Session overview
- The sponsorship program dominated Question Period, with CPC and BQ members pressing the government to name the Liberal riding associations and candidates that received tainted money distributed by Marc-Yvan Côté and Michel Béliveau, while the government repeatedly deferred to Justice Gomery's findings and the RCMP.
- Four CPC members questioned the government over the Keeseekoose education trust account, alleging over $600,000 was stolen and that the former chief — also a Liberal candidate — and a local hockey team presided over by that same candidate received funds; the Minister of Indian Affairs dismissed the questions as a smear campaign against first nations leadership.
- NDP members Jack Layton, Alexa McDonough, and Ed Broadbent challenged the government over its refusal to compromise on election timing, arguing the opposition parties had all agreed to a practical arrangement to complete the fall agenda before launching a January election; the government House leader insisted a formal non-confidence motion was the only legitimate route.
- Equalization and Saskatchewan's fiscal position were raised by both CPC and BQ members; the Minister of Finance maintained that Saskatchewan had received $799 million in extra payments since February 2004 and reported a provincial surplus of $873 million, while opposition members argued the province still loses roughly $1 billion due to natural resource clawbacks.
- Agriculture, aboriginal women's shelters, the compassionate care program, the refugee appeal division, the Skyline complex purchase from PowerCorp, and the David Dingwall and André Ouellet patronage matters were among the remaining topics raised, most receiving non-responsive or deferral answers from ministers.
The Minister of Health provided specific, concrete figures: Budget 2005 allocates $300 million over five years for an integrated strategy including $18 million per year for the Canadian diabetes strategy, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research invested close to $6 million for type 1 diabetes research in fiscal year 2004-05 and $12 million for type 2 diabetes, with a commitment to grow to $30 million over the next four or five years.
Cites a specific action — Alberta's Monday announcement allowing producers a choice of how to calculate the reference margin under CAIS — and asks the minister to commit to offering the same choice in the six federally administered provinces, a clear and answerable ask.
Rather than addressing the substance of Jack Layton's question about why the government would not compromise on election timing, Valeri suggested Layton had 'just recently come to this place' and repeated the same talking points about the confidence convention without engaging with the specific proposal before Parliament.
Outstanding questions
- Stephen Harper asked which specific Liberal riding associations in Quebec pocketed stolen sponsorship money as identified by Justice Gomery — the government refused to name them and referred only to the RCMP's role (Exchange 3).
- Michel Gauthier asked why the individuals who received dirty money distributed to 18 ridings — potentially including sitting MPs, candidates, political staff, or government appointees — have faced no consequences and why the government claims to have cleaned house (Exchange 16).
- Jim Prentice asked whether the government is withholding audit documents about the Keeseekoose education trust theft in order to protect the former chief who was also the local Liberal candidate, but received no substantive answer (Exchange 12).
- Rona Ambrose asked when the government will provide the needed funding for aboriginal women's shelters in northern Quebec given that aboriginal women are 37 times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of rape — the minister deferred entirely to the upcoming Kelowna meeting (Exchange 21).
- Lynne Yelich asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to explain why no changes to the compassionate care program had been brought to cabinet despite a commitment made weeks earlier in the House that changes were 'coming very soon' — the minister did not address the failure to bring changes to cabinet (Exchange 34).
Harper asks when the Prime Minister will lower ground fees at Pearson Airport, citing the IATA's statement that rent is 'the biggest single obstacle to lowering airport fees at Pearson'.
Cites the International Air Transport Association's statement and identifies ground rent as the specific issue, with a clear ask to lower ground fees at Pearson Airport.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Torontonians are increasingly upset over the huge fee hikes at Pearson International Airport. The airport says that the fee hike is necessary because the federal government is charging unreasonable ground rent. Today the International Air Transport Association said that rent is, “the biggest single obstacle to lowering airport fees at Pearson”. When will the Prime Minister show some leadership, stop punishing Toronto, and lower ground fees at Pearson Airport?
Lapierre states the debt factor exceeds 40% and rent is 14% of expenses, notes $5 billion in relief coming by 2011, and suggests possible short-term action but makes no firm commitment.
Provides some relevant figures (debt factor over 40%, rent at 14% of expenses, $5 billion in relief by 2011) and hints at possible short-term action, but does not commit to lowering ground fees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the biggest factor that is influencing rent in Toronto is the debt factor which is over 40%. The rent represents 14% of the expenses. My colleagues have been looking at that with the GTA and we have had discussions with the airport authority. Obviously, we are giving them $5 billion in relief. That $5 billion in relief is coming by 2011. Perhaps in the short term, we may be able to do something up front to help them because --
Harper asks when the Prime Minister will overrule his finance minister and reform the equalization program so Saskatchewan does not lose over $750 million in revenue.
Cites a specific 2004 promise on equalization reform, a concrete delay to 2006, and a quantified cost of over $750 million in lost revenue to Saskatchewan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, hopefully before that relief is delivered in 2010 there will be a new government. The Prime Minister is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over $750 million in lost revenue. When will the Prime Minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so Saskatchewan does not lose this money?
Goodale says equalization reform is on track for 2006 and that floor payments have resulted in $799 million in payments to Saskatchewan over the last 18 months.
Goodale confirms the reform is proceeding in 2006 and cites $799 million in payments over 18 months, but does not address the specific $750 million loss claim or the demand that the Prime Minister overrule the finance minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reform process that we launched in 2004 with respect to equalization is going forward. In fact, we expect it to take place during the course of 2006. In the meantime, there have been floor payments and other arrangements put in place to assist the provinces that are going through various forms of transition. In Saskatchewan's case thus far, that has resulted in payments of $799 million in the last 18 months.
Harper asks the Prime Minister to make public the names of the Liberal riding associations in Quebec that Justice Gomery said pocketed stolen money.
References the Gomery report specifically and asks a clear factual question about whether the names of Liberal riding associations that received stolen money will be made public.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Saskatchewan does not buy that and no other federal members buy that. In fact, the only person in Saskatchewan who believes that is the finance minister. It is now 16 days since Justice Gomery made his report public. In it, he says that certain Liberal riding associations in Quebec pocketed stolen money, but the names of those ridings remains a mystery. Will the Prime Minister be frank enough to make public the names of these ridings that used money stolen from the taxpayers?
Lapierre says the Gomery report covers what Justice Gomery wished to examine, and that any further investigation is the role of the RCMP, not the Prime Minister or the opposition.
Lapierre deflects to the RCMP's role and denies the Prime Minister's responsibility to act, without addressing whether the names will be released.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition needs only to read Justice Gomery's report. All the points Justice Gomery wished to examine are covered by it. Now, if any investigation is required, that will be the role of the RCMP. I know that all stakeholders are prepared to speak to the RCMP at any time, as every citizen has a duty to do. It is, however, not the role of either the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister to carry out a judicial inquiry.
