are false, it has implications on our relations with China. When the Prime Minister was in China in January and these allegations were out there, in the interests of Canadian sovereignty, did the Prime Minister raise these issues with officials? We are not talking about CSIS. Did he raise these issues at the diplomatic and political level?
Pettigrew states that Canada never misses an opportunity to discuss issues with Chinese officials and will always ensure the rights of citizens to express themselves are respected in Canada, without addressing the January China visit.
Pettigrew repeats the same boilerplate about always being in touch with Chinese officials and respecting citizens' rights without confirming or denying whether the Prime Minister raised espionage issues during the January China visit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we never lose any opportunity to have discussions with Chinese officials here in this country. We will always ensure that the rights of citizens to express themselves in whatever way they choose will always be respected in Canada.
Why is the government still engaged in fact finding on agent orange testing in Gagetown when compensation claims have existed for 15 years and the toxic nature of agent orange has been well known and documented?
The question cites a specific ministerial statement from the previous day and grounds the challenge in a documented 15-year claims history and known toxicological studies, with a clear implicit ask about why fact-finding is still ongoing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday concerning agent orange testing in Gagetown, New Brunswick during the 1960s, the Minister of National Defence said that what the department is trying to do today is reconstruct the facts, establish the connections, and look at the type of compensation that could be offered those affected. How can the minister explain that the government is still engaged in fact finding when there have been claims for compensation for the past 15 years, and when the highly toxic nature of agent orange has been well known and documented in a number of studies since its use in Vietnam?
The minister says the events date back 45 years, that the government is reconstructing facts and will contact those affected to ensure justice and equity, and that time is needed to proceed properly and scientifically.
The minister repeats the same 'reconstruct the facts' framing from the previous day without addressing the 15-year compensation claims history or the documented science the questioner cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday in the House, these events and the use of these products date back 45 years. We are trying to reconstruct the facts and the consequences. We will be contacting all those affected in order to determine how we can ensure that justice and equity are served in this matter, as we have in numerous other similar cases. We just need the time to see that this is done properly and scientifically.
Once the government knew of the hazards of agent orange, should it not have warned the public of the danger rather than trying to buy time as the victims suffer?
The question raises a legitimate accountability point about the government's obligation to warn the public of hazards, but is framed rhetorically and lacks specific factual grounding beyond what was established in the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as soon as the government was aware of the hazards relating to the use of agent orange, ought it not to have warned the public of the danger it was exposed to, instead of trying to buy time, as the minister is still trying to do, while knowing full well, as in all such cases, that time is never on the side of the victims?
The minister denies any cover-up, notes that the same facts were available during the nine years the Conservatives were in power, and says the government is making an honest effort to find solutions properly and scientifically.
The minister deflects by asserting there was no cover-up and pivoting to the Conservative government's record during the nine years they were in power, without addressing the warning-the-public obligation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have never tried to cover up what happened. We are trying to find out exactly what did happen. As you know, and as I said in the House yesterday, during the nine years the Conservatives were in power, those same facts and the same knowledge of the consequences of past use of those same products were available. We are making a very honest effort at this time to find solutions to an old problem, one that is very significant for members of the forces and of the public. We will do so properly and scientifically.
Will the minister stop hedging and make public the secret report on the contamination of water in the town of Shannon without delay?
The question identifies a specific secret report on water contamination in Shannon and makes a clear, answerable ask â make the report public â while noting the minister's pattern of deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence dodges my question and repeats himself whenever we ask him about the contamination of water in the town of Shannon. He says that drinking water is now available, that the facts need to be determined and responsibility established. However, what the public wants is access to the report the government is keeping under wraps. Will the minister stop hedging and give the public what it wants by making this secret report public? Will he make it public without delay?
The minister says the government has transferred over $34 million to Shannon, connected houses to safe drinking water, and is working to determine the source of contamination and those responsible, doing so properly and scientifically.
