Session overview
- Political financing dominated Question Period, with Opposition members pressing the government over the Chief Electoral Officer's finding that the Conservative Party failed to report $1.7 million in convention donations and did not provide required documents to Elections Canada.
- The Maher Arar inquiry generated significant exchanges, with the Bloc Québécois demanding immediate official apologies, complaints to the U.S. and Syria, and the appearance of RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; the session ended with the House unanimously consenting to a motion that apologies should be presented to Maher Arar.
- An access to information breach was raised, with members alleging that the Prime Minister's director of communications illegally received the name of a reporter who had filed a confidential access to information request; the Minister of Public Safety and the President of the Treasury Board both undertook to investigate and meet with the Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.
- Conservative insiders and lobbyists drew scrutiny, with Opposition members citing Goldy Hyder and Bill Pristanski as examples of individuals using Conservative connections to benefit their clients, and the Bloc Québécois identifying Kevin McIntosh and David Salvatore as former Conservative advisers now working as lobbyists.
- Heritage and Status of Women funding delays were raised by the Bloc Québécois, with organizations waiting up to 11 months for grant confirmations and women's groups such as the Association nationale Femmes et Droit reported to be closing due to lack of funding.
- Jason Kenney confirmed that Maher Arar and his family â including Dr. Monia Mazigh and their children â had already been removed from the terrorist list by the Minister of Public Safety, and Stockwell Day confirmed the government would act on all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations.
Jason Kenney confirmed to the House that the Minister of Public Safety had already acted to remove Maher Arar, Dr. Monia Mazigh, and their children from the terrorist list â a concrete, specific government action directly disclosed in response to a question.
Highly specific: names Kevin McIntosh and David Salvatore, cites their prior roles and current lobbying positions, and directly contradicts a specific public statement made by the President of the Treasury Board earlier that week.
Rather than addressing Ralph Goodale's specific question about how the government would investigate the Chief Electoral Officer's concerns regarding individual donors â including MPs and the Prime Minister â exceeding contribution limits through convention fees, Baird pivoted entirely to itemizing Goodale's personal use of Challenger flights.
Outstanding questions
- Bill Graham (Exchange 3) asked how the Prime Minister would reprimand his chief of staff Ian Brodie, whom the Chief Electoral Officer clearly identified as responsible for conduct that approached a violation of Canada's electoral laws â no direct answer was given.
- Gilles Duceppe (Exchange 7) asked whether the Prime Minister would file a complaint with the United States and Syria, as recommended by Commissioner O'Connor, and specifically whether he would do so during his visit to the U.S. that day â the question was not answered.
- Marlene Jennings (Exchange 22) asked whether the Prime Minister would ask his director of communications to resign immediately following the illegal disclosure of an access to information requester's identity â the question was not addressed.
- Ralph Goodale (Exchange 28) asked whether the government would launch an independent forensic audit of all financing submissions to Elections Canada and all party conventions by the Reform Party, the Alliance Party, and the Conservative Party of Canada â no response was given to this specific request.
- Serge MĂ©nard (Exchange 9) asked whether persons who knowingly misled members of the previous government should be suspended pending Commissioner Zaccardelli's appearance before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security â the minister did not address the question of suspension.
Graham asks whether the government will admit that the Prime Minister's June 30 statement that 'all laws had been obeyed' regarding $1.7 million in donations is inaccurate, given the Chief Electoral Officer's forceful rejection of the Conservative Party's arguments.
Cites the Prime Minister's specific June 30 statement and the Chief Electoral Officer's contradiction of it, with a clear yes/no accountability ask, though framed with some rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on June 30 the Prime Minister told reporters that all laws had been obeyed with regard to the $1.7 million of donations to his party. Yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada forcefully rejected the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister and his Conservative Party operatives. In light of the evidence we have today, will the government now admit that the Prime Minister's statement that all laws were obeyed is totally inaccurate and totally indefensible in the House?
Kenney refuses and pivots to accusing the Liberal Party of wanting taxpayers to subsidize its conventions through tax credits, and says the Conservative Party will abide by any new interpretation from the Chief Electoral Officer.
Deflects entirely to Liberal Party convention tax credit practices rather than addressing whether the Prime Minister's statement that all laws were obeyed is accurate.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker, we will not make such a false admission. What we will do is ask the Liberal Party why it is that it expects the taxpayers of Canada to subsidize its political conventions by using the tax credit to subsidize delegate fees for its party convention. That is not the practice of this party. We believe that delegates should pay their fees, not the taxpayers of Canada. That has been our consistent position. If the Chief Electoral Officer decides to change his long-standing interpretation of the law, we of course will abide by the new interpretation, although we stand for the interests of taxpayers.
Graham asks why the Prime Minister made misleading statements about having turned over all documents to Elections Canada, given the Chief Electoral Officer's statement that the Conservatives had not provided their convention books.
Quotes the Prime Minister's specific June 30 words ('we already have') and contrasts them with the Chief Electoral Officer's statement that convention books were not provided, making a precise factual contradiction the basis of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe the parliamentary secretary can respond to this. On June 30 the Prime Minister was also asked by reporters if the Conservative Party intended to turn over all documents requested by Elections Canada. The Prime Minister at the time said âwe already haveâ. Those were his words. Once again, the Prime Minister was contradicted by the Chief Electoral Officer who said that the Conservatives had not turned over the essential evidence he required, which are their convention books. Why did the Prime Minister make misleading statements about Conservative Party donations and possible illegal fundraising practices that the parliamentary secretary cannot possibly defend in the House?
Kenney states the Conservative Party has provided all specific information requested and will continue to comply, then pivots to accusing the Liberal Party of expecting taxpayers to fund its conventions.
Provides a partial claim that all specific information requested has been provided, but then pivots almost entirely to attacking the Liberal Party's record on sponsorship and tax credits rather than directly reconciling the Prime Minister's statement with the Chief Electoral Officer's account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Conservative Party has provided the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections with all the specific information that has been requested and it will continue to comply completely with both of those officers. Let us be clear about what is at issue here. It is a long-standing practice of the Liberal Party which believes that tax dollars belong to the Liberal Party. That is why we had ad scam and innumerable scandals. That is why we have a Liberal Party that is once again insisting that taxpayers, through the political tax credit, subsidize the conventions of political parties. We do not operate like that because we believe that taxpayers should keep their hard-earned tax dollars.
Graham asks how the Prime Minister will discipline his chief of staff Ian Brodie, whom the Chief Electoral Officer has identified as responsible for conduct that nearly violated Canada's electoral laws.
Names a specific individual (Ian Brodie), identifies his current role as chief of staff, links him to the investigation, and asks what discipline the Prime Minister will impose â a specific and grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est pourtant ce gouvernement, qui nous parle sans arrĂȘt de ses programmes en cette Chambre, qui se moque des lois Ă©lectorales du Canada jour aprĂšs jour. La personne en charge de cette manigance conservatrice, qui est sous enquĂȘte en ce moment, est aujourd'hui le chef du cabinet du premier ministre, Ian Brodie. Comment le premier ministre rĂ©primandera-t-il son chef de cabinet, celui que le directeur gĂ©nĂ©ral des Ă©lections a clairement indiquĂ© comme responsable d'avoir frĂŽlĂ© la violation des lois Ă©lectorales de notre pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yet this government, which talks non-stop about its programs in this House, flouts Canada's election laws day after day. The mastermind of this Conservative ploy, who is now under investigation, is today the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie. How will the Prime Minister reprimand his chief of staff, who the chief electoral officer clearly indicated had come close to violating this country's election laws?
Kenney dismisses the claims as totally false and says the Conservative Party has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the Chief Electoral Officer, then repeats that Conservative delegates pay their own convention fees.
Kenney flatly denies the premise and returns entirely to the tax credit/convention subsidy talking point without addressing Ian Brodie, the investigation, or any disciplinary action.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les propos du chef de l'opposition sont totalement faux. Le Parti conservateur et tous les officiers du Parti conservateur ont coopĂ©rĂ© et travaillĂ© avec le directeur des Ă©lections, et nous continuerons de le faire. Le chef de l'opposition veut cacher le fait que le Parti libĂ©ral veut que les contribuables subventionnent les congrĂšs du Parti libĂ©ral avec les crĂ©dits d'impĂŽt. Notre position est telle que les dĂ©lĂ©guĂ©s de notre parti doivent dĂ©bourser eux-mĂȘme leurs frais en tant que dĂ©lĂ©guĂ©s, et ce, parce que nous respectons les contribuables canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Leader of the Opposition are totally false. The Conservative Party and all the officers of the Conservative Party have cooperated and worked with the Commissioner of Elections, and we will continue to do so. The Leader of the Opposition wants to conceal the fact that the Liberal Party wants taxpayers to subsidize Liberal Party conventions through tax credits. Our position is that our party's delegates must pay their own expenses, because we respect Canadian taxpayers.