MacKay asks whether the Prime Minister now realizes Canadians do not believe his claim he knew nothing of the wrongdoings in the sponsorship program, citing his roles as finance minister and Treasury Board vice-president.
Cites cabinet material examined by Justice Gomery and the Prime Minister's specific roles as finance minister and Treasury Board vice-president, but the core ask is rhetorical ('does he now realize').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in reference to ad scam the Prime Minister said, “The problem did not lay with the concept of the sponsorship program”. That concept, according to cabinet material examined by Justice Gomery included, “strengthening of the organization of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec”. The Prime Minister, as finance minister, sat in the cabinet that discussed the creation of the program. He sat as vice-president of the Treasury Board that reviewed the audits of the program. In his leadership lust, he took over the machinery of the Liberal Party. Does the Prime Minister now realize that Canadians do not believe his ongoing claim that he knew nothing of the wrongdoings in the Liberal Party's sponsorship program?
Brison quotes Justice Gomery's report directly, stating that the Prime Minister 'is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct'.
Brison directly quotes Justice Gomery's exoneration of the Prime Minister from the report, which substantively addresses the accountability claim, though it does not engage with the cabinet material cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is what Justice Gomery said in his report: [The Prime Minister], whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct. That is exactly what Justice Gomery said. After hearing from 172 witnesses and after his commission reviewed 28 million pages of documents, Justice Gomery exonerated the Prime Minister completely.
MacKay asks whether Chrétien was correct in asserting that the current Prime Minister was 'aware like I was aware' regarding the sponsorship program.
References a specific Chrétien statement ('He was aware like I was aware') and the Treasury Board sign-off process, but the question is framed in a compound and rhetorically loaded way.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is another non-answer from one of the turncoat, twin towers of virtue on the Prime Minister's ad scam defence team. Mr. Chrétien said he was told by the Treasury Board members that there were no problems with the program. The current Prime Minister, as Treasury Board vice-president, would have to sign off on that response. In reference to the Prime Minister's knowledge, Mr. Chrétien said, “He was aware like I was aware”. Was Mr. Chrétien correct in his assertion that the current Prime Minister was “aware like I was aware”, or does he need more proof of the truth to be proven?
Brison invokes Justice Gomery as representing the truth and then attacks MacKay's departure from a 'moderate, progressive and centrist party,' making no reference to the Chrétien quote.
Brison does not address the Chrétien quote or the Treasury Board sign-off question, instead pivoting to a personal attack about MacKay's political history and party membership.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for most reasonable Canadians Justice Gomery represents the truth. Beyond that, the hon. member and I were once both members of a moderate, progressive and centrist party that believed in bilingualism, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and multiculturalism. I still am and he is not.
Duceppe asks how the Prime Minister can claim the sponsorship scandal file is closed when Béliveau's payments to the riding of Louis-Hébert and a $5,000 Norbourg donation to a 2004 Liberal candidate remain unanswered.
Cites specific testimony from Michel Béliveau at the Gomery commission, names a specific riding (Louis-Hébert), and identifies a specific dollar amount ($5,000 from the Norbourg president), with a clear question about unanswered allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Michel Béliveau, the former director of the Liberal Party banned for distributing envelopes of dirty money from the sponsorship scandal told the Gomery commission that he had paid off the $8,000 debt accumulated by the candidate in the riding of Louis-Hébert in the 1997 election. The Liberal candidate in Louis-Hébert in the 2004 election received $5,000 from the president of Norbourg, who swindled thousands of small investors. How can the Prime Minister claim that the sponsorship scandal file is closed and that things have been cleaned up when a number of allegations regarding the Liberal Party remain unanswered?
Lapierre accuses Duceppe of 'muckraking' and making allegations not corroborated in Justice Gomery's report, without addressing the specific facts raised.
Lapierre dismisses Duceppe's question as 'muckraking and untruths' without addressing any of the specific facts cited, and does not answer whether the allegations remain open.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the leader of the Bloc Québécois is trying to develop new muckraking activities. He is making allegations not corroborated in Justice Gomery's report. I know that the Bloc Québécois leader is not satisfied with the judge's conclusions, but his remarks are nothing but muckraking and untruths. He should be more responsible.
Duceppe argues that since Marc-Yvan Côté was banned for distributing dirty money, the government has a duty to disclose who received it.
Duceppe makes a logical point about Béliveau and Marc-Yvan Côté and asks whether the government has a duty to identify who received the dirty money, but the question is more argumentative than specifically grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Gomery commission revealed that Mr. Béliveau had paid the $8,000 and that Marc-Yvan Côté had been banned for unlawful action. I imagine that if he gave the money to someone, it is quite likely someone received it. That is basic logic. If someone is to be banished for doling out dirty money, do the members of the government not have a duty to say who got the money? By doing so, they would shed light on this scandal. This activity is not entirely above board, but it took place.
Lapierre accuses the Bloc of making insinuations without proof, claims the Gomery report contradicted the Bloc on all points, and does not address the duty to disclose recipients.
Lapierre again dismisses the question as 'insinuations' and 'sullying tricks' without addressing the logical argument or the duty to disclose recipients.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois leader has a habit of trying to tarnish people's reputation and making insinuations without providing any proof or naming names. He has tried to cast doubt on a lot of people. This is the old Bloc Québécois style, their old sullying tricks. People have, however, seen through it, because the Gomery report contradicted the Bloc on all points. They should have learned.
Guimond raises the case of the Liberal candidate in Lévis who said she was penalized for refusing to 'play dirty politics,' and references Marc-Yvan Côté's expulsion for giving tainted money to 18 ridings, but the question is cut off.
Cites the testimony of a Liberal candidate in Lévis and references Marc-Yvan Côté's expulsion for giving tainted money to 18 ridings, but the question is cut off before a specific ask is made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will submit a concrete case to the Minister of Transport. According to the Liberal candidate in Lévis, the Liberal Party of Canada was not as generous to her in 1997 because she refused, in her own words, “to play dirty politics”. She added “I have always been told I was too honest to be a politician”. Marc-Yvan Côté was expelled from the Liberal Party of Canada for having given tainted money to 18 ridings in eastern Quebec, and in these 10 or so candidates received money personally. Since the Prime Minister refuses to name the candidates who received the tainted money, he might find it easier to—
Lapierre says every red cent has been paid back to the government by the Liberal Party and that the Gomery report provides its conclusions, accusing the Bloc of 'character assassination'.
Lapierre states that every red cent has been paid back by the Liberal Party and that the Gomery report provides conclusions, but does not address the unnamed candidates who received money or the cut-off question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Justice Gomery has examined the entire situation and every red cent of the money has been paid back to the government by the Liberal Party of Canada. The Gomery report provides certain conclusions. The Bloc Québécois members are not satisfied with those conclusions, so they want to invent some scandals and continue their character assassination based on facts that are not true.
Guimond asks that if the minister believes Marc-Yvan Côté's $120,000 of dirty money has been reimbursed, who received it in the first place.
