Session overview
- Criminal justice dominated Question Period, with CPC and BQ members pressing the government on temporary releases to Wonderland, house arrest for drug dealers, crystal meth proliferation, conditional sentencing, and bail reform, while ministers cited ongoing reviews and Standing Committee referrals.
- Federal-provincial tensions over child care occupied multiple exchanges, with BQ members citing Quebec Liberal ministers Pelletier and Béchard to argue Ottawa was imposing conditions on transfers and threatening provincial jurisdiction.
- Quebec's international role was debated in foreign affairs exchanges, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointing to the UNESCO cultural diversity treaty as a model of federal-provincial collaboration, while BQ members pressed for direct Quebec participation on the world stage.
- Ethics and lobbying came under scrutiny through two separate lines of questioning targeting Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney's unregistered lobbying for Canadian Satellite Radio and a sole-source contract linked to the family of the MP for Pontiac.
- A public health emergency at Kashechewan First Nation, where the entire community declared a state of emergency over e-coli contamination of drinking water, was raised by Jim Prentice, with the minister confirming the Minister of Indian Affairs was travelling to the community and that 26,000 litres of bottled water had been shipped.
- Proposed changes to the Competition Act, including a Petroleum Monitoring Agency and stronger fining powers for predatory pricing and criminal price-fixing conspiracies, were outlined by the Minister of Industry in response to a question on gasoline pricing.
The minister confirmed concrete government actions already taken — dispatch of certified water treatment operators, stabilization of the disinfection system, elimination of bacterial risk in treated water, and shipment of 26,000 litres of bottled water — and committed that the Minister of Indian Affairs was personally travelling to Kashechewan, giving the House specific, verifiable information about an ongoing emergency.
Lists specific access requests by category (inmate phone call monitoring system, drug scanners and scan results, drug scanner and drug dog procedures) and asks precisely why this security information is being given to inmates.
McLellan's entire answer — 'to the best of my knowledge, none of that sensitive information is available to any prison inmate within the federal correction system' — flatly contradicted the specific documented examples raised by MacKay without engaging any of the named details or committing to investigate.
Outstanding questions
- Stephen Harper (Exchange 1) asked why the minister did not know that hard core criminals received travel permits to Wonderland on at least nine occasions, as confirmed by the York region police chief — McLellan said she was investigating but gave no explanation for the knowledge gap.
- Peter MacKay (Exchange 13) asked why specific security-related information — including details on the inmate phone call monitoring system, drug scanners, and drug dog procedures — was being released to inmates under access to information laws, and received only a blanket denial without addressing the named documents.
- Betty Hinton (Exchange 22) asked whether the Prime Minister would welcome convicted pedophile David James Caza — who had 42 convictions and was assessed as high risk to re-offend — as a resident in his riding, pointing to the absence of effective parole conditions; the minister redirected to the Standing Committee without addressing the specific case.
- Michael Chong (Exchange 28) asked how the Prime Minister reconciles his promise that Ottawa would no longer be about 'who do you know in the PMO' with Richard Mahoney attending a cocktail party at 24 Sussex with Canadian Satellite Radio supporters just before cabinet ruled in favour of Mahoney's client — the government house leader answered only with a list of unrelated ethics measures.
- Christiane Gagnon (Exchange 18) asked why, after 16 months and a firm election promise, the child care funding arrangement with Quebec remained unsettled with no strings attached — Robillard confirmed negotiations were ongoing but did not explain the delay or address the broken promise.
Harper asks how the minister could be unaware that hard-core criminals received travel permits to Wonderland on at least nine occasions this summer, citing the York region police chief.
Cites a specific official (York region police chief), a specific number (nine occasions), a specific venue (Wonderland), and a specific season (this summer), making it a well-grounded accountability question with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about convicted criminals getting passes to children's theme parks. She told the House she did not know whether this was happening. Yet a Correctional Service Canada official says it happens all the time. In fact, the York region police chief says that hard core criminals on no less than nine occasions got travel permits to Wonderland this summer. How can the minister not have a clue that this sort of thing is going on in her own department?
McLellan says the allegations were not known to her, that she has asked Correctional Service Canada to investigate, and that temporary releases are always subject to conditions.
McLellan acknowledges the gap in her knowledge, confirms she has asked Correctional Service Canada to investigate, and explains the conditional-release framework, but does not address why she was unaware or provide any substantive new information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the allegations made by the chief of police were not known to me. I asked Correctional Service Canada to follow up on this, and it is investigating the matter. Temporary releases are provided from facilities such as halfway houses. They always are provided on conditions. I have asked Correctional Service Canada to follow up on the specific allegation that the chief has made. However, I also call upon the chief and would ask the chief to provide me with any specific information or facts he has.
Harper, quoting the Ontario police chiefs president, argues that conditional sentences, house arrest, earned sentence protocols, and weekend passes do not deter serious offenders and asks when the government will act.
Quotes the Ontario police chiefs president and lists specific sentence types, but the ask—'when is the minister going to get it?'—is rhetorical and unanswerable as a specific policy commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister's job is to know that this happens and to ensure that it never happens in the first place. The president of the Ontario police chiefs said, “Conditional and intermittent sentences, house arrest, 2 for 1 and 3 for 1 earned sentence protocols, mandatory parole and weekend passes to local theme parks do little to dissuade murderers, marijuana grow operators, ecstasy manufacturers, carjackers, child molesters and others from committing these horrific crimes”. Everyone else in the country knows being soft of crime does not work. When is the minister and the government going to get it?
McLellan states the transcendent objective of corrections is public safety and says she has referred both the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and parole legislation to the Standing Committee on Justice for review.
McLellan states public safety is the fundamental objective, mentions she has referred both the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and parole legislation to the Standing Committee on Justice, which is partial but relevant context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I made plain yesterday, the purpose of our corrections system and our parole system, the transcendent and fundamental objective of that system, is public safety. I also have suggested that it is time for us to review both our Corrections and Conditional Release Act and our parole legislation. That is why I have referred both to the Standing Committee on Justice. If the opposition does not have any views on that and want to leave it up to us to look at the reform of those legislations, then we will do that. However, in the name of democracy--
Harper cites the Vancouver Board of Trade's warning that crime is damaging Vancouver's economy and Vancouver Police Chief Graham's statement that federal laws allow thieves to reoffend on bail repeatedly, asking when the government will act after 12 years.