Robillard asks how the Prime Minister can explain to citizens that the Conservative government does not appear to be respecting the Canada Elections Act with regard to contributions.
Uses a glass-houses metaphor before asking a vague general question about the Prime Minister not respecting the Canada Elections Act on contributions, without citing specific facts or a precise ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai appris trÚs rapidement qu'en politique, on vit dans une maison de verre et qu'il faut toujours y penser deux fois avant de lancer une pierre à son opposant. C'est ce qui arrive aujourd'hui au Parti conservateur, qui dirige un gouvernement minoritaire. Comment le premier ministre peut-il expliquer aux citoyens qu'il ne semble pas respecter la Loi électorale du Canada en matiÚre de contributions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I learned early on that politicians live in glass houses and should always think twice before throwing a stone at an opponent. That is what the Conservative Party, which forms a minority government, is doing today. How can the Prime Minister explain to Canadians that he does not seem to be complying with the Canada Elections Act with respect to contributions?
Kenney asserts that the Conservative Party has always respected the Canada Elections Act and the interests of Canadian taxpayers, and that Conservative delegates pay their own convention expenses without taxpayer subsidies.
Kenney simply asserts compliance with the Canada Elections Act and pivots again to the convention subsidy talking point, without engaging any specific allegation in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, soyons clairs. Nous respectons la Loi Ă©lectorale du Canada, nous l'avons toujours respectĂ©e et nous respectons les intĂ©rĂȘts des contribuables canadiens. C'est pourquoi nous avons dĂ©cidĂ©, depuis longtemps, que les dĂ©lĂ©guĂ©s conservateurs, lors des congrĂšs du parti, payeront leurs propres dĂ©penses en tant que dĂ©lĂ©guĂ©s, et ce, sans subvention des contribuables du gouvernement. Toutefois, le Parti libĂ©ral prend une position. Il veut que les contribuables subventionnent les coĂ»ts de leur congrĂšs. Nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We are complying with the Canada Elections Act, we have always complied with the Act, and we respect the interests of Canadian taxpayers. That is why we decided long ago that Conservative delegates to party conventions would pay their own expenses as delegates, without being subsidized by taxpayers. But the Liberal Party is taking a stand. It wants taxpayers to underwrite the party's conventions. We do not agree with that.
Robillard asks why the government does not undertake real reform of the judicial appointments process, pointing out that the government's first Quebec judicial appointment went to a former Conservative Party president.
Cites a specific judicial appointment to a former Conservative Party president in Quebec and uses the government's own prior rhetoric to frame a question about judicial reform, but the ask is paraphrased and somewhat indirect.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre s'est targué pendant la derniÚre campagne électorale de vouloir diriger un gouvernement toujours plus blanc que blanc. Cette semaine, le gouvernement minoritaire a fait sa premiÚre nomination judiciaire au Québec...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Prime Minister boasted about wanting to lead a squeaky clean government. This week, the minority government made its first judicial appointment in Quebecâ
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Le gouvernement minoritaire a fait sa premiÚre nomination judiciaire au Québec à un ancien président du Parti conservateur.
Hansard translation: The minority government's first judicial appointment in Quebec went to a former Conservative Party president.
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Permettez-moi alors de paraphraser la question du député de Calgary-Southeast du 26 octobre dernier. Pourquoi ne pas faire une vraie réforme du processus de nominations judiciaires, à moins que le systÚme fonctionne trÚs bien pour le soi-disant nouveau gouvernement conservateur.
Hansard translation: Allow me to paraphrase a question asked by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast on October 26 last year. Why not implement a true reform of the judicial appointment process, unless the system is working very well for the new Conservative government?
Kenney says judicial appointments will be made transparently based on qualifications and that the government will manage affairs in an accountable and responsible manner.
Kenney gives a generic assurance that judicial appointments will be made transparently based on qualifications and pivots to government accountability themes, without addressing the specific appointment or the conflict-of-interest concern raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est clair que les nominations judiciaires seront faites par notre gouvernement de façon transparente, selon les qualifications des candidats. Le ministre de la Justice fait une trÚs bonne démarche en ce sens. La différence est que nous savons, en tant que nouveau gouvernement du Canada, que nous ne tenons pas pour acquis l'argent des contribuables canadiens. Nous allons gérer ce gouvernement de façon imputable et responsable.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, judicial appointments will be made by our government in a transparent manner based on candidates' qualifications. The Minister of Justice is doing a great job. The difference is that we know, as the new Government of Canada, that we are not taking Canadian taxpayers' money for granted. We will run this government in a responsible and accountable manner.
Duceppe asks why, given the O'Connor inquiry's findings that the RCMP transmitted inaccurate information and damaged Maher Arar's reputation, the Prime Minister cannot immediately present official apologies to Mr. Arar.
References the O'Connor commission findings specifically â RCMP transmission of inaccurate information and efforts to damage Arar's reputation â and asks a clear, actionable question about why official apologies cannot be made immediately.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'enquĂȘte du commissaire O'Connor a clairement dĂ©montrĂ© que non seulement la GRC a transmis de l'information inexacte aux autoritĂ©s amĂ©ricaines au sujet de Maher Arar, ce qui lui a valu d'ĂȘtre torturĂ© pendant prĂšs d'un an dans une prison syrienne, mais qu'elle s'est Ă©galement acharnĂ©e Ă salir sa rĂ©putation et celle de sa famille qui Ă©tait considĂ©rĂ©e comme suspecte par la GRC. On comprend le premier ministre de vouloir attendre les recommandations de la cour avant de fixer le montant pour l'indemnisation de Maher Arar, mais il n'y a aucune raison pour ne pas prĂ©senter immĂ©diatement des excuses officielles Ă M. Arar. Qu'attend le premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Justice O'Connor's inquiry has clearly demonstrated that not only did the RCMP forward inaccurate information to the U.S. authorities on Maher Arar, which led to his being tortured in a Syrian prison for almost a year, but it also was relentless in ruining Mr. Arar's reputation and that of his family, whom the RCMP considered suspicious. We realize that the Prime Minister will want to wait for the court's recommendations before determining how much Maher Arar will be compensated, but there is no reason why he could not make an official apology to Mr. Arar immediately. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?
Kenney says the government accepts all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations, that negotiations are currently underway between government lawyers and Arar's representatives, and expresses hope for an agreement soon.
Kenney confirms the government accepts all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations and mentions ongoing negotiations between government lawyers and Arar's representatives, which is partially responsive, but does not directly explain why an apology cannot be issued before negotiations conclude.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, soyons clairs. Le gouvernement accepte toutes les recommandations du juge O'Connor et nous appuyons le rapport. On comprend qu'actuellement il y a des pourparlers entres les avocats du gouvernement et les reprĂ©sentants de M. Arar afin d'en arriver Ă une entente acceptable pour ce dernier. Ăvidemment, M. Arar a Ă©tĂ© victime d'une grande injustice â qui se passait sous l'ancien gouvernement, â, mais j'espĂšre que nous aurons prochainement une entente avec M. Arar.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The government accepts all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations and we support the report. We understand that talks are currently being held between the government's lawyers and Mr. Arar's representatives with a view to reaching an agreement that is acceptable to Mr. Arar. Obviously, Mr. Arar was a victim of a gross injusticeâwhich occurred under the former governmentâand I hope we will reach an agreement with him shortly.
Duceppe asks whether the government, since it accepts all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations, will file a complaint with the United States and Syria as recommended, and whether the Prime Minister will do so during his visit to the U.S.
Distinguishes logically between negotiations on the amount and the separate act of apology, then cites a specific O'Connor recommendation (filing complaints with the U.S. and Syria) and a precedent (the Zahra Kazimi case with Iran), making a precise and grounded ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, des pourparlers sont peut-ĂȘtre nĂ©cessaires pour fixer le montant, mais nul besoin de pourparlers pour faire des excuses. Cela peut se faire dĂšs cet aprĂšs-midi. De la mĂȘme façon, puisque le gouvernement accepte toutes les recommandations, va-t-il dĂ©poser une plainte auprĂšs des Ătats-Unis et de la Syrie, comme le recommande le commissaire O'Connor? Le premier ministre pourrait le faire lors de sa visite aux Ătats-Unis, aujourd'hui et demain. L'ancien gouvernement l'a fait auprĂšs de l'Iran dans le cas de Zahra Kazimi. Va-t-il le faire dans le cas de Maher Arar? Je voudrais le savoir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, talks may be necessary to discuss the amount of compensation, but there is no need for talks to make an apology. That could be done this afternoon. Likewise, since the government accepts all of the recommendations, will it file a complaint with the United States and Syria as Justice O'Connor's report recommends? The Prime Minister could do so during his visit to the United States today and tomorrow. The former government filed a complaint with the government of Iran in the Zahra Kazemi case. Will this government follow suit in the Maher Arar case? I want to know.