Asks a sharp and logical follow-up question: if the $120,000 of Marc-Yvan Côté's dirty money has been reimbursed, then someone received it — who?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the minister believes that the $120,000 of Marc-Yvan Côté's dirty money has been reimbursed, that means certain people received that money. Who did and who did not receive it?
Lapierre says it is not the government's role to do the job of the police, and that the RCMP has the entire Gomery report and access to all documents and witnesses.
Lapierre deflects to the RCMP's role and expresses faith in police over the Bloc, without identifying or committing to identify who received the money.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not our role to do the job of the police. I am sure that the member, not being satisfied with Justice Gomery's work, will not be satisfied with the role of the police either. Yet the RCMP has the entire Gomery report in its possession, and can have access to all documents and all witnesses. I have far more faith in the police than in the Bloc Québécois.
Layton asks why the Prime Minister will not agree to the compromise proposal that would allow the House to pass certain measures before triggering an election in January, citing the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that nothing stops the Prime Minister from agreeing.
References the Deputy Prime Minister's statement from the previous day as grounding, but the question ('Why is it that this leader is the only leader in the House that will not compromise?') is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all week we have been listening to Liberals say that they could not adopt the reasonable compromise that is before Parliament that could get things done and launch the election in January. However, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that there was absolutely nothing to stop the Prime Minister from agreeing to this proposal. It is not a question of whether the Liberals cannot agree to the proposal, it is a question of whether they will. They simply will not. Here is the question. Why is it that this leader is the only leader in the House that will not compromise?
Valeri argues that confidence is an on-off switch and that the opposition cannot vote non-confidence today and delay the consequences to January, calling on the opposition to put forward a motion of non-confidence if they lack confidence.
Valeri reframes the constitutional principle of confidence rather than addressing the specific compromise proposal or the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, and pivots to attacking Layton.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is suggesting that it should be able to vote non-confidence in the government today and have the consequences some time in January. Opposition members have asked this question over and over again. I think the reason they are asking this question over and over again is because the leader of the NDP is fearful of the fact that so many people have said there was absolutely nothing wrong with having an election as indicated by the Prime Minister in his commitment to Canadians. Today he is attempting to backtrack and is afraid to accept the fact that either we have confidence or we do not. If we do not, have the courage to put something forward.
Layton asks why the Liberal Party will not compromise in the interest of Canada, characterizing the government's approach as 'childish bullying tactics'.
Mostly rhetorical and partisan, characterizing the government's approach as 'childish bullying tactics' with a vague ask about why the party will not compromise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that can only be described as childish bullying tactics. It really is.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, what people have just seen is really quite childish. It is a bullying approach. It does not make sense to Canadians because they do not buy the idea that a party that received 37% of the vote deserves 100% of the control all the time. They want to see a compromise, so that the things they would like to see done can get done. Why will this party not compromise in the interest of Canada?
Valeri explains that parliamentary democracy operates on the principle that a government must have the confidence of Parliament and that confidence is 'like an on-off switch,' calling on the NDP to put forward a non-confidence motion.
Valeri explains the parliamentary principle that confidence is binary and calls on the NDP to put forward a non-confidence motion, which is marginally responsive to the compromise question but does not address the specific proposal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has just recently come to this place and he is certainly welcome by all other members, but the hon. member should understand that we are in fact in a parliamentary democracy that operates on a principle that a government must have the confidence of Parliament. If the hon. member wants to in fact demonstrate that he does not have the confidence in the government, then what is required is a motion of non-confidence on the floor of the House of Commons. Confidence is like an on-off switch. One either has it or one does not. If there is a suggestion we do not, then put the motion forward.
Prentice asks whether the Minister of Indian Affairs is trying to protect the former chief and Liberal candidate by refusing to produce audit documents about the $600,000 theft from the Keeseekoose education trust account.
Cites a specific dollar amount ($600,000), identifies a shift in the minister's position from 'ridiculous' to 'serious financial irregularities' between Monday and Tuesday, and asks whether he is protecting a former Liberal candidate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was questioned about the Keeseekoose education trust account of $600,000, which has now been stolen. At the time, he said that the allegations were ridiculous. By Tuesday, according to the minister, those ridiculous allegations had become serious financial irregularities with the RCMP involved and, in addition, criminal charges being laid. The minister is having some difficulty getting his story straight. We know that his department has audit documents about the theft. He is refusing to produce them. Is he trying to protect the former chief, the former Liberal candidate?
Scott says first nations governments take accountability seriously, that the police were informed and charges were laid, and accuses the Conservatives of trying to discredit first nations and their leadership.
Scott dismisses the question as an attempt to discredit first nations and makes no reference to the minister's changing account or the audit documents, answering a different question entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, whether the Conservatives like it or not, first nations governments take matters of accountability very seriously. That is exactly what we have seen in this case. Where irregularities were found, the police were informed and charges were laid. What we see from the other side shows once again that these Conservatives will do anything to discredit first nations, their leadership and their members.
Prentice sarcastically suggests the government establish a 'Liberal offender registry' that the public could consult, making no substantive accountability ask.
The question degenerates into a call for a 'Liberal offender registry,' which is pure rhetorical mockery with no real accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the chief at the time of the theft was the Liberal candidate, but in fairness, I am not surprised that the minister is confused. It is difficult for all Canadians to actually keep a clear picture of which Liberals are under RCMP investigation and which are not, which have been convicted and which have not, and which have been banned from the party for life and which have not. Would the government consider establishing a sort of Liberal offender registry, a criminal registry that the public could consult from time to time and which the minister could use?
Oh, oh!
Scott says Canadians know a smear campaign when they see it and accuses the Conservatives of targeting first nations leadership.
Scott accuses the opposition of running a smear campaign and targeting first nations, making no substantive response to any element of the exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I will say it again--
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know a smear campaign when they see it. Canadians know how those members feel about first nations and their leadership. Here we go again.
Breitkreuz asks why the minister will not stand up for the schoolchildren of the Keeseekoose reserve, citing itemized expenses including $1,200 for Sea World and $125 for Universal Studios taken from the school account.
Cites specific itemized expenses from the Keeseekoose school account ($1,200 for Sea World, $158 for Zorro Jewelry, $125 for Universal Studios, totalling over $3,000) and asks a clear accountability question about the minister's response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apparently the new Liberal education policy involves paying for California vacations out of a schoolchild's education fund. I ask members to listen to this list of money taken from the Keeseekoose school account: $1,200 for Sea World, $158 for Zorro Jewelry of Santa Monica, $125 for Universal Studios. In total, this is over $3,000 stolen from the children on the reserve to pay for a California vacation. Why will the minister not stand up for the schoolchildren of the Keeseekoose reserve?
Scott says the government is standing up for education and first nations as demonstrated by the upcoming Kelowna meeting, without addressing the specific expenditures cited.