The minister provides some relevant financial context ($34 million transferred, houses connected to safe drinking water) but does not address the specific ask about making the secret report public.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have taken action with regard to the town of Shannon. We have transferred over $34 million to this community. We have provided a number of houses with direct access to safe drinking water. We are continuing our efforts and working closely with the community in order to determine, first, the source of the contamination and, second, those responsible. The member is well aware that there are a number of sources. We must do what needs to be done, properly and scientifically.
Does the minister understand that the people of Shannon want access to the report now so they are not told in 20 years that no one knew, as happened with Gagetown?
The question draws a parallel with Gagetown to press urgency about the Shannon report, but the ask is emotionally framed and lacks new factual specificity beyond the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know what the government does when it is the one responsible for this kind of thing: it tries to bury it. We do not want another Gagetown. Does the minister understand that the people of Shannon want access to the report now, because they do not want to be told in 20 years that no one knew?
The minister challenges the claim that the government is trying to bury the issue by citing 161 houses connected to safe drinking water and over $34 million transferred to the community, and says the government is working closely with the community.
The minister pushes back directly on the 'burying' characterization with concrete figures â 161 houses connected, over $34 million transferred â which partially addresses the concern, though still does not address releasing the report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how can the member say that we are trying to bury this when we connected 161 houses to safe drinking water? Furthermore, we have transferred over $34 million to the community. We are working closely with the community and examining all the factors in order to determine the facts and find a solution that is appropriate and fair for the entire community.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead the House by incorrectly claiming the letter to Mr. Chrétien's lawyers said 'We fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report,' when that statement is not in the letter?
The question cites a specific letter, contrasts it with what the Prime Minister said in the House, and makes a focused and answerable accusation that a specific quoted statement is not in the letter to Mr. Chrétien's lawyers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the government misled the House by denying the existence of a secret arrangement with Jean ChrĂ©tien. Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of this arrangement. He incorrectly said that the letter read, âWe fiercely oppose anything that could delay the reportâ. That statement is not in the letter to Mr. ChrĂ©tien's lawyers. Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead the House?
The minister quotes the June 9 letter as saying the Attorney General's principal position was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit, and cites the Ottawa Citizen calling the Conservative position 'beyond absurd.'
The minister quotes a different passage from the June 9 letter rather than addressing whether the Prime Minister's specific quoted statement appears in the letter, and ends with a quote from the Ottawa Citizen dismissing the opposition's position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the June 9 letter in fact does say, âThe Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. ChrĂ©tien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. ChrĂ©tien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respectedâ. Further, today's Ottawa Citizen said this about the Conservative Party's position: The notion, retailed by [the Leader of the Opposition], that this correspondence reveals a plot between [the Prime Minister] and his predecessor to delay Gomery's report, and, hence, the date of the next election, is beyond absurd.
Why does the government's letter in fact give Mr. Chrétien the green light to prevent Mr. Justice Gomery from reporting his findings, contrary to the Prime Minister's characterization?
The question persists on the specific letter and asks why it gives Mr. Chrétien a green light to prevent Mr. Justice Gomery from reporting his findings, but relies more on assertion than on citing specific letter text.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is absurd is that answer. Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of a letter outlining the secret arrangements between Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal government. He claimed it defended Gomery. This is not the case. Why does the government's letter in fact give Mr. Chrétien the green light to prevent Mr. Justice Gomery from reporting his findings?
The minister again quotes the June 9 letter's passage on the Attorney General's principal position regarding Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias, and asserts that Canadians know the Prime Minister and the government support the work of Justice Gomery.
The minister simply repeats verbatim the same passage quoted in Exchange 20 and adds a condescending aside, without addressing the specific claim that the letter gave Mr. Chrétien a green light to prevent Gomery from reporting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister read from a June 9 letter that was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday and has been tabled in the House. The letter said, and I will speak very slowly so that the hon. member can understand it. Once again, âThe Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. ChrĂ©tien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. ChrĂ©tien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respectedâ. I hope he gets it now because Canadians get it. Canadians know that the Prime Minister and the government support the work of Justice Gomery.