Kenney says the government will act quickly but with necessary deliberation given the 800-page report received only days ago, and suggests Liberals should apologize since the incident occurred under their government.
Kenney says the government will act quickly but with necessary deliberation, notes the report was just received, and pivots to blaming Liberals for the incident rather than addressing the specific O'Connor recommendation about filing complaints with the U.S. and Syria.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons agir relativement Ă cette question de façon rapide, mais avec les dĂ©libĂ©rations nĂ©cessaires. Nous venons de recevoir, il y a seulement quelques jours, un rapport de plus de 800 pages. J'entends de l'autre cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre des libĂ©raux nous demandant d'exprimer des excuses. Je rappelle aux dĂ©putĂ©s du Parti libĂ©ral que cet incident honteux est arrivĂ© sous le gouvernement libĂ©ral. Peut-ĂȘtre peuvent-ils commencer Ă exprimer des excuses.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will act on this matter relatively quickly, but with the necessary deliberation. We have just received, just a few days ago, a report over 800 pages long. I hear the Liberals opposite asking us to make apologies. I wish to remind hon. Liberal members that this shameful incident occurred under the Liberal government. Perhaps they could start the apologies.
Ménard asks whether the government will support the Bloc Québécois in calling RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, given Justice O'Connor's criticism of the RCMP's reprehensible conduct and cover-up attempts.
References the O'Connor report's criticism of the RCMP, names Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, and asks a specific and actionable question about whether the government will support calling Zaccardelli before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans ce qu'on appelle dĂ©jĂ l'affaire Arar, le juge O'Connor dĂ©nonce sans dĂ©tour le comportement rĂ©prĂ©hensible de la GRC. Il blĂąme sĂ©vĂšrement les tentatives de camouflage auxquelles se sont prĂȘtĂ©s certains de ses agents. Devant des rĂ©vĂ©lations aussi troublantes, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois juge que la convocation du commissaire de la GRC, Giuliano Zaccardelli, devant le ComitĂ© permanent de la sĂ©curitĂ© publique et nationale s'impose. Le gouvernement peut-il nous dire s'il entend appuyer le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois dans cette dĂ©marche et faire en sorte que le commissaire Zaccardelli comparaisse devant ce comitĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in what is already being called the Arar affair, Justice O'Connor in no uncertain terms condemned the RCMP's reprehensible behaviour. He chastised agents who participated in the cover-up attempt. Given such troubling revelations, the Bloc Québécois feels that RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli should be called before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Will the government support the Bloc Québécois' demands and have Commissioner Zaccardelli appear before the committee?
Day confirms the government will act on all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations and says calling Commissioner Zaccardelli before the committee is a good idea.
Day directly confirms the government will act on all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations and explicitly states that calling Commissioner Zaccardelli before the committee is a good idea, which is a direct and clear answer to the specific ask.
Source text
PremiÚrement, monsieur le Président, le gouvernement va agir selon toutes les recommandations du juge O'Connor, et un comité formé de députés peut demander que le commissaire, M. Zaccardelli, comparaisse devant lui. C'est une bonne idée.
Hansard translation: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the government will act on Justice O'Connor's recommendations, and a parliamentary committee may ask Commissioner Zaccardelli to appear. That is a good idea.
MĂ©nard asks whether the Minister of Public Safety will admit that RCMP personnel who deliberately misled members of the previous government should be suspended until Commissioner Zaccardelli appears before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
References a specific internal memo in which Zaccardelli praises his personnel's professional attitude, and asks a specific question about whether individuals who deliberately misled the previous government should be suspended pending the committee hearing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'espĂšre que nous aurons d'autres sujets d'entente. Dans une note de service interne, Zaccardelli, grand patron de la GRC, se fĂ©licite de l'attitude professionnelle de son personnel tout au long de l'enquĂȘte. Le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique admettra-t-il que les personnes qui, par leurs manoeuvres, ont sciemment induit en erreur des membres du gouvernement prĂ©cĂ©dent devraient plutĂŽt ĂȘtre suspendues jusqu'Ă ce que le commissaire ait Ă©tĂ© entendu par le ComitĂ© permanent de la sĂ©curitĂ© publique et nationale, afin que l'on connaisse les mesures disciplinaires qu'il entend demander au comitĂ© de discipline de la GRC?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will be able to agree on other things as well. In a self-congratulatory internal memo, Zaccardelli, head honcho of the RCMP, applauded his staff's professionalism during the inquiry. Does the Minister of Public Safety agree that individuals who, by their actions, knowingly misled members of the previous government, should be suspended until the RCMP Commissioner has appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to discuss the disciplinary measures he intends to recommend to the RCMP disciplinary committee?
Day says the government will act on all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations, including the judge's proposals to improve RCMP processes.
Day says the government will act on all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations and references the judge's proposals for improving RCMP processes, but does not address the specific ask about whether those individuals should be suspended.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, nous allons agir selon toutes les recommandations. Or le juge O'Connor y est allé de propositions en vue d'améliorer les processus pour la GRC, et nous allons suivre ses recommandations.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will act on all of the recommendations. Justice O'Connor made recommendations to improve RCMP procedures, and we will follow those recommendations.
Layton asks whether the Prime Minister will ensure that the Maher Arar family, Dr. Monia Mazigh, and their children are immediately removed from the list of terrorists, given Justice O'Connor's finding that the family posed no threat whatsoever.
Cites the O'Connor report's finding that the Arar family posed no threat and that false information was transmitted to U.S. authorities in violation of the RCMP's own rules, then asks a specific, actionable question about removing the Arar family and Dr. Monia Mazigh from the terrorist list.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Justice O'Connor's report makes it clear that what happened to Maher Arar was totally unacceptable. First, he was described as being an Islamic extremist--he and his family--with possible terrorist links. Then we learn from the report that false information was transmitted to U.S. authorities completely in violation of the RCMP's own rules. Justice O'Connor made it absolutely clear in his report that the Maher Arar family posed no threat whatsoever. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the name of that family and Dr. Monia Mazigh and their children are removed from the list of terrorists immediately so they can get--
Kenney confirms that this action has already been taken by the Minister of Public Safety.
Kenney directly and concisely answers the specific question by confirming that this action has already been taken by the Minister of Public Safety â a fully responsive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, l can report to the House that this action has already been taken by the Minister of Public Safety.
Layton asks whether the Prime Minister will request official apologies from President Bush on behalf of Maher Arar and Canada, given the O'Connor report's finding that the United States violated its own law by deporting Arar to Syria.
Acknowledges the government's action on the list, then pivots to a specific question about whether the Prime Minister will request official apologies from President Bush on behalf of Maher Arar and Canada, grounded in the report's finding that the U.S. violated its own law.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre devrait s'excuser pour tout le mal fait Ă Maher Arar et Ă sa famille. C'est Ă©vident. Le fait qu'il soit toujours sur la liste malgrĂ© le rapport est une vraie honte. Merci pour la dĂ©cision du gouvernement Ă ce propos! On apprend Ă©galement dans le rapport que les Ătats-Unis, en dĂ©portant M. Arar en Syrie, ont violĂ© leur propre loi. Le premier ministre demandera-t-il, au nom de Maher Arar et du Canada, des excuses officielles du prĂ©sident Bush?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should apologize for the wrong that was done to Maher Arar and his family. That is obvious. The fact that he is still on the list despite the report is truly shameful. Thanks for the government's decision on this. The report also indicates that in deporting Mr. Arar to Syria, the United States violated its own law. Will the Prime Minister demand an official apology from President Bush, on behalf of Maher Arar and Canada?
Kenney acknowledges Arar's suffering and says the government will closely follow Justice O'Connor's recommendations, asking members to allow a few days to implement the recommendations from the 800-page report.
Kenney thanks Layton, acknowledges Arar's suffering, and asks for time to implement the 800-page report's recommendations, but does not address the specific ask about requesting an official apology from President Bush.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie sincÚrement de sa question le chef du NPD, parce qu'évidemment M. Arar a souffert une grande injustice auprÚs du systÚme judiciaire et policier du Canada. C'est pourquoi nous suivrons de prÚs les recommandations faites derniÚrement par le juge O'Connor. Nous venons de recevoir son rapport de plus de 800 pages. J'espÚre que tous les députés vont donner au gouvernement quelques jours au moins pour mettre en valeur et en vigueur toutes les recommandations faites par le juge O'Connor.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the NDP sincerely for his question, because clearly Mr. Arar suffered a great injustice at the hands of Canada's justice system and policing system. That is why we will be looking closely at the recommendations made recently by Mr. Justice O'Connor. We just received his report, which is over 800 pages in length. I hope that all members will give the government a few days at least to examine and act on all the recommendations made by Mr. Justice O'Connor.