Scott does not address the specific expenditures or the theft from the children's account, instead pivoting to the upcoming Kelowna meeting and accusing the opposition of not caring about first nations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is standing up for education and first nations. That is the reason why we are going to Kelowna at the end of this month. That is what people who really care about first nations do, not this.
Lukiwski asks whether the minister will confirm a full investigation of the Keeseekoose school account theft, citing over $6,000 stolen in one day including $2,000 at Casino Regina and $4,000 to a hockey team whose president was the local Liberal candidate.
Cites specific amounts ($6,000 in one day, $2,000 withdrawn at Casino Regina, $4,000 transferred to a local hockey team), identifies the former Liberal candidate as president of that hockey team, and asks a clear question about a full investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker , I do not think the minister understands how serious the situation is. On one day alone over $6,000 was stolen from the school's account: $2,000 was withdrawn at Casino Regina and $4,000 was transferred to a local hockey team. The local Liberal candidate was the president of that hockey team. To make matters worse, the Liberals knew about this theft before they nominated the candidate who is at the heart of this controversy. Will the minister confirm today that he will conduct a full investigation of this matter? Or is this simply another Liberal cover-up?
Scott says the RCMP has been brought in and dealt with the issue, and accuses the Conservatives of smearing first nations leadership.
Scott says the RCMP has been brought in and dealt with the issue, but does not confirm a full departmental investigation or address the nomination of the candidate linked to the controversy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has been brought in and has dealt with the issue. The reality is that in this case those members are smearing first nations leadership. That is typical of the Conservative Party and the first nations leadership itself will not stand for it.
Gauthier cited Gomery testimony from Marc-Yvan Côté about brown envelopes in 18 ridings and Michel Béliveau about $100,000 in western Quebec, and asked how the government can claim to have cleaned house when those who received dirty money remain within the Liberal Party.
Cites specific testimony from Marc-Yvan Côté (18 ridings, brown envelopes) and Michel Béliveau ($100,000 in western Quebec) from the Gomery inquiry, but the ask — how can the government claim to have cleaned house — is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government banished 10 people from the Liberal Party for life and is trying to close the books on the sponsorship scandal. However, Marc-Yvan Côté referred to 18 ridings where brown envelopes were handed out and Michel Béliveau spoke of $100,000 that went to ridings in western Quebec. That leaves a lot of people still on the Liberal team who had their hands on this dirty money. Who knows, they could be MPs, candidates, political staff or government appointees. How can the government claim to have cleaned house when these people are still within the Liberal Party and the government?
Lapierre accused Gauthier of abusing parliamentary privilege and tarnishing reputations without foundation, providing no substantive answer.
Lapierre does not address the question at all, instead accusing Gauthier of abusing parliamentary privilege and tarnishing reputations, offering no substantive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, did you notice his abuse of parliamentary privilege, his attempt to tarnish the reputation of certain MPs? It is terrible and unfounded. It is simply appalling.
Gauthier repeated Gomery inquiry testimony that Marc-Yvan Côté handed dirty money to 18 of 21 ridings and that Michel Béliveau gave out $100,000 in western Quebec, and asked why recipients acted with complete impunity and why the government claims to have cleaned house.
Reiterates specific Gomery testimony — Marc-Yvan Côté handing money to 18 of 21 ridings and Michel Béliveau distributing $100,000 in western Quebec — with a pointed ask about why recipients acted with complete impunity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem repeating outside what I am saying here. At the Gomery inquiry, Marc-Yvan Côté said he had handed out money to 18 of 21 ridings. Members of Parliament were elected in at least some of those ridings. We are talking about 18 ridings out of 21 that got dirty money. At the Gomery inquiry, Michel Béliveau said he gave out $100,000 in western Quebec to get candidates elected. Why is it that those who got dirty money did so with complete impunity and why does the government claim it has cleaned house?
Lapierre challenged Gauthier to name names, invoked Justice Gomery's completed findings, and characterized the questioning as muckraking without addressing the specific testimony or the impunity question.
Lapierre deflects by challenging Gauthier to name names, dismisses the question as muckraking, and references Justice Gomery's findings without engaging the specific testimony cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the deputy leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to name names, let him do so. But if he just wants to continue tarnishing reputations then he needs to stop. Justice Gomery has spoken. I know they are not happy with Justice Gomery's findings. They want to re-write the report. It is too late. The inquiry is over and Justice Gomery has presented his findings. The rest is nothing more than muckraking. They are trying to tarnish reputations without having the courage to name names. That is their problem.
Loubier cited a quoted description of a $100 billion-plus surplus and an Ottawa-knows-best attitude, and asked the Minister of Finance to recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance and commit to fixing it.
Opens with a quoted passage about a $100 billion-plus surplus and characterizes the federal attitude as cavalier and paternalistic, then asks whether the Minister of Finance will recognize the fiscal imbalance and commit to fixing it — a reasonably specific ask but framed with rhetorical quotation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, “Pockets bulging with what is estimated to be a $100 billion-plus surplus for the next five years, the federal government is taking a cavalier and paternalistic approach to the provinces. This Ottawa-knows-best attitude is beginning to rub the taxpayers the wrong way.” Should the Minister of Finance not at last bow to the evidence, recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance, and make a commitment to fix it, since he has the means, and then some?
Goodale stated that transfer payments to provinces are at their highest level ever and will increase by another $100 billion over ten years, framing it as balance, fairness, and transparency, without acknowledging the fiscal imbalance.
Goodale cites transfer payments at their highest level ever and an additional $100 billion over ten years, which is relevant context but does not address the fiscal imbalance concept or commit to fixing it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has increased transfer payments to the provinces to their highest level ever in history. On top of that, over the next 10 years those transfer payments will be going up again by about another $100 billion. All of this is to assist the provinces in discharging their important responsibilities, just as the Government of Canada addresses its very important responsibilities on behalf of all Canadians. It is a question of balance, fairness and transparency. That is what we showed in the statement on Monday.
Loubier revealed that the critical quote about federal arrogance came from the Minister of Transport's own writing in Le Journal des affaires, and asked when the federal Liberals will stop denying the fiscal imbalance and act on it.
Loubier reveals that his opening quote was written by the Minister of Transport himself in Le Journal des affaires, adding a sharp accountability angle, and asks when the federal Liberals will stop denying the fiscal imbalance — though the ask remains somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport should give up on his denials, because my opening remark came from something he himself wrote in Le Journal des affaires . He also wrote in that same article that “With their arrogant and opportunistic behaviour, those shameless characters in Ottawa risk reawakening the forces like those that have already brought down many a government”. It is obvious that the minister has had a change of heart because he is now in the process of becoming the poster boy for Liberal arrogance. When will the federal Liberals give up being the only ones denying the existence of the fiscal imbalance and decide to do something about it?
Goodale cited favourable reactions from Quebec's finance minister, the largest business organization in Quebec, student organizations, and universities, framing the government's actions as improving disposable incomes and quality of life.