Cites the Vancouver Board of Trade and Vancouver Police Chief Graham with a specific claim about bail reoffending, but the question is cut off and combines multiple grievances without a single answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister started both these answers with this cute little smirk. When I take my family to Wonderland and other families, there is nothing funny about it. The Vancouver Board of Trade has said that crime is so bad in Vancouver that it is doing damage—
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, talk about a bunch of people who just do not get it. Yesterday the Vancouver Board of Trade said that crime is so bad in Vancouver it is doing damage to the economy of the city. Vancouver Police Chief Graham says federal laws allow thieves to reoffend and they get bail again and again and again. When is the government, after 12 years—
Cotler asserts Canada has some of the most stringent penalties in the world and says notice has been given regarding reform of the conditional sentencing regime and a bail review reform under the federal-provincial-territorial conference.
Cotler claims Canada has some of the most stringent penalties in the world and references a conditional sentencing regime reform and a bail review reform under the federal-provincial-territorial conference, but does not address the Vancouver-specific claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the opposition does not take note of the fact that we have some of the most stringent penalties in the world right now. We have given notice both with regard to the reform of the conditional sentencing regime and with respect to the inquiry now with regard to bail review reform under the federal-provincial-territorial conference.
Harper quotes Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs calling fiscal imbalance, federal spending power, and the national interest concept threats, and asks whether the Prime Minister will respect Quebec's jurisdiction over child care with no strings attached.
Cites a specific statement by Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs naming three specific threats (fiscal imbalance, federal spending power, national interest concept) and asks a clear yes/no jurisdictional question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to take that seriously. On a different topic, it is clear that the federal government intends to impose its conditions on Quebec with respect to the child care program. Yesterday, Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that “The use of the federal spending power is a threat. The fiscal imbalance is a threat. And now, there is a third threat: the concept of national interest”. In support of the true national interest, will the Prime Minister respect Quebec's jurisdiction over child care, no strings attached?
Robillard says only that the government will work together with all provinces for the well-being of children in the national interest.
Robillard gives a vague one-sentence platitude about working together in the national interest without addressing Quebec's jurisdiction, the no-strings-attached ask, or the minister's specific concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the national interest, we will work together with all the provinces for the well-being of our children in this country.
Harper argues the Prime Minister previously called Quebec's child care program a success and that the federal government is now seeking confrontation in provincial jurisdiction, asking whether the Prime Minister realizes this threatens national unity.
References the Prime Minister's own prior praise of Quebec's child care model and raises national unity, but the question is broad and combines corruption rhetoric with a policy ask in a way that dilutes its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister himself who said that the child care program in Quebec was a success story. Now, it is time the federal government respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Corruption in this federal government has already sullied the reputation of federalism in Quebec. Still, this government is seeking confrontation with the Government of Quebec in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Does the Prime Minister realize that this bad habit is a threat to national unity?
Robillard calls it totally irresponsible to link the child care initiative to corruption, states the Prime Minister called Quebec's model an innovative inspiration for other provinces, and says the government will respect what Quebec does.
Robillard attacks Harper for using the word 'corruption' in connection with child care and notes the Prime Minister called Quebec's model innovative, but does not address the confrontation-with-Quebec or national-unity substance of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to be a responsible leader in this country, is going to use the word “corruption” in connection with just about anything, even a national child care initiative, then he is not fulfilling his duties properly. That is what I believe. It is totally irresponsible to make a connection between this initiative and what is being done in terms of child care in Quebec. The Prime Minister said that it was an innovative model, which is an inspiration for the other provinces, and we are going to respect exactly what Quebec does.
Duceppe asks how the Prime Minister explains that Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Mr. Pelletier, a Liberal, sees the federal government's attitude on fiscal imbalance, spending power, national interest, and Quebec's international role as threats to Quebec's jurisdiction.
Duceppe names a specific federalist Liberal Quebec minister (Mr. Pelletier) and lists four specific areas of disagreement, making it a well-grounded question with a clear ask about the Prime Minister's explanation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister and the Prime Minister hold completely different views of Ottawa-Quebec relations. The Quebec minister feels that the Liberal government's attitude is a threat to Quebec's jurisdiction. He has, moreover, given four examples of this threat: fiscal imbalance, federal spending power, the new concept of national interest and Quebec's place on the international scene. How can the Prime Minister explain that the opinion of the minister, Mr. Pelletier, Liberal though he may be, differs completely from his, as far as Ottawa-Quebec relations are concerned?
Martin points to 45 agreements signed with Quebec this year alone and 67 last year as proof of how well Canada and Quebec are working together.
Martin cites 45 agreements signed with Quebec this year and 67 last year as evidence federalism is working, which is a relevant factual counter but does not explain the substantive disagreement with Minister Pelletier on the four specific points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the agreements signed with Quebec, 45 of them this year alone. They show how well federalism is working. Last year, there were 67 agreements signed between Quebec and the Government of Canada. That is further proof of how well we are able to work together. All I ask of the leader and chief of staff of the Bloc Québécois is that he have a proper look at what we are doing. He ought to then realize that Canada and the Government of Quebec are in—
Duceppe quotes Quebec Liberal minister Pelletier that 'the national interest must not be confused with the federal interest' and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes he is confusing those two concepts when using national interest to justify involvement in child care.
Duceppe directly quotes Minister Pelletier's distinction between 'national interest' and 'federal interest' and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes he is doing exactly what Pelletier criticizes, grounding it in a named federalist source.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will quote the words of Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Pelletier, a Liberal, on this new federal doctrine. He said, “the national interest must not be confused with the federal interest”. When the Prime Minister uses the national interest as his reason for interfering with child care, does he not realize he is doing exactly what the Quebec minister is faulting him for: confusing national interest with that of the Liberal government? Those are not my words, but the words of a good Quebec federalist.
Oh, oh!
Robillard says the very existence of the Bloc Québécois is the worst threat to national unity, notes the Bloc does not speak for the federalist Quebec government, and cites the 1998 child tax benefit as precedent for federal involvement with children.
Robillard attacks the Bloc Québécois as the worst threat to national unity and pivots to the 1998 child tax benefit under a PQ government, entirely avoiding the Pelletier quote and the national-interest-versus-federal-interest distinction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the very existence of the Bloc Québécois is the worst threat to national unity. First and foremost—
What is more, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Bloc certainly does not speak for the federalist government in Quebec. That said, this is not the first time the federal government has been involved with issues relating to children. In 1998, when everyone was offered the child tax benefit—in the days of a PQ government in Quebec—we did not hear any protests from the Bloc. It is quite natural then—
Côté quotes Quebec's federalist Liberal minister Pelletier saying it appears Ottawa intends to define major Canadian thrusts alone while provinces merely implement them, and asks whether the minister will still dismiss these as a Bloc fabrication.