Holland asks when the Treasury Board president will ensure that every cent of the $13,000 contract awarded to the Conservative Party for PR on the accountability act is returned.
References a specific contract amount ($13,000) awarded for PR on the accountability act to the Conservative Party, and asks a clear question about repayment, though the rhetorical framing ('limbo that low,' 'rantings') reduces its factual clarity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the rantings of the Treasury Board president, of which we are about to get another fine display, cannot cover up the fact that a fat cheque was cut to the Conservative Party for, of all things, PR on the so-called accountability act. This was called yesterday âa very high ethical barâ. A very high ethical bar? Not even Mike Harris would have believed he could limbo that low. The minister said the buck stops with him. That $13,000 is a lot of bucks and Canadians want every cent of it back. When will the minister ensure that every cent of this abuse is returned?
Oh, oh!
Baird states that no political actors were involved in awarding the contract, that he ordered it terminated the moment it was brought to his attention, and that no further work would be done or charged to the taxpayer.
Baird confirms no political actors were involved in awarding the contract, that he ordered it terminated the moment it was brought to his attention, and that no further work would be done or charged to the taxpayer â responsive to the core facts, though not directly addressing repayment of the $13,000.
Source text
Mr. Speaker---
Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich. Every day we get another lecture on ethics from the Liberal Party, a party whose own internal report says it has lost all credibility with the people of Canada. Those are not my words. Those are the words of an internal Liberal report released on September 10. What I can say is that no political actors were involved in the awarding of this contract. The very moment it was brought to my attention, I ordered the contract terminated. No further work would be done nor charged to the taxpayer.
Holland asks the Treasury Board president to table every page of work done on the two-week, $13,000 contract awarded to Marie-Josée Lapointe that should never have been granted.
Names a specific individual (Marie-Josée Lapointe), specifies the contract duration (two weeks) and amount ($13,000), and asks a clear procedural question about tabling all documents related to the work done.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is tethered, because he always gets very upset at the supplementaries. I see it is still payday for the Conservative Party headquarters. The minister should table every page of the so-called work done on this two-week, $13,000 contract that should never have been awarded. The only thing I can see that Canadians got for this expensive PR advice is a minister who refuses to answer questions. When will the Treasury Board president repay every cent of the $13,000 he slopped in the trough of a Conservative Party friend, Marie-Josée Lapointe?
Oh, oh!
Baird says he does not believe he has ever met Marie-Josée Lapointe, that no political actor had involvement in awarding the contract, and that it was immediately cancelled, before pivoting to a memo about contracting abuses under the previous government.
Baird says he does not believe he has ever met the individual and that no political actor had involvement in the contract, which is somewhat responsive, but then pivots to a David Dingwall memo and attacks the previous government rather than committing to table the documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member opposite that this is an individual I do not believe I have ever met. It is an individual for which no political actor had involvement in awarding the contract. I can say that we will be judged on how we deal with these challenges as they present themselves. The minute it came to my attention, it was immediately cancelled. I do have a number of very interesting memos, though, from the previous government. I have a memo here from David Dingwall to the Hon. Ralph Goodale, saying that contracting undertaken by Agriculture Canada itself has been abused. When will the members opposite pay back the money they stole--
Bains asks when the government will stop allowing Conservative insiders such as Goldy Hyder and Bill Pristanski â who contributed to the minister's last election campaign and were registered to lobby the Treasury Board â to use their influence with the government.
Names specific lobbyists (Goldy Hyder and Bill Pristanski), notes their contributions to the minister's campaign, and specifies that Pristanski was registered to lobby the Treasury Board â factual and grounded, though the final ask is somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board refuses to answer questions about Conservative insiders using their connections to benefit their clients. A long list of Conservative insiders, including Goldy Hyder and Bill Pristanski, are making money using their influence with the government. In fact, both have contributed to the minister's last election campaign. Specifically, Mr. Pristanski was registered to lobby the Treasury Board. This conflict falls squarely on the shoulders of the Treasury Board president. When will his government stop allowing its friends to use their influence?
Baird outlines his government's proposed reforms to the Lobbyists Registration Act, including a five-year ban on lobbying for anyone who worked in a minister's office and mandatory recording of all contacts with lobbyists, and asks why the Liberal Senate is not passing the federal accountability act.
Baird outlines proposed reforms under the Lobbyists Registration Act and attacks the Liberal Senate for not passing the federal accountability act, but does not address the specific named individuals or the conflict-of-interest concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we were very clear in the last election campaign. We wanted to reform the Lobbyists Registration Act in a way that had never been done in Canadian history, to make it the most accountable and transparent in Canadian history, and in fact, one of the most transparent and accountable in the world. We want to do two things. We want to ban anyone who has worked in a minister's office from lobbying for five years, including the minister himself or herself. We also want to make it the law that one has to record every single contact with a lobbyist. The lobbyists would have to do the same thing. I say to the Liberal members opposite, why are they standing in the way of reforming our lobbyists registration system? Why are the Liberal members of the Senate not passing the federal accountability act?
Bains asks why the Conservative government is breaking its Speech from the Throne promise by allowing Conservative insiders to profit from their connections through lobbying.
References the minister's admission of past mistakes under Mike Harris and cites a specific Speech from the Throne commitment being broken, but the framing is heavily rhetorical ('accountability deficit disorder') and the ask is not precisely defined.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clearly the President of the Treasury Board suffers from accountability deficit disorder. Yesterday the Treasury Board president admitted to a long list of mistakes he made when he served Mike Harris in Ontario, so why will he not admit today that allowing Conservative insiders to profit from their connections is wrong? Not only is it wrong, but the Conservatives are breaking a key promise made in the Speech from the Throne. Why?
Baird says the government's first legislation was the federal accountability act to make lobbying more transparent and accountable, and accuses the Liberal Party of trying to water it down in committee while the Liberal Senate delays its passage into law.
Baird points to the federal accountability act as evidence of the government's commitment, attacks the Liberal Party for watering it down at committee and the Liberal Senate for delaying it, and pivots to accusing the Liberal leader of appointing a registered lobbyist to his transition team â not addressing the specific promise-breaking allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is this government whose first legislation was to table the federal accountability act, which would make the practice of lobbying more transparent, more accountable and more open to public scrutiny. It is the Liberal Party that at the committee tried to water it down, and now, as we speak, the Liberal Senate is seeking to delay this from passing into law. Maybe while the member opposite is on his feet he could explain why the leader of the Liberal Party appointed a registered lobbyist to his own transition team, a current registered lobbyist working in the PMO. Who was he working for, the public interest or the private interests of his--
Why is the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women leaving funding applications from women's groups unanswered when the promotion of women program expires September 26 and bureaucrats finished their review weeks ago, forcing groups like the Association nationale Femmes et Droit to close?
The question cites a specific program with an expiry date of September 26, identifies that bureaucrats had completed their review weeks earlier, and names a specific organization (Association nationale Femmes et Droit) closing due to lack of funding, making a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le programme de la promotion de la femme, qui vient Ă Ă©chĂ©ance le 26 septembre, a prĂ©sentement toujours cours. Les critĂšres sont les mĂȘmes que par le passĂ©. Des demandes ont Ă©tĂ© dĂ©posĂ©es par des groupes de femmes, et ce, depuis plusieurs semaines, voire plusieurs mois. On nous dit que les fonctionnaires ont terminĂ© leur part du travail depuis plusieurs semaines. Pourquoi la ministre du Patrimoine canadien et de la Condition fĂ©minine laisse-t-elle ces demandes sans rĂ©ponse, tandis que des groupes, comme l'Association nationale Femmes et Droit, ferment leurs portes faute de financement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Women's Program, which is set to terminate on September 26, is still underway. The criteria are the same as in the past. Women's' groups have been submitting their applications for weeks, not to say months. We are told that the public servants completed their portion of the work several weeks ago. Why has the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women left these applications unanswered, while groups such as the National Association of Women and the Law are being forced to close their doors, due to lack of funding?
The minister said the government believes in real action for women and children, listing priorities such as protecting women against violence, helping older women escape poverty, and assisting immigrant women with foreign credentials, without addressing the pending applications.
The minister does not address the pending applications, the expiry deadline, or the named organization, instead pivoting to general government priorities and attacking the former Liberal government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is the need for real action for women and children. Unlike the former Liberal government that studied and studied and consulted for years, we believe that we have to act now. We will act on protecting women against violence. We will ensure that children have safe homes to grow up in. We will help older women escape poverty. We will ensure that immigrant women are able to use their foreign credentials to contribute to Canadian society. Our new government will act and make a difference in the lives of women.
Does the Prime Minister intend to continue funding the Initiative de partenariats en action communautaire for homelessness beyond its expiry on March 31, 2007, to avoid a break in services?