Why did the minister's director of communications, Ms. Susan Murray, falsely advise media that the cost of Gomery was over $70 million on the same day Mr. Chrétien filed his motion to quash Justice Gomery, and why is the government doing everything in its power to discredit Justice Gomery?
The question names a specific official (Ms. Susan Murray), cites a specific false figure ($70 million), and links the timing of her calls to Mr. Chrétien's motion to quash, making a focused accountability ask about coordinated action to discredit Justice Gomery.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, day after day the Minister of Public Works has stood in the House pretending to defend Justice Gomery. We now know that the minister's director of communications, Ms. Susan Murray, falsely advised members of the media that the cost of Gomery was over $70 million. We also know that she made these false allegations on the same day that Jean Chrétien filed his motion to quash Justice Gomery. Clearly, there is a coordinated effort between the government and Jean Chrétien to discredit Justice Gomery. Why is the government doing everything in its power to discredit Justice Gomery and why is it not wanting to find out the truth?
The minister says the costs in the range of $69 million to $70 million include direct costs and departmental cooperation costs covering 20 million pages of documents, and asserts the government is absolutely committed to working with Justice Gomery.
The minister addresses the $70 million figure by explaining it includes departmental cooperation costs and 20 million pages of documents, which is partial engagement with the factual basis but does not address the communications director's specific actions or their timing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the costs of Justice Gomery are in fact in the range of $69 million to $70 million. Those costs include not just the direct costs of Justice Gomery but also the costs involved with the departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and the coordination of, for instance, 20 million pages of documents that have been provided to Gomery. We are absolutely committed to working with Justice Gomery. We want Justice Gomery to succeed. That is one of the reasons why Canadians support the Liberals and not the Conservatives. Canadians want Justice Gomery to succeed as well and they trust our government and our Prime Minister to ensure that Gomery succeeds.
Will the minister confirm that his director of communications placed phone calls to the media stating the cost of Gomery was $70 million, and that she made these calls on the same day Mr. Chrétien filed his motion to quash Gomery?
The question cites Justice Gomery's own confirmed cost figure of $30 million, contrasts it with the $70 million figure, and makes two specific confirming asks about the communications director's phone calls and their timing relative to Mr. Chrétien's motion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am totally amazed at the ability of the minister to give that answer with a straight face. Justice Gomery himself has confirmed that the cost of his inquiry will only be $30 million or in that range. The rest of the money is money that the government spent on a war room. Will the minister, however, confirm that his director of communications placed phone calls to the media stating that the cost of Gomery was $70 million? Will he further confirm that she made these phone calls on the same day Mr. Chrétien filed his motion to quash Gomery? Members of the media who received those phone calls will be very interested in the minister's response.
The minister does not confirm the phone calls, instead restating that Justice Gomery's direct costs plus departmental cooperation costs will reach the $70 million range, and says changing the culture of government is worth the cost.
The minister does not confirm or deny the communications director's phone calls or their timing, instead restating the departmental cooperation cost explanation and pivoting to a partisan broadside about the opposition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Canadians are always interested in the response of any minister of the government because Canadians know that when ministers of the government rise to give answers in the House of Commons, we do so seriously, in the interests of Canadians, and based on facts, unlike the opposition. Justice Gomery's direct costs and the costs involved with government departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery, and coordinating over 20 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents going back to 1994, will reach the $70 million range. That is well worth the cost. Changing the culture of government for generations is worth the cost.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48, given the Bloc's vote against it?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to clarify how Quebec benefits from Bill C-48, framed as an implicit attack on the Bloc.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Bloc Québécois joined with the Conservatives to delete all the clauses of Bill C-48. In voting with the Conservatives against C-48, the Bloc voted against additional funding for Quebec in areas that are very important to many Quebeckers. Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48?
The minister says the Bloc's position is incomprehensible and indefensible, citing post-secondary education funding for students, additional support for affordable housing through FRAPRU, and support for Transport 2000 as benefits Quebec would lose.