Côté quotes Minister Pelletier specifically describing Ottawa defining Canadian thrusts while provinces implement them, and asks whether the minister will still deny these concerns given they come from a federalist Liberal minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Minister Pelletier added that, “[indeed] we should be concerned about what we are hearing from Ottawa these days. It is as if the Government of Canada was going to define the major Canadian thrusts alone, while the provinces are going to implement them”. Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs continue to maintain that these comments are a figment of the Bloc Québécois' imagination, when in fact they were made by a federalist Liberal minister in Quebec?
Robillard says she will continue dialogue with her Quebec counterpart (not the Bloc) and that the Prime Minister and Minister of Social Development have always said this would be done in respect of provincial jurisdictions.
Robillard says she will continue dialogue with her Quebec counterpart but never with the Bloc, and states the Prime Minister and Minister of Social Development have always said this would be done in respect of provincial jurisdictions, without engaging Pelletier's specific characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will continue the dialogue with my Quebec counterpart, but never with the Bloc Québécois, which does not want things to work in Canada. That is very different. The Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Social Development have always said that this would be done in the respect of provincial jurisdictions. That is what we will do.
Côté quotes Minister Pelletier saying recent statements by the Prime Minister and two named ministers suggest they are shutting the door on Quebec in child care negotiations, and asks how Robillard can claim things are fine when the other party says the opposite.
Côté quotes Pelletier naming three specific federal ministers whose statements suggest the door is being closed, and poses a pointed contradiction between the minister's optimism and the other party's stated position, though the ask is somewhat implicit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they do not even know what respecting jurisdictions is about. The minister may give a list of all the agreements concluded in the past, but the opposite is happening on the child care issue, for example. Minister Pelletier said that “the statements made in recent days—by the Prime Minister of Canada, [the Minister of Foreign Affairs], [the Minister of Transport]—suggest to him that they are in the process of shutting the door”. How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claim that things are just fine as regards the child care issue, when the other party involved in the negotiations says the opposite? The minister should get serious here.
Robillard says the door is wide open to the federalist Quebec government but not the Bloc, and lists past agreements on health, older workers, the homeless, the New Horizons Program, agriculture, and the environment as evidence of collaboration.
Robillard again deflects by distinguishing between the federalist Quebec government (door wide open) and the Bloc (excluded), then lists past agreements on health and other sectors without addressing the child care negotiation impasse Pelletier described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the door is wide open to the federalist government in Quebec, but not to the Bloc Québécois. That is very clear. This is why, over the past year, we have signed a number of agreements on health, older workers, the homeless, the New Horizons Program for the elderly, agriculture and the environment. We will continue to do so in the child care sector.
Layton says Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney broke corporate lobbying laws, in part at the Prime Minister's official residence, and asks when the Prime Minister will clean up the cozy world of corporate lobbying.
Names a specific individual (Richard Mahoney), a specific law (corporate lobbying laws), and a specific location (the Prime Minister's official residence), but the ask—'when is the cozy world of corporate lobbying going to be cleaned up?'—is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today we learned that more well connected Liberals think that the rules just do not apply to them. Let me remind everyone that this is taking place on the Prime Minister's watch, or worse, in the case of Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney, it is taking place in the Prime Minister's official residence. Mr. Mahoney broke the corporate lobbying laws. It is the latest in a long line of transgressions and questionable lobbying practices. When is the cozy world of corporate lobbying going to be cleaned up by this Prime Minister?
Emerson says the Registrar of Lobbyists operates independently and any violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act will be investigated, then accuses the NDP of hurling dirt without evidence.
Emerson notes the Registrar of Lobbyists operates independently and that a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act would be investigated, which is a relevant procedural point, but then attacks the NDP for hurling dirt without evidence rather than addressing the substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the Registrar of Lobbyists does operate independently. If there is a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act, that will be investigated by the Registrar who is aware of all these situations. It is about time those members focused on public policy instead of hurling more dirt at people for which they do not have any evidence.
Layton asks when the Prime Minister will address cronyism and corporate lobbying, citing a sole-source contract awarded to a firm formerly owned by the Liberal member for Pontiac and now owned by his wife and family.
Identifies a specific contract (sole-source), a specific Liberal MP (member for Pontiac), and a specific relationship (firm now owned by his wife and family), making it reasonably grounded, though the ask remains broadly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Richard Mahoney is in trouble when the Prime Minister stands up for David Dingwall but on this issue remains silent. Let me turn to another contract, this contract awarded on a sole source basis to a firm that used to be owned by a Liberal member of Parliament, the member for Pontiac, now owned by his wife and family. This is the latest in a long line of this kind of transgression. When is the Prime Minister going to get to the bottom of these kinds of issues and clean up cronyism and corporate lobbying in the country?
Valeri says the member for Pontiac denies any wrongdoing and has written to the Ethics Commissioner to look into the matter, urging the NDP to await that response.
Valeri confirms the member for Pontiac denies wrongdoing and has written to the Ethics Commissioner to investigate, which directly addresses the accountability mechanism, though it does not engage the substance of the sole-source contract allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pontiac denies any wrongdoing on his part, but has written to the Ethics Commissioner to ask him to look into this matter. I hope the member opposite waits for a response from the Ethics Commissioner before commenting on this issue in the House again.
MacKay asks why the government is allowing prisoners to use the Access to Information Act to obtain sensitive details about prison guards, citing an incident in Quebec where a prisoner received a partial list of Correctional Service employees including a guard's name, rank, qualifications, and prior workplace.
Cites a specific incident (partial list of Correctional Service employees in Quebec released to a prisoner) and specific concerns (name, rank, qualifications, prior workplace of a guard), making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, shockingly the Liberal government is allowing prisoners to use the Access to Information Act to obtain information about prison security systems and the personal details of the guards. Recently, a partial list of Correctional Service employees in Quebec was released to a prisoner and one guard was distraught to learn that a prisoner was attempting to get her name, rank, qualifications and where she previously worked. Guards have a legitimate concern, in particular, that prisoners may gain access to their addresses. Why is the government making it easier for prisoners to get sensitive information about the guards that could endanger these officers and the Canadian public?
McLellan states that to the best of her knowledge none of that sensitive information is available to any prison inmate within the federal correction system.