The question names a specific program (Initiative de partenariats en action communautaire), gives a concrete deadline of March 31, 2007, and asks a direct yes/no question about continued homelessness funding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le précédent gouvernement a prolongé d'une année le programme Initiative de partenariats en action communautaire. Cette prolongation prendra fin le 31 mars 2007. Si rien n'est fait maintenant, cela entraßnera une rupture des services. Les groupes en itinérance ont besoin de fonds récurrents pour aider les personnes en situation d'urgence et leur offrir des solutions durables. Le premier ministre a-t-il l'intention de poursuivre au-delà du 31 mars 2007 le financement en itinérance et lui attribuer des enveloppes...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the previous government extended the supporting communities partnership initiative by one year. That extension will end on March 31, 2007. If something is not done right now, many services will be disrupted. Homelessness groups need recurrent funding to help people in crisis situations and to offer them lasting solutions. Does the Prime Minister intend to continue funding for homelessness beyond March 31, 2007 and allocate envelopesâ
The Minister of Natural Resources stated that an independent audit reviewed all programs at the end of the last government and that some programs were cut, while the new government would deliver accountable programs and not send money to Liberal Party insiders.
The answering minister (Natural Resources) has no apparent jurisdiction over the file, discusses an independent audit of programs generically, and ends with a partisan attack on 'Liberal Party insiders,' never addressing the specific program or its March 2007 deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that at the conclusion of the last government there was an independent audit done by the secretariat to review all of the programs. They were evaluated based on their merit. A number of those programs were cut. We are bringing forward programs that we believe will be accountable to Canadians. We will deliver results and not send money to Liberal Party insiders.
Will the minister acknowledge that an 11-month delay for confirmation of an annual grant from the Department of Canadian Heritage is no longer reasonable but rather extravagant and absurd, given that organizations are living on credit?
The question cites a specific delay of 11 months for Heritage funding applications and describes concrete hardship (organizations operating on credit or personal loans from board members), asking the minister to acknowledge the delay as unreasonable.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs avoir déposé leurs demandes de financement au ministÚre du Patrimoine, plusieurs organismes attendent une réponse depuis 11 mois. Ils sont pris à la gorge et certains d'entre-eux vivent à crédit ou grùce à des emprunts contractés auprÚs des membres de leur conseil d'administration. La ministre va-elle convenir du fait qu'un délai de plus d'un an pour obtenir confirmation d'une subvention annuelle, ce n'est plus un délai raisonnable, mais plutÎt un délai extravagant, voire absurde?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, several organizations submitted funding applications 11 months ago to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and are still waiting for an answer. They are desperate and some are living on credit or loans from members of their board of directors. Does the minister agree that taking more than one year to provide confirmation of an annual grant is no longer a reasonable period of time but rather an excessive, even absurd amount of time?
The minister said the government is reviewing all programs to ensure accountability and value for taxpayers' dollars and that funds will be used to serve those they were intended to serve.
The minister references a general program review for accountability and value for taxpayers but does not acknowledge the 11-month delay, address the hardship described, or commit to any specific timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this government got elected because it wanted to deliver accountability and value for taxpayers' dollars. We are reviewing all the programs to ensure that we can deliver for Canadians the services and the direct help that people need. All of our programs are under review. We will ensure that funds are used to serve those they were intended to serve.
Given the accumulation of urgent issues â women's groups running out of money, feature film policy funding unchanged for seven years, outdated film policy, underfunded Quebec cinema and museums, and an obsolete Copyright Act â what is the minister waiting for before acting?
The question lists multiple distinct issues (women's groups, feature film policy funding frozen for seven years, outdated film policy, underfunded Quebec cinema and museums, outdated Copyright Act) which makes it compound and somewhat diffuse, though each element is factually grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela relÚve du dogmatisme. Le milieu culturel et social est aux abois. Les groupes de défense des femmes, à court d'argent, cessent leurs activités, les sommes destinées à la politique du long métrage n'ont pas augmenté d'un sou depuis sept ans, la présente politique cinématographique est dépassée, le cinéma québécois et les musées sont sous-financés et la Loi sur le droit d'auteur est obsolÚte depuis dix ans. Devant autant d'urgences qui s'accumulent, qu'attend la ministre pour agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with my question. Cultural and social groups are struggling. Short of money, women's advocacy groups have ceased operations; amounts earmarked for feature films have not risen in seven years; the present feature film policy is outdated; Quebec film and museums are underfunded; and the Copyright Act has been obsolete for ten years. In view of the number of urgent issues accumulating, what is the minister waiting for to take action?
The minister stated there was much waste and mismanagement requiring a review of all programs, and that the government wants to ensure money reaches those intended rather than merely sustaining organizations.
The minister responds with a general statement about waste and mismanagement under the previous government and a review of programs, without addressing any of the specific policy areas or timelines mentioned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as members can appreciate, there has been so much waste and mismanagement that there was a review of all the programs Canadians deserve. We must also ensure that we are not going to just continue the survival of organizations, but that we are going to help those we are intending to help, not only women, children, our creators, filmmakers and producers. So much of that money was wasted and we want to ensure it is maximized to those who need it.
Given that the Prime Minister's director of communications illegally received the name of a reporter who filed a confidential access to information request, will the Prime Minister start getting tough on lawbreakers with his own staff?
The question makes a specific factual allegation (the Prime Minister's director of communications illegally received the name of a reporter who filed a confidential access to information request) and asks a direct accountability question about consequences for the Prime Minister's own staff.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative minority government believes it is above the law. Members of the Prime Minister's political staff, including his director of communications, have illegally received the name of a reporter who filed a confidential access to information request. This is not only improper, it is against the law. The Prime Minister has promised to get tough with people who break the law. Will he start with his own staff?
The Minister of Public Safety said he learned of the incident that day, immediately asked officials to investigate, contacted the commissioner's office, and committed to sharing all details once gathered, pledging to uphold the spirit and letter of the law.
The Minister of Public Safety acknowledged the seriousness of the matter, stated he learned of it that day, immediately asked officials to investigate, and contacted the commissioner's office, committing to share details â a genuinely responsive answer that engages the substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government takes very seriously privacy of information in legislation and the ability of anyone to ask for that information without their name being revealed. I found out about the incident just today. I immediately asked my officials to look into the matter and to get all the details. I have been in touch with the commissioner's office and when I have all the details, I will immediately share those. I will work together with the commissioner's office to ensure that this legislation, which is good and proper, is upheld with the spirit and the letter of the law.
Did the Prime Minister also illegally receive the information identifying the reporter who filed the confidential access to information request, particularly given that his director of communications controls which reporters get to ask him questions?
The question sharpens the issue by noting the director of communications controls reporter access to the Prime Minister, and asks a direct yes/no question about whether the Prime Minister himself illegally received the identifying information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response. We look forward to that information and I thank him. It is important to understand that the Prime Minister's director of communications, who illegally received the information identifying the reporter, is the very person who decides what reporters get to ask questions of the Prime Minister. Even more important, did the Prime Minister also illegally receive this information?
The President of the Treasury Board said the government takes privacy very seriously, will verify the facts, and confirmed he spoke with Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart that afternoon to arrange a meeting the next day.
The President of the Treasury Board commits to verifying the facts and discloses that he personally spoke with Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart to arrange a meeting the next day, but does not answer whether the Prime Minister received the information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government takes the issue of the privacy of Canadians very, very seriously. We will first look into the facts and confirm that the facts are as they have been suggested, and if they are cause for concern. Earlier this afternoon I spoke with the Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, and asked to sit down with her tomorrow to discuss this important issue.
Will the Prime Minister ask his director of communications to resign immediately given that she obtained the name of the person who filed a confidential access to information request?
The question names the Prime Minister's director of communications specifically and asks for an immediate resignation â a concrete, answerable demand â though it is framed with partisan rhetoric about a blacklist.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement conservateur minoritaire se moque de nos lois canadiennes. Nous comprenons maintenant pourquoi les journalistes doivent s'inscrire sur la liste noire du premier ministre avant de pouvoir lui poser une question. Nous constatons ce matin que la directrice des communications du premier ministre obtient le nom des personnes effectuant une demande d'accÚs à l'information. Le premier ministre demandera-t-il à sa directrice des communications de remettre sa démission immédiatement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this minority Conservative government is mocking our Canadian laws. Now we understand why journalists have to get their names in the Prime Minister's little black book before they can ask him any questions. This morning, we found out that the Prime Minister's Director of Communications gets the names of people who make access to information requests. Will the Prime Minister ask his Director of Communications to resign immediately?
The Minister of Public Safety said instructions were given immediately to gather all details, that he contacted the commissioner's office right away, that this is a serious matter, and contrasted the government's swift action with the previous government's habit of delay.
The Minister of Public Safety reiterates the investigation steps already described and pivots to attacking the previous government's record on delay, never addressing the resignation demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that as soon as we received this information, we immediately gave clear instructions that we want all the details of this matter. I contacted the commissioner's office right away. The Treasury Board President has done the same. This is a serious matter and we take these information items seriously, unlike the previous government, where it was always delay, delay, delay. We are on to these things right away.