The minister provides specific examples of Quebec stakeholders who would benefit â students, FRAPRU for affordable housing, Transport 2000 â making it a substantive if partisan answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position on Bill C-48 is not only incomprehensible but indefensible, because it will deprive individuals and institutions in Quebec of the support they need. How will students be told there will be no extra help for them with post-secondary education? How will FRAPRU be told that it will no longer get additional support for affordable housing? How will Transport 2000 be told that it will get no extra help? The Liberal Government of Canada will helpâ
Will the Minister of National Defence show up and act on the cleanup of contaminated radar bases on the James Bay coast, given that the Cree leadership is demanding action and the province of Ontario is willing to pay 50% of the cost?
The question identifies a specific community (Mushkegowuk Cree), a specific problem (contaminated hunting grounds on radar bases), a specific provincial offer (50% cost-sharing), and makes a direct ask about whether the minister will engage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence of his obligation to the people of the James Bay coast. Forty years is a long time for the Mushkegowuk Cree to wait for the government to come back and clean up the mess it left on the radar bases. I have met with the families who live with badly contaminated hunting grounds. Nobody told them of the danger and nobody did anything to clean up the mess. The Cree leadership is demanding action. We have the provincial government at the table willing to pay 50% of the cost of the federal government's mess. It is waiting on the minister. Is he going to show up?
The minister says the lands were transferred to Ontario in 1965 and managed by the province since then, but notes the federal government is working with Ontario on specific environmental cleanup activities at the sites at the province's request.
The minister provides the relevant context that the lands were transferred to Ontario in 1965 and are the province's responsibility, and notes the federal government is working with the province on cleanup â partial engagement that shifts but does not fully dismiss the accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to lands that were transferred to the province of Ontario in 1965 and have been managed by the province since 1965, not by this department and not by the federal government but by the province of Ontario. At the request of the province, we are working with it to deal with specific environmental cleanup activities at the sites. We are discussing with the province how we can deal with this matter, but it is totally erroneous to suggest to the House that we are not working on this. The House must bear in mind that these lands were transferred to the province for its responsibility in 1965.
Why is the government giving $13 million in subsidization to the Ambassador Bridge for customs officers while denying the same treatment to a border ferry service a kilometre away, and will the Deputy Prime Minister address this?
The question cites a Senate committee report, identifies specific figures ($13 million subsidization for the Ambassador Bridge), contrasts that with a denied ferry service, and begins a direct ask of the Deputy Prime Minister â though the question is cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a Senate committee report today once again condemns the Liberal government's inaction on our borders. In particular, it noted many of the problems in the Windsor-Detroit corridor and the fact that national security and economic prosperity has been compromised by government dithering. This year alone, the Ambassador Bridge is going to receive $13 million in subsidization for customs officers and staffing. Meanwhile, just a kilometre down the river, the government is denying a border ferry service, with a similar small operation, the same treatment. It also is denying the community a solution to many of the problems we have. This has been in the courts for five years. Will the Deputy Prime Minister--
The Deputy Prime Minister says the specific situation referred to is before the courts and it would be inappropriate to comment further, but affirms that the government recognizes the critical importance of the Windsor-Detroit crossing and is working with multiple partners.
The Deputy Prime Minister notes the matter is before the courts and therefore declines to comment on the specific ferry service issue, then pivots to general comments about the importance of the Windsor-Detroit crossing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member knows that in relation to the situation to which he has just referred, this is a matter before the courts. The parties are in discussions around this matter and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. However, as it relates to Windsor-Detroit, both on our side and on the American side, we are very aware of just how critically important this crossing is to the economic lifeblood of this nation. This is why my colleague, the secretary responsible for homeland security and myself, as well as the state of Michigan, the province of Ontario and my colleague, the Minister of Transport, are all working together to ensure we have--
When will the government stop giving aid to communist China, given its abysmal human rights record, its purchase of Canadian companies, and confirmation that China has a thousand spies operating in Canada?