McLellan simply states that to the best of her knowledge none of that sensitive information is available to federal inmates, which is a flat denial without any investigation, evidence, or engagement with the specific incident described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, none of that sensitive information is available to any prison inmate within the federal correction system.
MacKay lists specific access requests disclosed to inmates—information on the inmate phone call monitoring system, drug scanners and scan results, and all procedures related to drug scanners and drug dogs—and asks why this security information is being given to inmates.
Lists specific access requests by category (inmate phone call monitoring system, drug scanners and scan results, drug scanner and drug dog procedures) and asks precisely why this security information is being given to inmates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is sadly uninformed about her own department. Is it any wonder why Canadians are starting to think that the inmates are running the penitentiaries? Let us look at some of the access requests that were disclosed by her department: information on the inmate phone call monitoring system; information on drug scanners and the results of these scans; and all procedures and policies related to the use of drug scanners and drug dogs checking visitors. This information could cost correctional officers their lives, and it is certainly useful for escapes. Could the minister just explain why this information about security systems is being given to inmates? What is next, picks and shovels?
Oh, oh!
McLellan states that to the best of her knowledge this information has not been released under access to information laws and that security-related information about prison facilities and guards is specifically exempted from those laws.
McLellan reiterates her denial and adds the legal point that information relating to physical prison security or safety of prison guards is specifically exempted from access to information laws, but does not address MacKay's specific examples of disclosures that apparently occurred.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate again that to the best of my—
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge this information has not been released under access to information laws. In fact, any information that would relate directly to the security of either physical prison facilities or information in relation to the safety and security surrounding prison guards is specifically exempted from access to information laws.
Toews asks why the Minister of Justice supports house arrest when, according to the Ontario police chief, lax Liberal laws allow drug dealers to operate on the streets and international organized crime to use Canada as a base.
Cites the Ontario police chief and makes a specific claim that drug dealers receive house arrest rather than prison sentences, but the framing ('killing our children') is highly rhetorical and undercuts the factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ontario police chief told Canadians that lax Liberal laws were strangling and obstructing their efforts to fight crime. International organized crime is using Canada as a base of operations because drug dealers here are sentenced to house arrest instead of real prison sentences. Why does the Minister of Justice continue to support house arrest when drug dealers are out on the streets killing our children?
Cotler calls it a misrepresentation and states that with regard to all serious offences the government will be introducing legislation to put an end to conditional sentencing.
Cotler calls the question a misrepresentation and states the government will be introducing legislation to end conditional sentencing for all serious offences, which is a partial but relevant commitment without specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is yet another misrepresentation by the hon. member of the opposition. With respect to the question of house arrest, we have said that with regard to all serious offences we will be introducing legislation that will put an end to conditional sentencing in those matters.
Toews asks whether the justice minister is aware of teachers', nurses', and police concerns about crystal meth given that the RCMP reports Canada ranks second as a source of crystal meth seized in Japan, and asks for his response to Liberal Senator Larry Campbell calling those concerns garbage.
Cites a specific RCMP statistic (Canada ranks second as a source of crystal meth seized in Japan), names Liberal patronage appointee Senator Larry Campbell by name, and references specific professional groups (teachers, nurses), giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know his facts about house arrest for drug dealers. They are getting it. Liberal patronage appointee, Senator Larry Campbell, says that concern about the spread of crystal meth is garbage. Teachers and nurses are telling us the spread is real. The RCMP now tells us that Canada ranks second as a source of crystal meth seized in Japan. Is the justice minister aware of the concerns of teachers, nurses and police about the spread of crystal meth or are their concerns just garbage? What does he say?
Cotler says the government has already taken initiatives since the summer and insists it is engaged in law enforcement rather than fearmongering, without addressing the specific RCMP data or Senator Campbell's comments.
Cotler says the government has taken initiatives since the summer and is not engaged in fearmongering but in law enforcement, which is entirely vague and does not address the RCMP statistic, Senator Campbell's comments, or the concerns of teachers and nurses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my response, if the hon. member wishes to take it seriously, is that we have taken initiatives. We took them already this summer. We are not engaged in fearmongering. We are engaged in law enforcement.
Lalonde cites Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister and the example of Line Beauchamp speaking at UNESCO to ask what harm there is in recognizing Quebec's right to speak for itself on the international stage.
The question uses a concrete quote from Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister and a specific example (Line Beauchamp at UNESCO) but the ask — 'what is the harm' — is rhetorical rather than a precise accountability demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, it is entirely possible for Quebec to speak for itself in international circles without hurting Canada. As proof, he referred to Quebec's minister of culture, who spoke before UNESCO and said, “My colleague Line Beauchamp read a Quebec text, and Canada is still standing today”. So what is the harm in recognizing that Quebec has the right to speak for itself on the international stage?
Pettigrew celebrated the UNESCO cultural diversity treaty as a joint success and said Quebec's minister of culture enriched Canada's voice rather than being denied one.
Pettigrew engages directly with the UNESCO example and frames Quebec's minister of culture as enriching Canada's voice, partially addressing the premise but not answering the normative question about Quebec's right to speak independently.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for today's question since this gives me the opportunity to celebrate an extraordinary event. The governments of Quebec and Canada have, for many years, worked together and succeeded in having UNESCO adopt a Canadian version of a treaty on cultural diversity. Canada's voice was clear, coherent and enriched by, in particular, Quebec's minister of culture, who was not, therefore, denied a voice. On the contrary, our Canadian voice was enriched by Quebec's minister of culture.
Lalonde quotes an open letter of September 12 by Benoît Pelletier and Monique Gagnon-Tremblay arguing Quebec must be able to take direct action internationally, and asks why the federal government refuses to comply with Quebec's requests.
The question cites a specific open letter dated September 12 by named Quebec ministers Pelletier and Gagnon-Tremblay with a direct quotation, grounding the ask in a public document, though the ask ('why is the federal government refusing') remains somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in an open letter published on September 12, Benoît Pelletier and Monique Gagnon-Tremblay wrote, “In the face of globalization...discussions often touch upon matters of provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, it is essential for the Quebec government to be able to take direct action. Refusing Quebec access to globalization is essentially condemning it to perpetual stagnation”. Why is the federal government refusing to comply with Quebec's very reasonable requests?
Pettigrew stated his mandate is to improve consultation with provinces, cited Quebec's participation in delegations to China, Mexico, and WTO negotiations, and said the government is prepared to do even more.