Goodale lists favourable reactions from Quebec's finance minister, a large business organization, student organizations, and universities, without addressing the fiscal imbalance or responding to the minister's own quoted words.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would note that in response to the statement on Monday we had a very favourable reaction from the minister of finance of Quebec. We had a very favourable reaction from the largest business organization in Quebec. We have had favourable reactions from student organizations across the country and from universities across the country, including universities in Quebec. All of this is intended to raise disposable incomes, improve standards of living and improve the Canadian quality of life everywhere, in Quebec and all across the country. That is what we are doing.
Ambrose cited that aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of rape and asked why the government is refusing to help aboriginal women in need.
Cites a specific statistic — aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of rape — but the ask ('why is this government refusing to help') is broadly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of rape. Why is this government refusing to help aboriginal women in need?
Scott said domestic violence and housing for women in northern Canada are being specifically addressed at Kelowna, supported by NWAC.
Scott references domestic violence being specifically addressed at Kelowna with NWAC support and mentions housing problems, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the specific statistic or explain current government actions.
Source text
Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, in Kelowna one of the items that we are dealing with very specifically, supported by NWAC, as a matter of fact, is domestic violence, along with the housing problems that face women in northern Canada. We are in fact dealing with that very specifically in Kelowna.
Ambrose repeated the statistic that aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely to be victims of violence, cited that aboriginal women's shelters in Quebec are underfunded by nearly $200,000, and asked when the government will provide the needed funding.
Combines the 37-times statistic with a specific funding figure — aboriginal women's shelters in Quebec underfunded by nearly $200,000 — and makes a clear, actionable ask for funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat this: aboriginal women in northern Quebec are 37 times more likely to be victims of violence. Yet we know that aboriginal women's shelters in Quebec are underfunded by nearly $200,000. The women in these northern communities have been abandoned and they need our help now. When will the government take its responsibility seriously and provide the needed funding for aboriginal women's shelters?
Scott stated that the first ministers meeting in Kelowna will specifically deal with this and remarked that this is the first time Conservatives have raised the issue.
Scott again references Kelowna and adds a partisan jab that this is the first time Conservatives have raised the issue, without addressing the $200,000 funding shortfall or committing to any specific action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the first ministers meeting in Kelowna will be dealing very specifically with this. It has been a matter of some interest for the last year and a half and this is the first time we have heard anything about it from the Conservatives.
Finley said the government abandoned farmers in the mini-budget despite the minister's claims, noted a $2 billion annual shortfall, and asked whether the minister would admit he deserves a 'D' when it comes to distributing money.
References the minister's own prior self-assessment ('A' for his announcement) and a $2 billion annual shortfall, but the ask — will he admit he deserves a 'D' — is largely rhetorical and combative rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, true to form, this government abandoned farmers in its mini-budget. Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food referred to the money that he promised farmers. However, the reality is that farmers are facing an annual shortfall of $2 billion. The minister is giving himself an “A” for his announcement. Will he admit that he deserves a “D” when it comes to distributing the money?
Mitchell cited the TISP payment of $1 billion, the FIP payment of $1 billion, and the CAIS program of $2.2 billion, asserting that payments to producers are at record levels.
Mitchell cites specific programs and amounts — TISP payment of $1 billion, FIP payment of $1 billion, CAIS program of $2.2 billion — and asserts payments to producers are at record levels, which is substantively responsive even if it does not directly engage the 'D' framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary, the economic statement presented by the Minister of Finance clearly stated that we stand by our farmers. We will and we have. We refer to the TISP payment of $1 billion, the FIP payment just this spring of $1 billion, and our CAIS program of $2.2 billion. In reality, payments to producers are at record levels in this country today because our producers are in need. We understand that and as a government we are responding to it.
Finley cited Alberta's Monday announcement of changes to the CAIS program giving producers a choice of how to calculate the reference margin, and asked the minister to commit to offering the same choice in the six provinces where the program is federally administered.
Cites a specific action — Alberta's Monday announcement allowing producers a choice of how to calculate the reference margin under CAIS — and asks the minister to commit to offering the same choice in the six federally administered provinces, a clear and answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the promises that are at a record high level. The Liberals do not deliver. On Monday the government of Alberta announced changes to the CAIS program that will allow producers in that province a choice of how to calculate the reference margin. Will the minister commit today in the House to follow Alberta's lead and offer the same choice in the six provinces where the program is administered by the federal government? If not, why not?
Mitchell listed existing CAIS changes including increased cap, negative margin coverage, elimination of the deposit, targeted advance, and expanded eligibility, and said a ministers' meeting is scheduled next week to discuss changes to margin calculations, which require federal and provincial agreement.
Mitchell lists several CAIS changes already made, acknowledges that changing margin calculations requires agreement of the federal government and seven provinces representing 50% of farm gate receipts, and notes a meeting scheduled next week — relevant and partially responsive but does not commit to the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been working on the CAIS program. In terms of changes, we have increased the cap. We have allowed for negative margin coverage. We have eliminated the deposit. We have allowed for a targeted advance. We have expanded the eligibility for negative margins. We are working on other changes such as inventory evaluation. As the hon. member knows, if we are to make a change in how margins are calculated, we need the agreement of the federal government and the seven provinces that represent 50% of farm gate receipts. We have a meeting scheduled next week where ministers will be discussing just that.
Myers asked the Minister of Health to inform the House about the government's investments for curing juvenile type 1 diabetes following the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's visit to Parliament Hill.
A government-backbench softball asking the Minister of Health to inform the House about government investments in curing juvenile type 1 diabetes, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, juvenile type 1 diabetes is a cause close to my heart. Members of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation were on the Hill yesterday and I would like to thank all the members who met with them. They had some very compelling stories to share and an equally compelling case. Could the Minister of Health please inform the House about the government's investments for curing this debilitating disease?
Dosanjh cited $300 million over five years for the integrated strategy including $18 million per year for the Canadian diabetes strategy, close to $6 million for type 1 diabetes research in 2004-05, $12 million for type 2 diabetes, rising to $30 million over four or five years.
Dosanjh provides specific figures: $300 million over five years for the integrated strategy including $18 million per year for the Canadian diabetes strategy, close to $6 million for type 1 diabetes research in 2004-05, $12 million for type 2, growing to $30 million over four or five years.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this very important question to my attention. I met with members of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation earlier in the year and yesterday. They are doing very important work. Budget 2005 provides $300 million over five years for the integrated strategy, which includes $18 million a year for the Canadian diabetes strategy. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research invested close to $6 million for type 1 diabetes research in fiscal year 2004-05 and $12 million for type 2 diabetes. That is going to go to $30 million over the next four or five years.
McDonough asked when the Prime Minister decided to scrap his commitment to respect the will of Parliament, citing a practical compromise to complete the fall agenda and launch an election early in the new year.