The question cites a claimed figure of a thousand spies and raises the human rights record, but combines multiple issues and the ask ('stop giving one red cent') is broad and rhetorical rather than sharply focused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the government why it was giving aid to China, given the country's record of operating a spy network in Canada, but I received no clear answer. Canada has no reason to be giving aid to China. First, its human rights record is abysmal and, second, it does not need the money. It is buying up Canadian companies. Today it has been confirmed that China has a thousand spies operating in Canada. When will the government stop giving one red cent to communist China?
The minister states the Government of Canada does not give any money directly to the government of China, and instead engages China through Simon Fraser University, the Alberta Research Council, and the Canadian Bar Association to build human rights legislation capacity.
The minister directly corrects the premise that money goes to the government of China, specifies that funding goes through Simon Fraser University, the Alberta Research Council, and the Canadian Bar Association, and explains the purpose as building human rights capacity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have advised the House in the past, and I repeat again, the Government of Canada does not give any money directly to the government of China. Instead, we are engaging the government of China, helping it to build its human rights legislation and to grow its capacity. In that regard we are working with Simon Fraser University, the Alberta Research Council and the Canadian Bar Association setting up legal aid clinics for women in the poorest of the poor areas.
Why does the CIDA website list the China Feed Industry Centre project as giving money to the Chinese government's ministry of agriculture, contradicting the minister's claim that no money goes to the Chinese government?
The question cites the CIDA website's own listing of the China Feed Industry Centre project and the reference to the Chinese government's ministry of agriculture, making a specific and factually grounded challenge to the minister's prior denial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the article today in the Globe in Mail mentions the systematic use of torture, so I suggest to you that your plan is not working.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I will suggest to the government that its plan is not working. I will help the minister with some more facts from her website. The CIDA website lists a project entitled, China Feed Industry Centre. Her own website says that it is giving money to the Chinese government's ministry of agriculture. Why are the Liberals giving tax dollars to the Chinese government, a government that is violating Canadian sovereignty and security by operating a massive spy network here in Canada?
The minister explains that the approximately $38 million figure the questioner cited represents the sum total of all development programs taking place in China carried out by agencies, not money directed directly to the government of China, and clarifies that 'bilateral' means between two countries, not direct government-to-government transfers.
The minister explains that the approximately $38 million figure represents the sum total of all development programs in China carried out by agencies, not money directed to the government of China, and clarifies the meaning of 'bilateral aid' â a substantive if incomplete rebuttal of the specific website citation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week in question period the hon. member, the new critic, tabled a statistical report on official development assistance from my agency. While well-meaning, she mistook the figure of approximately $38 million as moneys being directed directly to the government of China. What that figure represents is the sum total of all of the development programs taking place in China but those are carried out by agencies such as Simon Fraser University and the Canadian Bar Association. The term represents the total of bilateral aid and that, as opposed to multilateral, means between two countries.
Will the public works minister confirm that it was his communications director who phoned the media with misleading information about the cost of Justice Gomery's commission, given that Judge Gomery himself called those figures 'an exaggeration and it's twisting reality'?
The question cites a specific May 23 statement by Judge Gomery, quotes him directly calling the cost figures 'an exaggeration and it's twisting reality,' and asks the minister to confirm whether his communications director was the source of the misleading information â highly specific and grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on May 23, Judge Gomery said that government officials had âleakedâ misleading information about the cost of his commission. He said: --it's an exaggeration and it's twisting reality. He further said: What they did was...put together the fees of everyone in the Justice Department that worked on the file, the photocopies...and God knows what other expenses that were totally beyond the commission's control. Will the public works minister confirm that it was his communications director who phoned the media with this misleading information to discredit Judge Gomery?
The minister does not confirm or deny the communications director's role, instead restating that costs include direct Gomery work, departmental cooperation including 20 million pages of documents, and legal representation for parties before the commission including the Conservative Party and the Bloc.