Pettigrew offers concrete examples (Premier Charest's missions to China and Mexico, WTO delegations) as evidence of cooperation but does not address the specific demand for direct Quebec action articulated in the open letter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is my mandate at present, given the foreign policy statement, to improve our consultation of and cooperation with the provincial governments, which admittedly have a growing interest in international affairs. We did a remarkable job of facilitating Premier Charest's work in China and Mexico. Quebec has been part of every Canadian delegation that it has asked to join. I ensured this when I had the opportunity, as Minister of International Trade, to take part in negotiations at the WTO. Based on our current best practices, we are certainly prepared to do even more to ensure that our fellow citizens are well served throughout the world.
Gagnon cites Quebec Liberal minister Bédard's opposition to conditions on child care transfers and asks how the Prime Minister justifies the issue remaining unsettled after 16 months given his election promise of no-strings funding for Quebec.
The question names a specific Quebec Liberal minister (Bédard), references the 16-month timeline since the election promise, and cites the Prime Minister's specific campaign commitment of no-strings child care funding for Quebec.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, minister Pelletier is not the only one to criticize the attitude of the federal government. Another federalist Liberal minister in Quebec, Mr. Bédard, says he would not agree to any conditions whatsoever from Ottawa tied to any transfer payments for child care. How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that this is still an unsettled issue after 16 months, when he had made a firm promise during the last election that Quebec would receive child care funding with no strings attached?
Robillard said dialogue with Quebec continues through minister Carole Théberge, that Quebec received its entitled share of funding for 2005-06, and that negotiations are still underway with every hope of an arrangement.
Robillard confirms negotiations are ongoing and that Quebec received its share of funding, but does not address the specific 'no strings attached' commitment or explain the 16-month delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the dialogue with the Government of Quebec is continuing, through its minister, Carole Théberge. This year alone, 2005-06, the Government of Quebec has received the share of funding to which it was entitled, as have all other provincial governments. Negotiations with the Government of Quebec are still underway and we have every hope of coming to an arrangement.
Gagnon cites minister Béchard's position that the $165 million Ottawa plans to transfer should have no strings attached and notes Quebec already invests $1.5 billion in child care, asking whether the federal government will recognize Quebec's right to use the money as it sees fit.
The question cites a specific dollar figure ($165 million), names minister Béchard, references Quebec's $1.5 billion investment, and asks a pointed yes/no-type question about whether the federal government will recognize Quebec's right to use the money as it wishes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to minister Béchard, the $165 million Ottawa is apparently prepared to transfer to Quebec for child care ought not to have any strings attached, and Quebec will use the federal money where it perceives the greatest need to be. He points out that Quebec is already putting $1.5 billion into its child care system. Quebec must not be penalized for past efforts. Will the federal government recognize the principle that Quebec can use the money as it likes, particularly since what it is already putting into child care is far more than all the other provinces put together.
Robillard acknowledged Quebec's system is innovative and said the government has no objection to Quebec improving its family policy beyond child care, but accused the Bloc of making things up without clarifying the conditions attached to the transfer.
Robillard acknowledges Quebec's innovative system and says there is no objection to Quebec improving its family policy, but does not directly answer whether the $165 million will be transferred without strings, and deflects by accusing the Bloc of making things up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have already acknowledged that Quebec's system is innovative. We have already acknowledged that Quebec could very well improve its policy on the family, since it is already ahead of other provinces. The child care system is one component of such a policy. There are others Quebec wants to develop, and we have no objections. That is absolutely not where the problem lies. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is making things up.
Grewal quotes Liberal patronage hack Larry Campbell's remark that crystal meth is 'no big deal,' cites statistics on Surrey youth usage and Richmond lab busts, and asks when the Liberal government will impose mandatory prison sentences for peddling crystal meth.
The question references specific statistics (one in ten Surrey youth, major crystal meth lab busts in Richmond) and names Larry Campbell with a quote, but conflates multiple issues and the mandatory sentence demand is one of several compound asks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Liberal patronage hack, Larry Campbell, recently said, “Crystal meth is no big deal”. Someone should tell Mr. Campbell about the reports that one in ten Surrey youth have tried crystal meth and about the major crystal meth lab busts in Richmond. Why do the Liberals insist on a do nothing approach that has led to increased drug abuse, an explosion in grow ops and wrecked lives? When will the Liberal government take crystal meth seriously and impose mandatory prison sentences for peddling crystal meth?
Cotler stated the government takes crystal meth seriously, citing summer initiatives with the health minister and a pro-prosecutorial policy involving community impact statements and emphasis on the gravity of the offence.
Cotler says the government takes crystal meth seriously and mentions summer initiatives with the health minister and a pro-prosecutorial policy with community impact statements, but does not address the mandatory prison sentence request specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we take crystal meth seriously and that is the reason that we took the initiatives we did this summer in that regard with my colleague, the health minister. As well, we have a specific pro-prosecutorial policy with regard to all drug prosecutions at this point with regard to community impact statements, with regard to submissions on the gravity of the offence and with regard to the entire approach to allow the courts to appreciate the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
Hiebert cites his party's task force hearings, a Liberal MP's spokesman calling their crystal meth concern 'irresponsible fearmongering,' and three recent meth lab shutdowns in that riding, asking the Prime Minister to admit the Liberal MP for Richmond is out of touch.
Hiebert references his own task force consultations and a spokesperson's quote labelling Conservative concern 'irresponsible fearmongering,' plus three recent lab shutdowns, but the ask — will the Prime Minister admit his MP is out of touch — is more rhetorical than substantive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for weeks now I have been holding meetings across Canada as co-chair of our party's task force on safe streets and healthy communities. I have heard from police officers, youth workers and city councillors about the exploding problem of crystal meth abuse. The spokesman for the Liberal MP for Richmond says that our concern about crystal meth is “irresponsible fearmongering” and yet three big meth labs were just shut down in his riding. The first step to solving an addiction is to admit that one has a problem. Will the Prime Minister stand up and admit that the Liberal MP for Richmond is out of touch and that crystal meth is a scourge on our Canadian cities?
Cotler stated unequivocally that crystal meth is a serious problem as government policy and that the government has acted, without addressing the MP for Richmond or providing any specifics.
Cotler simply reiterates that the government has said crystal meth is a serious problem and that it has acted, without providing any new detail or addressing the specific claim about the Liberal MP for Richmond.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have said unequivocally that crystal meth is a serious problem. We have articulated it as a policy and we have acted in that regard.