The Prime Minister's director of communications and other PMO staff obtained the name of a person who filed an access to information request with the Department of Public Safety, which is against the law â will the Prime Minister send a clear message that the law must be respected?
The question specifies that the Prime Minister's director of communications and other PMO staff received the name of a person who filed an access to information request with the Department of Public Safety, and asks for a clear message that the law must be respected.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la directrice des communications du premier ministre ainsi que d'autres employĂ©s de son bureau ont obtenu le nom d'une personne ayant fait une demande d'accĂšs Ă l'information auprĂšs du ministĂšre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique. Il est inacceptable que le nom d'une personne soit divulguĂ© Ă la suite d'une demande d'accĂšs Ă l'information. Cela va Ă l'encontre de la loi. Ce gouvernement conservateur minoritaire comprend-il cela? Le premier ministre livrera-t-il enfin un message clair Ă l'effet que la loi doit ĂȘtre respectĂ©e?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and other members of his staff got the name of an individual who made a Department of Public Safety access to information request. Disclosing the name of a person requesting access to information is unacceptable. It is against the law. Does the minority Conservative government understand that? Will the Prime Minister finally send a clear message that the law must be obeyed?
The Parliamentary Secretary confirmed the law must obviously be respected, and stated he had just received confirmation that no PMO political staff member requested the information â it was provided to them â and that the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Public Safety would take necessary action.
The Parliamentary Secretary confirms the law must be respected and offers new factual information â that no PMO political staff requested the information but were provided it â and states that the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Public Safety will take action, which is partially responsive.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la loi doit Ă©videmment ĂȘtre respectĂ©e. Toutefois, je peux assurer tous les dĂ©putĂ©s que je viens d'avoir la confirmation que personne, au sein du personnel politique du bureau du premier ministre, n'a demandĂ© une telle information. En fait, on leur a fourni cette information. Le prĂ©sident du Conseil du TrĂ©sor et le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique prendront les actions nĂ©cessaires afin de s'assurer qu'une telle situation ne se reproduise pas.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, obviously the law must be obeyed. That said, I can assure the members that I have just received confirmation that nobody on the Prime Minister's political staff asked for such information. The information was actually given to them. The President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Safety will take steps to ensure that this does not happen again.
Could the justice minister explain some of the important steps the government is taking to ensure that people who commit serious crimes will serve serious time in jail?
This is a government-backbench softball asking the justice minister to explain steps taken on crime â a setup question with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken on the important role of tackling crime to make our communities safer places to raise our families. Many organizations that begged previous governments to stop the revolving door of our justice system are now applauding our government's initiatives. Could the justice minister please explain some of the important steps the government is taking to ensure that people who commit serious crimes will serve serious time in jail?
The Minister of Justice cited Bill C-9, noting that MADD Canada issued a press release supporting it, quoting the national president's statement that conditional sentences such as house arrest are totally inadequate for violent crimes, and called on opposition parties to pass the bill.
The Minister of Justice cites a specific bill (Bill C-9) and quotes the MADD Canada national president's press release supporting it, providing concrete detail and a clear call to action for opposition parties.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this week MADD Canada distributed a press release supporting Bill C-9, this government's initiative to eliminate house arrest for serious crime. The national president said: In the case of violent crimes, where a person has been killed or seriously injured, conditional sentences such as house arrest and community service are totally inadequate. I would like to join with MADD in calling upon opposition parties to support Bill C-9, and not play politics but to act expeditiously and pass this bill.
Will the new Conservative government force the old Conservative Party to release the books of its donations for its 2005 convention and come clean with what the member calls millions of dollars of illegal political donations?
The question references a specific 2005 convention and characterizes the amounts as 'millions of dollars of illegal political donations,' asking the government to force the Conservative Party to release its books â a real accountability ask, though framed with heavy partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the new Conservative Party is acting more and more like the old Conservative Party of the 1980s. It promised it would clean up election financing laws, yet its own actions make the Liberals look like Quakers when it comes to sleaze. Will this new Conservative government force the old Conservative Party to release the books of its donations for its 2005 convention and come clean with these millions of dollars of illegal political donations?
The President of the Treasury Board said the party will comply with any requests from the Chief Electoral Officer and any law, noted that a political leader testified that delegate fees were considered not reportable under advice received, and called for the Liberal Senate to pass the Federal Accountability Act.
The President of the Treasury Board commits to complying with the Chief Electoral Officer but spends most of the answer defending the conventions as legal based on advice given, attacking the Liberal Senate, and pivoting to the Federal Accountability Act rather than addressing the specific books request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the party will obviously comply with any requests from the Chief Electoral Officer. We will comply with any law. The political leader of another political party did testify before the Senate committee, saying that advice was given that these delegate fees, these contributions to the party, were not attainable, so there have been inconsistent regulations. We think they should be cleaned up. We also think that the federal accountability act should be passed by the Liberal Senate. We think that campaign donations by corporations and unions should be banned. We should reduce the amount for individuals down to $1,000 and the Liberal Senate said stop fighting--
Given that the NDP filed a complaint with the elections commission on June 29 and three months later the commission cannot get the Conservatives to open their political contribution books, and given that the Conservatives turned down every NDP amendment on election financing in Bill C-2, how can the government claim commitment to openness and transparency?
The question cites a specific complaint filed June 29, notes three months of non-cooperation, identifies a specific gap in the elections commissioner's authority to audit party books, and references Conservative rejection of NDP amendments in Bill C-2 â factually grounded with a pointed contradiction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have heard all kinds of sanctimonious bluster from the President of the Treasury Board over this already. The fact is it was the NDP that filed the complaint with the elections commission on June 29. Three months later, the commission cannot get the Conservatives to cooperate and show their books, to open their political contribution books. I was shocked to learn the elections commissioner does not even have the authority to audit a political party's books. The Conservatives turned down every amendment we put forward on election financing in Bill C-2. How can they stand here and say they are committed to openness and transparency if they will not cooperate with the elections commissioner?
The President of the Treasury Board said the government believes in greater transparency, wants to eliminate corporate and union donations and lower individual limits from $5,000 to $1,000, and identified the Liberal Party of Canada as the main obstacle to election financing reform.
The President of the Treasury Board reiterates general transparency principles about eliminating corporate and union donations and reducing individual limits, then blames the Liberal Party as an obstacle, never addressing the non-cooperation with the elections commissioner or the audit authority gap.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we obviously believe in greater transparency in the donations to political parties. That is why we want to eliminate campaign contributions from corporations and unions. We want to lower it from $5,000 down to $1,000. The member from the NDP will acknowledge one thing. In trying to reform Canada's election financing laws, we have one big obstacle, and the name of that obstacle is the Liberal Party of Canada.
Given that $1.7 million for the Conservative convention went secretly unreported in 2005, that over 150 Conservatives including candidates, MPs, and the Prime Minister exceeded individual donation limits through convention delegate fees, how will the government investigate the Chief Electoral Officer's obvious concerns?
The question cites a specific dollar figure of $1.7 million secretly unreported, identifies more than 150 Conservatives who gave the legal maximum before convention fees, names categories of violators including candidates, MPs, and the Prime Minister, and specifies that delegate fees put them over the individual limit in 2,900 instances â highly specific with a direct question about investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, $1.7 million for a Conservative convention went secretly unreported in 2005, and that is not all. More than 150 Conservatives gave their party the legal maximum that year before any convention fees, but some of them, including candidates, MPs and the Prime Minister, were also convention delegates. Their fees put them over the individual limit, so the party contravened the law and individual donors did too. How will the government investigate the Chief Electoral Officer's obvious concerns?
The President of the Treasury Board said the government will cooperate completely with the Chief Electoral Officer and work to reform Canada's finance system, then pivoted to asking the member for Wascana to explain a series of $67,000 Challenger flights.
The President of the Treasury Board commits to cooperating with the Chief Electoral Officer and seeking greater clarity but immediately pivots to attacking the member for Wascana with a list of Challenger flight costs, never addressing how the alleged contraventions will be investigated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will obviously cooperate completely with the Chief Electoral Officer. We will also work to reform Canada's finance system. We will also seek to bring greater clarity. However, when it comes to greater clarity, maybe the member for Wascana could tell us why, on April 30, 2004, he took a $67,000 flight on the Challenger by himself; then on August 9, another $67,000 flight; on August 22, another $67,000 flight; on January 29, another $67,000--
Will the government launch an independent forensic audit of all financing submissions to Elections Canada and all party conventions by the Reform Party, the Alliance Party, and the Conservative Party of Canada?