The minister does not confirm or deny whether his communications director was the source, instead restating the departmental cooperation cost explanation already given in prior exchanges and adding a note about legal representation for parties including the Conservative Party.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to the contrary. I have responded to this question in the House in the past and I have explained that part of the costs are those directly applicable to the direct work of Justice Gomery. The rest of those costs involve a wide range of government departments that are cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and providing the levels of vast information and cooperation that is required. Furthermore, some of those costs involve legal representation for parties before the Gomery commission, including the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc, because we are interested in showing fairness and that Canadians have the truth. We support the work of Justice Gomery.
Why did the minister dispatch his communications director to spread misleading and false information about the cost of Justice Gomery's commission, and why is the commissioner so upset with the government for having done so?
The question directly cites the commissioner's characterization ('an exaggeration and a twisting of reality') and makes a focused ask about why the minister dispatched his communications director to spread information the commissioner himself deemed misleading.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is some way of supporting him. The judge himself says that what the minister just represented is âan exaggeration and a twisting of realityâ. What I would like to know is why the minister dispatched his communications director to spread what is, according to the commissioner, misleading and false information about the cost of his commission. Why did he use his communications director to undermine the commissioner and why is the commissioner so upset with the government for having done so?
The minister makes a personal remark about the questioner, says the figures were covered in the government estimates, and asserts that the government supports Justice Gomery by providing financial resources and full cooperation.
The minister opens with a personal attack on the questioner's physical activity, then pivots to government estimates and general support for Justice Gomery without addressing the specific question about the communications director's actions or the commissioner's stated upset.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only cardiovascular exercise that hon. member is getting is his huffing and puffing on the floor of the House of Commons, which is of no benefit to Canadians. These figures were covered thoroughly in the government estimates. It is there for everybody to see. Beyond that, it is clear that we support the work of Justice Gomery. It is important that we provide him with the financial resources he needs to get the job done, and we are ensuring he has those resources, that full cooperation and that support so Canadians can have the truth. We support Justice Gomery. The Conservatives are trying to misrepresent Justice Gomery.
Will the government follow the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade's unanimously adopted recommendation to increase aid by 12â15% annually to reach 0.5% of GNP by 2010 and 0.7% by 2015, and will it table such a plan?
Cites a specific committee report, a specific unanimous recommendation, and specific numeric targets (12â15% annual increase, 0.5% of GNP by 2010, 0.7% by 2015) with a clear, answerable ask about government intentions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented its report to the House on Monday. One of the recommendations in the report, which was unanimously adopted, reiterates the UN objective and calls for Canada to commit immediately, through a plan, to increase its aid budget by 12% to 15% annually to achieve an aid level of 0.5% of GNP by 2010 and 0.7% by 2015. Can the government tell us if it intends to follow the committee's recommendations and will it table such a plan?
The government is committed to increasing its aid budget by a minimum of 8% per year, last year's increase was 30%, and Canada fulfils its commitments but will not make one it cannot keep.
Provides a concrete commitment (8% annual increase) and cites last year's 30% increase, but does not directly address the committee's specific recommendation of 12â15% annually or commit to tabling a plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to increasing its aid budget by a minimum of 8% per year and we are committed to doing that well out in excess of 2010. In fact, the increase last year was 30% and that shows the commitment of the government to continue to assign to development assistance a higher percentage than to any other department of government. We keep in mind our international reputation of always fulfilling our commitments but we will not make one unless we can.
Given that even with the $500 million in Bill C-48 Canada would only reach 0.7% of GNP in 2028 at best or 2035 otherwise, does the government understand it must implement the committee's recommendations to reach 0.7% by 2015?
Provides specific projections (0.7% of GNP reached in 2028 at best or 2035 otherwise) grounded in Bill C-48 figures, and poses a clear yes/no challenge about implementing the committee's recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am asking. Even with the $500 million set out in Bill C-48, Canada will achieve 0.7% of GNP only in 2028, at best, if those are recurring funds. Otherwise, that objective will not be reached until 2035. Does the government understand that if it wants to achieve 0.7% in a realistic timeframe, that is, by 2015, it must implement the committee's recommendations?