Hinton details David James Caza's 42 convictions for child pornography, sexual assault, and court order breaches over 24 years, his refusal of treatment, high re-offence risk, and recent move to Kamloops, implicitly asking what the government will do about dangerous offenders living freely in communities.
The question names a specific individual (David James Caza), cites 42 convictions over 24 years, lists specific offence types, notes his refusal of treatment and high re-offence risk, and his recent move to Kamloops — highly grounded factually, though it ends with a rhetorical flourish rather than a clean policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, David James Caza has been convicted 42 times over the last 24 years for offences ranging from making child pornography, sexual assault, sexual interference and numerous breaches of court orders. He is a pedophile who has refused treatment and is at high risk to re-offend. Mr. Caza is free to live wherever he wants and yesterday he moved from Merritt to Kamloops. This afternoon I will offer Mr. Caza a one way ticket to the riding of LaSalle—Émard. Could the Prime Minister tell me whether he will welcome this new resident?
McLellan called the matter very serious and said she has asked the Standing Committee on Justice to examine the parole system, while suggesting the opposition could provide informed insight into improvements.
McLellan acknowledges the seriousness of the matter and mentions she has asked the Standing Committee on Justice to take it up, but does not address the specific case of Caza or the adequacy of conditions imposed, and pivots to blaming the opposition for not acting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member raises a very serious matter. If she is talking about the parole system and the conditions that are imposed upon those who are on parole, I have made it plain that I do believe we need to look at the system, which is why I have asked the Standing Committee on Justice to take this matter up. I do not understand why it is not doing so. At that point the opposition could actually provide informed insight into how we can make this system better for everybody.
Kramp cites senior police officials' testimony at the justice committee the previous day about gang violence, witness intimidation, rampant drugs, and a revolving-door parole system, and asks when the Minister of Justice will support the additional mandatory sentences police are calling for.
The question references specific testimony from senior police officials at the justice committee the previous day and lists concrete concerns (gang violence, witness intimidation, drug proliferation, revolving-door parole/bail), though the ask for 'additional mandatory sentences' is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at the justice committee yesterday we heard senior police officials from across Canada pleading with the government to wake up to the realities that they are facing; the reality that innocent people are being shot, gangs and thugs are ruling the streets, witnesses are afraid to testify, drugs are rampant, parole and bail is just a revolving door these days and repeat offenders are commonplace. When will the Minister of Justice listen to the police, listen to the victims and listen to Canadians and support the additional mandatory sentences that which the police are calling for?
Cotler said he met with police associations and crime victim families, is open to any initiative on mandatory minimums personally and professionally, but stated the evidence shows mandatory minimums are neither effective nor a deterrent, while remaining open to further review.
Cotler directly addresses the mandatory minimums ask by stating his personal and professional openness to them while providing a substantive reason for caution — that evidence shows mandatory minimums are neither effective nor a deterrent — and confirms he met with police associations and crime victim families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have met with representative police associations and with families of crime victims. I went across the country this past summer and said that we were open to any initiative with respect to combating crime in the matter of mandatory minimums. I have no aversion to mandatory minimums, neither personally nor professionally. I only look at the evidence and the evidence has demonstrated that such mandatory minimums are neither effective nor are they a deterrent. We are still prepared to look at any initiatives that may assist in that regard.
Liberal MP Paradis mocks the Bloc Québécois leader's reported plan to develop an army and secret service for a future sovereign Quebec and asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs what he thinks of that.
This is a government backbench softball setup with no accountability value — it mocks the Bloc leader's plans for a sovereign Quebec army and secret service and simply invites the minister to criticize the Bloc.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is entitled “There's No Life Like It”. This morning, we learned that the new priority of the Bloc Québécois leader, our new James Bond, is to develop a plan for the army and the secret service of a future sovereign Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is intent on interfering in the PQ leadership race. With proposals like this one, it is clear where the Bloc's priorities are. What does the Minister of Foreign Affairs think of that?
Pettigrew said the Bloc leader is totally out of touch with Quebeckers, characterized the Bloc's position as hard-core independence without the promised association, and quipped that Bloc spies should find out Quebeckers' real priorities.
Pettigrew obliges with pure partisan attack, calling the Bloc leader out of touch and referencing 19th-century independence rhetoric, with no policy substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc leader is totally out of touch with the real concerns of Quebeckers. What the Bloc wants is hard-core independence. The much promised association, the link they used to talk about, is a thing of the past. We are back to the 19th century. I would suggest that the Bloc leader's spies be assigned to find out what the real priorities of Quebeckers are.
Crowder accuses the government of money-for-nothing federalism and, noting there is not one word to stop private health care's growth, asks the health minister whether he will sit down with her to write new rules to stop private health care, demanding a yes or no.
Crowder references a concrete willingness to write new rules and poses a direct yes/no question about sitting down to write rules to stop private health care's growth, but the framing is partly rhetorical and the 'money-for-nothing federalism' charge is partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the health minister may not have a problem with the NDP but the NDP and Canadians have a problem with the government's money-for-nothing federalism. The NDP is ready to sit down and come up with new rules to stop private health care's growth any time. We need new rules because the Liberals do not have any. There is not one word to stop private health care. So much for the Prime Minister's fight for his life. Is the minister willing to sit down with me and write new rules to stop private health care, yes or no?
Dosanjh said he is prepared to sit with anybody and pointed to $41 billion over 10 years, declining wait times, and benchmarks being crafted to be completed before December 31.
Dosanjh says he is prepared to sit with anybody but pivots to the $41 billion over 10 years, wait times, and benchmarks rather than addressing the specific ask about writing new rules to stop private health care.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to sit with anybody. The issue is that the Prime Minister has provided an additional $41 billion over the next 10 years to the provinces. Wait times are coming down. Benchmarks are being crafted. We will get there before December 31 with the benchmarks across the country.
Cullen cites the Suzuki Foundation's ranking of Canada at number 28 out of 30 countries on the environment and the upcoming Montreal climate talks, and asks what the minister will do to stop failing Canada and the world and when pollution will finally go down.
Cullen cites the Suzuki Foundation's ranking of Canada at number 28 out of 30 and the upcoming Montreal climate conference as factual anchors, but the ask — 'when will pollution finally go down' — is vague and the opening personal attack on Dion reduces the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear why the B.C. New Democrats won 33 more seats without this minister than with him. This week the Suzuki Foundation said that Canada is at number 28 on a list of 30 when it comes to the environment. When the world comes to Montreal, the government will be thoroughly embarrassed. The only two numbers going up for Canadians are for the amount of pollution and the number of empty promises the government continues to make. What will the minister do to finally stop failing Canada and the world? When will pollution finally go down in this country?