The question lists several specific allegations (intimidation in the access to information process, improper contracts to Conservative insiders, lobbyists using Conservative connections, failures to report political donations) and asks for an independent forensic audit of all financing submissions to Elections Canada and all party conventions across the Reform Party, Alliance Party, and Conservative Party â an identifiable ask, though the compound list weakens focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we saw yesterday, the gutter becomes that hon. minister. I refer to intimidation and retribution in the access to information process, improper contracts to Conservative insiders not cancelled or repaid as promised, lobbyists using Conservative connections as stepping stones to private profit, and now countless failures to properly report political donations. Will the government launch an independent forensic audit of all financing submissions to Elections Canada and all party conventions by the Reform Party, the Alliance Party and the Conservative Party of Canada?
The President of the Treasury Board defended the government's lobbying transparency initiative requiring all contacts between registered lobbyists and public office holders to be made public, accused the Liberal Party of stalling it, and quoted a letter from David Dingwall about non-compliance at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
The President of the Treasury Board pivots entirely to defending lobbying transparency legislation and attacking the Liberal record via a David Dingwall letter referencing Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada compliance failures, with no engagement with the forensic audit request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is this government that wants to make lobbying more transparent and more accountable. The first piece of legislation that Canada's new government brought forward to Parliament was to require every single contact between a registered lobbyist and a public office holder to be made public and put on the Internet, and the Liberal Party has stalled it and held it up at every step of the way. Maybe the member for Wascana could explain why David Dingwall wrote him as minister of agriculture and said that under his tenure, âAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials have demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance and avoidanceâ of Treasury Board policies when it accepts a contract. Maybe--
Given that the Chief Electoral Officer has confirmed that the Conservative Party contravened the Canada Elections Act 2,900 times â once for each convention delegate â will the Conservative government make amends and agree to comply with the law?
The question references a specific earlier answer from June and cites the Chief Electoral Officer's confirmation of 2,900 instances of contravention of the Canada Elections Act, and asks whether the Conservative government will make amends and comply with the law â factually anchored though somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lorsque questionnĂ©, en juin dernier, au sujet des millions de dollars que son parti a empochĂ©s lors du congrĂšs conservateur en 2005, le sympathique et souriant prĂ©sident du Conseil du TrĂ©sor a rĂ©pondu que ces sommes astronomiques n'avaient pas Ă ĂȘtre dĂ©clarĂ©es. Aujourd'hui, le directeur d'Ălections Canada confirme ce que tous savaient, soit que le Parti conservateur a violĂ© la Loi Ă©lectorale du Canada â pas une fois, pas deux fois, mais 2 900 fois, soit le nombre de dĂ©lĂ©guĂ©s conservateurs. Le gouvernement conservateur fera-t-il amende honorable et accepter de respecter la loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when asked in June about the millions of dollars his party pocketed during the 2005 Conservative Party convention, the charming and smiling President of the Treasury Board said that these astronomical sums did not need to be declared. Today, the director of Elections Canada confirmed what everyone already knows and that is that the Conservative Party breached the Canada Elections Actânot once, not twice, but 2,900 times, which is once for every Conservative Party delegate. Will the Conservative government make amends and agree to respect the Act?
The President of the Treasury Board accused the Liberal Party of asking Canadian families to fund Liberal Party political operations and conventions through public money, framing that as the basis of the disagreement, without addressing the 2,900 contraventions.
The President of the Treasury Board pivots entirely to attacking the Liberal Party's financing model (taxpayer funding of Liberal conventions) and does not address the 2,900 contraventions cited by the Chief Electoral Officer or the question of making amends.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the Liberal Party of Canada is doing. Not only did it finance its party directly, not only does it get cash from Elections Canada after an election, but now the Liberal Party of Canada is asking hard-working middle class families to dig into their pockets just a little bit deeper to fund the Liberal Party's own political operations and its own political conventions. Those of us on this side of the House believe that Canadian families should not have to pay for partisan Liberal Party conventions, and that is the basis of this whole disagreement.
Will the government investigate the roles played by Ian Brodie and Michael Donison in the nearly $2 million in secret contributions, and ensure that such acts do not go unpunished?
The question asks specifically whether the government will investigate the roles of Ian Brodie and Michael Donison and ensure that those responsible for nearly $2 million in secret contributions are held accountable â concrete named individuals and a specific dollar figure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quel sympathique personnage! Soyons clairs, les conservateurs se sont fait prendre les culottes baissĂ©es. Ils se sont fait prendre Ă essayer de faire indirectement ce qu'ils ne peuvent pas faire directement. Il s'agit de prĂšs de 2 millions de dollars en contributions secrĂštes. Le gouvernement cherchera-t-il Ă faire toute la lumiĂšre sur ce scandale? Fera-t-il enquĂȘte sur le rĂŽle jouĂ© par Ian Brodie et Michael Donison? S'assurera-t-il que de tels actes ne demeureront pas impunis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what a nice guy. Let us be clear. The Conservatives got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They got caught trying to do indirectly what they are not allowed to do directly. I am talking about close to $2 million in secret contributions. Will the government try to shed light on this scandal? Will it investigate the role played by Ian Brodie and Michael Donison? Will it ensure that such actions do not remain unpunished?
The President of the Treasury Board argued the contributions were not secret since 2,900 Canadians participated and the matter was openly discussed at a Senate committee, stated the party will obey every election financing law, and called on the member to apologize for the Liberal Party's return of over $1 million taken from taxpayers.
The President of the Treasury Board disputes the characterization of the contributions as secret by noting 2,900 Canadians participated and they were discussed at a Senate committee, and pivots to the Liberal Party's return of over $1 million, demanding the member apologize, without addressing the specific investigation into Ian Brodie and Michael Donison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this was hardly something secret when it was shared by 2,900 Canadians from every single part of this country. It was hardly something secret when it was openly discussed at a Senate committee. That is the reality. This party will obey every single election financing law, unlike the Liberal Party opposite that was forced to return over $1 million that it stole from hard-working taxpayers. The member opposite should stand in his place and he should apologize for the egregious violation of the taxpayers' trust.
Does the President of the Treasury Board acknowledge that Kevin McIntosh, former adviser to the government House leader, is now vice-president at Fleishman-Hilliard, and that David Salvatore, former legislative assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is now a partner at Prospectus â contradicting his earlier public statement?
Highly specific: names Kevin McIntosh and David Salvatore, cites their prior roles and current lobbying positions, and directly contradicts a specific public statement made by the President of the Treasury Board earlier that week.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans l'affaire des lobbyistes conservateurs, le président du Conseil du Trésor a affirmé plus tÎt cette semaine, et je cite: « [...] je vais dire trÚs clairement que pas une seule personne qui a été au service d'un membre du gouvernement actuel ne travaille comme lobbyiste. » Or, cette affirmation est inexacte. Le président du Conseil du Trésor reconnaßt-il que Kevin McIntosh, qui a été le conseiller de l'actuel leader du gouvernement à la Chambre jusqu'en mars 2006, est maintenant vice-président de la firme de lobbying Fleishman-Hilliard, et que David Salvatore, qui a été l'adjoint législatif de l'actuel ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration jusqu'en mars 2006, est aujourd'hui associé chez Prospectus?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the matter of conservative lobbyists, the President of Treasury Board stated earlier this week, and I quote: â... I will say very clearly that not a single person who worked for any member of this government is operating as a lobbyist.â This statement is not true. Does the President of Treasury Board acknowledge that Kevin McIntosh, who was an advisor to the current Leader of the Government in the House of Commons until March 2006, is now Vice-President of the lobbying firm Fleishman-Hilliard, and that David Salvatore, who was the legislative assistant to the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration until March 2006, is today working for Prospectus?
Baird restates that no ministerial staff who worked in a minister's office on the government side worked as such, and cites a letter from Ethics Commissioner Bernard J. Shapiro stating the individuals in question did not hold a government position.
Baird restates his original claim without acknowledging the specific named individuals, then introduces a letter from Bernard J. Shapiro as partial cover but does not directly address whether McIntosh or Salvatore are working as lobbyists.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je rĂ©pĂ©terai le commentaire que j'ai dĂ©jĂ Ă©mis cette semaine: aucun adjoint de ministre qui a travaillĂ© dans un bureau de ministre, du cĂŽtĂ© gouvernemental, n'a travaillĂ© comme tel. Je peux ajouter que, concernant le cas des trois personnes dont mon collĂšgue du QuĂ©bec a parlĂ©, j'ai une lettre signĂ©e par M. Bernard J. Shapiro, du Bureau du commissaire Ă l'Ă©thique du Canada, oĂč il est clairement dit que ces individus n'ont pas occupĂ© un poste gouvernemental.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier this week: no minister's assistant who has worked in a minister's office, on the government side, is working as a lobbyist. I can also add that in the case of the three individuals mentioned by my Quebec colleague, I have a letter signed by Mr. Bernard J. Shapiro, Ethics Commissioner of Canada, clearly stating that these individuals did not hold government positions.