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I can yell louder than they can.
The minister attacks the Bloc for voting against Bill C-48 and the $500,000 (sic) that would come to her budget, saying she can add very little wisdom to the issue from that point of departure.
Completely deflects by attacking the Bloc for voting against Bill C-48 and makes an error on the dollar figure ($500,000 vs. $500 million), never engaging with the 2015 timeline or committee recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am at an utter loss because it was that party, that critic and that member who all joined together to vote against the $500,000 that would come to my budget as a result of Bill C-48. If that is their point of departure I can add very little wisdom to the whole issue.
Given that the Ontario Medical Association says 6,000 people will die prematurely in Ontario this year due to smog, what does the minister plan to do to clean up dirty air beyond announcing a new website on Clean Air Day?
Cites a specific Ontario Medical Association statistic (6,000 premature deaths), references a specific ministerial action (new website on Clean Air Day), but the ask is broad and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Medical Association says that 6,000 people will die prematurely in Ontario this year due to smog and the government is doing nothing about it. During Clean Air Day, all the environment minister did was announce the formation of a new website. We can imagine the disappointment people in Toronto felt when they realized just how little the government was doing. What does the minister plan to do to clean up our dirty air?
The minister cites Bill C-49 and a 10-year clean air agenda claiming 90% smog emission decreases, while accusing the Conservative Party of opposing environmental measures.
Cites Bill C-49 (which the next exchange reveals does not exist), claims 90% smog emission decreases, and pivots to attacking the Conservative Party, without addressing the specific OMA statistic or the website criticism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have introduced Bill C-49, which that party is opposing because that party has never requested a penny for the environment since the beginning of the budgetary process. Canada is now implementing the toughest targets regarding clean air in order to decrease smog. Smog emissions are decreasing by 90% because of our 10-year clean air agenda. We are now at mid-term and we will continue with our agenda. We need those things to be stopped by the Conservative Party that does not care at all about the environment.
With greenhouse gases increasing every year and the OECD ranking Canada 28th out of 29 in terms of environmental integrity, when will the minister put the health of Canadians ahead of his own environmental drivel?
Cites a specific OECD ranking (28th out of 29 in environmental integrity) and raises greenhouse gas increases, but the question blends substantive facts with rhetorical framing and personal attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even know the bill number. There is no Bill C-49. That is how much he knows and is doing about the environment. Just ask the parents who have just had their child diagnosed with chronic asthma what they think of answers like that. Greenhouse gases are increasing every year. The OECD now ranks us 28th out of 29 in terms of environmental integrity. The minister sets up a website in order to accomplish this. When will the minister put the health of Canadians ahead of his own environmental drivel?
The minister states that 30 environmental groups wrote to all party leaders urging approval of measures for the Kyoto protocol introduced in the February budget, and calls on members to vote for Bill C-49.
Repeats the reference to Bill C-49 (which the questioner had just noted does not exist) and cites a letter from 30 environmental groups, without addressing the OECD ranking or greenhouse gas increases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 30 environmental groups wrote to all the leaders of this House calling on all parties to put aside their differences long enough to ensure that the measures that are necessary for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol introduced in the February budget were approved by Parliament without delay. If those members have a little sense of responsibility they will vote for Bill C-49.
Would the Minister of Health inform the House about steps the government is taking to address registration and disclosure of clinical trial information?
This is a government-backbench softball setup with no accountability dimension, simply inviting the minister to announce a policy on clinical trial registration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about making informed decisions regarding their health, especially when it comes to medications to treat disease and illness. Canadians need to be sure that the medicines they are taking have been tested and approved through a strict and effective clinical trial process. Would the Minister of Health please inform the House about the steps that the government is taking to address the issue of registration and disclosure of clinical trial information?
On June 8 the minister announced the first phase of consultations on registration and full disclosure of clinical trial information; a public workshop is being held today in Ottawa with others to follow in Halifax and Vancouver next week.