Dion acknowledged more needs to be done for the environment, cited project green and the greenest budget since Confederation, and then attacked the Suzuki Foundation study's methodology by pointing to Turkey and Mexico's rankings as implausible.
Dion acknowledges more needs to be done and mentions project green and the greenest budget since Confederation but spends most of the answer attacking the methodology of the Suzuki Foundation study rather than addressing the question about pollution reductions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we need to do much more for the environment. That is why we have the Prime Minister's project green, to do much more, and the greenest budget since Confederation. The one who must be embarrassed is the hon. member, for quoting a study that lists Turkey as the country that has the best environmental record. As for presenting Mexico as thirteenth, that means that we would take water from a tap in Mexico City before doing it here in Ottawa. What a study.
Poilievre cited a Globe and Mail report that KPMG found irregularities in the firm run by the MP for Pontiac's family and in approximately $16 million in additional contracts, asking about Liberal friends and cronies who benefited.
Poilievre references a specific Globe and Mail report, names KPMG as the auditor, cites approximately $16 million in additional contracts with serious irregularities, and identifies the MP for Pontiac's family firm — reasonably factual, but the question was interrupted and reframed in vague partisan terms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail is reporting today that KPMG had found irregularities in the activities of the firm run by the family of the MP for Pontiac. Does the Minister of Public Works—
Mr. Speaker, my question is more generally pertaining to Liberal fat and Liberal corruption, then. KPMG did an additional audit on approximately $16 million worth of additional contracts that were handed out and it found serious irregularities in that amount of money. We already know that some of this money went directly to Liberal friends and Liberal cronies, some of whom sit in the House of Commons now. How much went to Liberal friends and Liberal—
Oh, oh!
No ministerial answer was recorded; the exchange was disrupted and no response was given.
There is no ministerial answer recorded for this exchange; the question was interrupted and apparently not answered.
Chong identifies Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney as having lobbied for Canadian Satellite Radio without registering, and describes a cocktail party at 24 Sussex attended by Mahoney and large Liberal donors just before cabinet ruled in favour of Mahoney's client, asking how this squares with the Prime Minister's promise that Ottawa would no longer be about 'who do you know in the PMO.'
Chong names Richard Mahoney, identifies him as unregistered lobbyist for Canadian Satellite Radio, cites a specific cocktail party at 24 Sussex, the cabinet decision in favour of Mahoney's client two days later, and invokes the Prime Minister's own stated commitments — well grounded with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney, a close friend of the Prime Minister, lobbied for Canadian Satellite Radio even though he was not registered, in complete contravention of the rules. The Prime Minister's mandate started with promises of greater ethics and accountability. He said that the sins of the past had nothing to do with them, but had to do with Mr. Chrétien. He promised that never again would this happen on his watch, yet last month, his friend, the candidate for Ottawa Centre, broke the rules by failing to register as a lobbyist. Will the Prime Minister honour his commitment to greater ethics and accountability and remove Richard Mahoney as the candidate for Ottawa Centre?
Mr. Speaker, maybe I will rephrase the question. The Prime Minister's mandate began with promises that no longer would Ottawa be about “who do you know in the PMO”. Last month, Mr. Mahoney, along with supporters of Canadian Satellite Radio and other large Liberal donors, went to a cocktail party at 24 Sussex just before cabinet was to decide on his client's broadcast licence. Two days later, the Prime Minister and the cabinet ruled in favour of Mr. Mahoney's client. How does he reconcile his own promise that no longer will it be about “who do you know in the PMO” with this kind of behaviour?
Valeri listed five government ethics and accountability accomplishments — the Gomery commission, the independent Ethics Commissioner, a new code of conduct, proactive disclosure, and enhanced committee roles — without mentioning Mahoney or the lobbying allegation.
Valeri does not address Mahoney, the unregistered lobbying, or the cocktail party at 24 Sussex at all, instead listing five generic government ethics accomplishments in a classic deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the party across the way never lets facts get in the way of a good smear. Those members say facts do not matter, but I believe facts do matter. Fact: the Prime Minister cancelled the sponsorship program and established the Gomery commission. Fact: the Prime Minister established the first ever independent Ethics Commissioner. Fact: the Prime Minister adopted a new code of conduct for ministers and public office holders. Fact: the Prime Minister created a new policy for proactive disclosure. Fact: the government has given committees a greater role in influencing legislation. I could go on and on, but my time is up.
Lessard cites the Employment Insurance Commission chief actuary's recommendation of an 8-cent reduction in contributions resulting in a $720 million shortfall, and asks whether the minister would consider instead the Standing Committee on Human Resources' recommendations to improve coverage.
Lessard cites the Employment Insurance Commission chief actuary's latest report, specifies an 8-cent contribution reduction and a $720 million shortfall, and names the Standing Committee on Human Resources report as an alternative — well-grounded with a clear comparative ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in his latest report, the Employment Insurance Commission's chief actuary recommends reducing contributions by 8¢, which would mean a shortfall of more than $720 million in the fund. Since this option is not what workers want, would the minister not be better off considering the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and improving the system by enhancing coverage instead of reducing contributions?
Adams noted that premiums have been reduced every year for many years and that a new public, transparent, and independent commission has been established to recommend premiums for the coming year.
Adams acknowledges premium reductions over many years and the establishment of the new independent commission but does not address the specific recommendation to improve coverage instead of reducing contributions, deflecting to process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have reduced premiums every year for many years, but in the last year we have established a new commission, which is a public commission and a transparent commission, and which will recommend the premiums for the coming year. We look forward to the first ruling of that commission as to what the EI premiums should be.
Lessard asks why the government will not restore an income support program like the abolished Program for Older Worker Adjustment (POWA), noting it would cost less than one cent of the 8-cent premium reduction the actuary recommends.
Lessard names a specific program (Program for Older Worker Adjustment, POWA), cites its abolition date (1997), and makes a concrete cost comparison (less than a penny of the 8-cent reduction), providing a factual basis for a direct ask about restoring income support.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, take for example the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA, abolished by the government in 1997. Such an income support program, that workers and the Bloc have been calling for for a long time, would cost less than a penny of the 8¢ reduction the actuary is recommending. What is stopping the government from restoring such a program?