Frames a question about the Prime Minister scrapping his commitment to respect the will of Parliament, referencing a 'practical, common sense compromise' and the fall agenda, but the ask is vague and heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a minority government last time in the hopes that it would curb the arrogance of the Liberals, who consider themselves accountable to nobody. Despite the Prime Minister's promise to improve democracy, he now seems prepared to thumb his nose at the will of Parliament and at the wishes of Canadians. He is prepared to reject a practical, common sense compromise to complete the fall agenda and then early in the new year launch an election campaign. When did the Prime Minister decide to scrap his commitment to respect the will of Parliament?
Valeri said the Prime Minister made a commitment on national television consistent with two-thirds of Canadians wanting to wait for Justice Gomery's second report, and blamed the opposition for any dissolution of Parliament.
Valeri invokes the Prime Minister's commitment made on national television and the two-thirds of Canadians who wanted to wait for Justice Gomery's second report, then blames the opposition, without addressing the compromise proposal or the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians on national television and he is going to be consistent with that commitment. While the hon. member makes the comments that she does, in fact the opposition members are not operating at all in the public interest. They are operating in their own narrow partisan interests. Two-thirds of Canadians said they wanted to wait for Justice Gomery's second report. That is the commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. He made it on national television. The Prime Minister will ensure that he meets that commitment. If in fact this Parliament does dissolve, it will be 100% the responsibility of the opposition parties.
Broadbent stated that the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP have all compromised on the election timing issue, and asked whether the government's refusal to compromise is an example of unmitigated Liberal arrogance.
Broadbent notes that all three opposition parties have compromised and asks whether the government's my-way-or-no-way stance is unmitigated Liberal arrogance — largely rhetorical with no specific factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or the government House leader. Every member of every party in the House knows that we are going to have an election soon. The Conservative Party has compromised. The Bloc Québécois has compromised. We have compromised. Is it not an example of unmitigated Liberal arrogance to say, “Either it is my way or no way?”
Valeri quoted the Leader of the Opposition's May 10 statement that the confidence of the chamber is the only democratic mandate the government has, and challenged the opposition to put forward a motion and take responsibility.
Valeri deflects by quoting the Leader of the Opposition's May 10 statement about confidence and challenging the NDP-Conservative partnership, without addressing the compromise offer or the arrogance characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he check with his new-found partner, the leader of the official opposition. On the one hand they suggest they have no confidence and then on the other hand they suggest that we continue to govern, pass legislation and implement government spending. How quickly the hon. member and the leader of the official opposition forget what the Leader of the Opposition said on May 10: “the confidence of this chamber...is the only democratic mandate this government has”. We either have the confidence of this chamber or we do not. If we do not, they can put forward a motion and take responsibility--
Lunn cited the government's $92 million purchase of the Skyline complex from PowerCorp and asked how spending that amount on a building the government was not even in the market to buy represents best value for the Canadian taxpayer.
Cites a specific purchase price of $92 million for the Skyline complex from PowerCorp and asks how spending that amount on a building the government was not in the market to buy represents best value — a reasonably grounded ask but with heavy rhetorical framing about Liberal cronies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government spent $92 million purchasing the Skyline complex from PowerCorp. The government claims that it is getting the best possible value for Canadian tax dollars. The truth is that this is nothing more than best value for Liberal cronies, their friends, and everyone knows it. How is spending $92 million on a building, the government was not even in the market to buy, getting best value for the Canadian taxpayer?
Brison said the question is based on an unsubstantiated media story with wrong facts and offered the member a departmental briefing, without providing specific rebuttal figures or details.
Brison dismisses the question as based on an unsubstantiated media story with wrong facts and offers a departmental briefing, but provides no specific facts to rebut the $92 million figure or explain the purchase decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is basing his false allegations on an unsubstantiated media story that had its facts wrong. Yesterday I offered him a briefing from our department that would provide him with the facts. I would reiterate today that the hon. member is more than welcome to entertain that briefing and to learn the facts. He would learn that he was wrong and that best value for the Canadian taxpayer was provided while we achieved reasonable accommodations for Canadian public servants.
Lunn cited an access to information document showing PowerCorp solicited the government to make the $92 million purchase, and asked whether the transaction reflects special access granted to powerful Liberals rather than best value for taxpayers.
References a specific access to information document showing PowerCorp solicited the government for the purchase, and asks whether special access to powerful Liberals explains the transaction — reasonably grounded but still rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is an access to information that will show PowerCorp solicited the government to make the purchase. Is there any other company in the country that could just walk into cabinet and ask for $92 million for a building? The truth is that this happens because special access is granted to powerful Liberals and not to anyone else. Is it not true that this is about best value for powerful Liberals rather than best value for taxpayers?
Brison reiterated the offer of a departmental briefing and stated that the purchase price was below market value both at the time of purchase and today, and that fit-up costs were reasonable.
Brison again offers a departmental briefing and adds that the purchase price was below market value then and today and that fit-up costs were reasonable, providing some factual content but not addressing the access to information document or the solicitation allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that the hon. member does not want the truth to stand in the way of his false allegations. Once again I will reiterate that he can have a briefing from the department which will show him that best value was achieved. Beyond that, the purchase price was below market value then and today, and the fit-up costs were reasonable to ensure that Canadian public servants were housed reasonably in this building that was purchased in 2003.
Pallister cited at least $693,000 in Liberal lobbying contracts and $700,000 for David Dingwall's salary as patronage leader at the Mint, and asked why Liberals insist on defending one another and abusing Canadian taxpayers, including through Liberal lawyers negotiating Dingwall's severance.
Cites specific figures — $693,000 in Liberal lobbying contracts and $700,000 in salary — but conflates different amounts and uses loaded language like 'chingwall' and 'patronage leader,' making it more of a rhetorical attack than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when David Dingwall was thrown out by the people of Cape Breton in 1997, the Liberal patronage machine kicked right into action. Between then and now, Dingwall has received from Canadian taxpayers at least $693,000 in Liberal lobbying contracts and $700,000 for his salary as patronage leader at the Mint. Now Liberal lawyers are negotiating chingwall's severance with other Liberal lawyers. Why do Liberals insist on defending one another and abusing Canadian taxpayers?
McCallum contested the $700,000 figure, explaining it includes salaries of other employees, office expenses, paper, and computers, and said the $1 million figure could only be reached by counting Dingwall's salary twice.
McCallum directly contests the $700,000 figure by explaining it includes salaries of other employees, office expenses, paper, and computers, and notes the $1 million figure double-counts Dingwall's salary — a substantive rebuttal even if incomplete.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is quite astounding that the member opposite continues to put out these false numbers when he has been proven wrong so often. The $700,000 number includes Mr. Dingwall's salary, the salaries of other employees, office expenses, paper and computers. The $1 million cost, to which the hon. member referred before, could only be reached if Mr. Dingwall's salary were counted twice. The member has no credibility on numbers and he should realize that point.