Can the President of the Treasury Board confirm that neither Kevin MacIntosh nor David Salvatore has made or is currently making any representations to the government as a lobbyist?
Sharply focused follow-up naming Kevin MacIntosh and David Salvatore and asking a single yes-or-no accountability question about whether they have made representations to the government as lobbyists.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le président du Conseil du Trésor a beau jouer sur les mots mais peut-il , de son siÚge, affirmer que ni Kevin MacIntosh, ni David Salvatore, deux anciens conseillers conservateurs du gouvernement, n'ont fait ou ne font, aujourd'hui encore, aucune représentation auprÚs du gouvernement en tant que lobbyiste?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board can play with words as much as he likes but can he confirm that neither Kevin MacIntosh nor David Salvatore, two former Conservative advisors to the government, have not or been or are not now working to lobby the government?
Baird explains the distinction between parliamentary and government-side staff, outlines the five-year rule for those with access to Cabinet confidence, and references Bill C-2 as a vehicle for stronger rules, but does not directly confirm or deny lobbying activity by the named individuals.
Baird explains the parliamentary vs. governmental distinction and the five-year rule, which is contextually relevant, but never directly answers whether the two named individuals have or have not made representations to the government as lobbyists.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que je pourrais faire et ce que le commissaire à l'éthique a dit trÚs clairement, c'est que ces gens ont travaillé du cÎté parlementaire, pas du cÎté gouvernemental. Cela est trÚs important. On a dit trÚs clairement que si vous avez accÚs à la confiance du Conseil des ministres, si vous avez accÚs à l'information au plan gouvernemental, si vous avez des contacts avec le gouvernement pendant que vous travaillez dans un bureau de ministre, il n'est pas acceptable de travailler en tant que lobbyiste avant cinq ans. C'est une des raisons de la mise en place du projet de loi C-2 afin de chercher un meilleur projet de loi pour...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what I can say and what the Ethics Commissioner stated very clearly is that these two individuals worked for Parliament, but not for government. That is very important. It is very clearly stated that if you have access to the trust of cabinet ministers, if you have access to government information, if you have contacts with the government while working in a minister's office, you cannot be employed as a lobbyist for five years. This is one of the reasons for implementing Bill C-2 before looking for a better bill toâ
How will the federal ministry assume its responsibility and ensure the permanent survival of the DigbyâSaint John ferry service operated by Bay Ferries Limited, which is closing on October 31?
Identifies a specific event (Bay Ferries Limited closing the DigbyâSaint John service on October 31), provides economic context, and asks a clear accountability question about the federal ministry's responsibility.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ma question s'adresse au ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s. Bay Ferries Limited has announced that it will be closing the service between Digby and Saint John on October 31. This ferry is a vital link between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the United States and central Canadian markets. The announcement is a devastating blow for the local economy, for the families, the students and businesses that depend on the service. Since privatization of the service, economic conditions have changed in western Nova Scotia. The service is no longer financially viable. How will the federal ministry assume its responsibility and ensure the permanent survival of this vital transportation link?
Cannon notes that the Government of Canada already subsidizes the operation through wharf costs, says he is in contact with the minister responsible for Atlantic economic development, and states the government expects to work hard on the issue.
Cannon acknowledges existing federal subsidies and wharf costs, and mentions consultations with the Minister responsible for Atlantic economic development, but makes no specific commitment or concrete plan for the service's survival.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de sa question. Effectivement, vous savez que le gouvernement du Canada subventionne déjà cette opération. Pour les navires, il subventionne par les frais qu'il assume au niveau des frais de quais. Je suis en contact avec mon collÚgue, le ministre responsable du développement économique de l'Atlantique. Je suis aussi en discussion avec les autres collÚgues responsables de ce dossier et nous nous attendons à travailler trÚs fort sur ce sujet.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, as we know, the Government of Canada is already subsidizing that operation. It is subsidizing the ferries by paying for the wharves. I have been in touch with my colleague, the minister responsible for Atlantic regional development. I am also in discussion with other colleagues responsible for this file and we will be working very hard on the matter.
Could the Minister of Health tell the House what he has done to rectify the discrimination against hepatitis C victims who were not compensated?
Government-backbench softball setup designed to allow the minister to announce the compensation package; no real accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for years our party has been advocating for compensation for all hepatitis C victims. The same cannot be said for the Liberals who even went so far as to vote against a motion to extend compensation to all victims. Could the Minister of Health tell us what he has done to rectify this discrimination?
Clement reports that on July 25 the Prime Minister announced a compensation package of more than $1 billion for those infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system, contrasting this with the previous Liberal government's refusal to extend justice to all victims.
Clement provides a substantive answer identifying the July 25 announcement, describing the compensation package as more than $1 billion for those infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system, though he ends with partisan attacks on the Liberals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed I can report to the House that on July 25 of this year the Prime Minister was able to announce the compensation package for those infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system. It has been a long-standing and difficult issue and the terms of the compensation are more than $1 billion. I can report to the House that, unlike the previous Liberal government which steadfastly refused to render justice for all the victims of tainted blood, this government has acted. We have acted with compassion. Our Prime Minister has delivered on our commitment to see justice done. We are proud on this side of the House to stand--
Does the environment minister agree with Dr. Tim Ball, a known climate change skeptic helping raise cash for Victoria area Conservatives, that climate change simply does not even exist?
Names Dr. Tim Ball and quotes his characterization of Kyoto, but the core ask â whether the minister agrees that climate change does not exist â is framed rhetorically and is difficult to answer substantively.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know the opinion of the environment minister about a so-called scientist who is helping to raise cash for Victoria area Conservatives. Dr. Tim Ball, a known climate change skeptic, has said that Kyoto was a political solution to a non-existent science problem. Does the minister agree with Dr. Ball and Victoria Conservatives that climate change simply does not even exist?
Warawa states the government takes climate change and greenhouse gas emissions seriously, lists regulatory actions including mercury regulations, and criticizes 13 years of Liberal inaction, without mentioning Dr. Tim Ball.
Warawa does not address Dr. Tim Ball, his statements, or his role fundraising for Victoria area Conservatives at all, instead listing general government environmental actions and attacking the Liberal record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is taking action on the environment. We take seriously the issues of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution in our air. We are a government of action and that is what Canadians want, after 13 years of a Liberal government that did nothing. We will reduce smog, infant death, blindness, childhood asthma and lung cancer because of our actions. In a few short months the government introduced some tough new regulations to deal with mercury.
When will the government stop listening to climate change quacks and big oil lobbyists like Tim Ball, who said global warming is actually good for Canada, and start listening to Canadians?
Quotes Tim Ball's statement that global warming is good for Canada and accuses the government of listening to climate change quacks and big oil lobbyists, but the ask â when will it start listening to Canadians â is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the new government learned too many lessons from the old government. Repeating the same lines day in and day out does nothing to fight the effects of climate change. Tim Ball thinks that global warming is actually good for Canada saying: --in ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let's hope so. Climate change quacks and big oil lobbyists are the ones that the government is listening to. When is it going to start to listen to Canadians and do something about this issue?
Warawa states the government is listening to Canadians, cites thousands of annual pollution-related deaths, and contrasts government action with Liberal waste of Canadian money on foreign credits, without addressing Tim Ball or big oil lobbyists.
Warawa does not address Tim Ball's quoted statement or the accusation about big oil lobbyists, instead citing pollution-related deaths and criticizing Liberal spending on foreign credits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is listening to Canadians. Every year thousands of Canadians die related to pollution in our air. The health of Canadians is important. What did the Liberals do? They wasted Canadian money on foreign credits. The projects of today are brought to Canadians by a committed government. The money could have been used to retrofit cleaner buses with anti-pollution equipment.
Mr. Gauthier seeks unanimous consent for the House to adopt a motion that apologies should be presented to Maher Arar for the treatment he suffered.
This is a procedural motion rather than a traditional question, seeking unanimous consent for an apology to Maher Arar; scored at mid-range as it is a clear and specific ask but not a factual accountability question in the traditional sense.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, selon la tradition, j'ai informĂ© mes collĂšgues leaders parlementaires, et je crois que vous trouverez le consentement unanime de cette Chambre afin que soit adoptĂ©e immĂ©diatement cette motion: Que, de l'avis de la Chambre, des excuses devraient ĂȘtre prĂ©sentĂ©es Ă Maher Arar pour le traitement qu'il a subi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with tradition, I have informed my fellow House leaders, and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent in this House to adopt this motion immediately: That, in the opinion of this House, apologies should be presented to Maher Arar regarding the treatment he has been subjected to.
D'accord.
Hansard translation: Agreed.
Oui.
Hansard translation: Agreed.
The House granted unanimous consent, agreeing that apologies should be presented to Maher Arar.
The House unanimously consented, directly and completely fulfilling the specific ask of the motion.