Adams reiterated that the new independent commission will recommend EI premiums with certain criteria to meet, and noted that the Bloc had supported establishing that commission, without addressing POWA or older worker income support.
Adams repeats his previous answer about the new independent commission and the Bloc's support for it without addressing POWA or the income support program for older workers at all.
Source text
As I mentioned, and as the party opposite worked for, we have established a new public commission, an independent commission, which will recommend to the government what the EI premiums should be. By the way, it has certain criteria to meet when it makes those recommendations. The Bloc supported that process. It wanted an independent commission. Now we have it. We should wait and see what that commission recommends.
Fletcher cites a new report showing wait times have increased in at least five provinces and the minister's own wait time bureaucrat admitting benchmarks will not be met, asking how the minister can have any credibility with the provinces at the upcoming weekend meeting.
Cites a specific new report, references the minister's own wait time bureaucrat admitting missed deadlines, and poses an identifiable accountability question about the minister's credibility with provinces ahead of a specific weekend meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the health minister misled the House when he said that wait times have decreased across the country. A new report released yesterday indicates that in at least five provinces wait times have increased. The minister's own wait time bureaucrat admits that deadlines for evidence-based benchmarks will not be met. This weekend, the minister will meet with provincial counterparts to discuss this issue. With this government in such disarray over wait time benchmarks, how can the minister possibly have any credibility with the provinces?
Dosanjh dismisses the questioner as a privatizer, references the $41 billion commitment, and asserts that benchmarks will be delivered by December 31 as agreed by all premiers and the Prime Minister.
The minister deflects by labelling the questioner a 'privatizer,' invokes the $41 billion figure without addressing the new report or the bureaucrat's admission, and simply reasserts that benchmarks will be met by December 31 without engaging the credibility question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to see crocodile tears from privatizers over the state of public health care, which we have been trying to strengthen in this country. The fact is that this Prime Minister has provided $41 billion for the next 10 years to strengthen public health care. We will defend public health care. We will strengthen it. We will have the benchmarks by December 31. We signed a deal. All the premiers across the country, including the Prime Minister, signed a deal. We shall have those benchmarks for the people of Canada.
Fletcher asks whether the minister will admit to the provinces this weekend that the government caused the wait time crisis and that the minister has no idea how to fix it.
The question is heavily loaded with rhetorical language ('wishy-washy weasel words') and partisan framing, and the ask — will the minister admit the government caused the wait time crisis — is more a political accusation than an answerable accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister should not be so tough on the private sector because that is where he is going to be applying for a job after the next election. The Conservative Party supports the Canada Health Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This government undermines both. While the minister continues to use wishy-washy weasel words to wiggle out of promised wait time commitments, wait times have actually increased. Will the minister admit to the provinces this upcoming weekend what Canadians already know: that this government caused the wait time crisis and that this health minister has no idea how to fix it?
Dosanjh asserts wait times have come down based on provincial evidence rather than the Fraser Institute, then quotes the CPC leader from 2002 to characterize the party as wanting to gut the Canada Health Act.
The minister counters with a 2002 quote attributed to the CPC leader to paint the party as privatizers, pivoting entirely away from the question about wait times and the upcoming provincial meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that wait times have come down. I do not rely on the Fraser Institutes of the world. There is evidence from all of the provinces across this country that the wait times are coming down. Let me tell members what the privatizers say. The leader of that party today said, back in 2002: The Canada Health Act, at least it has been interpreted, prevents co-payment, user fees, these kinds of things. Surely in some cases these would be preferable to taking services and options out of the public system entirely. This means they want to gut the Canada—
Boshcoff asks how the minister's proposed legislation will overcome the burden of proof problems identified in the 1998 report on gasoline pricing when dealing with predatory pricing and price discrimination under the Competition Act.
This is a government-backbench softball that references the 1998 report to give the minister a platform to announce proposed legislation, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. The 1998 report on gasoline pricing in Canada recommended that the federal government act to replace the burden of proof model currently used in sections of the Competition Act when dealing with predatory pricing and price discrimination. How will the minister's proposed legislation overcome these facts?
Emerson explains that changes to the Competition Act combined with the Petroleum Monitoring Agency will yield better information, faster action, and larger fines for predatory or discriminatory pricing and criminal conspiracy to fix prices.
Emerson provides reasonably substantive detail about changes to the Competition Act, the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, enhanced ability to fine companies for predatory or discriminatory prices, and larger capacity to fine in criminal conspiracy cases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work done by the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. He has been a vigorous advocate for those who are affected by high energy prices. With the changes we are making to the Competition Act, and when we look at the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, we are going to have better information and a sharper ability to move more quickly and fine companies where there is some aberration in pricing conduct through predatory or discriminatory prices. Also, we will have a much larger capacity to fine in cases of criminal conspiracy to fix prices.
Prentice highlights the Kashechewan state of emergency over e-coli-contaminated drinking water and asks who is accountable for the ongoing crisis after $2 billion and 12 years of government involvement.
The question cites a specific declared state of emergency at Kashechewan, names the contaminant (e-coli), references $2 billion and 12 years of government spending, and presses directly for personal ministerial accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Kashechewan people declared a state of emergency and asked the government to evacuate the entire community because their drinking water is contaminated with deadly e-coli. This did not happen in a third world country. This happened in Ontario and it happened to aboriginal Canadians. In just a moment the minister is going to tell us yet again that he is working on it. The truth is that after $2 billion and 12 years, aboriginal Canadians are still drinking contaminated water. If the minister will not accept personal responsibility, will he tell the House who is accountable for--
Blondin-Andrew reports that certified water treatment operators arrived Sunday and have stabilized the disinfection system, that 26,000 litres of bottled water have been shipped, and that the minister is travelling to Kashechewan to engage with the community.
Blondin-Andrew provides concrete operational details — certified water treatment operators dispatched, arriving Sunday, system stabilized, 26,000 litres of bottled water shipped — and notes the minister is en route, but does not address the accountability question or the $2 billion/12-year record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I speak, the minister is on his way to Kashechewan to engage with the people of that community on the priority of their health and the safety of their water. Last week we dispatched certified water treatment operators. They arrived on Sunday. They have been successful in stabilizing the disinfection system and eliminating the risk of bacteria in the treated water supply. To date, at the request of the chief, we have shipped 26,000 litres of bottled water because we are very concerned about the health of those people. The minister is there to engage with them.
This exchange contains no substantive question or answer; it records only a procedural acknowledgment of guests in the gallery.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!