Provides specific information: a June 8 announcement, consultations on registration and full disclosure of clinical trial information, a workshop in Ottawa today, and upcoming sessions in Halifax and Vancouver, with mention of privacy and commercial confidentiality considerations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on June 8, I announced the first phase of consultations on the registration and full disclosure of clinical trial information. That is in keeping with the issue around transparency, accountability and openness in my department. The consultations follow the commitment I made since becoming Minister of Health. Today in Ottawa, the first public workshop will be held and others will follow in Halifax and Vancouver next week. We are moving in this direction, while taking into account personal privacy and commercial confidentiality.
Will the minister commit to creating a truly independent commissioner to investigate disclosures of corruption, as recommended by every expert and stakeholder consulted on Bill C-11?
Identifies a specific bill (Bill C-11), notes it is bogged down in committee, cites a specific consensus of experts and stakeholders, and asks a clear yes/no commitment question about an independent commissioner.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for two years this government has dragged its feet on the need to protect public servants who expose corruption. Bill C-11 is bogged down in committee because it ignores the recommendations of every expert and stakeholder. They all agree that an independent commissioner is an essential part of effective whistleblower legislation. Will the minister commit here and now to creating a truly independent commissioner to investigate disclosures of corruption?
The minister accuses the member of focusing on sound bites rather than content, notes he will be at committee tomorrow to discuss the item, and suggests the member has had time to provide input but has not done so.
Dismisses the question as a sound bite, notes the minister will be at committee tomorrow, but does not commit to or reject an independent commissioner, and misstates the bill's stage (says first reading when it is in committee).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the member spent as much time focusing on the content of the bill as he does on his sound bite we would be further along with this. As he knows, I will be at the committee tomorrow to discuss this very item. However, given that the bill is at first reading, he has had the opportunity to have this input for some time but has not chosen to take advantage of it.
Why does the minister refuse to commit to creating an independent agency to investigate disclosures of corruption under the whistleblower legislation?
Presses the specific point about an independent agency with a direct challenge, but is largely a restatement of the previous question without new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the agency responsible for investigating disclosures of corruption must be completely independent from government. If the minister continues to refuse to commit to creating an independent agency, it is because he has not resolved to protect whistleblowers. Why does the minister not want to create an independent agency to investigate disclosures of corruption?
The minister declines to negotiate legislation during question period and states that the Prime Minister has taken the position from the beginning that Canada will have the most robust piece of whistleblowing legislation of any country in the world.
Repeats the advice to discuss the matter in committee, avoids any commitment on independence, and pivots to a broad claim that the government will have the most robust whistleblowing legislation of any country in the world.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the member would spend some time in committee focusing on the content of the bill we could have this discussion. To try to negotiate legislation during question period is not the most effective way to do it. The Prime Minister has taken the position from the beginning that we will have the most robust piece of whistleblowing legislation than any other country in this world.
This exchange contains only procedural acclamations from hon. members acknowledging a presence in the gallery, with no question asked and no ministerial response given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!
Minister of International Cooperation Aileen Carroll rose on a point of order to correct an error from her earlier reply, clarifying that she had incorrectly said $500,000 when she should have said $500 million â the amount that would come to the Canadian aid budget through Bill C-48.
- Lib Aileen Carroll
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct my reply to the critic from the Bloc. I referred to a number that is incorrect. In fact, the Bloc is not supporting the government by refusing to vote for Bill C-48, and therefore $500 million, one half a billion dollars, would not be able to come to the Canadian aid budget. I made the comment, $500,000. My apologies.
Mr. Jason Kenney (CPC) raised a point of order requesting that the Prime Minister table a document from which he had quoted the previous day during oral questions, noting that 24 hours had passed since the government House leader indicated translation was needed.
- CPC Mr. Jason Kenney
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, you may recall that yesterday, following oral questions, I inquired as to whether the right hon. Prime Minister would table a document from which he had cited. He did not do so. The government House leader indicated that time was required to translate the document. As 24 hours have passed, I wonder if the translation is now complete and if he could please table the document from which the Prime Minister quoted yesterday.