Pallister cited André Ouellet's $2 million in lavish expenses, the Prime Minister's promise of an audit, and a 14-month wait with no results, and asked whether the Prime Minister will admit he is trying to hide the facts from Canadians until after the next federal election.
References André Ouellet's $2 million in lavish expenses, the Prime Minister's promise of an audit, and a 14-month wait — specific enough — but combines multiple issues (Dingwall, Ouellet, accountability) and the ask about a cover-up is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I stand by my numbers and the minister stands by Dingwall. The Prime Minister does not clean up, he covers up, and that is what the government is doing. Let us take André Ouellet, please. The Liberal porkmaster general felt entitled to pay himself $2 million in lavish expenses. The public was angry. The Prime Minister promised an audit and 14 months later we are still waiting. What happened to accountability? What happened to cleaning things up? André Ouellet is the poster boy for Liberal entitlement and this is a cover-up. Will the Prime Minister stand up and admit that he is trying to hide the facts from Canadians until after the next federal election?
McCallum said the law inhibits him from commenting on the Ouellet matter and praised the employees of the Canada Revenue Agency for carrying out their audits with great diligence and professionalism.
McCallum disclaims standing by Dingwall, invokes a legal prohibition on commenting on the Ouellet matter, and pivots to praising the Canada Revenue Agency's diligence, without addressing the audit timeline or the cover-up allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not stand by David Dingwall. I stand by at least rudimentary accuracy in the use of figures and facts in this chamber. In terms of Mr. Ouellet, as I indicated rather graphically two days ago, the law inhibits me from commenting on that matter. However I can say that I am honoured and privileged to be in charge of the Canada Revenue Agency because I can attest that the employees of that agency are carrying out their audits and their other tasks with great diligence and great professionalism, which should be recognized on that side of the House.
Why did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration reverse his government's promise to establish an appeal division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as he confirmed in committee?
The question cites a specific legislative provision (the appeal division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), a four-year timeline, and a confirmed ministerial reversal in committee, making it reasonably specific and factually grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was passed, four years ago, the government had provided for an appeal division to guarantee that the reduction in the number of commissioners would not deny refugee claimants fair and equitable treatment. In committee, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration confirmed that he no longer intended to establish the appeal division, as his government had promised, thereby embarrassing even a number of his Liberal colleagues. Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain the reasons for his about-face?
The minister stated that the existing system welcomed 28% more refugees last year than the previous year, citing that as evidence of justice for asylum seekers.
The minister never addresses the about-face on the appeal division, instead pivoting to refugee acceptance numbers as a proxy for justice, which does not answer the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I said we want a system that allows refugees to integrate into the Canadian system. Our existing system welcomed many more refugees last year than the previous year. Last year, we accepted 28% more refugees. In my opinion that is evidence that there is indeed justice for those truly seeking asylum here in Canada.
Does the minister's reversal on the appeal division mean he no longer considers fairness and justice important for asylum seekers, given the government's own stated rationale four years ago?
The question draws a sharp logical contrast between the government's original stated rationale (fairness and justice) and the minister's apparent abandonment of that rationale, but it is more rhetorical than the first exchange and does not introduce new facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, four years ago, the government explained that the creation of an appeal division was a matter of fairness and justice for those seeking asylum. Are we to understand the minister's remarks to mean that, four years later, he no longer considers fairness and justice important?
The minister repeated that justice lies in the results, noting that more refugees were welcomed last year than the previous year.
The minister again deflects entirely to refugee acceptance volumes rather than addressing the fairness and justice rationale for the appeal division, providing no substantive response to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the justice lies in the results. Many more refugees were welcomed here last year than in the previous year. That is justice. We voluntarily take in refugees and welcome them to this country.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources acknowledge that his department's 1981 demand for a cover-up of the energy conservation measures' role in rotting walls is costing homeowners billions of dollars in the leaky condo disaster?
The question cites a specific 1981 communication between CMHC and the deputy minister of energy, names the national energy program as the cause, and alleges a documented cover-up demand, making it highly specific and factually grounded with a single clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leaky condo disaster is costing homeowners billions of dollars. The government has known for years that the national energy program caused the disaster and that the department of energy ordered a cover-up. In 1981, CMHC told the deputy minister of energy that his department's energy conservation measures were the main cause of rotting walls in newly constructed homes. The deputy minister's response was to demand a cover-up. Would the Minister of Natural Resources acknowledge that his department's demand for a cover-up is costing homeowners billions of dollars?
The Minister of Labour and Housing declined to comment, citing a prior ruling on Question No. 151 and the matter being before the British Columbia courts.
The minister does not address the substance of the cover-up allegation or the CMHC communication, instead invoking a procedural ruling on Question No. 151 and the sub judice convention regarding British Columbia courts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe you ruled on a response we provided to Question No. 151 as appropriate, and you did that yesterday. Therefore I am sure the hon. member in this House would not want me to comment on a matter that is before the British Columbia courts.
Given the minister's prior statement weeks ago that changes to the compassionate care program were 'coming very soon,' why has she failed to present any changes to cabinet?
The question identifies a specific program (compassionate care), cites a prior ministerial commitment that changes were 'coming very soon,' and holds the minister to that public statement, giving it solid accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the compassionate care program was supposed to assist the thousands who perform the physically and emotionally draining task of caring for a terminally ill loved one. However the program is riddled with fundamental flaws and its administration costs far outstrip the benefits. The minister knows that already, just as her predecessors in the portfolio did for over two years. She said, when asked weeks ago in this House, that changes were “coming very soon”. When terminally ill, soon may not be soon enough. As there is a failure to present any changes to cabinet, could the minister explain this failure to keep her word to caregivers?
The minister said it is not a failure, that they are looking at expanding the definition of the program, and warned that an election could compromise this and other programs.
The minister denies failure and mentions looking at expanding the definition, but does not explain why the promised changes have not been presented to cabinet or provide a timeline, and pivots to a potential election threat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is not a failure. This a new program that was designed with a greater potential uptake than was actually received at the end of the day. We are looking at the program to expand the definition and, quite frankly, if we do have an election, this is one of the programs that may be compromised.
Could the Minister of Finance explain how Ontarians will benefit from the government's economic update and plan for prosperity?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that lists favourable statistics and asks the minister to explain how Ontarians will benefit, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Some critics have erroneously claimed that Ontario will not benefit from the Liberal government's economic update. Our economic success is no accident. We have had over 200,000 jobs created this year and October's unemployment rate reached its lowest point in three decades. Housing affordability remains near its best level on record and corporate profits are at their highest level in over 20 years. Could the Minister of Finance please explain further how Ontarians, like my constituents, will benefit from our government's plan for prosperity?
The minister cited more aggressive trade policy including the Windsor gateway, more competitive taxes, greater university access for middle and low income students, skills development, and innovation and commercialization as benefits for Ontario.
The minister provides a list of specific policy directions (trade policy including the Windsor gateway, competitive taxes, student access to universities, skills, innovation) that constitute real informational content, though without precise figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our plan for greater competitiveness, productivity and growth will be especially beneficial in Ontario. We will support Ontario's huge business sector with more aggressive trade policy, including further success on the Windsor gateway; more competitive taxes to keep jobs and investment on the Canadian side of the border; more middle and low income students will be able to go to Ontario's excellent universities; more brain power will be developed in this country and in this province; more workers will be able to gain skills; and, more top flight innovation and commercialization. Ontario will be a big winner.
Why does Saskatchewan not receive the same fair deal as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on natural resource revenues, given that almost 90% is clawed back and the province still loses a billion dollars even after the minister's band-aid fixes?
The question cites a specific figure (almost 90% clawed back) and a specific dollar loss (a billion dollars) and draws a direct comparison to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, making it reasonably specific with an identifiable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal finance minister again refused to provide a fair deal for Saskatchewan's oil and gas revenue. He thinks that fixing previous errors that his own department made is good enough. Well, it is not good enough for my province which sees almost 90% clawed back on our natural resource revenues. Even with his band-aid fixes to previous mistakes, Saskatchewan still loses a billion dollars because of clawbacks. Could the minister explain to people in Saskatchewan why we should not get the same fair deal as Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia?
The minister stated that since February 2004 there has been no such clawback, that Saskatchewan has received $799 million extra, and noted the province has a surplus of $873 million this year.
The minister directly contests the factual premise, citing February 2004 as the date clawbacks ended, provides a specific dollar figure of $799 million extra to Saskatchewan, and references the province's $873 million surplus, though he does not address the Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is just factually wrong. Since February 2004 there has been no such clawback. Saskatchewan has had the full benefit of its natural resources and its full equalization entitlement, which adds up to $799 million extra to the province of Saskatchewan than it otherwise would have received. I am very happy that today's fiscal accounts in Saskatchewan have reported that the province this year has a surplus of $873 million more.
Did today's announcement of Dr. Furlong's appointment as agent orange coordinator include significant changes to address the deficiencies identified in the original plan, such as making the position independent of government with power to make compensation recommendations?
The question references the member's own prior recommendations following the resignation of the agent orange coordinator and asks whether today's announcement of Dr. Furlong's appointment included specific changes to address those deficiencies, making it a reasonably focused accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, following the resignation of the agent orange coordinator, I made a number of recommendations to the government to improve the process, among other things, making the position independent of government with the power to make recommendations in regard to compensation. Did today's announcement of Dr. Furlong's appointment to this position include any significant changes to address the deficiencies in the original plan?
The minister praised Dr. Dennis Furlong's appointment based on his experience and credentials as a former health minister of the New Brunswick government, but did not address whether the member's specific recommendations were adopted.
The minister confirms the appointment and describes Dr. Furlong's credentials and background as a former health minister of the New Brunswick government, but does not directly address whether the member's specific recommendations for independence or compensation powers were incorporated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member recognizes that the appointment of Dr. Dennis Furlong is an important step in the right direction about getting to an understanding of the agent orange issue. This coordinator was selected based on his experience and credentials. He is a former health minister of the New Brunswick government. He knows how government works and how important this issue is to Canadians and people from the Gagetown area. I am very pleased that he is willing to take on this responsibility and we look forward to working with him to solve this important issue.
Why did the government implement an 8¢ cut in EI premiums instead of improving the system by implementing the Standing Committee's recommendations such as a 360-hour qualification requirement or calculating the best 12 weeks, leaving almost 500,000 unemployed individuals without adequate support?
The question cites a specific Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities with named recommendations (360-hour qualification requirement, best 12 weeks calculation) and a specific number of affected individuals (500,000), but the final characterization weakens its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the announcement of an 8¢ cut in EI premiums is very bad news for the unemployed. Instead of improving the system by implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities—such as creating a 360-hour qualification requirement or calculating the best 12 weeks—the government has chosen to ignore the demands of contributors. Is the minister aware that because of her action almost 500,000 unemployed individuals will be forced to continue to panhandle?
The minister thanked the member for highlighting the government's work on EI, citing the establishment of a commission that independently set the rate at $1.87 to make workers and business more competitive.
The minister does not address the standing committee's recommendations or the 500,000 unemployed individuals, instead praising the independent commission that set the rate at $1.87 and framing the cut as beneficial to workers and business.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for highlighting all the good work we have done with respect to evolving EI, in particular the establishment of a commission that sets the rate independently. It has lowered the rate to $1.87, which will allow both workers and business to be more competitive and reduce the costs.
Would the Minister of Social Development explain the early learning and child care deal with New Brunswick, given reports that the Premier wants an agreement like Quebec's and that the federal government is playing politics?
This is a government-backbench question framing the opposition as playing politics and asking the minister to explain a deal, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been reports in New Brunswick newspapers that the Premier of New Brunswick wants an early learning and child care agreement just like Quebec and that the federal government is simply playing politics with an early learning and child care agreement. Would the Minister of Social Development please tell us about the deal with New Brunswick.
The minister stated that New Brunswick pulled the plug at the last minute on a deal that eight other provinces signed, and contrasted Quebec's $1.2 billion spent on child care in 2003 with New Brunswick's $12.5 million, describing them as about 100 times different.
The minister provides specific comparative figures ($1.2 billion spent by Quebec versus $12.5 million by New Brunswick in 2003) and explains that New Brunswick pulled the plug on a deal that eight other provinces signed, offering substantive factual content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when negotiations were conducted with officials of the eight provinces, all sides agreed and there was a deal. In one case, New Brunswick at the last minute pulled the plug and refused the deal. In eight cases, eight provinces, also with significant rural populations, found the flexibility they wanted and needed in signed agreements. In one case, New Brunswick, said no. In one case with Quebec, in 2003 the amount spent on child care was $1.2 billion. With New Brunswick, the apples to apples comparative number was $12.5 million. That is $1.2 billion versus $12.5 million, about 100 times different. The people of New Brunswick can--
No summary.
This exchange consists entirely of points of order and procedural motions to table documents, with no question asked or answered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the minister's reluctance to respond to my question earlier, I would be pleased to table the access documents which support the preamble of my question in the hope that it would perhaps jog his memory.
Agreed.
No.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, the Minister of National Revenue, in response to my question concerning Mr. Dingwall and the government's intention to pay him severance, disputed facts which I put on the record in terms of Mr. Dingwall's earning. Those earnings were stated correctly by me, in excess of $700,000, salary and benefits, over the term of his employment at the Mint. I would offer to the minister to table a copy of the remuneration agreement which was signed with Mr. Dingwall for his edification so he can get his numbers correct in future and be able to have a more reasoned and intelligent response to reasoned and intelligent questions.
Agreed.
No
No summary.
No ministerial answer was given; the exchange was purely procedural with members seeking to table documents.